49 thoughts on “The “Tolerant” Left”

  1. At least, they currently treat perceived apostasy better than radical Muslims do. It could always be worse.

  3. Oh, it’s trivial to nutpick quotes. I could easily find quotes from conservatives on Bruce Jenner’s story — before the interview was aired — that were full of bile and hatred.

    I’m sure my thoughts are similar to those of many other liberals: While I might suspect that Jenner’s political views suggest that he doesn’t know where his own best interests lie, I’m sympathetic to his situation, respect the courage it takes to do what he’s doing, and support his freedom to do so.

    In contrast, here’s the kind of thing you get from a noted conservative like Erick Erickson: If press reports are to be believed, now at the age of sixty-five, Bruce Jenner has decided he is a she. And if you think this is insane, you are a hateful bigot interfering with someone’s life journey. As Americans we are supposed to applaud this.

    Guess what — most liberals DO applaud Bruce Jenner, regardless of his political party. I’ll even go one step further and say that I’m GLAD he’s a Republican. Conservatives having to twist their views in support of Jenner can only help to normalize the acceptance of people with gender issues.

    1. In my anecdotal experience, conservatives have never had much of a problem with ‘people with gender issues’. A friend’s relative lived most of his life in a small English village, pretty much the epitome of English conservatism, and he spent most of his time wearing a dress. As far as I could tell, he was just considered one of the local eccentrics, and no-one much cared.

      In my experience, it’s the ‘open-minded’ liberals who freak out when they meet a three hundred pound black guy wearing makeup and a dress, because they’ve lived their entire lives in a straight white bubble where everyone thinks and acts the same as them. Similarly, the ‘liberal’ women were the ones who freaked out at a company I used to work for, when one of the guys had sex change.

      ‘Liberals’ seem to love ‘people with gender issues’, so long as they don’t actually have to have anything to do with them.

      1. “Liberals’ seem to love ‘people with gender issues’, so long as they don’t actually have to have anything to do with them.”

        In much the same way they pour money and control into public schools so long as their kids have nothing to do with them….

        impose massive iron-fisted control of health insurance even though they can pay for their care and get the very best…….

        Or demand higher taxes for which they’ve already arranged a loophole for themselves.

        If liberals ever had to actually *live* the policies they scream for they’d wet their pants

    3. “While I might suspect that Jenner’s political views suggest that he doesn’t know where his own best interests lie, ….”

      Oh that’s rich. Yes typical liberal codswallop:

      Jenner is too stupid to know who/what serves his best interests.

      And of course since you say that, the inplication is that you *obviously* know better than Jenner where Jenner’s best interests lie. He doesn’t agree with you, so he must be the stupid one.

      Geez could you possibly be more full of yourself?

      2. Voting in one’s best interests is a problem with Democrats but it is their source of power. They get votes by appealing on what they can do for you rather than what is best for the country. This is also how they pit one group against another.

      3. Jenner is too stupid to know who/what serves his best interests.

        Typical of Dave. I’m sure as usual, he’ll leave that brain fart sitting here in the comment thread and never come back to defend it. Dave’s a coward.

        1. Typical of Dave. I’m sure as usual, he’ll leave that brain fart sitting here in the comment thread and never come back to defend it.

          I’ll defend Jenner’s right to believe and support whatever party or religion he wants. It doesn’t matter to me, and whatever the paranoid fantasies of so many of you here, I have no less respect for Jenner for his political views, nor do I wish to ‘control’ his viewpoints, or anything else. I wish him well on his journey.

          I will say that he will have to recognize that there are conservative interests that are actively working against his interests, e.g., a conservative group in California attempting to introduce legislation (through our rather screwed up proposition system) that would stop him from using a women’s bathroom, should he wish to do this as a transgendered person. I don’t know what his plans are, but if that’s something he wants to consider (given that he hasn’t said he *wouldn’t* go through full sexual reassignment), I would suggest to him in a friendly manner that he should perhaps consider what’s in his best interests. He probably has other reasons he wants to be a conservative, or a Christian. Good on him.

          Hopefully this isn’t too ‘cowardly’ for you. Just trying to have a civil conversation…

          1. I will say that he will have to recognize that there are conservative interests that are actively working against his interests

            Says you, although at least you gave one example. Perhaps his interest is to have water available when he goes to the restroom even in his own home. There are decades of progressive interest working against reasonable water management efforts in California. Restrooms without running water is a bit more critical in the health of all people.

            As for your example, religious groups in Houston are also trying to stop the lesbian mayor’s office from allowing anyone to use any restroom they choose. While various homosexual and transgender organizations applaud the mayor; many see very practical concerns for opening restrooms to all genders. Particularly, engineers design restrooms for sexes not genders. There is also the basic problem of the mayor imposing a new law without voter input and also attempting to deny voters a petition, their day in court, and first amendment protections. Most people are divided on the methods the Mayor used rather than the actual ordinance.

            Everyday in Houston, you will see parents taking there opposite gender/sex child into a restroom to help with potty training, and no one ever complains. As for transgenders, if they look the part, no one tends to notice or complain either. Most of the arguments for laws are as trumped up as Jenner’s socialite family. Here’s a question, how about instead of a city ordinance or state law that allows anyone to use any bathroom; why not a change in construction codes to allow engineers to build one large restroom for all? In short, why not change the existing laws on the books rather than impose new laws?

            As for a civil conversation, apparently we found a topic you are interested in. Up until now, you simply trolled the comment threads with false allegations of intolerance. Nothing different in this thread, but at least you are not running away this time. Maybe you’ll learn something this time about other ideas you seem to oppose and hate.

          2. “that would stop him from using a women’s bathroom”

            Gender neutral bathrooms solve this problem. Some people prefer privacy from even their own gender when dropping dookies. More smaller bathrooms are the answer.

      4. And of course since you say that, the inplication is that you *obviously* know better than Jenner where Jenner’s best interests lie.

        Nothing of the sort. When we all go to the voting booth, we are attempting to say what is good for the country and, by extension, what’s good for others. I’m only suggesting that he should vote for people who might actually enact policies that don’t contradict a particular special interest group to which he clearly belongs. But if he wants to support other people, for other reasons, then I guess he has different priorities. Good for him.

    4. “Conservatives having to twist their views in support of Jenner can only help to normalize the acceptance of people with gender issues.”

      The best thing to happen to gender issues was when gay activists stopped putting 5 dudes in assless chaps on a street corner drinking beers and giving each other bjs and handies as their PR face. Not that this doesn’t still happen but it is no longer the face of activism. Being gay doesn’t mean you have to act this way.

      A man loving another man or a woman loving another woman does not mean you have to reject all of civilization. This is why there are gay Republicans.

      I am glad there are some in the activist community who wanted to portray gays as being normal people. It would have been better if people who pointed this out years ago were not demonized as bigoted homophones or whatever insults they liked to use. But then again building a harmonious community is not what most of Democrat activists are trying to accomplish.

      “While I might suspect that Jenner’s political views suggest that he doesn’t know where his own best interests lie,”

      Maybe they do lie with the Republicans. Perhaps this will lead Democrats to realize that not all ideological differences are based in hatred for a group of people. I know, wishful thinking.

      1. The best thing to happen to gender issues was when gay activists stopped putting 5 dudes in assless chaps on a street corner drinking beers and giving each other bjs and handies as their PR face.

        For 15 years I lived mere blocks from the heart of Castro in SF. I saw a lot of spectacles that were pretty amusing but nothing like this. This is pure fantasy on your part.

          1. Al, I’m glad you found some obscure links to photos of people doing weird things. Is that the ‘PR face’ of ‘gender issue gay activists’ that Wodun mentions? I could find similar materials for any demographic you choose to spotlight.

          2. Also, let me say that I don’t judge you for spending your time browsing those obscure websites. If it works for you, I’m here to support, not to judge.

          3. Interesting that Dave is pro-gay but still attacks people’s gender and sexuality. I guess its different when you do it?

        2. Ya, I didn’t fantasize that. Not my cup of tea personally but different strokes for different folks as they say.

          This isn’t just my opinion, many prominent gay activists have it as well. It was a deliberate strategy to normalize gays through their appearance in media rather than showing everyone what goes on at a Pride parade.

    5. But Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are fine with gay and transgendered people, while Hillary is famous for saying “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

    6. he doesn’t know where his own best interests lie, [blah] blah], and support his freedom to do so.

      He’s free to select a gender, but selecting how to vote, no, that’s a step too far.
      Priceless.

      1. He’s free to select a gender, but selecting how to vote, no, that’s a step too far.

        I don’t care what he wants to do with his vote. I recognize that most people aren’t ‘single-issue’ voters. I’m not one, nor do I expect others to be.

        1. “I don’t care what he wants to do with his vote.”

          Obviously you do care since it was you who brought up his vote and how it’s against his interests.

  4. “While I might suspect that Jenner’s political views suggest that he doesn’t know where his own best interests lie, ….”

    Because, you know, everybody’s best interest lies in less liberty and more statism. If only Jenner would learn to love Big Brother the way Dave does!

    1. Somehow everybody’s best interest seems to be losing their job and going on welfare and foodstamps. By would Bruce not want to do that? Maybe because he’s transgendered, not retarded.

  5. I don’t get why this Jenner things is such a big deal on either the right or left?

    I’m seriously asking, what’s the big deal? Why, exactly, does either side give a damn? The objective reality here is that we’re making a big deal about a guy who was long-ago a famous athlete. I don’t care if he’s coming out as transgendered, republican, serial killer, or a botanist, my reaction is, why the hell do people give a damn? The guy was famous many, many decades ago, so how, exactly is what he does or says any more relevant or worth paying attention to that if some random garbage man or supermarket clerk said or did it?

    Sorry for the rant, but the penchant of current society to pay so much attention to what so-called celebrities think and say about anything beyond their field of expertise has always been incomprehensible to me. Why on earth would I, or anyone, put any more weight or attention on an actor’s opinions about anything other than acting? It’s be like taking medical advice from my mailman. Or in the case of Jenner, he was an athlete long ago. So, he might have something worth listening to to say about swimming or running or biking (I can’t recall what his Olympic event was, it was long before my time) or the Olympics in general, but why does what he has to say on anything else matter?

    1. I don’t get why this Jenner things is such a big deal on either the right or left?

      I think the point of it is Jenner wants it to be a big deal. Of course I could be wrong, but my hypothesis is that he craves attention as the California socialite that he/she is. When I test that hypothesis with Jenner’s career and that of the family/step-daughters; it all seems to fit.

      1. Leland, that’s the part I don’t get. I don’t really blame someone for seeking attention, the thing I don’t understand is why people give them any. Kind of like a screaming, rampaging 4 year old spoiled brat; it’s hard to blame the kid, because in many cases the blame is on the the adults enabling/causing the obnoxious behavior.

        Okay, suppose a garbageman in Podunk, Iowa has some part of his life (doesn’t matter what…. a sex change, a new recipe for making borscht, whatever.) that he wants to make a big deal of in the media and public. Why would the press, or anyone, give a damn? They wouldn’t. So why is it different for a guy who was a famous athlete a heck of a long time ago. Or even if he was a current Olympic athlete, why would anyone be interested in what he has to say outside of that field? Or, for example, Elon Musk; I happen to be interested in what he has to say about things he knows about. But, why would I have any interest, or pay any attention to, say, his opinions on wine?

        Has Jenner been in the news, at all, since his career ended? That was in the 1970s, or even longer ago.

        In a similar, related vein, I’ve never been able to understand the concept of celebrity endorsements either. A famous actor’s opinion on, say, financial services, seems about as useful as that of a random fast food worker’s – and actually, less so, because a paid endorsement of anything makes the person’s opinion on it highly suspect as well as worthless.

  6. @ Rand; FYI There’s something going on with the comment system again.

    Rand, something like the old problem is occurring. My comment appeared here, then vanished, plus I see disparity between the number of comments reported and the number here. (For example, the comments link on the main page says 14, but when I look at it on this page above, it says 9, which is the number of comments I can actually see)

    1. Update; immediately after posting the above, the comments reported , as well as visible to me, both became 15.

  7. I’ll also note that Republicans also claim Mitch McConnell to be their Majority Leader despite his voting with the minority party.

  8. One, Jenner’s political views would be irrelevant in a society where most people still valued free expression-which the Bereft Left does not, and two, one should have great sympathy for people whose psychological makeup is so far out of joint that they feel the need to go through a process as wrenching as gender transformation must be. Another dirty trick played by nature on the Human Race.

  9. In my anecdotal experience, conservatives have never had much of a problem with ‘people with gender issues’.

    The local conservatives, in alliance with African-American churches, have gone absolutely nuts because city council passed an equal rights ordinance here in Houston that includes allowing the transgendered to use the bathrooms that they identify with. The state passed a constitutional amendment that not only bans gay marriage, but prohibits any form of domestic partnership for gays. (And the amendment was so poorly worded that a straight reading of the text bans all forms of marriage, even male/female.)

      2. Why should there be a “gay vote”? Why is one’s sexual orientation a political issue? Perhaps to distract from the real problems this country faces, such as nearly 20 trillion in debt, a massive entitlement problem and high unemployment?

        Yeah, transgender issues much, much more important.

        1. Indeed. California for decades has ignored sensible water management policies to the point they are now considering fines for how long people take showers, but Dave and ech: “Special interest won’t let Jenner use the restroom of his choice!” And then they shame Jenner for having other priorities at election time.

      3. The goal is not to “win the gay vote.” Divisively slicing up the electorate into interest groups is the Left’s game. We’re after the vote of people who care about the Constitution and the rule of law.

    2. Like the abortion issue 2 years ago, I found various news stories and complaints about the text of the bill, but none actually contained the text or provide the number of the bill. I finally found one article that gave the name of a bill sponsor, which helped find the bill. Here is the text of the bill. I find nothing to support ech’s claim that the bill itself prohibits any form of domestic partnership and nothing about hetero-sexual marriages. What the bill seems to do is prevent state officials ignoring a state law that is on the books banning same-sex marriage, and then allowing such state officials that do so and continue to draw a state paycheck.

      Personally, I rather we had a law that banned government from being involved in marriage. But I am also happy to have laws that ban government officials that ignore the law from continuing to get paid by the government. Stuff like this is atrocious for those who value the rule of law.

      1. I wasn’t talking about that bill, but, as I said, a constitutional amendment passed in 2005:
        Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
        (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

      2. What I find interesting in that bill, Leland, is that it was obviously not written by someone who believes in the concept of “Separation of Powers”.

        If so, it wouldn’t include a subparagraph requiring the court system to do anything. To wit,

        “(f) A court of this State shall dismiss a legal action challenging a provision of this section and shall award costs and attorney’s fees to a person or entity named as a defendant in the legal action.”

        In whose mind could such a provision even remotely be allowed to be written into law?

        I haven’t researched it very much (I have plenty of things to be worried about in my own state’s Assembly to keep me busy), but that subparagraph seems to be an invitation to a quick and fiery death for such a bill, or for the careers of anyone who would sign such an unconstitutional law into being. (Unless, of course, the State of Texas’ Constitution is written to allow such things).

  10. Jenner to donate his balls to republican leadership. Shamelessly stolen from curmudgeonly and skeptical.

  11. Mr./Ms. Jenner seems to have at least a basic grasp of the dangers of statism, which would certainly make him smarter than Dave.

Comments are closed.