I had considered you to be another clever though ideologically hidebound right-wing loony. Thankfully bereft of the non-rational Christian fundamentalist stuff, but nevertheless rather tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics. It is becoming increasingly evident that you can and do think. And in your own confrontational way, you have a certain generosity.
I like most of the Americans I've met across this medium: though it sometimes takes me a little time to get beyond what I assume to be cliched and outrageous prejudice, and see the person behind the argument.
The reason why I thought you wouldn't care what other folk think is your persona is pretty confrontational: your debates open with a degree of vehemence that I would need months to work up to, if I could manage at all. I also think the race thing, as I understand it in America, seems completely alien to my way of thinking. But that could be contextual: I live in possibly the most cosmopolitan city in the English-Speaking world, with concomitant values. Black, white, blue or green: a Londoner is a Londoner. It's just not the same this side of the pond.
Prior to this exchange, I didn't think compromise was in your vocabulary: now I'm not quite so sure.
As for your compliment (for which I'm flattered), I'll have to correct you, alas: I'm an idiot sometimes, but hopefully with decreasing frequency.
I do believe I can honestly say that you're the first person to call me "right-wing". Let me make it crystalline that I am wingless: politically, I align as a strong Socialist with Libertarian leanings. I identify closely with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky, and Harold Zinn.
I wonder where you get "tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics", but I think I can see how I might be misinterpreted that way, especially when I don't take the time to explain myself fully. Don't mistake my attitude towards all Americans with a specific animosity towards some minority group; the only groups I'm opposed to unilaterally are the wealthy (for practical reasons) and theists (for reasons that would take a long, long time to explain). You'll note, however, that the above two groups represent members who are categorized by choice, not fiat of determinism. As for the rest of us? To borrow your turn of phrase, "an American is an American is an American" in my eyes. My apparent problem is that I'm unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room of American culture. Of course, by my reckoning, I'm not so much ignoring the elephant as trying to convince everyone else it's a rhino.
I'll try to explain my vehemence, as you call it, at a later date. It would be a lie to say that I do not have anger issues; it would be equally untrue to say that my 'cowboy' style of debate isn't calculated. Tell you what; I'll add you to the list. Check out my Journal sometime, and maybe you'll understand, some, where I'm coming from.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
hereville.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2007-09-05 01:44 pm
no subject
It is becoming increasingly evident that you can and do think. And in your own confrontational way, you have a certain generosity.
I like most of the Americans I've met across this medium: though it sometimes takes me a little time to get beyond what I assume to be cliched and outrageous prejudice, and see the person behind the argument.
The reason why I thought you wouldn't care what other folk think is your persona is pretty confrontational: your debates open with a degree of vehemence that I would need months to work up to, if I could manage at all.
I also think the race thing, as I understand it in America, seems completely alien to my way of thinking. But that could be contextual: I live in possibly the most cosmopolitan city in the English-Speaking world, with concomitant values. Black, white, blue or green: a Londoner is a Londoner. It's just not the same this side of the pond.
Prior to this exchange, I didn't think compromise was in your vocabulary: now I'm not quite so sure.
As for your compliment (for which I'm flattered), I'll have to correct you, alas: I'm an idiot sometimes, but hopefully with decreasing frequency.
Think well: it's better than the alternative.
no subject
I wonder where you get "tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics", but I think I can see how I might be misinterpreted that way, especially when I don't take the time to explain myself fully. Don't mistake my attitude towards all Americans with a specific animosity towards some minority group; the only groups I'm opposed to unilaterally are the wealthy (for practical reasons) and theists (for reasons that would take a long, long time to explain). You'll note, however, that the above two groups represent members who are categorized by choice, not fiat of determinism. As for the rest of us? To borrow your turn of phrase, "an American is an American is an American" in my eyes. My apparent problem is that I'm unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room of American culture. Of course, by my reckoning, I'm not so much ignoring the elephant as trying to convince everyone else it's a rhino.
I'll try to explain my vehemence, as you call it, at a later date. It would be a lie to say that I do not have anger issues; it would be equally untrue to say that my 'cowboy' style of debate isn't calculated. Tell you what; I'll add you to the list. Check out my Journal sometime, and maybe you'll understand, some, where I'm coming from.
no subject
I added you too.