Seriously, I'm pretty offended by the suggestion that while swathes of people who have non-animal beliefs care less about animals.

Last time I spoke about something like this, there was a whole "looking to be offended" arc sparked off it, and I got into my typical overexplaining mode, and it's Friday and I'm tired, and I don't think I should have to be offended by something like this to call it out, but hey.

Just because I know we love when one of our own gets all pedantic:

what was originally posted was:

I may be misjudging conservatives, but I know several for whom the feelings of their dog are meaningless--or, to them, nonexistent. It's a creature that God gave them dominion over, somewhat pleasant company, keeps the kids happy. A possession that walks. Worrying about a dog's feelings makes as much sense to them as worrying about the feelings of the toaster.

qualification, followed by several statement about specific acquaintances

No extrapolation to all conservatives.

I still love you, msbelle, just so you know.

love you too.

love all y'all.

No extrapolation to all conservatives

I'ma get nitpicky over someone else's words, but the implication of judging conservatives in the same sentence as mistreating animals is drawing an line between political leaning and the state of mind described. I mean, that's what I infer from their proximity in the sentence. I don't know how else to read it.

And brenda has admitted she was tarring with too wide a brush, so that's from the speaker's own keyboard.

You know how much I hate sweeping generalizations, but I really do think pushing an "except for Nazis!" exception here is missing the point.

Historically, there are lots of political parties besides Nazis that I would be very judgey about a person's affiliation. I have zero problem judging somebody in France who aligned themselves with with the explicitly xenophobic/racist National Front under Le Pen.

I don't read it that way, msbelle. A statement like "I may be misjudging conservatives but I have observed X behavior among them" is an invitation to extrapolate. Otherwise there's no reason to say it, no reason to add the non-caveat caveat. No reason to be "judging" a group for anything, since it's apparently not a data point.

And (eta: with regard to the assertion that people here do it all the time) I'm perfectly happy to call out someone who makes a broad, false generalization by a group unlikely to defend themselves here. We don't need lurkers or closeted conservatives to feel like this stuff goes unchallenged.

I could be wrong about rednecks, but I know a lot of rednecks who are more interested in their trucks and beer supply than their children and spouses.

I have zero problem judging somebody in France who aligned themselves with with the explicitly xenophobic/racist National Front under Le Pen.

Judging their treatment of pets??

sara, your neighbor's book looks fantastic. And yay for local bookstore shopping! Another local author here is having her launch at the big bookstore I love tomorrow night, and that's where I'm getting my copy. (Also because she can sign it!)