Yikes, Politics

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Aaron Fox: "truth and consequences"
• Previous message: Mike Lieber: "what's admissable discussion?"

I suppose some of my terminology wasn't very clear. What I was trying ot
get at was the similarity of those at both ends of the political spectrum
who become emotional when their ideology is "threatened."

What I'm arguing for is a bit of abjectivity. It seems to me that various
groups in society have rather homogeneous political make-ups. An example
from my previous post, the Church-conservative, social scientists. (I
know these are generalizations with many exceptions.) I'm not
arguing in defense of conservatism, I consider myself a liberal.
What concerns me is the methodology people use. I will admit that I probably
made use of "Liberal" stereotypes in my previous post. All I was trying
to communicate is that if we truly believe we have some sort of truth to
communicate, we should choose to communicate that truth in a manner that
convinces rather than alienates. I believe that stereotyping everyone
right of center as a racist and eugenecist is a bit unfair.

By the way, I think racism and eugenecism are putrid and disturbing. I
mention this bluntly in case I have not made my thoughts sufficiently clear.

• Next message: Aaron Fox: "truth and consequences"
• Previous message: Mike Lieber: "what's admissable discussion?"