You’re correct, I did in fact say “implicit racism.” I meant “implicit bias,” but I misspoke. I apologize. I’ve corrected the original post to reflect my intent.
As to your point, I’ve never seen a black conservative derided as an Uncle Tom. I don’t label people, and again, I don’t recognize the conversations you’re referring to. I regularly watch MSNBC, which has former RNC Chair Michael Steele on all the time, and he’s treated with nothing but the utmost respect. And I think that he’s shown himself to be worthy of that respect. Ben Carson, too — while I think he’s said some questionable things in trying to defend the indefensible orange gentleman, he seems to be all-in-all a stand-up fellow, and I appreciate and respect his deep faith as the source of his conservatism.
So let me be exceedingly clear: I absolutely do not associate with anyone who attacks, harasses, or accuses people baselessly based on their political affiliation.
I do not condone that behavior, or support any of the people you’re referring to who went after Mr. Thiel, or Ms. Fiorina, for whom I have nothing but respect — even if I disagree with their political positions.
Again, this sort of breakdown in discourse is exactly the thing I’m against. I want to have more conversations with Republicans and non-affiliated conservatives, not less.
However, I would argue that the social conservative movement harbors implicit bias. Disputes to same-sex marriage, for example. While same-sex marriage may not be appropriate to certain religious denominations, we have separation of Church and State, and it’s unconstitutional to try to mandate other people’s lives based on religion, is it not? I have yet to see a legitimate policy-based argument for denying, or now reversing same-sex marriage rights.
Of course, I’m not wading into the waters of saying government should be able to meddle in actual Church-associated organizations, such as forcing them to provide contraception or anything of that nature. But it’s undeniable that social conservatism is not uncommon among the Republican base, and those issues are often extremely contentious for liberals.
And I won’t deny there are a fair share of crusaders out there, but again, that’s on both sides. Liberals have certainly been called, “murderers,” “baby-killers,” “perverts,” “libtards,” “Godless,” “faithless,” and worse. I mean, there are conservative outlets that believe liberals are altogether damned and bringing on the Second Coming through sheer moral turpitude.
I don’t know about you, but I am a person of faith, and to be called a “Godless liberal,” to me, hurts just as much as being called “racist.” And as a person of Jewish heritage, I’ve seen an enormous amount of anti-Semitism in this campaign, largely from the right, including an actual Republican campaign advertisement in my community. I believe in Christ (not that that should matter), and it’s extremely painful to me to see the “great Jewish conspiracy theories” about how we’re conspiring with our wealth and media power to destroy Donald Trump. I know one person who freelances for The New York Times, but that’s about it.
And I’d like to also point out that by massively lumping together all liberals into a category, you’re doing the exact same thing you’re complaining about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I felt your entry into this conversation was aggressive, especially considering you now say you agreed with most of my points, and disagreed largely with an issue which turned out to be a mistake of semantics on my part.
When you come into a conversation expecting a fight, you get what you ask for, most times. That’s been my experience, at least. Perhaps rather than expecting all liberals to be quite so stubborn as you describe, it would be better to listen and not pre-judge them, as you wish they would do for you?
Do unto others, as it were.