Well, to work within your example, there's a difference between you immediately blurting out that you hate broccoli when someone so much as mentions it, and someone questioning you when they see you avoid broccoli. Are you supposed to lie? In my example, these people would see that you didn't order broccoli or that you avoid broccoli and would take it upon themselves to question you until you admit that you don't like broccoli, and then they would proceed to tell you that you're wrong for not liking broccoli. Does that make sense?Friv said:If you keep the fact to yourself, how would these radical liberals know to boycott you? At some point you must be mentioning it or the conversation would never happen.ReiverCorrupter said:Unfortunately you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. My wording was no doubt confusing, so allow me to clarify: if you find homosexual sex distasteful that is enough to make you a horrible bigot in the eyes of the most radical progressives, even if you keep the fact to yourself. These are they types of people that will, if you do not agree with them immediately, go out of their way to question you so they can tell you that you're a bigot. These are the people who cannot recognize any worldview other than their own as legitimate. These are the filth-infested petitioners, the people who boycott random shit. These are the types of liberals who feel the need to go around telling people who were otherwise minding their own business that they're prejudiced and need to change. They are no different in my eyes than the Westboro Baptists.
Think of it like broccoli. I find broccoli distasteful. Can't stand the stuff, don't want it on my food, don't even like the smell. But if someone mentions their lovely piece of broccoli pizza, I'm just going to nod, because why the hell would I care if they like broccoli? I'm not going to say "I hate broccoli, but have fun" unless I'm busy making some comedic point like this, or some attractive man is in the process of inviting me over to his house for broccoli, at which point I will have to graciously decline.
I'm not saying that all liberals or democrats do this. The ratio of these progressive loonies to normal liberals is probably similar to the ratio between Westboro Baptist Church members to normal christian conservatives. There are more than a few Christians who personally don't approve of homosexuality, but also don't take this as an excuse to go around harassing gay people. What I'm saying is that both sides have overly intrusive assholes that like to involve themselves in other people's personal affairs.
Let's put it this way: a group of people are standing outside somewhere with a petition. As you walk by they ask you to sign it and you refuse. They then start following you (let's say the mall is pretty empty) and they ask you why you don't want to sign it, and when you continue to refuse they suggest that you're something bad for not wanting to sign it. That's what I call being an intrusive wanker. My point is that this sort of thing has been done by both sides of the political spectrum.