It’s easy for people who aren’t subject to these sorts of views to accept them . In fact; it’s quite convenient.
A friend of mine (who happens to be gay) was in discussion with a very conservative colleague on this very topic. He patiently explained that in his world, there was a place for the conservative, without persecution, to live his life. In the conservatives’ world, there was no place for LGBTQ folks at all, except back into the closet. The conservative not only had no argument, but did not seem to understand why that was not an acceptable position. That is the difference between our parties.
Perhaps “accepting” isn’t the right word… more like tolerating.
Certainly rejecting the person doesn’t do ones’ cause any good. They will never be confronted with a conflicting view, or have the opportunity for their view to shift over time if they are fully rejected and pushed to the other side.
Yeah, there’s many valid criticisms of Iowa and NH going first all the time, but at least turnout is not one that applies to us… imagine national turnout if all the states mattered as much as NH. 
I want to live in your friend’s world, where there’s room for everyone to exist without persecution, rather than the one we currently inhabit …
I guess because they can vote.
Except we aren’t rejecting her. She is rejecting us.
She has taken a hard line on sexuality to the point where she would rather vote against her own interests than support a gay man.
I don’t know why people are seeing the reverse of what has happened.
Privilege blindness. Same as always.
And if ‘she don’t like we’, then WE DON’T LIKE SHE.
People need to stop asking/expecting persecuted people to ‘tolerate’ their persecutors for some theoretical ‘greater good’ that never seems to come.
Let’s not tolerate them then - let’s confront them. ACT UP! didn’t get anywhere by telling folks it was Okay to let people die. Seemed to work.
Well played, Sir.
That is an argument for smaller states to go generally first but there is no good reason (at least any more) that Iowa and New Hampshire should be first, and certainly not always first. In fact, the non-representiveness of those states is one thing both major parties agree on, which is why Nevada and South Carolina were added as early states (but not to early to avoid certain white people getting butthurt about not being special anymore) – those states have at least have a wider range of demographics than Iowa and New Hampshire. But there isn’t any reason you can’t have a progression of smaller to larger states that rotates every cycle. Or just pick almost any selection of early states. Even just having the current first 4 in a different order would be an improvement.
Who is “us”? Gay people? Fair point.
Democrats? Not necessarily. If she is voting in the Iowa caucus, then she must be a registered Democrat. If she doesn’t vote for Pete, wouldn’t a vote for Sanders or Warren or even Biden be still a vote in favor of a Democrat? Wouldn’t that still be in her (and people who don’t like Trump’s) interest?
Rejecting the person entirely - we don’t want your bigoted vote for any of our candidates - leave what options for her? To vote for Trump? That would force her to vote against her interests.
The Democrats are full of pearl clutching homophobes and racists. Purging all of them and making them vote for Republicans will just weaken the party and make it more likely they will again lose. I get it, the Democrats aren’t progressive enough in enough areas. Fine. But unless you some how start a third party that can win (unlikely) ones’ best bet is to tolerate these dinosaurs and hope they either cycle out with new blood, or eventually come around. They are still voting for better policies overall, wouldn’t you agree?
I honestly don’t think every Republican is a homophobic racist, but they have shown time and again they are willing to sleep with them in order to win. Exclusionary tactics in politics will make you lose.
And one last note - That other lady was doing a masterful job at diplomacy.
Hey, no fair – contradicting my pithy (and over-liked) statement with a factual rebuttal!
No one has suggested disenfranchisement based on psychology test that checks if you are homophobic. I accept that this is a human being who deserves dignity and care. I think if we actually think about what accepting other people as human means then no contradiction exists there.
We say this person’s homophobia is bad. They don’t like being called bad. The incentive pushes them to vote Republican.
They are going to vote Republican. We don’t want them to vote Republican. The incentive pushes us to say, “Maybe a little homophobia is okay.”
I think this is based on the idea that we can control people by offering them the right incentives. I’ve interacted with a fair number of humans in this world, and my experience is that when you give people incentives to do something they don’t want to do, they tend to give you incentives to give them different incentives, and what you’ve got there is a maladaptive cycle where nothing gets better. By choosing not to address the homophobia we’re just jumping straight to the end of that cycle and gay people pay the price for our inaction.
It’s a worldview that says we should pander to the loudest and angriest, to the least emotionally mature. The result of that worldview is that: 1) People on “the left” are being loud and angry because nothing else works; 2) the loudest, angriest, least emotionally mature person in the world is president because just imagine how uncomfortable they’d be making us all if we didn’t let them be president!
“Cancel culture” is just the logical endpoint of the exact same reasoning that says we shouldn’t call out this person.
Never mind the pants - anti gay woman is VOTING.
that all may be, but when it comes right down to it, do you trust that he’d pick a good staff that would help him, and that he would make rational choices if he were the president? that’s all that matters. because the alternative is the shit show we have now for another four years.
“…conventionally good looking.”
Which is to say, “She wanted to ‘DO’ him.” (yikes!!)
