"Oh yea, well you're mean! You have no right to treat me this way!"

I know non-conservatives seek out articles that go against their beliefs and concepts. That is a good thing. What's not a good thing are non-conservatives acting like children. (And from what I gather they don't actually spend the time to read what is written, but that also goes with conservatives who tend to read the headline and comment.) Wait, that would be considered an ad-hom that would render whatever points I have meaningless. Look, I'll throw all the ad-homs I want if I see fit. 

On an article commenting on academia bias of the left persuasion, found here, there's at least one person who sticks out like a sore thumb. And not in a good way.

So if you were all those things - compassionate, understanding, for "equality" and liberty - you'd lean left unlike the mean, out-of-touch, bigoted and controlling non-liberals, right?


There's a few more comments made by this guy on the article. It's cute that he's trying to show us meanies that we're, well, mean (and intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, limited in thinking etc.), it's safe to say the guy's a raging idiot. That's me being "mean." Oh well.

It's mightily interesting to observe people saying you're "far right" if you don't support abortion, gay "marriage," if you express any inkling that the model of healthy relationship in a sexual/romantic/intimate manner is embodied between one man and one woman, or support voter ID laws. Add in the belief of the 2nd Amendment granting its citizens to bear arms and you're assumed a redneck with only two front teeth living in the swamps (true story).

Taylor Marshall's analysis of Hozier's "Take Me to Church"

I've commented on Hozier's "Take Me to Church" here. I also found another site that had an analysis of the song - it's pretty decent.

As always, I skimmed through the combox quickly - it seems when Taylor Marshall makes posts about pop culture it's quite the hit with the fans of the given subject matter - and found this 'gem' of a conversation:

What cards were pulled? The "judgmental" card. The "you say are a Christian yet you're mean" card." The "your aren't perfect so don't judge" card. And the insecurities of poster "martinmus" -- "YOU AREN'T ANY BETTER THAN THE GAY MAN OR THE ARTIST! HOW DARE YOU!" HOW DARE YOU!"

Let's move to poster "Gen." Oh boy. Strawman after strawman. How on earth do you respond to such a comment? You don't.

Interstellar was Awesome

SPOILERS

But there's one tiny thing that is bothersome to a group of people. Apparently the flag of the U.S.A. being stationed on planets is considered "tribalism" - which alludes to an archaic mindset (my gosh, why can't we just be One World!?) - and that it was a bit too much of "Rah Rah Americuuuh!"

The objection is birthed because the earth, being met with a devastating fate, would forgo their "us vs. them" and adopt the "work together" mindset, dropping the provincialism.

As much as I liked Interstellar there's one thing, amongst a handful, playing off this "One World" line, that I had an issue with is the "no war" part. Besides the dysfunctional family relationships showed, there was little conflict outside the communities, everyone, more or less, got along.

So a point for the common sense for planting the American flag on the planets because the astronauts were from NASA, but a minus a point for the somewhat peaceful human existence on earth -- no wars, no riots, no "let's fuck this shit up" mentality. 

Minus a million points for the people who think it's irritating that NASA decides to put an American flag on a potential habitual planet, let alone dress the NASA office with, ya know, "American" stuff like the country's flag in the background. The horror. The madness.

Modernity & art. And an atheist & ex-Republican named Mike.

Rated PG-13 for crude language.

In one of Roger Kimaball's articles he mentions George Orwell commenting on artists (his thoughts were written in the 1940s according to Kimaball) -

I think they still hold today.

I'll just concentrate on the "Just pronounce the magic world 'Art,' and everything is O.K. Over on Breitbart.com this enthralling (I'm being facetious) exchange of words took place a few days ago -

Poster GreenLantern has many good (and true) points. If one is remotely familiar with how producing a movie works, Mr. Lantern isn't typing away just to type away. Mike's "It's called art," is a good example of vacuous emotive bullshit.

How come Mike's appeal to "art" sounds so much like every other modern day appeal to the arts? It's like 100 years from now books (maybe turned into e-books) will be non-existent or museums holding exhibitions will be gone in Mike's mind.

It's not like I'm a anti-art (if you knew about my interests you'd think "Da f-ck? How are you a traditionalist?") or think black & white films are boring, or think "real" films (the ones that show up at Cannes, Sundance, TIFF, Venice etc.) are a waste of time.

But Mike wasn't done.

and

and

and

According to his posts, supposedly Mike was a Marine AND a Republican back in the day. How convenient. I guess that makes his comments even more "legit."

Now I'm aware that there are atheists who serve in our military, so I'm not ignorant of such a demographic being present in a branch that might otherwise seem full of Christians - whatever sect. I never served in the military (though I wish I had) so I don't know if the all the "You're going to hell" talk is present to any atheist who broadcasts his thoughts on religion; I don't know what is talked about in the barracks. Now was the man a Republican? I am not sure if that is true. The thing that seems true is that he's an atheist (Gnu), a non-believer.

 I don't have anything personal against atheists -- I'm just highlighting what clearly shows an atheist going out of his way (starting an off-topic post) to be an an out right ass on an article that has nothing to with religion, let alone Christianity. It would be like me going on a HuffPo article about educational protests in Colorado, posting how people who think abortion is a "right" are evil sons-of-a-bitches. I don't believe such a thing nor would I do such a thing, let alone troll such a website.

I take the "ex-Republican" with a grain of salt because of this comment -

Mike also has some race issue (not that race issue) -

I don't know how old Mike is, but I figure most of his military superiors were white during the time of his service.

The man goes on, in other posts, talking about how the Indians (Native Americans) got screwed over with their land, how tough it is to be a black person (I think Mike is white, at least that's what he wrote before) and that America only protects white males. Then is another post he voices how America is a hypocritical country saying - I dunno, can't really remember - that the country will only live up to its true potential by adopting some egalitarian mindset. This is coming from a person who said he served in the Marines, served as a cop for 20+ yrs and was Republican at some point in his life.

Mike, you could've had me fooled for something else.

Here's something that I've noticed amongst lefties -

They [lefties], when the timing is right, tend to say something along the same lines -- that the world is tired of conservatives supposed close mindedness, its bigotry and hatred, its "baggage" causing progress in society to halt or retard etc. That they [conservatives] are that type of person that no one wants to talk to at a party because of supposedly antiquated views of [insert political issue or social topic].

In other words its the "no one likes you" school yard card. It's pure intimidation used to make the receiver into take an (unfair) guilt trip.

"My gosh, we are mean and backwards, and everything the media and trolls (like Mike) say we are. We are so sorry. Please forgive us."

Kinda like how race baiters want America, somehow - don't know how, to pay for its own "original sin" -- slavery. And whatever racism, sexism, gender-injustice, oil seeking injustice that exists America has got to pay for it. I don't know how, but somehow the country has to set things "right."

If the world can't stand you, then I guess the world is right, right? If foreign media portrays conservatives and the GOP as some wacko right-wing fanatic group then it's true, right?

(I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an independent voter, though back in the day I considered myself a Democrat. I am fully aware that Mike's supposed past history is symmetric to mine, but I know I'm telling the truth about my past. As for Mike ... I don't know.)

I'll say this: Someone who is a traditionalist is very bizarre to most of the (Western) world, especially Europe. An American libertarian is, as I learned, quite a rare bird in world politics. I'll break this oddness rareness down.

From the PBS site, as the late Ronald Reagan said -

January 11, 1989 -- farewell address to the nation

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." 

• America is seen as the last shining light to the world. I agree. If America tanks the world is screwed.
• American politics is seen as more conservative, as a whole, when compared to Western Europe. Go ask comedian/actor Russell Brand. The 2nd amendment about guns? The Brits think we're nuts.
• Social conservatives are seen as *weird mother fuckers to most of the world. What, no Two Girls One Cup? (No link, you sick bastard.) Why you be hatin'? They ain't hurtin' anyone.
• Middle America is more (socially) conservative than, say, Western Europe & the coasts. It's a place seen filled with weird mother fuckers.
• "The rest of the world can't stand you." The you refers to conservatives (with all the compliments that Mike attributed).
• An American conservative is rare bird in the world.

Snuff that light out. Mike would like that. In fact, Mike admits that the country's potential is in some egalitarian Utopia. A "new" light is made because the "old" light just doesn't cut it, but the details are quite vague. Just don't demand a detailed answer from Mike.

And here's another thing I've noticed: There are far more leftie trolls on conservative sites than conservative trolls on non-conservative sites. Actually, I can't really recall a conservative acting like a troll on sites dominated by the liberal view. I wish I did, I wished I experienced something like Mike, but a conservative one, because then I can say "well this one time a self-proclaimed conservative on Jezebel .... "

What I can say is that posters like Mike, are often times condescending. Wait, that should be Condescending. Bold. Capitalized. Bitter as well - oh the bitterness. It's like they're confessing their deepest angst and the posters reading should be saint like in receiving the slanders and jabs, thought the patience shown by some posters is more than impressive.

Then this long rant (the article was about a law supporting building rooms specifically for beast feeding in airports - apparently some of the posters didn't like the idea, so Mike had his say) -

So what we have here is a Marine turned cop, for 20 years, who is an ex-Republican, yet he talks like a modern day Kool-Aid drinking leftie. Seriously, how on earth did he survive his 4 years in the Marines let alone become a cop all the while thinking and believing the things he does?

A part of me wants to believe his what he types, the other just wants to call BS. I did come across a person, claiming that they were an urban Republican that worked in politics, that came across as some conservative poser. When I asked him about his tone (it was clear he didn't like the NASCAR type of people or those in small towns, basically most of America), he proclaimed that didn't like middle American and the South because of the "twang" accents ("If that makes me elitist, then so be it," he said), and that while watching the news overseas that such people were an embarrassment when interviewed.

Rubes aren't liked by the "sophisticated" urban Republican nor the Marine turned cop/ex-Republican who now holds right wing America in immense contempt.

I did have the idiocy to respond to some of his posts, so I'll see how our own discussion goes if he replies back. And I'm an ex-(modern) liberal, otherwise known as a leftie ...

* I don't think middle American is filled with weird mother fuckers due to it being socially conservative.

Combox #5: Youtube

James Franco is in a movie called Palo Alto. In it he plays a high school teacher who enters in a personal relationship with a student played by Emma Roberts. Within the trailer combox I found this little gem:

Why don't we add in legalizing marijuana by fiat as well (even though one of the latest mass shootings happened in SoCal where the drug is counted as "medical" marijuana) cause, ya know, if only the shooter could just relax and be all chill and enjoy the moment. 

What poster HipDubHopStep indirectly expresses is nothing but assumptions and wild generalizations (that when compared to Europe, America is less responsible) driven, I guess, by what he sees and hears through the media. Since there isn't news of shootings in Europe, the alcohol & sex attitudes must be the reason why; that American are too "hung up" and too prude, hence the shootings.

Such mass shootings can't possibly be due to peer alienation, mental disorders or poor ethnic & home culture that aids into one picking up a gun and doing the nasty. Oh no. It's the higher age of legal adults (18 in the States, so just another two-three year difference when compared to certain European countries) and the higher drinking age restriction (by just three years) that causes inner city crime and school shootings.

And this (same thread of discussion) -

Just gotta hump that tight little buttocks. That belongs to a 16 year old.

Wait, didn't professional gymnast McKayla Maroney say her nude selfies (fake? not fake?) were taken while she was underage? If only the age of legal consent was 16, the hacker would be out of the clear.  

I don't know where these posters are from. They could be American; they could be not. Whatever nationality they are they are dumb as rocks and admit to having little to no morals (yea, I know, "Shut the f_ck up you moralist!"), falling nicely into the amoral camp.

A non-conservative State of Mind - Combox #3

So the modern liberal tend to flock to urban settings:

Tier 1
Los Angeles (well, more like a giant suburb)
New York City (Manhattan and select parts of Brooklyn)
San Franscisco

These usually are the three main cities that the self-loathing small town resident moves to once college is over, or once they graduate from high school to pursue a career in the arts - performing or otherwise. Always the arts as well - must be something to do with the mentality that pervades such an industry.

Tier 2
Portland
Seattle
Chicago

These are also cities that may be on the list. These are mostly seen as back ups.  In my experience, those reside in Chicago tend to move to NYC if they are given a chance - not due to better pay but for the "It's NYC!" Chicago is mostly seen as a stepping stone type of city the creative type or the aspiring stock broker.

Tier 3
New Orleans
Nashville
Austin 

These three cities are becoming known to the hipsters, the "cool kids," the "open minded and progressive" types.

The reason I bring this up is because, as I do when I visit any site, I read, if not skim, the combox. In this particular case I've been reading articles on the Midwest and there is at least one, almost a staple on such articles, self-loathing Midwesterner or someone who wants a more "progressive city." This is why I listed the cities to what they are perceived in the eyes of the "non-conservative"  who is looking for greener pastures.

If you haven't already, city-data.com is a fantastic site; it's akin to wikipedia, but for metros and cities instead of being an online encyclopedia of anything and everything. It's a niche site. The forums of city-data offer a unique perspective on urban living from those who are very much familiar with a given city or metro.

Comments like this on Cincinnati:

The momentum is certainly building, but the old money and influence isn’t going down without a fight. The thing is that at least the fight is going on. Young people, creative people, progressive people, and diverse people are starting to take hold and make this city their own. If we can do that the foundation is there for a truly amazing city.

 and

I left because I was not happy in the Greater C’s dominant environment of baseball, football, right-wing politics, and limited horizons. For me it was an excellent decision to leave. My brother lives there still, and although he gets frustrated as hell with the negatives of Cincinnati, he has a circle of good friends to transcend them and an excellent quality of life for next to nothing. As I get closer to retirement, I’ve got an eye on nearby Columbus. Not quite as pretty, but just as cheap, plenty of “kul-cha”, and a bit more liberal-minded.

The first comment reeks of entitlement and bitterness. Key words used: progressive & diverse. These two things tend to be in the lexicon of such a mentality. No word of wanting low taxes, less business regulations, respectful encounters with strangers, the ease of public transportation. Nope. The comment is also a bit creepy. "If we can infiltrate the city and quietly position ourselves the takeover will be successful."

The second comment is similar to the first. It complains about the city being too "right wing." Interesting. Ain't NYC progressive enough? Not enough warm weather & gorgeous people strutting down an LA boulevard with organic grocery stores near by?  BUT good friends, according to the comment, 'transcend' the politics of the city. Even thought the QOL (Quality of Living) is a bang for ones buck (so I've heard) in Cincy and I don't believe the poster was verbally or physically attacked for his beliefs in real life, ever, the city isn't enough because of its "right-wing politics." Not because such politics is keeping business out or raising taxes further depleting ones wallet. No. It's "this is a conservative city ... I feel ... feel .. not welcomes here." Well, coming from someone who has conservative politics and lives in a major US city, I think I can say I'm proud not to call its quits simply because there's a "gay" flag flying 10 blocks from me, or that most of my colleagues and friends vote (D) instead of (R) or independent, or that most loathe authors I read and philosophies I support. I don't see the urge of moving to a more "conservative" city in order to feel comfortable with myself.   

 This ties into the "tiers." Mainly the non-conservative, if he is already living in a city, say Chicago or even Cincy, they may not be entirely happy. Why? Well, it's not progressive enough. The grass is greener in NYC/LA for such mindsets. It's been my experience that conservatives tend to survive in opposite political climates better than non-conservatives. If they do leave a given place, it's usually because of the taxes; if they do complain about the politics it's because they see the politics devaluing the city and making the city into a Detroit. Fair enough. I met one ex-Chicagoan who moved to Kentucky and never looked back. The reason? He noted that the city was turning into a city that was a  political wasteland filled with corruption and rats (both figuratively and literally).  Non-conservatives? "It ain't progressive enough."

Now, the great thing about the US is that one can choose, if the job offer comes (or not, just bus tables and work "survival jobs"0, to move to any city or town. You don't like a city? You can choose to move. You don't like your kids current school? Home school them or look for another school that suits your standards. You don't like your parish? Find another parish and become member. You don't like your university? Transfer. Think you want to study film instead of accounting? Switch majors.

The 'funny' ('funny' because it's somewhat juvenile) with the whole "this town's politics ain't to my liking so I gotta move" is that is kinda flies in the face of the ever popular criteria of modernists of being "open minded." Now Cincinnati is a city of  almost 300, 000 so it isn't exactly a conservative bastion. Plus, it's a city - not a town - so it's natural for "progressive" politics to have a seat at the table, front and center. Compared to major cities like NYC or LA, it's small; then again those in such cities probably don't even want to set foot in the Midwest unless they absolutely have to. Compared to a place like Charleston, Illinois, Cincy is Godsend depending on how you look at it. 

Like I mentioned, it all seems a bit juvenile. It just seems non-conservatives crave the comforts of those politically like minded -- not just in their group of friends, but also the place they live in. Now besides the ex-Chicagoan moving to Kentucky, I haven't come across comments of conservatives wanting to live in a more conservative town. In my experience, all cities are innately "liberal" - it's just some are more "liberal" than others. It is non-conservatives seeking out their own kind, like they can't survive in a small college town or a city like Cincy. Conservatives seem to know there are other views out there and are aware of the context of their given situation. Non-conservatives seem to want to enforce their "better-ness" (see the first quoted comment) in a tone of bitterness. "This is OUR time. Get. The. F_ck. Outa. The. Way." Sure it is.

May I ask what type of policies you want to put into law before you hop on your one speed bike?

""Gay marriage!"

What else?

"Um, more artists and barber shops, but with barbers who have sleeve tattoos and 1950 haircuts! Not those old school bigoted Italians barbers."

Okay, what else?

"More bike lanes!"

How about better public schools? Do you want that as well?

"Of course."

How about less gang violence?

"Yea."

How about a stronger sense of civic pride?

"Sure."

Sure. 

Combox #2

So I was perusing comments on an article commenting on another article on what bigotry consists of. To no surprise at all the bio of the writer of the this commented article noted he wrote about LGBT topics. And to no (big) surprise one poster who defended homosexual acts, or at least held an indifferent attitude about it, said this:

Sometimes, it’s not very easy to engage in cool headed disagreement. For example, imagine you’re reading a blog post with which you mostly agree. But then at the end, the author calls your relationship with the person you love “nonsensical” and “obviously wrong”.

When you hear such things regularly, and that statement is yet another voice in the chorus, that can really hurt.   

I'm not sure if the poster was referencing the article being commented on (since the article was pro-homosexuality) or the thoughts being critical of the it (since the critical author is a proclaimed Christiana whose views are direct opposite of the commented article). Or maybe he was referencing another article that might have a "God is love and we all should respect each other and mind our own business and we should not judge since God is our judge. Oh and homosexual relationships are nonsensical" vibe to it.  

 Then I later discovered he admitted to being in a polyamorous relationship. And he did this:

For example, I routinely engage in rather “extreme” BDSM.

Go figure.

And this is coming from a self-proclaimed atheist.

Also why do modernists and securalists tend to incorporate their "lack of belief" in their handles? Something like TruthSeeker or TheFriendlyAtheist or Mr.Skeptic. Something along those lines.

Of course the poster wasn't married (I don't he ever was nor does he ever want to be). And a bit OT, I also would like to know what drives a person to adopt a "there is no god" worldview AND adopt such extreme sexual relationships.

A comment did spark my attention (as in: good point) :

An ethic of consent also assumes that nothing—absolutely nothing!—is wrong in itself, but only in someone not liking it.

Is that a problem?

I think so. If nothing is wrong in itself, is anything right in itself? If nothing is bad in itself, is anything good in itself?

I'm amused when modernists and secularists trivialize sex (e.g. "As long as there is consent, who cares."), yet it become a BIG deal when criticism is being directed at the trivialization and whatever acts are involved in this "trivial" topic (e.g. homosexual acts, state of homosexuality or any deviation of heterosexuality). And to include BDSM, simply because of the precedent parentheses, there was actually comments defending it on this AT article. Note the ever popular "consent" and even the "you just don't 'get it'" card pulled.

 

Yes, thank you, Arthur. It also doesn't mean it's right. Then again, what's there to "get" about deviant & perverted sexual acts?
                                              
As written before on my Combox #1 post: These types of articles tend to attract its particiapants. I mean, do they search for such articles being critical of their chosen lifestyle? It seems like it. What are the chances of such an article being popular on the day (or few days after it was published) unless someone circulated it, especially on a site that is non-progressive?

There must be something in the water that non-conservatives drink. Combox #1

I think comboxes, to an extent, are a good way to gauge a certain group - be it the regulars or the occasional random posters that deny the article.

Depending on the topic, when I visit non-progressive sites & check their combox, the responses are somewhat predictable to almost "All your emotions are obnoxiously retarded." In case you were wondering, I'm not talking about conservative commentators, but the visitors - the "modernists."

Here are some topics that tend to get non-conservatives, whether they be libertarians leaning left or just flat out modern day leftists/progressives out of the woodwork:

- newly formed conservatives
- critical of homosexual "rights"
- critical of women's "rights"
- skeptical of global warming
- critical of libertarian ideals
- anything defending religion from the criticism of the secular/atheistic world view
- critical of Obama (this topic was a "golden calf" to the left, but now it seems their enthusiasm has greatly been reduced)

This shouldn't be a surprise. The topics basically make up the core of the social issues that are very much dear to leftists/modernists/whatever-you-call-them. (I'm an ex-liberal and I'm starting to get confused on what to call non-conservatives.)

There are probably other topics that have slipped my mind, but those six (not including Obama) are the main topics that tend to get the trolls where the combox reaches 150+. I'll just concentrate on the few listed.

The Newly Formed Conservative
Just recently I read an American Thinker (AT) article on being an ex-leftist. I recommend reading it. I read through the combox, not all 700+ comments (which I think is an AT record) - but most - and those that were not in favor of what was written stated the usual remarks:

- "You were never a true leftist." (Really, now?)
- "So you switched from one ideology for another?" (Let me see, you're a 'libertarian.')
- "This is just rhetoric smearing the left." (So you're saying everything was a lie or grossly exaggerated?)
- "Why should it be always a partisan war? There should be compromise!" (Mr. Naive.)
- "Kumbaya." (Okay, this was never actually said, but it's the 'moderate' card that was being played. )
- "I could say the same thing about conservatives." (So you can replace "leftist" with "conservatives for each point?)
- "Both sides have their bad." (No duh.)
- "This is just BS." (In other words: It hits too close to home OR you think the piece is either lying or over exaggerating.)

Even more interesting is that those that formed these critical comments weren't AT regulars. I presume that the article was posted on a site like reddit (actually no, if it were then the combox would be immensely vial and cruel) or people actively googled for similar posts and up popped the AT article. Or maybe the regulars who liked it circulated it gaining it mass traffic. I'm not sure how it gained that much attention.

Critical of Libertarian Ideals
Again, back to AT. I also liked this article. A good percent of the comments, 200+, are very angry libertarians - most of them first time commentators on the site. The writer's follow up article only received 77 comments, less than half of before. Unlike the above article where many of the commentators where regulars, the comments for this article were mostly first timers. How'd they sniff out this article? I guess that some site dedicated to libertarianism tagged it on its news feed and BOOM, swarming (a technique used to cause high traffic in order to overwhelm the writer and to intimidate regulars).

Critical of Homosexual "Rights"
Way too many to list. There's a few on AT and there's a ton on Breitbart.com. I frequent conservative sites and when something like this s issued I always tend to brace myself. The combox usually gets flooded and a good percent of the comments are "swarmers" - non regulars picking a fight or just mouthing off the cliches I've grown too weary to even care to refute.

On another AT article, which unfortunately I can't seem to find it, not about anything homosexual related, but on Romney's potential to win the 2012 POTUS race, the day after the election I ventured back to it. Like clockwork two pro-homosexual "marriage" advocates started sneering that "they won." Of course this was the same, amongst many other usual gloats, when it came to articles relaying news of same-sex "marriage" becoming law making conservative sites. I distinctly remember one poster saying "My friends and I will dance in the streets!" when DOMA was struck down. This was troll on a conservative site.

And there's this piece of work: 950+ comments on a site that most articles don't get 20. 950+ ... I repeat 950+. And what was the topic you wonder? A rebuttal to an atheistic online comic. I figured it was posted on the comic's Facebook page (it was, I checked) therefore all the followers of the FB page pursued it. Who coined the label "Gnu Atheists"? Whoever it was, good job, cause I like it.

When I venture to HuffPo or DailyKos or Democratic Underground, the chances of me crossing conservatives are few and far between. They're like a rare (fictional) bird - think of Kevin from UP:

Why so few sighting? I don't know. I'll just say that non-conservatives have an anger in them that resembles the tantrum of a 6 yr old, therefore leading them to hunt down any articles - or even keep a list of sites to regularly check up on - that are critical of their precious social issues/causes. They're one bitter angry and irritated group. Meow! 

And when I do cross a conservative their appeal is generally harmless - benign and somewhat squishy, if that makes any sense. They're probably quoting a Bible verse that gets all the angry non-religious riled up. If not they're very "matter of fact", so much so that their tone resembles a history teacher reading from the pulpit.


So here's my round up:
- left leaning libertarians
- self-righteous & smug LGBTAONQPYW people
- angry feminists
- condescending atheists

Is it safe to say that these are "modernists"? I think so. Modernists are very angry people. Why is this? The whole "conservatives are the reason this country is not 'with it'" I don't buy. I've thought about it and it just comes across as an intellectually empty blame. Or as one person (in the 700+ AT article) noted that conservatism has caused problems in his life (though he never went into particulars or gave examples). I also think this person's "confession" is somewhat misguided as well.

One thing's for sure: Conservatism (especially being a social conservative, or supporting traditional mores) is probably the most hated, most mocked and most misunderstood ideology amongst modernists - which, I'd wager, is most of the Western Civilization. It just sets off those "Pissed Me Off I Dare You" buttons.