What I have learned from this discussion is that it isn’t purity testing if you are from the right wing of the party. Only left wingers purity test.
/s
9 Likes
as an iowan i have to say this woman is an embarrassment. Iowa legalized Gay marriage and has always been purple… the cities being especially progressive even if the rural areas are deep red. American culture has changed dramatically even just since the 90s… when i grew up no one was (out) gay. Since then i have a couple friends my age from my tiny town who have come out and we had Pete come in second place in our caucus. I want to believe there is progress. I want to believe people like this woman are a remnant of a generation that is giving way. Time will tell… we have a long way to go.
6 Likes
Yep. The Bible is a horticulture manual for ancient desert people’s too. (As well as a guide for avoiding food poisoning in desert areas without safe food storage/preservation capabilities.)
Of course they do, it’s just not the favored party of bigots anymore. That’s why the leadership of the American Nazi Party and the KKK officially (and enthusiastically) endorsed Trump.
8 Likes
Certainly the Harriet Carter Catalog.
2 Likes
If they force it down her throat, will she turn gay?
Mmm… cherries.
1 Like
Let’s be clear, you think you are being pragmatic by avoiding the issue entirely. You literally want this woman to have her views confronted, but only in a very special way that still lets her know it’s fine she holds those beliefs while slowly whittling her down with infinite patience and understanding she is unwilling to have herself. The amount of energy, resources, and effort you suggest to make a single person that no one is actually removing any power from more comfortable with the existence of gay people is astounding and requires there to be a real observable benefit for the effort.
Meanwhile, 40% of the population doesn’t vote. Would spending hours and years and whatever else really be worth the investment compared to getting younger non-voters or people who have difficulty voting or people targeted by voter suppression to the polls? I really have to question how realistic that is.
7 Likes
In sales it takes a lot less energy to KEEP a customer than acquire a new one. Since I said that they shouldn’t change any policy, then there is no extra resources going to keep bigots like her voting Democrat. In this specific example I think the other lady handled it masterfully, confronting her belief. Hopefully she will still vote for the Democrat in November.
If one can suggest a better way to handle things by all means, please do. I don’t see her exerting that much energy talking to this woman, but if that is the crux of the argument: If she had said nothing she should have wasted no energy as well, but then we have the issue where no one confronts her belief. You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, by all means let’s also energize those who typically don’t vote.
I’ve been thinking a lot about surrounding issues amongst the Dems and progressives.
I personally think left-leaning folks are too focused on attempting to change some people’s core opinions about a good number of issues. Abortion, undocumented immigration, LGBTQ issues to name a few.
If someone is an adult and they think illegal immigration is wrong, abortion is wrong, and being gay or trans is wrong, you’re not very likely going to change their opinion, and shooting for that goal is, I think, counter-productive, and is at the heart of why the GOP still has as many voters in its ranks as it does.
We don’t need to change people’s core beliefs. What we need to do is emphasize equal rights and tolerance. I think this includes tolerance of some “conservative” opinions, which I hardly share or even understand.
What cannot be tolerated is intolerance, and unequal treatment for different classes of people.
Don’t like illegal immigration? Let’s build an “invisible wall.” If NORAD can track every freaking screw and washer floating around in space, we can use technology to track people coming across the border. But how about we simultaneously deal with the millions of undocumented people already here who are law-abiding and CLEARLY not costing people jobs. And let’s also dramatically change our immigration laws, so it’s easier for folks to come to the US legally. There is no reason we can’t control our borders, AND allow for immigration to occur. Specific programs can and likely should be put in place for immigrants from the Americas. The US destabilized much of the Americas for years, and we have to rectify that legacy.
Don’t like abortion? Let’s focus on how we can continue to bring down the numbers, while at the same time, maintaining access to the procedure. We can do both at once, nor are they incompatible.
Etc. I think the Dems could win many more people over from the Republican party, if they focused on fixing the problems and allowing for a plurality of views in its ranks, instead of trying to change conservatives’ minds about things. I think it’s easier to convince someone to tolerate something or someone, vs. having to totally embrace that thing or class of people. This will lead to more actual progress being made IMHO, and over time, the population will very very likely continue to grow more progressive in its attitudes, as a whole.
Now, I prepare myself to receive a ton of flames for airing this perspective. Or maybe not, we shall see. I’m not steadfast in the above views, as I think evolution of our perspectives is a good and healthy thing.
However, I do try to be empathic and put myself in other people’s shoes. I can understand how to some people, it sounds like the Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, and sound like they have no respect for your personal or religious views, if you happen to disagree with something that Dems/progressives support. So they feel rejected by us, and turn to very dangerous demagogues like Trump, because at least he acknowledges them. People like to be acknowledged. The Dems certainly know this, as it’s a root aspect of our ethos: mutual respect, tolerance, and acknowledgement. But that also should include tolerance of people who don’t agree with us, so long as those people and their views aren’t causing other groups injustice. It’s a fine line, but I think we could do better. IMHO.
1 Like
If we tell the gays we’re legalizing the gay, and also tell the homophobes we’re discouraging the gay, then both groups will vote for us!
If we tell the abortionists we’re legalizing the abortions, and also tell the fundies we’re discouraging the abortions, then both groups will vote for us!
If we tell the immigrants we’re legalizing the immigrations, and also tell the xenophobes we’re discouraging the immigrations, then both groups will vote for us!
… or maybe the Republicans will win everything because they stand for something and we don’t
6 Likes
There’s a fundamental difference between sales accounts and voters: there’s not better voters than others. You can’t have one voter you have to wine and dine like a loyal and high-margin customer account, because in the end they bring their one vote.
There are organizations that bring groups of voters, but no one is suggesting winning over evangelist preachers or anything like that who have the most influence on this woman’s views. And even doing so would comprimise the entire brand of the Democrat platform.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
