Perhaps your brand of conservatism — oh I’m sorry, libertarianism — isn’t bigoted, but I’ve heard many a bigoted comment and subsequent expression of desire to enact policy based on that comment.
Politics isn’t everything but for you to think everyone can remove himself or herself from its effects just because you seem to be able to is ridiculous and shows how tone deaf you are. Just because current policy negatively affects certain groups doesn’t mean that policy can’t be changed. It’s not immutable though it seems that you would like it to be.
I’m entirely unsure how anything I said is comparable to “my friend was uncomfortable ordering at a fancy restaurant” a la David Brooks. I never said the people I’m talking about are “simple.” In fact, I think quite the contrary. So they definitely don’t get a free pass for discrimination from me. They can think critically about the implications of their comments, and they absolutely should. Plus, I implicated myself as well as other liberals in this too … in case you didn’t make it to the end of the post.
Also, I’m not sure where you gathered what you think is the crux of my argument. I think you fashioned it to be what you wanted to argue against because I certainly never said anything about inflicting pain on anyone. And if you think that leveling the playing field means inflicting pain then you’re my case in point. If you don’t think the assertion that white Christian men are the most persecuted group in America is outlandish and bigoted, then I really can’t help you and I don’t know why you then insist on reading and commenting on my posts apart from being incendiary. I’m sorry. You aren’t offering a viewpoint I haven’t heard before.
Is government all good? No. But I don’t know what alternative you’re proposing because private enterprise sure as hell won’t be socially responsible unless it’s forced to be.
I enjoyed your presumption and wishful thinking about what my post says though.