(function(d,s,a,b){a=d.createElement(s);b=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];a.async=1;a.src="https://static.addtoany.com/menu/page.js";b.parentNode.insertBefore(a,b);})(document,"script");

You’re a Misogynist. And a Racist and a Homophobe Too

Michael Bates writes:

I hope I’m not a misogynist, but I hate Hillary and I think I have good reasons. My number one reason is that if future generations look back at our society, a society in which supposedly everybody has the chance to be president, and they see a succession of presidents that goes like this: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, (Is Jeb Bush next and then will Chelsea be ready?) they will without a doubt conclude that democracy stopped functioning and that bothers me a lot.

The next thing that bothers me about Hillary is that she has been a power broker in Washington for thirty years and therefore must be owned by many special interests and I am tired of being governed by special interests. I could list a bunch of other reasons, but I recently got hammered for being a misogynist because of my views. Do my views really make me a misogynist?

Yes, Michael, of course you’re a misogynist. And a racist and probably a homophobe too. Because approximately 100% of the time you start wining an argument with a far left liberal they’re going to start name calling, and they don’t have enough imagination to come up with anything but those tired old standards.

racecard.jpgThe race card is their favorite, of course. Don’t like Islam? They’ll call you a racist. Point out that Islam isn’t a race, and they’ll insist that you must hate Arabs. Like all demagogues, they don’t respond to reason, logic or common sense. You have a better chance of success teaching the concept of square roots to an Irish Setter. (Gasp. Was that a slur on the Irish?)

I have a long list of reasons I despise Hillary, but to a true lefty, none of them matter. When shared my opinion with a far left friend of mine her reply was, “What’s the matter, don’t you like strong women?” Sheesh. If course I like strong women. That’s one of my reasons for hating Hillary – she isn’t one. A strong woman would never spend decades chained to a serial philanderer. She might forgive him for cheating on her the first time. Maybe she should have forgiven him the second time. But when he did it for the third time a strong woman would have told him the honeymoon was over, although in their case, they still had four days left.

But when a lefty calls you a racist, misogynist or homophobe, don’t despair. Instead, you should celebrate. It means they’re desperate because you’ve backed them into a corner and they have no rational response to you. They’ll never admit that, of course, because in their fantasy world they are always right, and therefore always win every debate. But you’ll know better.

Share

16 Comment(s)

  1. You know I hate agreeing with you about anything, but damn I hate Clinton.

    I’m as left-wing as they come, and I just can’t stand her. What did it for me (and it says a lot about her that you can do two posts on how awful she is and not have to mention this) was her whole “misspeaking” nonsense. It wasn’t “misspeaking”; it was a lie, and saying it was “misspeaking” was another lie. And even though she feels it’s okay for her to lie to the American people (presumably she imagines this is for their own good), she still jumps right on board the Obama Is Elitist bandwagon after a pretty reasonable private comment he makes is recorded, over-generalised and taken out of context. Surely her actions were as elitist as someone can be?

    I think liberalism is harder than conservatism: it only really works if you take it to Jed Bartlet style extremes. If you do, then it’s the best thing going, but if you act liberal while being dishonest or inconsistent, then you’re not getting any respect from either side — only from other people like yourself.

    I see Clinton as the lesser of two evils — but there are three candidates.

    Andrew | May 8, 2008 | Reply

  2. Andrew, I’m tired of deleting the link to your insulting post on your pathetic blog. If you do it again I’m just going to delete your posts.

    Taking liberalism to its extreme is called socialism and communism. You might want to read some history books to see how well that works out.

    Liberalism is governmental use of force to achieve social goals. Government doesn’t do anything well, which is why all social programs, no matter how well intentioned, are dismal failures. And most social programs attempt to address problems created by the government in the first place.

    Dave Hitt | May 8, 2008 | Reply

  3. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to link to that again — I have autocomplete turned on, and the URL is longer than the box. It cropped off everything after “sketchp” and I didn’t think to check it.

    Liberalism (done right) isn’t the same as socialism. It’s about (who’d have thought?) freedom: it’s about secularism, equality, and so forth. That only becomes communism if you conflate two quite different ideas of equality. Social liberalism actively works to make sure everyone has the same opportunities to earn for themselves. Socialism gives nobody any opportunities to earn for themselves and just shares out the wealth. That’s not an extreme of liberalism; it’s completely at odds with it. I could equally well argue that the extreme of conservatism is Sharia law.

    And if we’re talking about “government use of force to achieve social goals”, what about all those “abstinence only” drives? What about bans on abortion and gay marriage? What about state constitutions barring atheists from holding office? What about Established religion? What about laws preventing stem-cell research from saving lives? What about the “war on drugs”? Exactly which of those is a liberalist ideal?

    Andrew | May 9, 2008 | Reply

  4. Socialism/liberalism uses force to “make sure everyone has the same opportunities to earn for themselves.” The only way to do that is interfere with the value the free market puts on talents and abilities.

    “Socialism gives nobody any opportunities to earn for themselves and just shares out the wealth.” You mean like Hillary’s “Shared Prosperity? That’s wealth redistribution at the point of a gun.

    Liberalism uses force to achieve goals. That makes it wrong.

    Just like all the things in your last paragraph. They’re all wrong as well. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the far left and the far right are polar opposites. They are not – they are merely different sides of the same coin. The only difference is the goals – the means of reaching them are identical – force, at the point of a gun.

    The far right is not the alternative to the far left, or vice versa. The alternative to both of them is liberty, and that can only be achieved with a very small, very limited government.

    Hittman | May 10, 2008 | Reply

  5. If you take that to its extreme, though, then you’re an anarchist. Surely when the police try to stop murders, that’s using government force to achieve a goal? You can’t say that’s wrong. It’s all about where to compromise.

    Socialism/liberalism uses force to “make sure everyone has the same opportunities to earn for themselves.” The only way to do that is interfere with the value the free market puts on talents and abilities.

    You’re conflating again. Nobody is suggesting that employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate on grounds of competence. (Rob Grant sets his book Incompetence in a dystopian future based on this idea. The whole thing is made even more awkward if you’ve done something daft like codify the quite wrong idea that all men are created equal.) But if people with poor parents can’t afford an education, that’s not fair on them. If black people or gay people can’t get jobs because employers are bigoted, that’s not fair on them.

    As I understand it, the left feels that the right of an employer to indulge his irrational bigotry is less important (if it exists at all) than the right of the candidate to be judged on his talents and abilities (which he can work to further) rather than, say, his sexuality (which he didn’t choose and can’t do anything about). You seem to think it is the other way around, on the basis that that’s the way the bias would naturally fall with no government involvement. Correct?

    And if not, where are you going to draw the line between “use of force to achieve goals is wrong” and “some goals are important enough that force is justified”?

    I just ask because you seem to have a pretty perverse idea of what liberalism means:

    I have a long list of reasons I despise Hillary, but to a true lefty, none of them matter.

    That’s patently untrue. I’m a “lefty” and I hate her too. So presumably, you think I’m not a “true” lefty. That must mean that the only “true” lefties are the ones who refuse to accept that anyone in a minority could possibly be in the wrong — which is just discrimination in a different direction to usual, and therefore the antithesis of liberalism.

    If that’s what you think the left is, then I’m not surprised you can’t stand it.

    Andrew | May 10, 2008 | Reply

  6. I think the Hittman would agree with me on this – I personally think that freedom of expression is damn near sacred.

    You don’t have a “right” not to be discriminated against because of your race, gender, or sexuality. Employers should be able to hire and fire based on whatever criteria they want.

    Of course it’s not fair! But it’s even less fair to try and force employers to hire people they don’t want to hire! (And would you really want to work for somebody who hates your guts and only hired you because of the law?)

    People have a right to be bigoted assholes, and that includes EVERYBODY, including employers. You can’t force people to change their attitudes, unless you want to become Big Brother and implement the thought police.

    Sure that means some people are going to be rejected for jobs based on unfair criteria – but hey, that’s life! You don’t have a right to that job just because you want it, and it’s shouldn’t be the government’s job to regulate the hiring practices of individual employers.

    Parrot | May 11, 2008 | Reply

  7. “That’s not fairrrrrr” is the whine of a child. If life were fair we’d all be rich, good looking, smart and healthy. Life is not, never has been, and never will be, fair. Get a helmet.

    I weigh 280 and am in my fifties. I want to be a jockey. It’s not fairrrrrr that no one will hire me for that job. Better call the EEOC. Either that, or grow up and face reality.

    If the owner of a Chinese restaurant wants to only hire attractive Asian women as waitresses, they should have that right. If Hooters wants to exclusively hire big breasted young women as waitresses, they should have that right. A few years ago the EEOC went after them for that. Hooters fought them off, and embarrassed them into backing down with billboards featuring fat hairy guys in bikinis serving food. It cost them millions of dollars in legal fees, but they won.

    My next podcast will be about federal agencies that should be abolished, and the EEOC is high on the list. They serve no useful purpose, and cost business billions with their nonsense.

    I’ve been involved in hiring decisions, and it’s as much an art as a science. More than once we hired someone who was slightly less qualified than another candidate because we liked them better, and were going to be spending 40+ hours a week with them.

    You do not have a right to any job. Period. If an employer is a bigoted asshole who refuses to hire a qualified candidate, that person can then find a job with another employer and help drive the first guy out of business. Any employer who constantly turns down talented people for stupid reasons isn’t going to last very long in today’s competitive marketplace. Nor should he. Nor should the government get involved. This is yet another place the free market would work great if the government would just get out of the way.

    Hittman | May 12, 2008 | Reply

  8. You don’t have a “right” not to be discriminated against because of your race, gender, or sexuality.

    I think you’re in the minority with that view.

    If the owner of a Chinese restaurant wants to only hire attractive Asian women as waitresses, they should have that right. If Hooters wants to exclusively hire big breasted young women as waitresses, they should have that right.

    That’s not really discrimination: those people will bring in more money. That’s like claiming you’re being discriminated against if you audition to play a Japanese girl in a TV show. Sure, it might be because of your age/gender/race, but you’d be bad at the job for those reasons.

    I’ve been involved in hiring decisions, and it’s as much an art as a science. More than once we hired someone who was slightly less qualified than another candidate because we liked them better, and were going to be spending 40+ hours a week with them.

    Also not discrimination, for much the same reason — business will suffer if you don’t like your coworkers. Unless you liked them better because the other person was black or something.

    “That’s not fairrrrrr” is the whine of a child. If life were fair we’d all be rich, good looking, smart and healthy. Life is not, never has been, and never will be, fair.

    And that means we shouldn’t try to improve the situation, does it?

    Andrew | May 13, 2008 | Reply

  9. “And that means we shouldn’t try to improve the situation, does it?”

    the idea behind this is that it shouldn’t be improved forcibly by the government, the market will take care of such issues on it’s own (although this is sometimes almost as idealistic as communism).

    “That’s not really discrimination: those people will bring in more money.”

    and yet, as stated, the EEOC STILL went after them, thus helping the above point.

    “Unless you liked them better because the other person was black or something.”

    so it’s not discrimination unless race is involved? isn’t that…racist in and of itself?

    all businesses currently have the right to refuse service for any reason. why should this not apply to hiring practices as well?

    Ilya | May 13, 2008 | Reply

  10. Well said, Ilya.

    Hittman | May 13, 2008 | Reply

  11. I think you’re in the minority with that view.

    If I am it’s a huge shame – but I think most people are sensible enough to understand that none of us have the right to force people to think or believe in a certain way.

    You think people have a right to take legal action against somebody’s thoughts and beliefs? I can’t imagine how you could possibly justify such an evil thought-police type of agenda.

    Also not discrimination, for much the same reason — business will suffer if you don’t like your coworkers. Unless you liked them better because the other person was black or something.

    Well then, what if I didn’t like somebody because they were a redhead? Redheads are definitely a minority… and I’m actively discriminating against them. Shouldn’t I have the right to say that I don’t want redheads working for me?

    Why shouldn’t I be able to turn somebody down because they’re named Carl? Let’s say I don’t like the name Carl and think all Carl’s are idiots. My belief is probably mistaken, but do I not have a right to make a decision based upon it nonetheless?

    What if I’m into astrology and don’t believe Scorpios would do a good job in my industry? Sure I’m probably way off base, but it’s still my decision to make, isn’t it?

    These kinds of decisions are no more or less discriminating than discriminations against race, gender, or sexuality. The only difference is that race, gender, and sexuality discrimination is more common.

    Just because a person is wrong for not hiring somebody for reasons of discrimination, doesn’t mean that anybody has a right to force him to change his mind!

    If you believe in freedom, then you have to believe that people have the right to make decisions based on their own internal moral compass. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in freedom!

    And really – is it fair in any way at all to force somebody to hire an employee that he hates, regardless of the reason for that hatred?

    Of course not! That’s not fair to either the employer OR the employee!!

    Parrot | May 14, 2008 | Reply

  12. and yet, as stated, the EEOC STILL went after them, thus helping the above point.

    I’m not trying to defend the EEOC. I don’t know anything much about them. They may well be a pack of morons. Doesn’t really affect me, because I live in the wrong country for that.

    “Unless you liked them better because the other person was black or something.”

    so it’s not discrimination unless race is involved? isn’t that…racist in and of itself?

    Some people aren’t personable. That’s as much a useful skill as being good at computer programming or being a good cook, and a perfectly reasonable basis for a hiring decision. And it’s something people can work to change, rather than something like their gender, sexuality or race, which they’re born with and can’t usually change.

    It’s unreasonable to make a hiring decision on the basis of something like gender, sexuality or race. Whether there should be legislation to prevent it is something I can’t imagine there’s much point discussing — nobody’s going to convince anyone.

    You think people have a right to take legal action against somebody’s thoughts and beliefs?

    Absolutely not. You can believe what you like. The moment you act on that belief, though, it becomes an action, and punishing actions is okay. Which ones should be punished is a matter of debate, although to be honest I doubt anyone is going to change their minds because there’s no objective standard for morality (unless you’re religious). Probably the best we can do on such things is to vote.

    These kinds of decisions are no more or less discriminating than discriminations against race, gender, or sexuality. The only difference is that race, gender, and sexuality discrimination is more common.

    That’s true. Commonality is a big factor, though. If one employer decides to pay women less than men then the women can go work elsewhere and very little if any harm is done. If most or all employers do the same thing then the women have no recourse without major surgery or legislation. Which is what we have here now, and it’s still surprisingly common.

    If you believe in freedom, then you have to believe that people have the right to make decisions based on their own internal moral compass. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in freedom!

    And say that moral compass is pointing to “blow up a bunch of people because the country isn’t islamic enough”? You have to make exceptions to a rule like that or else you’re an anarchist. The only way anybody can ever have complete freedom is if they are the only being in the universe.

    Andrew | May 14, 2008 | Reply

  13. That’s true. Commonality is a big factor, though. If one employer decides to pay women less than men then the women can go work elsewhere and very little if any harm is done. If most or all employers do the same thing then the women have no recourse without major surgery or legislation. Which is what we have here now, and it’s still surprisingly common.

    If there is a wage discrepancy between men and women, that is unfortunate but it’s not something that legislation can tackle. There are way too many problems with trying to force equal pay that any legislation is bound to be ineffective at best, and at worst will massively screw things up leading to even worse situations for women in the workplace.

    The situation does not fit into these kinds of simplistic terms that you seem to be portraying. I have doubts that there are any companies out there that have an active policy of paying their female employees less than their male employees.

    The only jobs this kind of discrepancy could possibly apply to are those where the employees negotiate their salary. Otherwise the job’s pay is pre-set and does not vary between genders.

    Perhaps many men employers are unconsciously more aggressive and condescending in their price negotiations with women. Perhaps many women have not been brought up to know how to be aggressive enough to negotiate effectively. There are a lot of possible reasons here that don’t break down into a simple decision by the employer of “Ah, she’s a woman so she deserves to be paid less!”

    A situation this nuanced cannot be reasonably tackled by legislation. We have to trust that women in the workplace have so far proven their worth and will continue to do so, continuing to close that gap and reduce the effects that may be holding them back.

    And say that moral compass is pointing to “blow up a bunch of people because the country isn’t islamic enough”? You have to make exceptions to a rule like that or else you’re an anarchist. The only way anybody can ever have complete freedom is if they are the only being in the universe.

    Of course there are some common sense limits on how much freedom you can have under the law. Your freedom to swing your fists around is only protected up until the point where they connect with somebody else’s face.

    But when you go beyond the basics of protecting people from physical harm and widen that net you’re really pushing it. Being looked down upon or being denied a job is not something that can be morally or even realistically handled by government.

    Let’s get this straight: You have a right to demand equal treatment under the law. We can, and should, demand that the government treat all it’s citizens as equals.

    However, you can’t demand that anybody else treat you as an equal. That is not a right that can, or should, be protected under the law.

    Parrot | May 14, 2008 | Reply

  14. Okay, you accept we need to legislate to prevent physical harm. How about theft? Slander? Fraud? Rape?

    I have doubts that there are any companies out there that have an active policy of paying their female employees less than their male employees.

    I’m sure there aren’t; at least, none worth speaking of. But that’s not been true long. Job adverts used to carry different salaries for men and women: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html

    How much of the change since then is cultural and how much the legislation caused is impossible to say, and certainly this kind of thing can very easily be (and often is) taken to rather silly extremes, but a lot of people think that if a law can correct a widespread injustice then that’s a good law to have, even if it does take away their right to act like awful bigots.

    Don’t get me wrong, you make a good point and express it well, and I wouldn’t say you were wrong, but it’s not as clear-cut as you make out. Some questions don’t have right or wrong answers.

    Andrew | May 16, 2008 | Reply

  15. Did I give the impression that I was portraying the situation as clear-cut? My apologies, I was actually trying to illustrate it’s complexities.

    I suppose it’s impossible to say what would have happened without the equal pay act. I’m of a mindset that the public attitude towards this kind of obvious wage disparity would have continued to become more negative forcing companies to change their practices for public relations reasons.

    We can argue over whether that would have happened or not all night long. But to me there just seems to be something amiss when the government is seen as the custodians of our social morality.

    Perhaps there are times when the government really does need to step in on moral grounds… but I think they have to tread a whole lot more carefully on that than they have been.

    Parrot | May 18, 2008 | Reply

  16. Perhaps there are times when the government really does need to step in on moral grounds… but I think they have to tread a whole lot more carefully on that than they have been.

    I’m certainly not going to disagree with that.

    Andrew | May 18, 2008 | Reply

Post a Comment