Wow, this was a very condescending way of trying to prove you're not condescending. The waiter situation was a misunderstanding because, amidst the other posts you'd been making, I inferred that you were upset about an inability to take off work. Considering your response included the fact that many jobs you've had didn't allow you to call in unless you found your own replacement, and you clearly were upset about that, I'd take it that I wasn't wrong - it just perhaps wasn't your original point. This is only one example, though, and not the one that came to mind. There have been plenty of other situations where you've posted things that basically attack anyone with ANY libertarian beliefs or agnostic feelings regarding religion. When you complained about people who are against labeling, you didn't seem to really listen to my side. You basically reposted your same argument over and over again until I just gave up. I understood what your side was, and tried to make concessions on that, but your very firm, "people who don't like labels are idiots" stance was just too much. This plays into how you do attack people with a label - constantly.I feel more that an overwhelming majority of our political discussions are founded on you fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. I can't count the number of times you've left a political comment on something I wrote that seemed to completely miss the point/not get the joke, and I had to explain what I really meant by it -- like one time I posted this political joke about foodservice workers not taking unpaid sick leave because they need the money (and it had the caption, "oh, look, our food is here!"), and you went on this rant about how people can take off sick if they want, when the point was that they don't get paid for taking off sick (and that their wages aren't very high to begin with). I really don't mean to be condescending, but sometimes I just feel like you're missing a really obvious point. Before I learned you were an English teacher, I used to wonder if there was some language barrier that I wasn't considering, that was making my comments harder for you to understand.
First of all, a lot of the stuff you get into is not factual. A lot of it is, in fact, theoretical and philosophical. Second of all, there are condescending and non-condescending ways to disagree with people - even regarding facts where they're simply wrong. You do seem to opt for the condescending most of the time. Third of all, there is no POINT in arguing with people who say stuff like, "I don't believe in biological science." Fine, they ignore a reality that exists. I know someone who doesn't believe in evolution. So what? She doesn't push it on me or anyone else. If she did, I wouldn't be her friend and I'd remove her from my life. We've had a couple reasonable conversations about it - very respectful, I never once told her she was wrong, but that I disagreed - and we moved on. I also used to have a very close friend (with whom I've grown apart due to distance) who is a Republican. We used to enjoy a calm, reasonable discussion about politics. We disagreed in many ways, but there was never once an instance of, "You're wrong!" being thrown around. I may think he's wrong about stuff, and he may think I am. But we're both hard-working folks who just want to do right and have a good life. He's not a bad person, so why would I want to try to show him that he's a "fucking nimrod"? And if it's not somebody I respect or want to talk to in the first place, then there's zero point in engaging like that.Anyway, when discussing issues that are a matter of factual basis, someone is right and someone is wrong. I don't see anything condescending or arrogant about pointing that out. A lot of people I know seem to have this fundamental issue with facts existing, and with knowledge being affirmable; if someone says, "I don't believe in biological science," for instance, and I say, "well, you're wrong, because the only reason I'm alive today is because biological science works and is a legitimate field," would that be condescending? Or should I take care to consider his or her feelings and make sure they don't feel invalidated by the fact that they are wrong?
Again, there are so many ways to accomplish this without being condescending. I know other liberals who live in places like Mississippi and Georgia and such... they don't hide their beliefs, but they also don't put other people down or feel like they have to "put this idiot in his/her place". I don't see how you don't realize how condescending that is.Maybe it's just because I live in an IRL environment where, everywhere I go, everyone I meet (with a few very rare exceptions) is in complete opposition with everything I believe about everything --- the population of my neighborhood, my city, and my general area is very anti-science, anti-woman, pro-religion, pro-gun, Republican/libertarian, "the civil war ain't over yet, it's just half time" type of people. And so I've gotten very good at hiding my opinions about things, and I only really bring them up IRL if I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner, or someone is just really not letting it go. But every now and then, I just get this feeling like I am the only person in this entire state that is not a gun-toting, government-hating, science-denying asshole, and so I guess there's this hope deep down that, if I put this idiot in his/her place, then someone will see it and think, "hey, there are other people like me! I'm not crazy!"
Anyway, I'm sure you will respond with a very long post, which is fine, but I don't know that I care enough about this situation to discuss it more. We shall see. Just know that if I don't respond, it's not that I'm mad or offended or anything. This is just evolving into another tl;dr, like so many others.