My first LJ poll, prompted by criticism from an LJ/Facebook friend

[thatcrazycajun]

[Poll #1385036]

Comments

[anaisdjuna.livejournal.com]

You're missing something to express some type of feminist analysis and something that includes radical. (commie is too specific).

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I tried to be as inclusive as I could without ending up with a 25-item list. Sounds to me like what you're thinking of is either covered under "Leftist" or "Other."

[anaisdjuna.livejournal.com]

Women are over 50% of the population. We are not Other. Feminist analysis has it's own very particular set of variables which are the intersections of Gender, Race and Class that just aren't present in the mainstream & patriarchy based choices you list. I can see not having 25 items that's why I didn't ask why you didn't have Eco-feminist or Marxist Feminist or...

but not having Feminist Analysis as a political category leaves a big hole and excludes what has become one of the primary schools of thought and analysis in sociology departments across the world.

Maybe radical might work under Leftist or Other.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

It's true women make up over 50 percent of the population, but it's also true many women self-identify as "liberal" rather than exclusively "feminist," and some in fact actively run from the F-word due to the negative connotations it has acquired over the decades and/or what some consider (radical) feminism's excesses (Brownmiller, Dworkin and MacKinnon and their rants leap to mind). I have always considered myself at least something of a feminist, though hardly a radical one, and I take a back seat to no-damned-body in my passion for seeing the mistreatment and inequities women suffer in patriarchal society redressed and prevented from happening again.

I see feminism as part of a continuum on the left/liberal end of the political spectrum, same as environmentalism and LGBTQ equality. If you think this is a mistake on my part, I'm willing to at least try to be convinced.

[mshollie.livejournal.com]

You're on Facebook? Let me add you as a friend over there. :)

[mscongeniality.livejournal.com]

I don't much like to discuss politics so I'll generally keep to myself or skip politically oriented posts. We haven't interacted much on politics so I actually left what were probably the more important questions blank.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

When I do the World's Smallest Political Quiz, I usually end up "up" and slightly left. I consider myself a lowercase-l libertarian, and generally agree a lot with ol' TJ there. You're generally pretty fair with me, though we don't always agree...

Something I do see occasionally (I don't remember if I've seen it here, or someplace else; I'm just sayin' for the record) is a complete and utter contempt for the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world. I gotta disagree with that. As runnerwolf would say, I don't wish'em harm, only sense.

That said, there *are* people like Condi Rice and Karl Rove... and Charles Schumer... who have a complete and utter contempt for my freedom. *That* contempt is returned.... with a whiff of grapeshot.

[gorgeousgary]

Given that Coulter, at least from her book titles, appears to believe I am a traitor to my country and not worth talking too, I feel no remorse in despising her. Even if it's just an act to make sure she winds up on the NYT bestseller list--well, there are enough wackos out there who believe and act on that kind of stuff.

Limbaugh I'm more willing perhaps to simply roll my eyes and/or sigh.

[terriwells.livejournal.com]

I consider myself a lower case l libertarian, and I really object to your characterization of them as "Randist." Ayn Rand herself, if I remember correctly, never cared for the Libertarians (quite the opposite), despite the fact that they tried to model their politics on her philosophy.

That said, I'm also NOT a Randist.

Strange as this sounds, I probably would have objected less to this classification if you hadn't tried to "clarify" it.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I apologize if I am unfairly characterizing Randists and/or Libertarians; my admittedly limited exposure to the details of the groups' respective platforms had led me to the belief that "Randist" could be used at least somewhat interchangeably with "Libertarian," at least on certain issues.

I am...

[maverick-weirdo.livejournal.com]

a moderate,
in Massachusetts

Which makes me a tree-hugging, hippie, liberal anywhere else in the country.

However, I am opposed to hating people. So while I may strongly disagree with the Republican Party, I don't hate any Republicans. (As a matter of fact some of my best friends are republicans.)

"You're either with us or against us" is a Bushism I don't agree with.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I consider myself a liberal-flavored libertarian. That is, I mostly focus on the damage the government does rather than angsting about how it might be giving too much help to poor people.

I didn't answer the questions about my reactions to your posts because I think they're usually hostile to something like my beliefs, but I'm not absolutely certain of what I remember.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

possibly skewed because i tend to notice people's views more when they agree with mine.

[(Anonymous)]

What Terri said, about Libertarian and Randist: they're not at all the same. Randists are a subset of libertarians, and despise (some or all, depending on the sort of Randist they are) non-Randist libertarians.

There's also a category confusion in "me and my political views". I find you friendly to me in person, but utterly intolerant of anyone who holds my views, a category that includes me. I also find the arguments you make against those views dishonest and illogical, and I find you unwilling to confront rebuttals of those arguments squarely, or to take them seriously.

In general I perceive in you a tendency not to accept that your opponents really believe what they say they do, and have good reasons for so believing; instead, you take it for granted that their claimed beliefs are mere pretexts, that their arguments are made in bad faith, that they could just as easily believe otherwise if it were more convenient for them, or if they were better people. I find that dismissive attitude hurtful.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

This is precisely the sort of thing I put this poll up to hear. I recognize that I am prone to antagonism toward views in opposition to mine, but I do realize that at least some of those who oppose my positions do so out of sincerely held principle and not necessarily from mendacity. There are those among conservatives, however, whom I do suspect of using people with real principled belief to further their hidden agendas, if only because their stated views and defenses thereof make no sense otherwise in the face of readily available known facts.

I take exception to your accusation of dishonesty and illogic; I'll cop to occasional ignorance of the entire scope of facts, or over-emotionalism in defense of my views...but outright lying? I come from a culture that values truth and honesty in dealing above all else, and my parents were most stringent in instilling and enforcing that. I have never knowingly posted anything here that was not actually true, and if informed with proof that it was in fact untrue I have always responded with apologies and retraction. As for illogic, your logical process may differ from mine, and I'm sincerely interested in knowing how; but I'd like to think I at least have enough intelligence to present a logical argument most of the time.

And one more thing: I can appreciate you may fear my knowing your identity because you think I'd start treating you poorly in person or here...but I give you my solemn word that I will do my best not to, and to try harder to avoid making you feel disrespected. And it's a whole lot easier to respect opponents who have enough courage of their convictions not to hide behind anonymous posting. If you'd rather e-mail me privately to continue this, that's perfectly all right.

[ericavdg.livejournal.com]

FYI, I'm the lone conservative. I tend not to discuss politics much, largely because I hate conflict. I'm pro Bill of Rights, pro gun registration and some regulation, pro choice, feminist, and anti government growth and interference in my life. And I'm against tax hikes for the rich, because Karl has earned our money the old-fashioned way: by working his butt off, and I don't think it's fair to penalize people for hard work. We're in the top tax bracket and I think we're paying more than our fair share.

Karl has also frequently created jobs in the course of his work, and his reward is usually onerous dealings with (often incompetent) state and federal governments and frequently behind-his-back sniping from current and former employees who didn't think they got paid enough, didn't like his management style, or thought they were unfairly dismissed (and knowing the Top Sekrit back stories, there are a lot of people who he should have fired a lot sooner or never hired at all). So I am sympathetic to many business interests that many liberals are not.

Although I often don't agree with you, I defend your right to your opinion and your right to express it. And I believe we can be friends without agreeing on everything in the world. Just be sure to give me a fair hearing if I do decide to chime in!

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>FYI, I'm the lone conservative...<

>>I'm pro Bill of Rights, pro gun registration and some regulation, pro choice, feminist...<

Explain this contradiction, please. Unless you have a different definition of "conservative" than those currently in charge of that movement now enforce, those positions make you at best right of center, if not outright liberal. (Or were you a purged "Rockefeller Republican"? :-) )

I really do try to give everyone who posts here a fair hearing, and in your case I am far more motivated to do so than with some others because we have what appears to me a very good and cordial relationship. I too would like to think we can indeed be friends without agreeing on absolutely everything.

[ericavdg.livejournal.com]

I guess it's the No More Taxes and Preferably Fewer attitude I have and my feelings that "entitlements" have gotten way out of hand that make me identify as a conservative. But I don't identify with the current far-right Christian-heavy conservatism. I certainly don't identify with the liberal "entitlements" philosophy and for heaven's sake, reparations for slavery? It's been almost 150 tears! (Full disclosure: my mother's mother received reparations from Germany until after she died--ask me about it sometime--for her losses at the hands of the Nazis. And my mother occasionally received reparations, too, one of which bought us our first color TV.)

So I don't know what to call myself. Idependent?

[terriwells.livejournal.com]

FYI, I'm the lone conservative. I tend not to discuss politics much, largely because I hate conflict. I'm pro Bill of Rights, pro gun registration and some regulation, pro choice, feminist, and anti government growth and interference in my life.

Heh, by those standards, *I* fall under the heading of conservative.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

On some things I'm a liberal; on others, conservative; on others a non-Randist libertarian. When we disagree, TCC, we still get along. We disagree at times, but "ya gotta have friends......" Quite a few SF fans are accepting of other political viewpoints. I've not met a whole lot who aren't. Yes, we disagree, but we are still entitled to our own opinions. And as far as you treating me with regards to my political view, "that's what friends are for......"

Now, ain't it amazing that I invoked both the Divine One and the 14-lettered one?