I want to lay out some facts here and listen carefully:
- Drone strikes are better than conventional methods of attacks which cause greater amounts of collateral damage.
- The NDAA doesn’t authorize the arbitrary indefinite detention of US citizens.
- Marijuana is illegal at the federal lever regardless of state law, don’t be surprised if you find yourself raided by the D.E.A.
- Alex Jones is not COINTELPRO
- Hamas is a terrorist organization.
- Obama is a terrible president.
- Feminist patriarchy theory often falls into unfalsifiable claims and often skews statistics to support their causes (i.e. wage gap)
- That I’m for the Bush and/or Obama Administration’s drone strikes or the ‘double tap’ drone strikes
- That I’m for the NDAA.
- I think marijuana and other illicit drugs should be illegal.
- I like Alex Jones
- Palestine is bad and Israel is good
- Bush was a good president.
- I support the MRA movement.
When I say facts or when I express an opinion, it’s becoming more and more common to infer other meanings or associate people into groups based on that one single opinion. Now, for people like progressives and liberals and for people like conservatives, this is common to fall into dichotomies. It’s because it is like a game to take a single issue or opinion like “Bush is bad” or “I support the separation of church and state” and then infer them into the liberal camp. This was something I heard from conservatives all the time when Bush was president and I was a libertarian. Now that Obama is in office I’m routinely called a Republican because of my opposition to Obama and had Romney been elected I would of been pushed back into the liberal camp by Republicans. Sorry, but it’s totally possible for me to be not a fan of Obama, Romney AND Bush. It’s not just a libertarian position either, it’s a not totally uncommon position among people across all political isles. I oppose Ron Paul; does that make me a statist?
The other point I want to make here is an even more important one; facts don’t imply positions. For instance, when I say marijuana is illegal, that doesn’t mean I’m saying I agree it should be illegal. Most people know this intuitively. However some fact do make people put logic and reasoning by the wayside and start implicating positions based on explaining facts. Take for example drones. Drones were developed to minimize collateral damage and risk to American service men. They are preferable to other conventional modes of warfare. These are the facts and I accept them. Does that mean I’m in favor of how they’re used? Does that mean I’m for the wars? Does that mean I approve of kill lists? No, it speaks nothing of my positions on these subjects. For the last 24 hours I had to explain this to a long time internet friend that while I don’t agree with how they are being used; drones are not inherently the problem.