Does being racist or misogynist automatically make someone a wingnut?

I personally think that it does.

What sets "us" apart from "them" is the fact that we are tolerant of differences in race, gender, religious faith, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and class status. "They" are a movement that cannot stand a black President. "They" are a movement that cannot stand a Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and one that's a woman to boot. "They" are a movement that thinks women are inherently inferior and worked like hell three decades ago to block the Equal Rights Amendment. "They" are a movement that does not believe in seperation of church and state and cannot tolerate anybody who is not Christian, and almost always don't tolerate Christians whose idea of the faith differs from theirs. "They" are the ones that are seemingly proud of the fact they are homophobic and think gays and lesbians should be out-and-out excluded from society. "They" are the ones being goaded into disrupting democracy in action to support a bunch of bloated corporate fat cats whose only gain will be to make enough to afford yet another yacht.

The fact of the matter is, nearly all of the avowed racists and misogynists in this country are social conservatives. Pat Buchanan, members of the Ku Klux Klan and various skinhead groups, the Minutemen and various others are racist; some of them are becoming more open about it. Even more of the afforementioned men and groups are women-haters; and many whom aren't explicitly racist are explicitly misogynist, such as Rush Limbaugh.

If somebody honestly thinks they're better than somebody else just because they have an Anglo-Saxon name and white skin, then that in my book makes them a wingnut. It's an inherently illiberal idea. If somebody honestly thinks that they're better than somebody else just because they're male, that also inherenly makes them a wingnut. Again, such an idea is basically incompatible with anything and everything that progressives believe in.

What do you think?

Perfect is a good goal but to date ain't nobody ever got there.

with such obsession that they appear irrational and unable
to compromise. This does not make them racists. You can be
a compulsive conservative and not be racist.(However, IMO
it would be hard.)

I think being conservative (not open to change) creates
the environment for Racism to occur. The history of our
country illustrates this time after time. This does not
mean all conservatives are racists. This is why you find
more of what some can construe as racism on the right.

... simply because, well, he just IS, that's all?

Is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. Everything must be labeled and pidgeonholed. There are only two choices, if you are not with us you are against us. It is this intolerance of gray areas that is at the heart of every knee-jerk reaction and callous attitude they display.

There is no such thing as a person without prejudice. The problem arises when those prejudices are coupled with the certainty of being right and the ability to rationalize even the most evil thing as virtue. Not allowing ambiguity to color ones opinions is key to such behavior.

Try speaking out against someone calling Ann Coulter a sexist slur of some sort. There are only two choices - either you hate her AND support using sexist slurs against her, or you are a freeper and love her and that's why you are "defending" her.

People on the left aren't so great at the grey areas, I've found. I believe that's getting worse.

Right vs Left is a game most of us play throwing abuse and insults at our favorite targets. Many of us share an extreme dislike of Coulter and it can take forms that could be called sexist. The question is does that mean the tasteless critic in question hates all outspoken women or just her. I think the question of racism or sexism would mean a rationalized self-righteous hatred of a group rather than an individual.

How's that for an ambiguous answer?

Unacceptable. :)

Remember when the kramer guy called his heckler the n word? That wasn't JUST an expression of anger toward one individual, and we all understood that. It was how he felt deep down about black people - when they don't "act right."

That's kind of my point - that republicans will say "I hate black people." Progressives often hide or deny it, and then it seeps out the cracks in ways like "He's a n*****. I'm not racist - I don't think most black people are n****** - just the ones who act like it." When we call women we dislike sexist slurs and excuse it because we don't think ALL women act like that, it's the same dynamics. It still reinforces that THIS is how women are - except for the ones who rise above it. It still reinforces and confirms negative stereotypes about women in general.

I think Lakoff had it right.

Conservatism likes Hierarchies, a natural order to things and society.

So placing people above or below others based on race or gender falls right into that.

Liberalism tends to place a priority on Empathy.

Being an empathetic racist takes a lot of compartmentalization.

Not say it can't be done but it's hard, especially with groups one knows members of.

Not all conservatives are bigots nor are Liberals without prejudices.

But in my experience conservatism as an ideology is much more tolerant of intolerance and there's a reason for that.

"What sets "us" apart from "them" is the fact that we are tolerant of differences in race, gender, religious faith, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and class status."

It's in many cases that we "claim" to be tolerant of those things. Which is different than actually appreciating those things. I don't know what it says about us that we "tolerate" people who are gay.

There are people on this board who are angry at other DUers for making racist comments, people here who are angry at other DUers for continually making sexist comments, people here who are angry at other DUers for bashing Muslims, or Christians. There are people here who have expressed open bigotry toward people from other countries, making it explicitly clear they value American lives more than foreign lives. People here are regularly disparaging of gays, and few dems in congress are strong champions for gay equality. We own both houses and the executive branch, but I bet we STILL won't see the ERA pass during this administration. Hope I'm wrong, I bet I'm right.

What sets us apart is that we have a much more tortured set of excuses and justifications for why we believe, for example, that women are equal ... but when a woman steps out of line we're still quick to reduce her to the vulgarist insults that are reserved specifically for women who aren't serving men sexually in the right way - we justify it and defend it, and accuse those who speak out against it as being freepers.

Or we look at something which is obviously a racially motivated case of police injustice, and explain that "we're not racist" - we're just saying that the guy was asking for it by not being gracious enough while being racially profiled.

Or we explain that gay people deserve all the same rights as everyone else ... but maybe not marriage because that bothers the religious people, and maybe there was no time in the last few decades (or the next) that would be good for them to demand rights.

What sets us apart is sometimes that the republicans defiantly wanted war and voted for it, but our consciences are clean because we spoke out against it before voting for it.

We have better ideals, we just don't believe it's politically expedient to fight for them.

+100,000

May I have an OP, please....? ;->

I feel funny reposting it, but anything in there you want to massage around, or quote and add to, consider it yours.

I guess we're at a standoff...! I sure think it deserves to be an OP, though!

I've known misogynist liberals and homosexuals. I've know lesbians who hated men, etc. etc.

Hate is not limited by political affiliation.

At the both ends of the spectrum you get people who just don't want to hear that they're wrong... who, in the face of all evidence and argument, will never, ever change their opinion. To me, that's a wing-nut.

I know some democrats and even liberals who are openly homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. but if called on it will apologize and try not to do it again.

A wingnut will argue back that whatever he/she said or did was not offensive, no sirree, and that it's really your problem for being over-sensitive.

they usually require a wrench to tighten or loosen.

There are infinite gradations of both and I think almost everyone has some degree of bias (quite possibly unconscious) in those areas (I would include misandry also, just so as not to be picking sides :) ).

If one is an extreme racist or an extreme misogynist then yes, it's highly likely that one at least leans toward wingnuttia..

Edited to add a word I out..

...one way or the other; class, race, sex, weight, neighborhood, name brands, consumerism, you name it.

I'm not suggesting this as a way of diminishing the OP's view, or using the classic conservative approach of trivializing what social sciences can reveal ...hell, given the warped corporate consumer culture we exist within, we're all likely a bit more touched, or, impacted/guided by agenda driven factors within our social environment than what we admit or realize.

But no, I don't associate the typical degrees of sexism/racism one routinely encounters in society as necessarily indicative of such persons likely manifesting homicidal tendencies. Why? I've known and/or known of far too many sexists/racists who are no more prone to violence than anyone else.

There are plenty of racists, misogynists, misandrists and all-around misanthropes in both parties.

to bar Afro-American people access to public education.

This past January Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States.

Bigotry exists across generations, but it is nobly engaged and countered by inclusive public service initiatives at all levels of life, from near-anonymous community organizing in say, metropolitan Chicago, all the way up to an Afro-American candidate winning the Iowa caucus.

That anyone may serve then becomes grafted onto the expectations of the culture generally and young people especially. We are by no means a perfect society but to invoke one of Dr. King's touchstone quotations:

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

...just an asshole.

Plenty of those on both sides of any debate

was confirmed by the Senate.

The nasty talk aimed at her by Limbaugh and Hannity and Jeff Sessions and others bore false witness and betrayed process and substance, as Judge Sotomayor carries comprehensive experience in her field and was at the onset a completely qualified nominee.

If somebody honestly thinks they're better than somebody else just because they have an Anglo-Saxon name and white skin, then that in my book makes them a wingnut.


My question, then, is.... would a person thinking he is better than somebody else based on political opinions make him a wingnut?

What about the scads of people here at DU who think they're better than Freepers because of political opinions?


Don't get me wrong...I'm not sticking up for the Freeps. I'm as much at fault for thinking they're stupid fuckwads as anyone else, but I am rather disgruntled over how quickly people like to label others as "racist" or "homophobic".

One recent case that comes to mind is the woman who called the police on Professor Gates. How many here jumped to conclusions and called her a "racist", then had to retract the statement once they found out that she never actually said what color the "suspects" were until pressed by the police.


There just seems to be way too much finger-pointing going on around here lately. Not every unfortunate statement is "racist". I would suspect that most people who hurl that accusation at others don't even know what the hell the word means...

Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that we are the "good guys" and they are the "bad guys". There's good and bad on both sides.