NYT Liberals aspire to a social laissez faire live and let live society. They are ever vigilant not just to outright intolerance and oppression of the unfortunate, the weak or the out of the mainstream, but even to the more subtle and dangerous behaviors of condescension such as holding a door rather than slamming it in someone’s face.
NYT Liberals aspire to create a world of universal freedom via the mechanism of obtaining absolute power over others that they will then use to prevent authoritarianism from trampling on freedoms.
Except their authoritarianism, of course.
This leads to some self-inconsistent positions. Some of these positions are obvious and reasonable, such as the necessity of a vulgar personal attack on the 18 year old daughter of a conservative women running for vice president of the United States on a ticket that was competing with – in the words of great NYT Liberal Harry Reid – “a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”.
Occasionally NYT Liberals’ relentless battle against the oppressive patriarchy has to be suspended to obtain the power needed to resume the relentless battle against the oppressive patriarchy.
But sometimes the choices are not as simple. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong card carrying member of the NYT Liberals, with honors, found that she too was cast aside too when she threatened the ascension to power of a charming black liberal.
Blacks may soon discover their proper place with respect to Hispanics in the NYT Liberal quilt of victims. Votes matter in the quest for repressive tolerance.
Years of organizing coalitions of overlapping groups of the unfortunate, the weak, the out of the mainstream and the oppressed, in the pursuit of absolute authoritarianism that can be used to promote universal freedom and choice have produced a matrix of victims and oppressors so complex that nobody really knows where they stand.
In order to simplify this, the following short self-evaluation can be used to determine any social groups relative standing in the victim/oppressor matrix (VOM).
Each person starts with VOM score of 100. When all factors have been considered, an adjusted VOM score can be determined simply.
Victims have lower scores. Oppressors, higher:
| Men = 100 | Women = 100 | |
| Baptist/Protestant | + 10 | +7 |
| Catholic | +7 | +10 |
| Mormon | +15 | +12 |
| Atheist / Buddhist / Yoga | -15 | -15 |
| Scientologist | 0 | 0 |
| White | +15 | +4 |
| Black | -7 | -10 |
| Hispanic | -10 | -13 |
| Asian Indian | 0 | 0 |
| Asian Chinese / Korean | +6 | +3 |
| Single mother | N/A | -25 |
| Absent father | +10 | N/A |
| Hunter / NRA member | +17 | +3 |
| Feminist | -9 | -6 |
| Gay man | -9 | N/A |
| Lesbian | N/A | -7 |
| etc. | -2 | -2 |
| Redneck | +8 | +3 |
| Beard / Goatee | -4 | -2 |
| Prius driver | -5 | -5 |
| Volt driver | 0 | 0 |
| Leaf driver | -7 | -7 |
| Suburban driver | +8 | +1 |
| Hummer driver | +14 | +14 |
| Rich celebrity | -12 | -12 |
| Rich businessperson | +15 | +22 |
| Insane shooter of soldiers in Texas | +3 | N/A |
| Insane bomber of liberals in Boston | +20 | N/A |
| TOTAL |
Mike Zintel, Discourse Antinormative 