I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
Do you mean the single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian economic policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
Do you mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
No. I mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage.” The “Even though” doesn’t even need to enter into it.
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
I’m commenting on an implicit fact which may have a bearing on the argument. The loudest members of political groups tend to be those who believe in the political group itself, rather than its specific goals. (Which we should expect; somebody engaging in political signaling isn’t likely to do so quietly, as that defeats a large part of the signaling to begin with.)
That doesn’t sound like they identify as Democrats as a specific political -ism at all.
If they’re registered to vote democrat mainly because of their position on gay marriage, and I’m guessing also a negative opinion of the Republican party, and describe themselves as Democrats if asked about their political views because it’s a convenient answer, that’s not really the same thing.
You confuse party affilation with political beliefs. It’s a mistake that comes from living in a two party state and having a media that tries to convince everyone that red and blue are the two political beliefs that one can have.
It’s very worthile to have a mental concept of political beliefs that goes beyond party affilation.
George Orwell would say that the media tainted the language in a way that makes it impossible to analyse political beliefs in your vocabulary.
I don’t think it’s a no true scotsman thing, although as I was writing the comment I did worry that I was veering into that territory.
How one defines a Democrat varies, and only some ways of defining it make sense with the sort of Democrats you describe, and I don’t think the overlap of “Democrats” and “people who identify with a specific political -ism” contains those. This will vary a bit depending on how one is interpreting “identify with a specific political -ism”. I think this is where the disagreement lies.
I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
Do you mean the single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian economic policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
No. I mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage.” The “Even though” doesn’t even need to enter into it.
I’m commenting on an implicit fact which may have a bearing on the argument. The loudest members of political groups tend to be those who believe in the political group itself, rather than its specific goals. (Which we should expect; somebody engaging in political signaling isn’t likely to do so quietly, as that defeats a large part of the signaling to begin with.)
That doesn’t sound like they identify as Democrats as a specific political -ism at all.
If they’re registered to vote democrat mainly because of their position on gay marriage, and I’m guessing also a negative opinion of the Republican party, and describe themselves as Democrats if asked about their political views because it’s a convenient answer, that’s not really the same thing.
Is that a No-True-Scottsman argument or is there something subtle I’m missing there?
You confuse party affilation with political beliefs. It’s a mistake that comes from living in a two party state and having a media that tries to convince everyone that red and blue are the two political beliefs that one can have.
It’s very worthile to have a mental concept of political beliefs that goes beyond party affilation.
George Orwell would say that the media tainted the language in a way that makes it impossible to analyse political beliefs in your vocabulary.
I don’t think it’s a no true scotsman thing, although as I was writing the comment I did worry that I was veering into that territory.
How one defines a Democrat varies, and only some ways of defining it make sense with the sort of Democrats you describe, and I don’t think the overlap of “Democrats” and “people who identify with a specific political -ism” contains those. This will vary a bit depending on how one is interpreting “identify with a specific political -ism”. I think this is where the disagreement lies.