Odd thought on friends and available categories

[redbird]

I mentioned this to wild_irises and she said to go ahead and post it.

If I'm ever tempted to think that my LiveJournal friends list is a valid cross-section of anything (with the possible exception of my social circle as a whole), I need only remember that there are more transgendered people on my friends list than there are Republicans (or Tories [1]). There may, in fact, be more space probes and fictional characters on my friends list than there are Republicans/Tories (and that is not an accurate reflection of my social circle as a whole).

If anyone who thinks I'm wrong about the numbers or proportions wants to come out as a Republican, please do.

[1] My first thought was just "Republicans," but considering the geographic distribution of my friendslist, it seemed only fair to throw Tories into the mix.

Comments

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I certainly didn't expect to be challenged by so many people who seem to be interested in convincing me that I'm wrong, which I think is rude.

Let me see if I understand correctly: it's OK for you to state your opinions in public, but when other people state their opinions -- which happen to conflict with your own -- it's "rude"?

[redbird]

I had the same reaction you did at first, but on consideration, I think what's going on here is similar to a Usenet pile-on: she said her thing once, and four or five different people answered, often making similar points.

That can make a person feel put upon, even though each individual in the interaction is behaving reasonably. I don't have a good solution for it, but identifying the problem at least helps me be calm about it.

[snippy]

Yes, I think arguing with me when the subject was what variability there was in redbird's reading list and I commented to explain what category I filled is rude.

I didn't ask anyone to help change my mind, or to offer me facts and analysis to contradict my opinions. I have not asked anyone to agree with me, I have not argued with other people's facts and analysis. I simply explain my own. I don't care whether my opinion makes sense to anyone but me; I am not attempting to convince anyone that I am right; I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I only tried to explain why I will vote for Bush over Kerry. I'd much rather be voting for Edwards.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

If your only comment had been your original comment where all you said was that you were voting Republican, I'd agree with you. But by replying to ckd's and others' comments and elaborating your views, you invited debate. You can't have it both ways -- you can't give detailed expositions of your views in a public forum and expect people to refrain from stating their own views in response. If you truly didn't want to argue, the best strategy would have been to ignore anyone who replied to your original comment.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think arguing with me when the subject was what variability there was in redbird's reading list and I commented to explain what category I filled is rude.

FWIW, I do sort of half agree with you: you spoke up to identify yourself as a Republican, and shouldn't really have got piled on as a result. Even though I was one of the ones who did it.

[snippy]

Just to clarify: I am not a Republican; I have been a registered member of the Democratic party since I began voting (sometime in the early 1980s). I will likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but I am not changing my party affiliation.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

We don't do formal party affiliations in the UK: you're either a member of a political party (which is not usual) or you generally define your affiliation by the party you intend to vote for. (There is also an informal process of assessment "She's a typical Tory," or "very Old Labour", or "a natural LibDem", but this has no formal basis.)

I would consider myself to be in general a Labour voter, though the lies and hypocrisy of Tony Blair over the Iraq war have turned my stomach: at the last Scottish elections, I voted for my local MSP, who is Labour, because I liked him: my list vote went to the Green party, because I find more and more that the Scottish Green party matches my political views: and my vote for a local councillor went to the Scottish Socialist Party candidate. (I had been so focussed on the Scottish Parliament elections that I'd forgotten to think about the local council elections, and ended up picking the SSP candidate for a bunch of small reasons. She didn't get in.)

Generally speaking, I find that it makes more sense to define politics by the things I'm for rather than by party affiliation. So I'm basically a socialist and strongly for equal rights for all. At one time this would have meant I had to vote Labour, but Labour has been drifting rightward, and in Scotland there are other alternatives, thanks to our fairer voting system.

I know that in the US Democrats are right-of-centre (mostly rather like moderate Tories) and Republicans are further right than would ever be electable over here, and you basically don't have a national left wing party: your two-party system is much, much more entrenched than ours.