[andi*pandi]

Why the religious right so vocally against pedophiles but reinstating underage marriage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Why the religious right so vocally against pedophiles but reinstating underage marriage.

Underage marriage is easy: baby factory. I don’t totally understand the pedo obsession. I have to think about it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Underage marriage is easy: baby factory. I don’t totally understand the pedo obsession. I have to think about it.

Like abortion, it's a black and white moral high ground issue. Have you seen those "Shoot your local pedophile" stickers on cars? I see them quite a bit here. They're just one step removed from the "Save America: Shoot a Liberal" bumper stickers. Democrats = Hollywood = Pedophiles = Bad.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Democrats = Hollywood

Well… this part isn’t exactly wrong.

Almost everyone in my corner of the industry is liberal, and my understanding is that’s the norm.


Edit: as an aside, I keep my mouth shut about politics at work. I’m not there to make waves.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Why the religious right so vocally against pedophiles but reinstating underage marriage.

I think that was an inadvertent result of having to write a new law that defined marriage as exclusively between one biological male and one biological female.

As such, it’s already been deemed unconstitutional before anybody even sues, isn’t it?

[subego]

What law? Gay marriage is legal here.

[Waragainstsleep]

I love the resistance to the don't say gay law I was reading about earlier. Some teachers have pointed out that the law bans them from referencing any kind of gender identity in schools so they will now be referring to all children as they/them, removing all books that mention he, she, him, her, son, daughter, mother, father, brother or sister. Oh and all the bathrooms now have to be communal by law too.

Genius.

[subego]

The honest conservative view on sexuality is “women are to be baby factories, and this can only be achieved by way of exhaustively oppressing sexual permissiveness”.

Like most conservative positions, liberals find this idea rather repulsive even when honestly presented, let alone when it’s compounded by an infinite supply of rationalizations there’s nothing oppressive about it in the slightest.

The baby factory impulse never took hold in me and I’m not religious, so I’ve never had a forceful compulsion to be the enemy of sexual permissiveness. However I’d say I’m more of an enemy to it than most liberals.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

What law? Gay marriage is legal here.

Context: Tennessee.

https://amp.tennessean.com/amp/9479778002

[subego]

Gotcha! Thank you!

I conflated that with a different story.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is the wrong tactic to be using against me. I don’t have compassion for your sister’s plight, nor am I bothered by how unfair her situation is.

I have no time for anti-vaxxers, the sister's boyfriend sound like a fuckwit who has turned into a controlling douchebag so she's better off getting shot of him IMO.

Which sort of means I agree with you but I feel like you phrased this as if you still wouldn't care if the subjects were much more sympathetic. Why don't you care about anyone else?

[subego]

Whatever compassion I’d have is overridden by not wanting to make enemies of people who don’t want a COVID vaccine.

Before anyone says I’m making enemies of the people this bothers, under normal circumstances I’d just lie about my reasoning, both to myself and others. I’d say (and convince myself of) something like I’m protecting the people this bothers from overreach.

I’m sure you’ve noticed conservatives can be slippery like this.

[subego]

To flesh this out a bit…

When Oreo first presented his sister’s plight, my brain immediately and categorically rejected it. This is because I’m starting with the conclusion, which is people shouldn’t be forced to take the vaccine. Oreo’s argument doesn’t fit my conclusion, so it’s rejected. At this point I can actually “feel” that happening, but it was a very long road to get there. The normal state of affairs is total obliviousness I’m starting with the conclusion and working backwards.

So, having formed the conclusion, my brain now seeks out whatever argument best supports it.

The first thing which jumps out to my brain is that Oreo’s argument is trying to hook into my compassion and emotionally manipulate me into the opposite conclusion. Nobody likes a guilt-trip, so this only manages to piss me off.

I want to reiterate I’m not crying foul on this tactic, I’m only stressing how it doesn’t work. I was able to short-circuit getting pissed-off, and I understand the validity of Oreo’s argument, but this knowledge is not nearly enough to rearrange my pre-established conclusion.

The second thing which jumps out to my brain is the idea I’m protecting people from overreach. My brain really likes this argument because it’s not entirely false, but more importantly it lets me off the hook for my lack of compassion.

That’s the “thick coating” I was talking about which makes the pill easier to swallow. I have to pry it off to get at what’s actually determining my pre-established conclusion.

It’s not fairness or compassion, so it has to be a value exclusive to conservatives. The one which makes the most sense is “team loyalty”, so that’s my best guess as to what it is.


I’ll note there is one aspect which offends my sense of fairness. This is that the boyfriend is scared both of the virus and the vaccine. I’ll allow him one, but not both.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is the wrong tactic to be using against me. I don’t have compassion for your sister’s plight, nor am I bothered by how unfair her situation is.

This was less about a reaction for you, more an explanation where I stand and that I don't care when people want freedom with none of the responsibilities that come with it.

I have respect for people who want their freedom and accept the responsibilities, and I also lean towards the government not requiring vaccinations in many circumstances. (I am ok with exceptions where it is warranted like the military or the health care sector.)

My original comment was just that forced vaccinations vs. freedom is a false dichotomy. Skepticism to vaccinations precedes that for if the vaccination rates would be similar to other vaccines, you wouldn't even have to start a discussion of mandating vaccines under certain circumstances.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

When Oreo first presented his sister’s plight, my brain immediately and categorically rejected it. This is because I’m starting with the conclusion, which is people shouldn’t be forced to take the vaccine.

Just to understand it properly, your claim is that when conservatives hear vaccines are available and are recommended, their brains jump to forced vaccinations immediately? If not, then I said something differently: just the recommendation of getting vaccinated (i. e. not forced, just recommended) by experts (who are part of the elite) is enough for them to not want it simply because they think liberals are for it.

PS My sister is definitely the most conservative in my family, although her boyfriend might be more conservative. So I don't think it reduces to a simple conservative vs. liberal, at least within the context of politics in France (where she lives) and Germany.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just to understand it properly, your claim is that when conservatives hear vaccines are available and are recommended, their brains jump to forced vaccinations immediately?

No. Sorry I wasn’t clear!

If it’s proposed to use coercion as an incentive to get the vaccine, my brain jumps to categorically reject the proposal.

My brain does this because it considers the optimal strategy to be “buy the loyalty of those who won’t get the vaccine by protecting their freedom of choice”.

The responsibility of freedom doesn’t enter into my calculus.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

The responsibility of freedom doesn’t enter into my calculus.

You know, I’d probably say this is the case with my calculus on guns, too.

[Waragainstsleep]

So I was on Twitter the other day and wondered why Emma Watson was trending and it turns out that she had been interviewed by a transgender woman and asked if she would mind sharing a public bathroom with her and answered that she would of course be fine with it, even though/if she had a penis. And the TERFs were predictably going batshit crazy about it.

What I find weird about the public debates on trans rights is the lack compassionate objectors.By this I mean there does not appear to be anyone at all saying things like "I believe transgender people should be able to expect the same rights and fair treatments as cisgendered people but...."

"...it does seem unfair to let someone who could have had a massive development advantage compete in elite sports against people who didn't"

or "...the concerns of cis (or smaller trans) women about the possibility of sharing their safe, private spaces with any old 6+ foot, 300-pound, bearded WWE wrestler in a frock shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand."

Everyone seems to be either "Let people declare their own gender without limitation" or "don't let people do that at all".

I realise that some who might think along these lines of wanting to be supporting and accepting but still acknowledge there are issues to be considered might be put off because the slightest dissent tends to inspire vitriol from the more black and white allies, but compared to some topics, this one seems like it should have some entirely rational middle ground that is not being so much as touched on by either side of the debate.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What I find weird about the public debates on trans rights is the lack compassionate objectors.By this I mean there does not appear to be anyone at all saying things like "I believe transgender people should be able to expect the same rights and fair treatments as cisgendered people but...."

"...it does seem unfair to let someone who could have had a massive development advantage compete in elite sports against people who didn't"

But this is the exact line I see all the time being used by people pretending to be compassionate objectors.

If you see a conservative defending a minority/oppressed group, you can be sure it's only to promote the oppression of another minority/oppressed group. You know these same people that are now deathly concerned for the sanctity of women's sports were not too long ago making fun of the WNBA and the general pointlessness of women's sports.

[subego]

In line with what I said a few posts back, the conservative goal is to oppress both women and the LGBT community.

Liberals don’t want to oppress anyone, which puts them in a bind because every position on these types of issues ends up oppressing someone.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

In line with what I said a few posts back, the conservative goal is to oppress both women and the LGBT community.

Liberals don’t want to oppress anyone, which puts them in a bind because every position on these types of issues ends up oppressing someone.

Which is why it's such a brilliant wedge issue for the conservative think tanks to push to the media machine. Conservatives get to pretend that they believe in 1) Fairness, 2) Women, 3) Traditions, all while having zero effect on the actual day-to-day lives of more than a handful of people.

[subego]

At the moment, the only thing I want to convince you of is to consider there’s less malice involved in all of this than it appears. A proposition I’ve made to you before.

I hold a bunch of conservative positions. I’m not doing any pretending about whether they’re fair or compassionate. They’re not. I have a clear tolerance for oppression. I’d say I’m not as harsh an oppressor than the average conservative, but it’s like the joke goes… we’ve already determined what I am, now we’re haggling price.

Did these positions arise out of malice? I dunno… I don’t think so?

Honestly, I think the two key activators to my conservative biology were role-playing games and 80s action movies.


Edit: I also had many activators to my liberal biology. Hippy parents, hippy grade school. Always lived in a big city which happens to be the biggest Democratic stronghold in the country (the last Republican mayor of Chicago was elected in 1927).

[The Final Shortcut]

The trans sports angle is really difficult for me as an admittedly uninformed person.

Are there any trans female to male athletes performing better?

[subego]

Not that I’m aware of.

Also, I don’t know if one can compete professionally and take HRT. It’s considered doping.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, I don’t know if one can compete professionally and take HRT. It’s considered doping.

Yes, at least in some sports. Lance Armstrong was allowed to take certain amounts of testosterone later in his career, because he had testicular cancer and a testicle had to be removed. (Of course, Armstrong like most of his contemporaries took lots of banned substances, too.)

For trans women you are actually required to take hormones for one year so that testosterone levels are within allowable margins. The performance advantage of men and women in different sports varies quite a bit. In sports where you need upper body strength, the difference can be 20ish percent. In endurance sports, it is between 10–13 %. Hormone therapy reduces performance by about 10 %. So you are right in the uncanny valley: hormone therapy could reduce performance by just the right amount. Which means if a trans woman wins an endurance sporting event, this just might be purely because of her capabilities, and being trans gave her no measurable advantage. This is no different to Oscar Pistorius who dominated paralympics and was eventually allowed to compete with able-bodied people. He was still world class, but not at the top. So it seems that the advantage afforded to him by his prostheses were not enough to offset the disadvantage of having no lower legs. Imagine if he had won events: I’m sure people would immediately claim that he had an unfair advantage rather than accepting that he is an exceptional athlete (and unfortunately, murderer).

The difficulty is that there are so few trans athletes that statistics are bad and won’t improve anytime soon. That’s because you’d have different advantages in different sports, and you’d need to calibrate them carefully. Another one is whether hormone blockers were taken, which prevent that the trans person develops a male physiology, which gives her a biophysical advantage in some sports. To complicate things even further, there are some individuals whose natural hormone levels seem to fall outside of the allowed norm. And they have to take hormones in order to be allowed to compete.

Keep in mind that there are sports where gender does not play a (significant) role. Darts is one recent example that comes to mind where Fallon Sherrock competes with the best men in the world. Chess is another one, where a study from India indicates that the reason we see fewer women at the top is just due to fewer women playing chess. Ultra endurance events are another, where women beat men for the overall victory. Lastly, I think there are quite a few sports where problems like these are already a solved problem: you have different classes, e. g. weight classes (think boxing, judo and weight lifting).

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

The trans sports angle is really difficult for me as an admittedly uninformed person.

Are there any trans female to male athletes performing better?

I don’t know any examples, but since there are a few sports where women can compete with men the best answer is probably maybe.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it’s proposed to use coercion as an incentive to get the vaccine, my brain jumps to categorically reject the proposal.

Yeah, but I don’t think this is proposed initially. Indeed, in countries with high vaccination rates like Denmark, you don’t need any form of coercion because duh, of course you get vaccinated. So rejecting this particular vaccine comes first, and this is the point of departure for me.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

At the moment, the only thing I want to convince you of is to consider there’s less malice involved in all of this than it appears. A proposition I’ve made to you before.

Yeah, we've had the deluders vs. deluded conversation before. I guess I'm not sure what the point of the distinction is. Conservative think tanks, funded by people and corporations with the intent of maintaining and growing their financial, political, and social power, develop effective messaging and strategies to feed to the media. The end result of this is the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Tamir Rice and more, the deaths of nearly a million Americans from Covid, flash-banging an infant in his crib, an armed attack on our nation's capital where police were violently beat with American flags, and more that we don't even see.

Why should I care where malice plays into this?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Why should I care where malice plays into this?

Because an absence of malice is common ground upon which trust can be built or rebuilt.

[Laminar]

So I guess here's a related question - are there calls on the conservative side to understand the plight of one's urban, liberal friends? To empathize with the unique situation they're dealing with and understand why they landed at their conclusions regarding society, politics, and relationships? That is a frequent call I see from my liberal friends and from more liberal sources. Are there calls on the conservative side to find common ground and build trust?

[subego]

Do I count?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do I count?

You're the one.

[Thorzdad]

This week, Florida’s legislature handed-over responsibly for re-drawing congressional districts to Ron Desantis.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For trans women you are actually required to take hormones for one year so that testosterone levels are within allowable margins.

Thank you for the correction!

There was a drug often used in raising estrogen which was considered doping, but that’s changed, and that was what I was thinking of. Estrogen by itself has always been allowed.

I’d like to look at the source for those numbers if it’s not too much to ask.



Edit: I let my guard down, and it resulted in the comments I posted below. Pretend I didn’t make them while I come up with a more constructive reply.

I’d also like to add I’m not sure testosterone is the only metric worth looking at. For example, height can confer an advantage. Anecdotally, people are often shocked by how fast I can sprint, and a lot of that speed is due to me being 6’ tall, which gives me a long stride that I maximize further by kinda sorta “leaping”. The only way someone shorter can beat me is by having more strides per second.

A little different is rock climbing. I don’t really have the upper body strength to hang upside down and shit, but it’s definitely helpful that I can get 8’ spread between my toes and my fingers.

[subego]

Re: Transgender Athletics

The conclusion which fits my morals is transgender women should not compete against cisgender women. Any “normal” argument I would make, like the two I put forth above, is just me working backwards from this conclusion.

Why I immediately come to this conclusion is for the same reason other conservatives do. It’s the baby factory programming, which is inherently and purposefully oppressive.

Part of the baby factory programming is to be outright repulsed by sexual permissiveness. This drives the willingness to oppress in the degree necessary to achieve the desired result. That never took over with me, so my implementation of the model isn’t nearly as hostile, but it’s still rooted in the same programming. With transgender issues in general, it’s crossed enough over those lines my predetermined conclusions are to push back.

[subego]

To put all that another way, I can’t give a reason I believe in pushing back on the transgender community other than my biology is programmed with the baby factory model. Any other reason I give is false.

I presented the sprinting and rock climbing examples as reasons I believed we should. Those were false. I don’t believe it for those reasons. I believe it because my biology is programmed with baby factory. It’s the same with pretty much every other conservative. They believe it because their biology is programmed with baby factory.

Since this isn’t the reason given by conservatives, the reasons they do give are bullshit. In this regard, the entirety of conservative thought rests on a foundation of bullshit.

This is why conservatives can be impossible to deal with. Everything they’re saying is bullshit.

I’m trying to shovel all that bullshit out of the way. There’s a lot of it, and as Laminar pointed out, it’s a lonely process. Perhaps out of bias since I’m conservative, I want the result to rebuild trust rather than lead to my destruction, but any understanding gained can be used for either.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m trying to shovel all that bullshit out of the way. There’s a lot of it, and as Laminar pointed out, it’s a lonely process. Perhaps out of bias since I’m conservative, I want the result to rebuild trust rather than lead to my destruction, but any understanding gained can be used for either.

You should read an essay by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University called "On Truth", a dissection on why the truth is important, why it is often regarded as unimportant and why it is important to proceed from a position of truthfulness in order to actually end up where you say you want to be.

[subego]

I’m familiar with “On Bullshit”!

My observation has been some people don’t want the truth, and it isn’t necessarily right to give it to them.

An example is “coming out” to less than supportive parents. Generally speaking, they either know and want to remain in denial, or they don’t know and would be happier that way.

I think there’s an argument to be made for keeping it quiet in this scenario.

[subego]

You know, I want to thank everyone for this discussion. It’s let me refine a bunch of ideas and prompted extensive self-analysis.

As far as the latter is concerned, I’ve realized I’m a lot more conservative than I thought.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by subego 

TI believe it because my biology is programmed with baby factory. It’s the same with pretty much every other conservative. They believe it because their biology is programmed with baby factory.

Is your biology programmed with "baby factory"? Or is it programmed with "how it used to be is default better than how it is now"? And is baby factory just what things used to be?

[Thorzdad]

Remember, too, that “baby factory” has also been thing among white supremacists for quite some time. Their belief being that whites are being outbred by non-whites, and the white race faces extinction if they don’t get to having more babies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Is your biology programmed with "baby factory"? Or is it programmed with "how it used to be is default better than how it is now"? And is baby factory just what things used to be?

I’m almost positive it’s baby factory.

Baby factory exists because it was essential for survival of the species with the kind of mortality rates involved with constant war and no germ theory.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, I want to thank everyone for this discussion. It’s let me refine a bunch of ideas and prompted extensive self-analysis.

As far as the latter is concerned, I’ve realized I’m a lot more conservative than I thought.

Do you have any particular aspirations to be more or less conservative? Is conservatism a good thing or a bad thing?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Remember, too, that “baby factory” has also been thing among white supremacists for quite some time.

Yes.

Sharing opinions with unsavory characters is something which doesn’t bother conservatives all that much.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Do you have any particular aspirations to be more or less conservative? Is conservatism a good thing or a bad thing?

Liberalism and conservatism are survival strategies gifted to us by natural selection. Nature doesn’t care about good or bad, it cares about success, and in that regard, both strategies are extremely successful.

As an extremely successful survival strategy, I’d argue there’s value to be derived from conservatism. It is a very vicious strategy however, and it’s also slowly but surely becoming depreciated by both technology and moral progress.

If I had a choice in being more or less conservative (which I don’t think I do), I’d stay where I am. I don’t want to be less conservative because I don’t want to sacrifice the value the strategy provides. I wouldn’t want to be more conservative because I see diminishing returns in the overly strong pursuit of a vicious strategy during the twilight years of its necessity.

I should also add I believe I help liberals far more by being a reasonable conservative than I would by being a liberal.

[Spheric Harlot]

Arguing the social Darwinist route that political leanings are adaptive evolution is horseshit, I’m afraid.

[subego]

I’m arguing morals are adaptive evolution.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m arguing morals are adaptive evolution.

And that conservatives don't have any?

[subego]

They do, but conservative morals are adapted to use a different strategy than liberals.

The liberal strategy is moral progress. The conservative strategy is to win at war.


Edit: “war” includes war with nature. Until recently, nature was very good at killing us.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

They do, but conservative morals are adapted to use a different strategy than liberals.

The liberal strategy is moral progress. The conservative strategy is to win at war.


Edit: “war” includes war with nature. Until recently, nature was very good at killing us.

Current “conservative” strategy is ensuring that nature will do even better at killing us within the next century, or even decades, from the looks of it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Current “conservative” strategy is ensuring that nature will do even better at killing us within the next century, or even decades, from the looks of it.

Well yeah - the historical/evolutionary strategy is "Thrive RIGHT NOW. No part of the future is guaranteed, so what might happen in 20 years doesn't matter right now."