As I said, it would be wrong to make such a blanket statement. Notice that all your examples (and my one about tax fraud) the negative action/trait itself does not necessarily follow from the shared characteristics, while following an ideology by definition makes one responsible for negative actions/traits caused by that ideology because that IS the entire group being discussed.
Sure, it would also be wrong to believe all conservatives were always conscious of the harms they did to others like some kind of cartoon villainy, but a lot of nuance isn't going to be communicated every time somebody posts in exasperation about the state of politics.
I think I may have misunderstood this point, then.
But still, why would ideologies be understandable to sort of gloss over sometimes, while other classifications wouldn't be? Your example was that calling all Republicans tax cheats isn't alright, but calling all conservatives harmful might be at least understandable, right? Both are potentially valid but not universally true. Is it just a matter of frequency, then? And if so, what would the cutoff be?
What's your definition of rational? Mine is, as mentioned, following logic- which is not, obviously, foolproof. "Unevidenced non-sequitur fear-mongering" isn't very convincing when you're defending people saying that conservatives are actively trying to ruin peoples' lives without backing that up either, and the problem is identical.
I'm pretty sure anybody who's said such a thing HAS backed up their reasons with real world harm that actually follows from the premises given. Even by your own standards of rational your argument fails for at least some of your examples because the conclusions do not logically follow the premise. See above for example of non-sequitur thinking (some members of group x have trait y, thus all members of group x have trait y!). This isn't a disagreement where the evidence is blurry and people need to make far-reaching conclusions, the connections made in those arguments are absurd.
Why are you convinced that everybody who's said the one thing has backed themselves up at some point, while equally convinced that everyone who's said the other thing hasn't?
The conclusions all follow logically from the premises for certain information sets as far as I can tell. If it matters, you can point out the ones you can't follow, and I can provide a logical path through them.
I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you under the impression that I claimed that conservatives suffer as much discrimination as any other minority in some particular area? Are you making the argument that discrimination is only bad when done in excess of that suffered by some other group? I don't understand what you're getting at here, or how it connects with our current conversation.
I was of the understanding that we are to back off on criticisms of conservatives because it somehow fell under discrimination, of which you and others have strongly likened to the struggles of minority groups.
As far as I'm aware, I've never implied that "criticism" of conservatives was bad. In fact, I believe I explicitly noted the opposite:
More to the point, I don't think the issue is one of "protection," as in, it's not fair to speak ill of conservatives because we don't have many. The issue, as far as I've seen, is one of civility and assumption- you probably shouldn't speak ill of conservatives in the same ways and for the same reasons you shouldn't speak ill of homosexuals, whites, or ice cream vendors.
You even responded to it, but it was to focus on the distinction between "speaking ill" of people based on ideologies as opposed to other criteria.
As for the rest, that's true of all discrimination also. Anyone can assault a white man because of their skin color, and when they do, people tend to roll their eyes and say "Wow, what a dick." Most people do not take this to mean that beating up white people because they're white is okay, or that a higher incidence of this happening to blacks is perfectly alright because whites don't have any special protections beyond numbers.
Discrimination would be (as seen in the real world) white people ignoring crimes that effect black people, police officers disproportionately targeting black people due to a self-perpetuating stereotype, etc. This is actual discrimination... to where we return to an earlier part of your response...
So... you respond to my analogy by ignoring it to list what "actual" discrimination is, meaning traditional discrimination as you see it.
I get the feeling you're less interested in discussing this issue with me than you are in lecturing me on which groups you feel are worthy of being declared discriminated against.
The discrimination they face is the declaration that they as a group are terrible people actively trying to make life worse for other people.
...Sometimes, when I'm beyond fed up, I really wish some of you would experience actual discrimination so that you'd understand how insulting your comparisons are. >_>
That's unfortunate, but I'm guessing you realize how petty and entitled that is.
Or in short, ignorance is not rational unless resources available prevent acquisition of a better picture of the world.
Ignorance is not
perfectly rational unless shrouded by further ignorance or other factors. Crossing the street before looking is rational if you are not aware that cars travel along streets, or are under the impression that cars always stop for pedestrians. As would crossing the street without purchasing a radar system, despite it being physically possible to do so and being aware of its potential benefits.
So far as I can tell, I don't tend to call conservatives idiots. I (try to) call idiots idiots.
'Course, idiocy is down to interpretation.
Which leads us back to the same problem.