Jesse Wegman of the New York Times editorial board scoffs at the idea that heterosexual marriage represents Diversity:
Everybody knows "hetero" means homogenous, plain vanilla, white bread.
Well, I never ... How dare White Male Republicans try to steal our word diversity to refer to marriage between the opposite sexes!
Diversity doesn't mean "diversity," it means who is good and who is bad. The bad people can't appeal to some technical mumbo-jumbo about what the word actually means. When we use a word, it means just what we choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
The question is, which is to be master — that's all.
When a Man Loves a Woman … It’s Diversity!
By JESSE WEGMAN
As opponents of marriage equality continue to lose in courts and legislatures around the country, they have trotted out a remarkable array of bizarre arguments. ... but special notice is due the response from Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, after a federal judge struck down that state’s 2004 ban on same-sex marriage on Friday.
“In 2004 the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable,” Mr. Schuette said in a press release minutes after District Judge Bernard A. Friedman issued his ruling. ...
But what is this “diversity in parenting”? It appears that “diversity” here means two parents of the opposite sex, and not, say, a white parent and a black parent, or a Jewish parent and a Hindu parent.
Everybody knows "hetero" means homogenous, plain vanilla, white bread.
That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true, marriage-equality opponents have realized they need to engage in a little creative repackaging — and even though “diversity” tends to be a buzzword for the left, it has such a nice ring to it.
The term has been used at least once before, in a brief filed in January by Utah’s attorney general, Sean Reyes, in litigation over that state’s (also-overturned, also-stayed) ban on same-sex marriage.
In that brief, Utah argued that “the combination of male and female parents is likely to draw from the strengths of both genders in ways that cannot occur with any combination of two men or two women, and that this gendered, mother-father parenting model provides important benefits to children.”
Which brings us to the wonders of diversity.
“Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students. If that is true in education, why not in parenting? At a minimum, the State and its people could rationally conclude that gender diversity — i.e., complementarity — in parenting is likely to be beneficial to children.”
Not simply diversity, then, but “complementarity” — a double dose of diversionary discourse.
Well, I never ... How dare White Male Republicans try to steal our word diversity to refer to marriage between the opposite sexes!
Diversity doesn't mean "diversity," it means who is good and who is bad. The bad people can't appeal to some technical mumbo-jumbo about what the word actually means. When we use a word, it means just what we choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
The question is, which is to be master — that's all.
Posts
61 comments:
Sean Reyes isn't white, but he is male.
That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true
Libs are full of shit. As in, being liberal means you're full of shit. Libs think "insufficient data" means "great, now I get to smash everything!" And, what constitutes to a lib "evidence" changes like night and day, depending on whether you want evidence, or want to avoid it.
Libs = Borg
The question is, which is to be master — that's all.
Yup. "You will be assimilated."
marriage-equality opponents have realized they need to engage in a little creative repackaging
Just who has done the repackaging? I thought it was gay marriage, then it was same sex marriage, and now it is marriage equality. The left are masters at repackaging, think global warming morphing into climate change.
"Continue to lose in ... legislatures around the country"??? I thought gay marriage was something like 1-33 in statehouses before Judge Walker worked his magic.
"There' no evidence" that children do better with one male and one female parent than otherwise?
I honestly don't know the answer. I suspect that it's hard to find any research on the subject that doesn't have an ideological axe to grind.
Steve, you seem pretty good at finding things like that. Is there any *reliable*, *honest* research on the issue of two hetero versus two homo parents?
Sean Reyes is the nephew of Philippine President Ramón Magsaysay. Magsaysay-- sounds like the male counterpart to "va-jay-jay".
Now, who is Jesse Wegman? I find nothing about his personal life online. Not even a Wikipedia page. Is he really less Wikiworthy than Steve?
I hope he isn't from the supermarket family. Then he'd be another rich-kid-gone-bad.
"That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true"
why are they allowed to lie like this. there is mountains of evidence. i mean, i know they can say whatever they want, they control NYT. but it's wrong. period. our information on single parents is overwhelming.
but i don't even need to look at the evidence to know that boys growing up with two moms, instead of a mom and a dad, are getting shortchanged. i guess the cultural marxists think the obvious negative effects of boys growing up with a single mom, are somehow remedied by growing up with two moms? throwing an extra mom in there somehow mitigates the clearly observed, negative overall effects of boys growing up under the exclusive supervision of one woman?
it might be ok for two moms to raise daughters, or two fathers to raise sons. although i'm not sure about that, i think growing up knowing that your 'fathers' are homos also has a negative long term effect on boys, and also that you aren't related to at least one of them so he's not really your father. but i struggle greatly to see how boys raised by two moms aren't going to be shortchanged.
the best outcome is probably two dads raising daughters. they would do the best job i assume. anecdotal note: i knew a two moms, two daughters family in the 80s. they were divorced women with one daughter each from a previous marriage to a man.
As opponents of marriage equality continue to lose in courts ..
The contempt which "liberals" have for the opinions of the people is quite remarkable. Whenever people are allowed their say on "gay marriage" they vote it down. The left relies on its super-legislature (the courts) to set aside the will of the people and put elite opinion in its place.
Screw the courts, their rulings are patently illegal.
Is Nick Cannon in White Face Diversity?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/nick-cannon-whiteface_n_5022676.html
It would be pathetic if it weren't so true..I sure could have used the guidance of that "other" type of parent (father). Instead, too many of us are raised by the stupid one.
At what point did leftists shift their primary focus from economic socialism to all of.... this? When did they all decide that crusading against two parent heterosexual households and reducing white people to a powerless minority were more important than labor unions and socialized medicine?
I just don't get it.
Does anyone else notice how ridiculous it sounds to make an argument for mothers and fathers? It's like trying to justify the seasons or bilateral symmetry or having five fingers. It's so basic that even making the argument sounds a little ridiculous.
The mistake here was to bother using the diversity argument at all. It lends credence to that silly argument that racial quotas in education, jobs requiring special skills and/or knowledge, etc., should trump the requirements for academic and other skills when selecting candidadtes.
On the other hand, and contrary to the article's false assertion that there is no evidence that the normal set of parents (or perhaps I should say old normal standard for parents) is better for children there is extensive research confirming the advantage of being raised by a stable partnership of one's biological parents rather than some other assortment of people. The AG's in these cases would have far better served their cause by building a bibliography of cites to the available literature on the subject. There are many organizations that could have helped with this.
The article was full of gratuitously and demonstrably false assertions. Even for the NYT it set a new low standard of mendacious prevarication.
“In 2004 the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable,” Mr. Schuette said in a press release minutes after District Judge Bernard A. Friedman issued his ruling. ...
But what is this “diversity in parenting”? It appears that “diversity” here means two parents of the opposite sex, and not, say, a white parent and a black parent, or a Jewish parent and a Hindu parent. " - Is he suggesting that race isn't an interchangeable social construct?
"As opponents of marriage equality continue to lose in courts and legislatures around the country"
"Lose in courts," mainly because of Democrat-appointed judges, "lose in legislatures" in very deep blue socially leftist states. Almost all definition of marriage plebiscites have won.
North Carolina held such a vote in May 2012. The alphabet gang and the media (same difference) expected it to lose because North Carolina isn't as red or as conservative as it used to be. Well, it won, and won fairly handily. A few days later, Obama came out and reversed his (supposed) previous position against gay "marriage" and started to be for it. I surmise in the 48-72 hours between the results of the vote in NC and Obama doing his 180, the pink mafia read Obama the Riot Act.
Speaking of marriages lagging in diversity,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/fashion/weddings/kyra-himmelbaum-jesse-wegman-weddings.html?_r=0
Not a lot of LGBTQQ in this union because you know both families' Rabbis would have consider it a "shonda for the goyim" !!
But hell if some poor goyim kid goes through a hellish childhood because he/she got stuck with a Pitcher and a Catcher instead of a Mom and a Dad, who cares.
Biversity?
"That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true..."
There is, to be precise, a shit-ton of evidence to prove that children do better with two parents. The data on gay v. straight marriages is lagging, however, and given the ideologically-driven agenda of the "academic" community, evidence may be slow to come forth.
As for gay marriages, they will never, ever be as strong or as long-lived as the heterosexual variety. The one thing that strengthens hetero marriages more than anything else is the shared project of raising a couple's mutual offspring. No other motive even comes close.
I'm personally quite fine with gay marriage. I'm just opposed to it being foisted on us by an unelected oligarchy who seem to jersey around the 14th Amendment to mean whatever the he'll they want it to mean, with no consistent principle other than that of victory for the Left.
"..I sure could have used the guidance of that "other" type of parent (father). Instead, too many of us are raised by the stupid one."
well, I don't know your parents, so maybe you're right in your case; but most of the time the absent parent gets idealized to an absurd degree in the child's mind. It's absolutely human nature. What you don't have is better than what you've got. The parent with the day to day responsibility is usually the one who ends up the most criticized.
At least with two (different genders preferably), the impressions get diffused and neither gets the entired burden of either being the great one, or the "stupid one." That's really what good parenting is by default. Anything better is a bonus.
Black coach on his all black basketball team: "You don't get more diverse than this. We all brothers."
At what point did leftists shift their primary focus from economic socialism to all of.... this?
@Stealth,
Good question. Here is a video from the 1990s by William Lind which does a pretty good job explaining that shift you noted from economics to cultural issues. Though it is 20 minutes long, it flows well and presents a picture of this transition that dates back to WW1. If you have some time, it is worth the view.
Mariage Equalty is one of the wonderful goals advocated by my coreligionists network.
In the difficult times of persecution the Jewish-American community is going through, allow me to solemnly appeal to the generosity of your readers to help our struggling modest not-for-profit organizations.
http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79712936/
Jesus wept.
I'd like to see a state to clear the decks on the whole issue by banning marriage.
A civil contract, with encouragement for pre nups, &c
Then remove all laws that refer to marriage.
I have to admit I could care less who wants a marriage contract. But I don't like the potential for moral hazard from to opt in and out of marriage to optimize their financial status.
There is no real proof of this happening, but a lot of the examples used as arguments for same sex marriage use examples like health insurance, social security benefits, &c.
The entire institution of marriage needs reform. Not expansion.
Today's Diversity Disaster:
[Female] Train Operator in Chicago Crash 'Tired'
http://news.yahoo.com/union-train-operator-chicago-crash-tired-231309602.html?vp=1
Diversity doesn't mean "diversity," it means who is good and who is bad.
On the Microaggressions page, there was a funny example of a white person using the word diversity in a way that annoyed a black person (or a superior white person; it's not clear).
“I just love working here, there’s so much culture. This is one of the most diverse high schools in the district!”
One of my white colleagues at a public high school. This particular school is about 75% black/African American; several other schools in the district have much more even distributions in terms of racial diversity, with students from many different racial backgrounds.
The poor guy thought he was showing Goodthink by using "diverse" to mean, "Yay, lotsa black people!" But, of course, he was white and therefore wrong.
p.s. i liked that defense of vick's dogfighting hatefest, you're absolutely right, i don't think cruelty even crossed his mind, any more that boiling a lobster -- dogfighting very much part of deep south culture in some lowlifey places, like cockfighting is in some rural areas of CA, AZ etc.
I hate animal fighting but that doesn't permit condemnation of someone who likely didn't fully comprehend his error.
If you want to know how well children do, especially boys, without fathers / men around just look at the black community.
"That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true..."
A mere 10,000-plus years of practical, empirical evidence into the sh*tter, damn :)
Post-reality argument is easy, but it's most always flawed.
Stealth: That's the question I always want to ask leftists. Why don't you care about the American working class anymore? Why is it homosexuals, bums, and foreigners 24/7?
My guess is that they never did. We were a tool, like Blacks, and now Mexicans, a weapon to beat their enemies down. I no longer respond to appeals to my humanity, since they usually turn out to be a trick to screw honest people. That is one of the great crimes of the left, to make compassion the mark of a fool.
Two points on what can only laughingly be called "SSM jurisprudence":
(1) You can tell that the courts have rigged the game when they effectively abandon their own balancing test--in this case, the rational-basis test. Rational-basis reviews says that in most cases (i.e., in the absence of protected classes) the court will uphold the constitutionality of a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. In this case, the exclusive recognition of traditional marriage and the natural family is rationally related to the orderly procreation of the next generation of citizens. Q.E.D. That was the universal understanding until the Massachusetts SJC's 2003 ruling in Goodridge--and actually that understanding persisted past 2003, when the liberal supreme courts of New York, Maryland, and Washington State all later upheld traditional marriage on rational-basis grounds. But then Kennedy, J., says in Windsor that the only basis for opposing SSM is irrational hatred, thus ignoring hundreds of cases and thousands of years of jurisprudence and effectively vitiating the rational-basis test because, I would argue, if any one body of rational persons can proffer a rational basis for a law, then the court must uphold the law. It's also really an incredible power grab because it says that only my opinion of what is rational matters.
(2) The reductio ad absurdum of this line of thought is this: all human societies and all legal thinking throughout history that ordered social existence around traditional marriage and the natural family had no rational basis and was simply an expression of antipathy towards homosexuals (pardon the anachronism). Thus all marriage law, yea, all social life of homo sapiens has been a massive anti-homosexual conspiracy. Such is the fevered thinking of our jurisprudential overclass.
The latest trend of diversity reaches Canada.
Fortunately,"There is no risk to the general public."
"That children do better with a mother and a father is not a new argument. But perhaps because there is no evidence that it is actually true..."
Steve, I have a question for you. When I read that sentence, I have a feeling of very gut-level disgust and hatred. I can't help it. It's obvious that the person who wrote the sentence is a low-level functionary in the service of evil. He WANTS children to be raised in messed up, miserable conditions; he not only WANTS that to happen but he wants it to be considered GOOD and perfectly normal. You're so good at diagnosing these memetic evils that are slowly killing us. How do you deal with it emotionally? How do you deal with the revulsion that a normal reasonable person feels reading this kind of vile orwellian bs? I ask because it's hard for me to function in this world of ours, being bombarded 25-8 with this stuff.
period. our information on single parents is overwhelming.
But... is it? Did they check children raised by widows? Because apparently the fathers of single moms' children are less than ideal genetic material, their children might inherit that.
I was raised by a widow from 13, albeit I was at boarding school and it was difficult. Got into trouble and did not fulfill my potential until much later. Mother's are nurturers and teenage boys need discipline. Don't need a study to tell me that.
That's the question I always want to ask leftists. Why don't you care about the American working class anymore? Why is it homosexuals, bums, and foreigners 24/7?
My guess is that they never did. We were a tool, like Blacks, and now Mexicans, a weapon to beat their enemies down.
Exactly. The "working man" was a tool useful for attacking and subverting capitalism and free enterprise. Now that the left pretty much owns Big Business, they've turned their focus to other targets. NAMs are used to continue the pressure on business, pull down educational standards, and generally attack what's good about distinctively white European civilization. The LGBT crowd is a tool used to attack marriage and the very concept of Christian virtue and standards.
The idea that the left actually "cares" about any of these people is laughable. Destroyers don't care.
I no longer live in America, so it is hard for me to believe that things are really so bad there. There must surely be a core of normality, a silent majority... the commenters here are overwrought, exaggerating, out of touch... isn't that so? But judging from my flotsam and jetsam facebook friends, it seems that things really are this bad.
Widows and widowers have never been considered 'single parents'. That term has always been a euphemism for unmarried and no longer/never were cohabiting women. Theoretically men too, although their numbers have always been fairly minute.
As for what purportedly helped prompt this decision, see this:
http://www.freep.com/article/20140323/COL04/303230067/Brian-Dickerson-What-Judge-Friedman-learned-about-gay-families-from-a-lesbian-law-clerk
And now we are forced to defend, in a court of law, the position that a child is better off with one father and one mother. It's not simply dumbfounding that we have to defend this, but the speed with which this has all come about.
As others have noted, in 33 straight statewide referenda, the people decided marriage was between one man and one woman. Cue Joe Sobran: "When the Jewish side of an issue is too unpopular to prevail democratically, the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue a “constitutional” one, appealing to judicial sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters."
Anonymous
Jerry - you say you used to live in America but no longer do. One question - are you an American, or something else?
So, my partner and I are a diverse Cisgendered couple? I feel so liberal I could vote for a black man for President. Is Alan Keyes running?
Something strange is going on. It is as though our modern "left" is just embracing everything dark and meaningless and promoting that. It is like governmental entropy. Grade inflation and job promotion for unqualified minorities, bazaar and unhealthy family "units," immoral and immodest sexuality, narcissism, workshyness, etc. None of these can improve the overall health of knowledge of the people in our society.
Even in the Soviet Union were trying to build a society, not just destroy the old.
The unemployed were put to work, maybe in Siberia but they had no free handouts like welfare for the feckless or promiscuous. The Soviets also put a lot of effort into actually improving education and athletic training. They had to crack a few eggs to make the omelets but our leaders don't seem to be making an omelet. I'm not clear how it is even "good for the Jews."
At what point did leftists shift their primary focus from economic socialism to all of.... this? When did they all decide that crusading against two parent heterosexual households and reducing white people to a powerless minority were more important than labor unions and socialized medicine?
The destruction of marriage is a goal listed in the Communist Manifesto. However, I don't take the Communist Manifesto at face value (as if it were written earnestly). It is smoke and mirrors for the international finance community.
"I no longer live in America, so it is hard for me to believe that things are really so bad there. There must surely be a core of normality, a silent majority... the commenters here are overwrought, exaggerating, out of touch... isn't that so? But judging from my flotsam and jetsam facebook friends, it seems that things really are this bad." - They are, and they are going to get worse. It will all collapse, but I wouldn't bet on this happening particularly quickly.
"Screw the courts, their rulings are patently illegal."
Legal courts now act like aristocratic courts. They enforce decrees.
Steve, you seem pretty good at finding things like that. Is there any *reliable*, *honest* research on the issue of two hetero versus two homo parents?
No. Meaning, libs don't get to assume equality and smash everything.
Steve, you seem pretty good at finding things like that. Is there any *reliable*, *honest* research on the issue of two hetero versus two homo parents?
No. Meaning, libs don't get to assume equality and smash everything.
I hate animal fighting but that doesn't permit condemnation of someone who likely didn't fully comprehend his error.
You're right, I think Freedom of Speech is what permits the condemnation.
How do you deal with the revulsion that a normal reasonable person feels reading this kind of vile orwellian bs? I ask because it's hard for me to function in this world of ours, being bombarded 25-8 with this stuff.
It takes time, and eventually you wind up thoroughly dissident.
At the risk of being totally off topic, for which I am totally sorry, let me share this finding of mine with you. The scientist's note at the end of this article just totally blew my mind off. This sentence:
We can and do imagine impossible things (perpetual motion machines, political violence that actually achieves its purported end) and we fail to imagine things that actually exist (evolution by variation and natural selection, creative non-violence as a viable strategy for political change). (No emphasis in original.)
Apparently this scientist believes that political violence cannot achieve its purported end, moreover, believes that it is a scientific fact as firmly corroborated and as impossible to refute as is evolution.
This is so difficult to comprehend - this guy, probably highly intelligent, probably gave at least some thought to the topic, coming to believe in such an utterly bizarre notion, that political violence cannot possibly achieve its purported end.
Does anyone else notice how ridiculous it sounds to make an argument for mothers and fathers? It's like trying to justify the seasons or bilateral symmetry or having five fingers. It's so basic that even making the argument sounds a little ridiculous.
Yes. In a sense, your comment sums up the issue completely, and there isn't anything else to be said about it.
In another sense... I believe this is part of the *point*. They *want* you to experience the humiliating shame that comes from being forced to wonder whether your eyes are lying to you, or whether your brain is really working properly. It's like that quote from an essay a few years ago - sorry, I can't remember the source - where it was argued that the point of Soviet propaganda was to humiliate, because a man forced to assent to obvious falsehoods resigns himself to humiliation and becomes easy to control.
One of the best things you can do for yourself is to force yourself to remember that you are sane, and they are wrong. There are four lights!
How do you deal with it emotionally? How do you deal with the revulsion that a normal reasonable person feels reading this kind of vile orwellian bs? I ask because it's hard for me to function in this world of ours
That is a fine question that I think many of us struggle with. I also admire those folks who are able to sift through this stuff daily without becoming damaged. I cope firstly through a happy family life, and through my religious faith, and also by consuming a very minimal amount of mainstream culture, which is much easier than you may think. (That then leads me to the question of whether, by failing to keep up with the news, I am abdicating some responsibility or other, but I don't think so.)
Jerry said...
I no longer live in America, so it is hard for me to believe that things are really so bad there...
-----
Is it better where you are ?
When politicians where you are speak to people, do they sound like adults speaking to adults ?
They might be crooked and corrupt, but do they sound like serious grown ups at least ?
Do you live in a country where people who write, sing and think aren't unanimous in their hatred of their own folk and its ways ?
Do you live in a country where gay marriage is still considered a laughable idea ?
Widows and widowers have never been considered 'single parents'.
Yet they would be ideal to check if it is having only one parent per se that is causing the problem, or if it's just good old bad genes. I mean, single moms probably have on average worse genes, as do the absent fathers. Somebody here mentioned the black community as a big example of how bad it is to have single parents. The problem is, I think if blacks were forced to live in normal nuclear family units, or heck, even if black children were all adopted to white families, the outcome would still be the same or at least very similar. At least that's my thought.
Children would probably be worse off with homosexual parents because homosexuals have higher homicide rates, higher crime rates, higher rates of being infected with STDs, higher chance of molesting the child, higher chance of a breakup (which would be very unpleasant for the child, assuming he managed to get emotionally attached to both fathers), etc. etc. Homosexual couples would probably on average make worse parents, than single moms, especially if the child was adopted.
"It's like that quote from an essay a few years ago - sorry, I can't remember the source - where it was argued that the point of Soviet propaganda was to humiliate, because a man forced to assent to obvious falsehoods resigns himself to humiliation and becomes easy to control"
Can't remember which piece, but the author was Theodore Dalrymple.
>How do you deal with the revulsion that a normal reasonable person feels reading this kind of vile orwellian bs?<
Exposing it is enjoyable, probably. But constant readers of this site probably feel overwhelmed sometimes. Humor and faith are a salve (salvation?).
Also, the emitters of the bs don't believe it - they don't care what's true or false, they aren't intellectually serious - they use words as merely a tool intended to attain the satisfaction of their appetite of the nonce. You wouldn't argue with a squawking parrot, or even with a whining child who wants candy he doesn't need, and those are the equivalent of 99% of what we're looking at.
I don't know a political solution (except total reset, which is a cop-out answer in some contexts).
Finally, there are coroners who perform autopsies day in and day out who remain fundamentally interested and cheerful professionals, even though they're dissecting the bodies of murder victims. Talk about really rough professions.
That's the question I always want to ask leftists. Why don't you care about the American working class anymore? Why is it homosexuals, bums, and foreigners 24/7?
My guess is that they never did. We were a tool, like Blacks, and now Mexicans, a weapon to beat their enemies down.
Leftwingers never really liked the working class, because they understood that the working class didn't really like *them*.
"Jerry said...
I no longer live in America, so it is hard for me to believe that things are really so bad there."
None of his live in America any more either.
"Now that the left pretty much owns Big Business, they've turned their focus to other targets."
If that be the case, trickle down economics would be embraced, environmental laws would be watered down, and tax cuts for the wealthy would be demanded.
Moron.
"Mr. Anon said...
None of his live in America any more either."
Sorry, that was supposed to be:
None of us live in America any more either.
Of course it isn't diverse; it's wholesome. Every aspect of that family dynamic is good and beneficial (although the people may be imperfect). The DIOS crowd is convinced that children ought to be raised by the state, and individuals secured by the state rather than by one another through a healthy marriage, strong family ties, and meaningful labor.
Libs are full of shit. As in, being liberal means you're full of shit. Libs think "insufficient data" means "great, now I get to smash everything!" And, what constitutes to a lib "evidence" changes like night and day, depending on whether you want evidence, or want to avoid it.
Conservatives are full of shit no less than liberals. The only difference is that cons are more aware of it, and more honest about it ... their frailties and foibles.
Libs are full of shit. As in, being liberal means you're full of shit. Libs think "insufficient data" means "great, now I get to smash everything!" And, what constitutes to a lib "evidence" changes like night and day, depending on whether you want evidence, or want to avoid it.
Conservatives are full of shit no less than liberals. The only difference is that cons are more aware of it, and more honest about it ... their frailties and foibles.
Feminists: When a man loves a woman ... it's rape.
Post a Comment