L/hartmannreport.com/p/theyre-shocked-we-wont-pretend-anymore-401/woozle
2026-07-08 originally posted to Facebook
This underscores my theory that the Right thinks politics is a game, where winning is all that matters. They don't seem to understand that it has real-world consequences, and that their team "winning" might not be good for them.
(That's the favorable interpretation; the less-favorable one is what Hartmann says here: at some level, they deeply believe that people whose skin is a certain range of colors are deeply superior to those whose skin is a certain other range of colors. That, however, doesn't explain as clearly why they're surprised when we cut them off. Do they think we secretly agree with them? Why would they think that? I can only point back to my other major conclusion (which I've written about on fedi), which is that they're not very good at thinking things through.)
Discussion
1. from Geoff Gilson's reshare on Facebook:
«
THE US IS POLARIZED — LIVE WITH IT
I read the attached story. I truly felt it. But. It reminded me of an episode when I was working in the coop, back in 2014.
A 40-year-old, clearly working class, married black woman came to work in the kitchen.
My debate-sparring partner, an admitted socio-anarchist, welcomed her effusively.
How nice it will be to have someone to talk to who believes in the working class and gender rights and is against racism and wants same-sex marriage ….
Whoa, whoa, came the immediate response. Sure, I’ve fought racism all my life. Especially among Democrats.
But, I’m a God-fearing, church-going, conservative Republican. I won’t have anything to do with same-sex anything or gay anything or transgender anything.
The problem with my mate. The problem with the attached post. Is that those on the left think there is only one form of righteousness. There are many forms. And they have become very opposed. Because the left think they have the only claim to being righteous, compassionate, and correct.
The left went on a bender from the Sixties to the Noughts. Embraced every social engineering fantasy on offer. Totally brushed aside anyone who felt uncomfortable with the pace.
And those who were uncomfortable finally responded with their own righteousness. Frankly, about the most awful champion they could find. But, the only antidote available.
I’m sorry for the lady who had the falling out with her sister. But. At the risk of being controversial. People of all forms of righteousness need to start understanding that embedded, over-passionate polemic is going to make a large swathe of our divided nation uncomfortable.
The answer is to tone down the polemic. Listen. Respect. And understand that social and economic choices have impact on other people.
If you don’t care, then good luck with family and friends. If you do care, then maybe start treading more gently? The line “They’re shocked we won’t pretend anymore” works all ways.»
«I agree that there are many ways to be right, but I also stand firm on my position that what the Right currently stands for is objectively wrong.»
1.1My response:
1.2Jane B.'s response:«
As is so often the case in Trumpworld, the main problem with your argument is that it treats all moral disagreements as if they are equivalent. They aren't.
No one objects to someone attending church, holding conservative political views, or living according to their religious convictions. In a pluralistic society, people are free to do those things. The conflict begins--as Woozle notes-- when those convictions are used to justify denying other people equal rights, recognition, or dignity.
It's also inaccurate to describe the past sixty years simply as "the left embracing social engineering fantasies." Much of what changed during that period involved expanding legal protections and civil rights to groups that had long been excluded—women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ people. Every one of those movements was controversial at the time. Nearly every expansion of civil rights has been criticized as "moving too fast" by those who preferred the status quo. And who now want to reverse them.
The claim that "both sides are equally righteous" overlooks an important distinction. Believing that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law is fundamentally different from believing that some groups should have fewer rights because of who they are. Those are not merely competing moral frameworks; they have profoundly different consequences for people's lives.
The appeal to "tone down the polemic" also rings hollow when directed primarily at those whose rights are being debated. History shows that calls for civility often arise not when conflict begins, but when marginalized groups become too visible or too effective in demanding equal treatment. Asking people to be quieter about discrimination rarely solves the underlying problem. (See--I took a polemics class in college, too!)
Finally, respect cannot mean that every belief deserves equal validation. I can respect someone's right to hold religious convictions without agreeing that those convictions should determine another person's marriage, healthcare, family, or legal status. Likewise, someone can disagree with my views without denying my equal citizenship.
Listening is valuable. Understanding is valuable. But understanding does not require moral equivalence. We can acknowledge why people hold certain beliefs while still recognizing that some beliefs result in exclusion, discrimination, and harm. A healthy democracy depends on protecting everyone's freedom—including religious freedom—but also on ensuring that one group's religious beliefs do not become another group's loss of civil rights.
»
1.2.1Geoff responds:«
Jane, I thank you for taking the time to respond. I believe that much of the problem with the past sixty or so years has been a divergence of views about what constitutes a right; what constitutes morality.For me, the sum total of the Constitution and its Amendments amounts to a right to be able to express freely, and not be discriminated against, provided both rights do not interfere with the same rights of others.
My experience of the South is that the majority of reasonable people (there are extremists on both sides) have no problem with folks being who they are and not being discriminated against. The problem I have experienced is that, over the last sixty years, it is primarily the left who have claimed a right that does not exist as a civil right — the ‘right’ to demand that others grant them special favors, in recognition of who they are.
People want identity. No problem with that. I fight to ensure they are not discriminated against. But, the left demand safe places and pronouns.
I deplore racial discrimination. But any program, involving, say, quotas or preference, is its own form of discrimination.
I do not see those reasonable people on the right disgracefully taking away ‘rights.’ I see them saying: I have no problem recognizing you; I do have a problem being told I have to behave in a particular way, just to make you feel good. The latter is not a civil right.
Around me in the South, reasonable people of the right are saying that their request for freedom from imposition is every bit as moral as what you describe as a freedom of expression.
To be honest, I recognize the justice and morality of both. I hear you, Woozle, and the left only acknowledging one.
»
1.2.1.1Jane responds:«
I think you're creating a false equivalence between being asked to extend ordinary courtesy to others and having your rights infringed.You say you support people being who they are and not being discriminated against, but then characterize things like using a person's name or pronouns as "special favors." They aren't. They are requests for basic respect in the same way that calling someone by their preferred name (ahem, Rafael "Ted" Cruz), pronouncing it correctly, or addressing a married woman by the surname she actually uses are acts of ordinary social courtesy. No one is asking you to change your beliefs; they're asking you to treat another person with dignity.
You also describe the last sixty years as the left demanding rights that "do not exist." Nearly every major civil rights movement has been accused of demanding "special treatment." Segregationists said Black Americans wanted special privileges. Opponents of women's rights said women wanted advantages over men. Opponents of marriage equality argued gay couples wanted "special rights." Looking back, we recognize that these movements were seeking equal participation in society, not preferential treatment.
You say you don't see "reasonable people on the right" taking away rights. But that's difficult to reconcile with reality. Limiting access to marriage, restricting adoption, prohibiting certain medical care, banning books about LGBTQ people, preventing transgender people from serving openly or participating in public life, or making it harder for people to vote are not simply refusals to grant "special favors." They are government actions that directly affect people's freedoms and legal status.
You also rely heavily on your "experience of the South." Personal experience matters, but it has limits. Many Southerners—including Black Americans, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and religious minorities—describe experiences very different from yours. The fact that discrimination is not visible to you does not mean it is absent. That's true anywhere.
Finally, I don't think this is a case of "the left recognizing only one morality." It's a disagreement about where individual liberty ends. In a pluralistic society, you're absolutely entitled to believe that same-sex relationships or transgender identities are morally wrong. What you're not entitled to do is use government power to enforce those beliefs on people who do not share them.
Freedom cuts both ways. You are free to hold your beliefs, worship as you choose, and express your views. Others are equally free to live their lives without being denied equal treatment under the law because of someone else's religious or moral convictions.
That's not asking for special rights. It's asking for the same rights everyone else expects for themselves.
»
[separate reply]
«
One more thing, from a born-and-bred fifth-generation Southerner: It appears you are an Englishman commenting on the American South. That's perfectly legitimate, but it also makes sweeping claims like "the majority of reasonable people in the South..." problematic. It appears you have been here for decades so surely you have seen that the South is not monolithic. We have some of the nation's most progressive cities, some of its most conservative rural communities, and millions of people whose experiences differ dramatically depending on race, gender, religion, sexuality, and where they live. It's difficult to make broad claims about what "the South" believes based on personal observation alone, especially when those whose experiences differ may be less visible in one's own social circles.
»
1.2.1.1.1Geoff responds:«
Jane, this isn’t polemic. It is deliberately confusing word salad. Dishonest claims about what I’ve said. Inaccurate presentation of the Constitution. And a constant reference to history, and not the present.This is precisely the sort of snobbish distraction that so infuriates ordinary people, who have genuine concerns about being pushed aside by ivory tower elites.
I say this again. And it will be my last offering. I don’t debate deliberate dishonesty.
The people of the right I have met do not discriminate or oppress. But they do ask that they not be punished for having different moral positions. You go to great lengths to avoid that equivalence.
»
«They take moral positions which impinge on the freedoms of others -- and they vote in accordance with those positions. Are you going to argue that they have the right to do that without criticism?»
1.2.1.1.2I responded:
1.2.1.1.3Geoff responded:«
Woozle (and Jane), I have finally managed to gain some coherence out of the flood of irrelevance and fallacy that you have posted. Along with the insults. It took me a while.
Basically, you operate a double standard. You affect respect. But actually, you offer none.
You make passing remarks about 'allowing' those who do not agree with you to have views, but only if they do not interfere with, impinge upon, or interact with anything you believe.
As far as you and yours are concerned, however, your rights have a self-perpetuating existence, on several levels.
First, you are allowed to hold views, express yourselves freely, do what you want. Without interference. I have already said you should not be discriminated against.
But, that is not good enough. If anyone holds a genuinely moral view that who and what you are offends them, then that 'anyone,' according to you, is morally repugnant, from the get-go.
You fallaciously declare that the very holding of an opposing view is to be equated with illegal harassment, denial of equality, erasure of rights, and all manner of other over-blown transgressions. When all the 'anyone' is doing is saying they adhere to a different morality.
But, it goes further. I say the Southerners I know (now, not a hundred years ago; another dishonest trick), they have no problem with folks of a different morality, provided those I know are not punished for not agreeing to have the morality with which they do not agree being forced upon them.
You then evince a fainting fit and -- honestly, this did take me a whole day to unpack from all your verbiage -- you then claim that not accepting that your morality may be forced upon others is itself a further denial of rights.
I have to take this slowly, it is so ridiculous. Someone is transgender. Fine. They be allowed to be. Fine. They demand pronouns be used, and folks be punished if those pronouns are not used. They demand to use the wrong bathroom, and folks should be punished if they do not comply. And (as far as I can make out), you claim that denying these impositions is a denial of a 'right'?
These are not courtesies. These are draconian incursions and impositions upon other people. Not the morality. But rather, the demand that other members of the public totally suspend their own morality, and get out of the way, while you affect a morality totally opposite to theirs, and impose it upon them.
One more time. We hold a moral view. If we seek to impose it, we are wrong. You hold a moral view. If you seek to impose it, that is a 'right'? Took me a while. Er. Crap. On the subject of 'bloviating.'
And when you have been caught out, you resort to insulting. I have lived in the South for more than 30 years. I know plenty enough to form a view. And I have formed my view of you. You are a hypocrite.
»
It's as if we were all on an airplane, and some terrorists broke into the flight deck and took over the controls, and we're trying to get together some of the passengers to stop the terrorist from crashing the plane into a skyscraper or something but then there's this guy in the airline's upper management and a couple of rich guys in first class and they're all protesting that we're panicking the passengers and we just want the airline to fail and we're jealous of how well it's being flown and why do we think we're any better than the terrorists anyway, they paid for their tickets and so they have as much right as we do to decide where the plane goes, and also we're just being antisemitic because one of the terrorists is wearing a "Likud" hat... any excuse to avoid discussing the actual problem or even admitting that there is one. We're the problem, because there wouldn't be a problem if we had just stayed in our seats and kept quiet.