Sometime yesterday, I ran across this post by Matt Welch that, despite the late hour, has gotten me thinking on the generalizations being made by both liberals and conservatives about “the other side.”

I’ve said this before, but I think it bears some repeating: on a personal level, this is why I get disgusted and upset everytime a right-winger suggests to my face that a nuke needs to be set off in the San Andreas fault. I, like Matt, am surrounded by liberals - I mean, this is San Francisco - but just because their political ideals and aspirations are completely opposite from mine does not make liberals any less human than conservatives. Not every liberal was against the Iraq war, and not every conservative supported it. Does that mean they’re not true liberals or conservatives? Of course not. There’s a lot more to the party platform than just national security and foreign policy. If you’d like an example, ask this dude.

So put away the paintbrushes and THINK before posting a sweeping generalization about a certain group of people next time.

P.S. I wonder if Matt’s comments apply to individual posts, as well? I only ask because a certain Christian blogger will now probably be notoriously known to the politically left side of the blogosphere as that “religious right wingnut who fantasized about assassins killing some Democratic senators because they opposed the war.” There is a lot more to Dr. Mark Byron than one dark fantasy, and as a commentator put it, “What is disregarded is that you ‘put such thoughts on the table in order to reject them.’ The ensuing discussion is ripped out of context and held up as an example of a ’stereotypical Republican/rightwing Christian.’” (And I think a certain rightwing blogger should be called on this for taking Dr. Byron’s post out of context for the sake of discussing conspiracies, the “other side” and national security. For crying out loud, read the follow-up posts. Here’s a suggestion: don’t rely on just first impressions to judge a person.)