How to help conservatives be more humane

[Angry Floof]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

No, the premise is not assumptions about political parties. It's about understanding human beings. Right wing ideology, religious ideology, insist on a certain view of the world that actually affects how people perceive the world around them. It's not "liberals vs. conservatives." It's right wing ideology vs. reality, and the consequences of backward, inhumane, irrational ideology, affect everyone, not just the believers.

Take off whatever tribal labels you think apply here. When beliefs are inhumane and stupid, they tend to be a detriment to society as a whole. Right wing ideology, given the right conditions (which occur quite often), will inevitably lead to fascism in large groups and abuse in small groups.

This is not opinion. It's research, and it goes back decades. All of the very human pitfalls of perception and cognition - ego, bias, fear reactions, wishful thinking, and on and on - even though we all have the capacity for those pitfalls, when they become mechanisms of an ideology, they tend to be reinforced rather than mitigated.

If your ideology includes your very sense of self and value as a human being depending on a specific narrative being true, you will tend to use all those pitfalls to avoid being wrong. You will turn off your critical thinking brain and fall back on whatever defense mechanism makes you feel better about your ideological identity.

Right wing and fundamentalist religious ideologies contain all those mechanisms: don't question, punish dissent, allow authority figures to tell you what to think, accept any and all excuses and explanations to support the beliefs, react to criticism as if your life were being threatened, take objections as proof of superiority and agreement as validation, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with all this.

The antidote, so to speak, is basically the traits that enable good science, rational thinking, and cooperation: openness, critical thinking, questioning oneself as well as authority and status quo, self reflection, willingness to be wrong and change one's mind, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with all this as well.

The latter mindset tends to pool into what we usually call liberal ideologies, and, with no apologies, I will flat out state that the former, the pitfalls of human thought, those minds tend to pool into conservative ideological groups.

Just because some people don't like this topic and what it might say about them or they don't like the tribal label of the person who is discussing these ideas doesn't mean it's not true or useful or backed by observation and research. It's not up to liberals, whoever that is in your mind, to help conservatives. It's up to people of humane values to pay attention to everything we're learning and doing whatever we can to make the world a more humane place, and helping conservatives to rise to a more humane and compassionate world view and take responsibility for what they contribute to the world is one way of doing that.

Personally, I think shaming them also has a useful place. People who don't examine their own beliefs and turn a blind eye to the suffering caused when large numbers of people do the same, they can damn well get used to us holding them accountable for what they contribute to the society we all have to share.

 

[Emily Lake]

eTA: addressing Worldtraveller

Additionally, yes - you believe you know what's best. You assume that you know what another person's interests and priorities are, without actually knowing those people at all. Then on the basis of that assumption, you assume that your preferences for them achieving the thing you've decided is best for them is actually the best solution. At no point do you bother even trying to understand what their real concerns and interests are. You just decide, as if you are parents of a recalcitrant child, that you know better.

And you have the gall to bitch about conservatives being "authoritarian" while simultaneously dictating what they should care most about and demanding that if they don't support your fucking approach to achieving that care, they're dumb idiots and dishonest. For fucks sake, stop being so goddamned arrogant.

 

[Emily Lake]

In anticipation of our misplaced rant, WT, you should probably step back and consider that i'm not a fucking conservative in the first place.

 

[Angry Floof]

Additionally, yes - you believe you know what's best. You assume that you know what another person's interests and priorities are, without actually knowing those people at all. Then on the basis of that assumption, you assume that your preferences for them achieving the thing you've decided is best for them is actually the best solution. At no point do you bother even trying to understand what their real concerns and interests are. You just decide, as if you are parents of a recalcitrant child, that you know better.

And you have the gall to bitch about conservatives being "authoritarian" while simultaneously dictating what they should care most about and demanding that if they don't support your fucking approach to achieving that care, they're dumb idiots and dishonest. For fucks sake, stop being so goddamned arrogant.

You do not know what you're talking about. Try learning instead of balking at what you don't like hearing. Try listening to the video before you comment. Try looking up the related research. There's a link to an easy to read free ebook in my sig that explains the research. It's research, not opinion.

I get that some people don't like my delivery or manner of speaking and how I put their beliefs in terms they don't like, but surely you know better than to let that bias do your thinking for you. It's not about me at all. The research and the information in the video and the things we can observe every day in real life speak for themselves. They did not originate with me. I just agree with them because it's what I also observe in the world and I bothered to do some reading and studying of the work of people who actually do research on this topic.

How about finding specific points in the video that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with them.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, the premise is not assumptions about political parties. It's about understanding human beings. Right wing ideology, religious ideology, insist on a certain view of the world that actually affects how people perceive the world around them. It's not "liberals vs. conservatives." It's right wing ideology vs. reality, and the consequences of backward, inhumane, irrational ideology, affect everyone, not just the believers.

Take off whatever tribal labels you think apply here. When beliefs are inhumane and stupid, they tend to be a detriment to society as a whole. Right wing ideology, given the right conditions (which occur quite often), will inevitably lead to fascism in large groups and abuse in small groups.

If you remove the appellation of "right wing" from this, I would certainly agree with you. But it's not concentrated in one "wing" or the other. This is human nature as a whole, and self-proclaimed liberals are not immune to it. If nothing else, there should be at least some nod to the fact that most extreme actual fascist states in recent history started from ideologies that most people would consider "left leaning". Similarly, while it's easy to see the behavior as it's associated with religion, that same behavior exists with respect to any deeply-held belief.

Right wing and fundamentalist religious ideologies contain all those mechanisms: don't question, punish dissent, allow authority figures to tell you what to think, accept any and all excuses and explanations to support the beliefs, react to criticism as if your life were being threatened, take objections as proof of superiority and agreement as validation, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with all this.

The antidote, so to speak, is basically the traits that enable good science and rational thinking: openness, critical thinking, questioning oneself as well as authority and status quo, self reflection, willingness to be wrong and change one's mind, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with all this as well.

The latter mindset tends to pool into what we usually call liberal ideologies, and, with no apologies, I will flat out state that the former, the pitfalls of human thought, those minds tend to pool into conservative ideological groups.

I agree with the description of the mindsets. I disagree with your assumption that they pool along ideological lines. The topics upon which those behaviors hinge are different by ideology, but the behaviors themselves are not. I, as a fairly active feminist, get labeled a TERF on a regular basis, and get called a bigot frequently - not because I actual am either of those, but because I think that testosterone suppression should be required for transwomen to compete in women's sports and because I have reservations about people with penises who present as men having free access to sex-segregated spaces on the basis of their self-identification alone. The behavior is human, end of story. If you think you're somehow immune to it, or have a significant amount less of it than "those people" I suggest you take a look at your own tribe from an outside perspective.

JIt's up to people of humane values to pay attention to everything we're learning and doing whatever we can to make the world a more humane place, and helping conservatives to rise to a more humane and compassionate world view and take responsibility for what they contribute to the world is one way of doing that.

That's a great theory. I'd like to see it implemented in a way that actually demonstrates humane respect and compassion. No matter how much spin you want to put on it, mocking, deriding, and shaming people who have different value priorities than you, or who hold different beliefs than you... is neither humane nor compassionate.

 

[Trausti]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

It’s called projection.

 

[Angry Floof]

If you remove the appellation of "right wing" from this, I would certainly agree with you. But it's not concentrated in one "wing" or the other. This is human nature as a whole, and self-proclaimed liberals are not immune to it. If nothing else, there should be at least some nod to the fact that most extreme actual fascist states in recent history started from ideologies that most people would consider "left leaning". Similarly, while it's easy to see the behavior as it's associated with religion, that same behavior exists with respect to any deeply-held belief.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Every human has the capacity for everything we see in human nature, but not everyone has the tendency, not every ideology reinforces certain tendencies, not every mind is attracted to certain ideological elements.

It's a tough pill to swallow, but a lot of really bad, stupid, reactive, egotistical, fear based, immature, and weak ass human traits tend to pool into what we call right wing or conservative ideologies. There is a reason right wing or conservative ideologies overlap almost completely with fundamentalist or conservative religion. They share those same elements that reinforce some of the worst cognitive errors and worst behaviors in humans and actively diminish elements that can mitigate those pitfalls. I don't even know why this is so controversial to someone who claims not to be emotionally identified with right wing or conservative group labels.

I agree with the description of the mindsets. I disagree with your assumption that they pool along ideological lines. The topics upon which those behaviors hinge are different by ideology, but the behaviors themselves are not. I, as a fairly active feminist, get labeled a TERF on a regular basis, and get called a bigot frequently - not because I actual am either of those, but because I think that testosterone suppression should be required for transwomen to compete in women's sports and because I have reservations about people with penises who present as men having free access to sex-segregated spaces on the basis of their self-identification alone. The behavior is human, end of story. If you think you're somehow immune to it, or have a significant amount less of it than "those people" I suggest you take a look at your own tribe from an outside perspective.

Where in the world do you get the idea that behavior is based on anything but what's going on in our heads? And what's going on in our heads is influenced by not only internal cognitive factors but myriad social factors as well, most of which is subconscious. And I have no idea why you're bringing up trans people unless you want to tie it to the conservative trait of fear of differences and the unfamiliar within a world view that gives them no reason to be compassionate toward people who are different from what they expect.

JIt's up to people of humane values to pay attention to everything we're learning and doing whatever we can to make the world a more humane place, and helping conservatives to rise to a more humane and compassionate world view and take responsibility for what they contribute to the world is one way of doing that.

That's a great theory. I'd like to see it implemented in a way that actually demonstrates humane respect and compassion. No matter how much spin you want to put on it, mocking, deriding, and shaming people who have different value priorities than you, or who hold different beliefs than you... is neither humane nor compassionate.

Nope. Saying mean things about people's demonstrably stupid and inhumane beliefs is not the same thing as holding a world view that inevitably causes great suffering in the world around us, often including those who hold such detrimental beliefs. Hurting feelings is not the same as hurting people, which right wing ideology does on a large scale. Some right wing moron's feelings do not hold a candle to that in terms of importance.

If I only had a dollar for every time an apologist clutched the pearls over their world view being put in terms they don't like, and another dime for every brutality, injustice, and atrocity the same pearl clutchers ignore. Holy shit, I'd be Bezos.

It's not about you or whether you like the delivery. Hold people accountable for their beliefs about the world and their fellow human beings. I don't believe conservatives are evil. I fight for their rights like everyone else's. They are not excluded from my principles around how society should treat everyone. I don't not want to punish them for having an ideological view, no matter who vile that view.

Criticizing an ideology and the psychology it reinforces is not a threat to any person. But conservatives do tend to believe that criticism of their beliefs is a mortal attack on them personally. And I am not going to dance around that. We've been dancing around that and excusing horrific behavior and stunted, vile beliefs for too long. That's why we have a Trump, because beliefs have been put on a protected pedestal instead of allowing them to be honestly examined.

I'll keep speaking about diseased and destructive ideologies and I do not apologize for that. Die mad about.

 

[Angry Floof]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

It’s called projection.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Do you have any particular argument to any point made here? I mean, besides just that you don't like it.

 

[Emily Lake]

If I only had a dollar for every time an apologist clutched the pearls over their world view being put in terms they don't like...

It's not my ideology. I'm just sick to death of the holier-than-thou schtick, as a general thing. And I'm really fed up with people who view themselves as nice compassionate caring people being utter jerks to people they don't like, and engaging in verbal abuse and harassment as if that's okay... simply because those nice compassionate caring people have decided that "those people" are bad people who deserve to be abused. It's childishly hypocritical.

It's not about you or whether you like the delivery. Hold people accountable for their beliefs about the world and their fellow human beings. I don't believe conservatives are evil. I fight for their rights like everyone else's. They are not excluded from my principles around how society should treat everyone. I don't not want to punish them for having an ideological view, no matter who vile that view.

Criticizing an ideology and the psychology it reinforces is not a threat to any person. But conservatives do tend to believe that criticism of their beliefs is a mortal attack on them personally. And I am not going to dance around that. We've been dancing around that and excusing horrific behavior and stunted, vile beliefs for too long. That's why we have a Trump, because beliefs have been put on a protected pedestal instead of allowing them to be honestly examined.

I'll keep speaking about diseased and destructive ideologies and I do not apologize for that. Die mad about.

Here's me holding you accountable for your beliefs about your fellow human beings.

How exactly do you square

I don't believe conservatives are evil.

~~ with ~~

...horrific behavior and stunted, vile beliefs...
... diseased and destructive ideologies...

Conservatives worship hierarchical authority, fear the world beyond their in-group, seek to punish and control the world for not obeying their abusive father figures.

...we still have a large chunk of humanity that holds a purposeful desire for their greater tribe to suffer and to be punished. They're not just happy with simply not helping others; they actively find ever more creative ways to make sure their fellow human beings are not helped...

... ungenerous, scared, punitive, authority worshiping conservative mind...

 

[Angry Floof]

Repeat after me: Beliefs are not people. Beliefs are not people. Beliefs are not people.

Calling out not only the bad beliefs but the bad behaviors that arise from them is not a threat to people, just to beliefs.

My regard for my fellow human beings is overall positive. I want the best for everyone. I don't have to like you or be nice to you or even know you to hold the values that protect your rights and work for your well being and prosperity.

Among the religious and right wing, there are millions of people who would be most happy for me to be brutalized, impoverished, kicked out of my country, my rights taken from me, be imprisoned, and all manner of heinous treatment because I challenge their beliefs, and their beliefs include this insane worship of violent authority figures. If their authority figure says I should be brutalized, these millions would justify that. Just like they try to justify police murdering people, they would seek to find reasons that I deserved whatever inhumane treatment they supported being done to me because their abusive father figure said it is right to do so.

I do not hold such a fucking depraved view of my fellow human beings, no matter how depraved they are in their view of me and all the other out groups they are trained to hate and fear. I would fight against brutality towards them, and against them being imprisoned, or any of the many horrific things they so casually support being done to me. Most of them would not personally do these things, but they are happy to support and even take glee in seeing their authority figures do them. And more and more ordinary people who were otherwise fairly peaceful people pre-Trump are now going further and further toward engaging in violence themselves.

It's astounding that you would conflate criticism and ridicule of the ridiculous and shaming the truly shameful with a willingness to commit violence and a willingness to allow the authority figure to commit any crime or atrocity if he says the targets deserve it. How the fuck do you not understand that saying stuff you don't like on the internet is NOT the same thing as denying the humanity and personhood of others? Those idiots you defend would kill you as soon as look at you under the right conditions, and those conditions are increasingly developing every day in the U.S.

I will still support policies that include them, policies that feed them, policies that protect them from abuse and fraud, policies that promote their peace and prosperity. I'm not a right wing authoritarian follower in my way of thinking; I don't have to hate or want to murder people just because the hold views I find vile and inhumane.

Why is this rocket science just because I criticize the worst ideologies in existence or you simply don't like my tone?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

How does women's suffrage fit your request? How about civil rights?

We see how liberal policies in Brazil brought Bolsonaro to power. That happened because more people were empowered and raised out of poverty.

Bill Gates gives away millions to empower and help the disenfranchised. I don't think he makes them take a political test.

I don't know if you listened to the video, but Lakoff describes a conservative mental framework where the authority figures dictate the beliefs and views of the group. From within that framework, it is very hard to understand that not everyone operates that way, that independent actors can come to the same or similar conclusions on issues and pool together ideologically after the fact, after deciding something is right or wrong through conscience and principles rather than handing over their conscience to authority figures.

I grew up in an inconsistent, but fairly authoritarian household. I remember this mindset. It's a mentality that is easy to absorb and take on subconsciously. Some people happen to experience things that push them to question their own hand me down assumptions and learn to reason and self reflect. And some ... don't.

Yes. And after having watched the video the gist of the discussion seems to be that conservatives with the mental frame you point out need to be introduced or reintroduced to democratic values. Conservatives are just as humane and compassionate as progressives but only to persons in their group, whereas progressives are inclusive.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I give up. Nothing about my question. Just more word salad.

Not only has the question been thoroughly answered, it is actually irrelevant to the OP, which is about the authoritarian mindset of conservatism, why that authority-worship/punishment/judgement/control/fear-of-other mindset is such a force for inhumane policies and attitudes, and about how conservatives can be inspired to be more compassionate rather than punitive in their regard for out groups.

Seriously, I bet if you rubbed a couple of brain cells together, you could actually answer your own question. It will require honesty and inquiry rather than after the fact justification of what you already believe, though.

His response, does however, somewhat prove your (and my) points, just not quite in the way he likes

 

[J842P]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

Even this framing is (not surprisingly) ridiculously dishonest.

Liberals don't 'believe we know what's best'. We have fucking data that we continue to present to dishonest shitheads whose responses I can practically write out and put in a grab bag myself.

Yeah, there's disdain. It's the same disdain we show towards young earthers and other delusional fuckheads who have shown, by their actions, that they are incapable or unwilling to learn from basic data presented in the simplest terms (sorry, we can't do crayons on the internet easily). Like I said above, at some point, we give up you dishonest, intentionally ignorant, stubbornly resistant to facts 'conservatives' or patriots, or whatever the fuck you like to call yourselves.

It's not disdain (still) for the group though, in general. It is, however, specific and targeted at those we know will prove to be impossible to show simple things like facts, statistics and basic logic.

Case in point. In particular, the presumption that if I disagree with your behavior, I must be a conservative... and thus you are justified in calling me dishonest, ignorant, delusional fuckhead, etc.

Very humane. I can feel the humane treatment just oozing off of you. Full of compassion and caring.

Yeah, it's amazing how uncritical some people are of themselves. The psychological need for a this sort of manichaean world-view, were on the one side is the good, honest, "data driven" (lol!) people and on the other, the evil, uncaring, selfish, and brainwashed is self-evident.

 

[Angry Floof]

Case in point. In particular, the presumption that if I disagree with your behavior, I must be a conservative... and thus you are justified in calling me dishonest, ignorant, delusional fuckhead, etc.

Very humane. I can feel the humane treatment just oozing off of you. Full of compassion and caring.

Yeah, it's amazing how uncritical some people are of themselves. The psychological need for a this sort of manichaean world-view, were on the one side is the good, honest, "data driven" (lol!) people and on the other, the evil, uncaring, selfish, and brainwashed is self-evident.

Yet explaining that nothing in this is black and white or us vs them goes over some people's heads, the psychological need to squeeze everything into one's binary mental framework because there is no other framework through which to understand it. And increasing the frustration is the fact that they find the messenger annoying for not also complying with that framework.

 

[Jarhyn]

Case in point. In particular, the presumption that if I disagree with your behavior, I must be a conservative... and thus you are justified in calling me dishonest, ignorant, delusional fuckhead, etc.

Very humane. I can feel the humane treatment just oozing off of you. Full of compassion and caring.

Yeah, it's amazing how uncritical some people are of themselves. The psychological need for a this sort of manichaean world-view, were on the one side is the good, honest, "data driven" (lol!) people and on the other, the evil, uncaring, selfish, and brainwashed is self-evident.

Yet explaining that nothing in this is black and white or us vs them goes over some people's heads, the psychological need to squeeze everything into one's binary mental framework because there is no other framework through which to understand it. And increasing the frustration is the fact that they find the messenger annoying for not also complying with that framework.

So, I read every one of Emily's posts since they went off over being called conservative...

Emily, you could resolve this by making a statement about what you actually are and describing what principles and philosophy drive your positions. The fact that you don't is telling: that you would rather keep those things wishy-washy and plausibly deniable rather than have someone actually examine those foundations and perhaps show them to be weak.

Really though, I have my doubts as to whether there is a driving philosophy or principle behind it at all.

I can and frequently do point out my driving philosophies on my positions all the time.

As to Angry Floof, it's more an issue that while they have just-so binaries, conservatives rarely have a sound philosophical foundation to work with in the first place, it being driven mostly through heirarchical belief transmission (deference to authority).

 

[Metaphor]

If your ideology includes your very sense of self and value as a human being depending on a specific narrative being true, you will tend to use all those pitfalls to avoid being wrong. You will turn off your critical thinking brain and fall back on whatever defense mechanism makes you feel better about your ideological identity.

Right wing and fundamentalist religious ideologies contain all those mechanisms: don't question, punish dissent, allow authority figures to tell you what to think, accept any and all excuses and explanations to support the beliefs, react to criticism as if your life were being threatened, take objections as proof of superiority and agreement as validation, etc.

Your description of the intersectional left above is quite comprehensive.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, I read every one of Emily's posts since they went off over being called conservative...

Emily, you could resolve this by making a statement about what you actually are and describing what principles and philosophy drive your positions. The fact that you don't is telling: that you would rather keep those things wishy-washy and plausibly deniable rather than have someone actually examine those foundations and perhaps show them to be weak.

Oh, how foolish of me to have not given a lengthy answer to a question I hadn't been asked! I clearly should have read your mind well before this moment. How thoughtless of me to have made you have to say it out loud and come across as if you're insulting me!


I saw a bumper sticker that rather captured my views. It said "I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns".

The government has no place interfering in interpersonal relationships among consenting adults, period. The government should place no limits on marriage, and that includes how many people can be married to each other, although I am okay with some limitation on the tax benefits of plural marriages. I think most drug laws are dumb and should be abolished. I think most regulations need to be re-written from the ground up, because we don't really need "more regulations" so much as we need "good regulations". I think most of the bills that go through congress are packed full of unrelated things that make it nearly impossible for anything to actually get done in any reasonable fashion; I think almost all federal level (and man local level) politicians are the worst examples of power-hungry scum offered up by a culture obsessed with "reality tv". I like guns, and I oppose bans of any sort, but I do support required training and licensing, and I have no objection to the government refusing to give my bipolar sister a firearm. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat for that matter. You know, let's just make sure all her silverware is plastic, okay?

I support the Oxford comma, as well as double spacing at the end of a sentence. And other people's feelings do not confer any obligation on me.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I read every one of Emily's posts since they went off over being called conservative...

Emily, you could resolve this by making a statement about what you actually are and describing what principles and philosophy drive your positions. The fact that you don't is telling: that you would rather keep those things wishy-washy and plausibly deniable rather than have someone actually examine those foundations and perhaps show them to be weak.

Oh, how foolish of me to have not given a lengthy answer to a question I hadn't been asked! I clearly should have read your mind well before this moment. How thoughtless of me to have made you have to say it out loud and come across as if you're insulting me!


I saw a bumper sticker that rather captured my views. It said "I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns".

The government has no place interfering in interpersonal relationships among consenting adults, period. The government should place no limits on marriage, and that includes how many people can be married to each other, although I am okay with some limitation on the tax benefits of plural marriages. I think most drug laws are dumb and should be abolished. I think most regulations need to be re-written from the ground up, because we don't really need "more regulations" so much as we need "good regulations". I think most of the bills that go through congress are packed full of unrelated things that make it nearly impossible for anything to actually get done in any reasonable fashion; I think almost all federal level (and man local level) politicians are the worst examples of power-hungry scum offered up by a culture obsessed with "reality tv". I like guns, and I oppose bans of any sort, but I do support required training and licensing, and I have no objection to the government refusing to give my bipolar sister a firearm. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat for that matter. You know, let's just make sure all her silverware is plastic, okay?

I support the Oxford comma, as well as double spacing at the end of a sentence. And other people's feelings do not confer any obligation on me.

So, we can agree on a lot of things. Can we agree that...

Regulations we have should not be removed until we can agree on what to replace them with?

That a reasonable solution to pork legislation would be to design some mechanism (regardless of how difficult it would be to design such a mechanism) to censure those who attach unrelated legislation to a bill, and remove the attempted "pork"?

That while most politicians are corrupt, that some are much more corrupt and criminal?

That while other people's feelings do not obligated you, that acting in disregard of their feelings fully justifies them treating you as a person who lacks empathy, and likewise justifies them in ignoring your feelings about things (and them outright not playing whatever game you wish to play)?

We will probably disagree about guns. I think that we are all, every last one of us, perfectly capable of acting with the full measure of human madness, and that having a deadly weapon at arm's reach in those pivotal moments makes anyone a killer; that the best place for a gun, which anyone should be free to seek licensure and training to own, is in a container that prevents immediate access.

As for language, I support whatever mode of utterance manages to get an idea from one head into another.

As to marriage, I take a different view: I want all legal mention of the term "marriage" replaced with "civil union" or "domestic partnership contract". "Marriage" means different things to different people, it itself being a "marriage" of religious and social principles that needs to see it's day in divorce court; a "domestic partnership contract" is clearly a vehicle of civil law, and nothing but. As such, I find being forced to call what your religion (regardless of how anachronistic your beliefs happen to be) defines as not-a-marriage as one for the sake of a law to be ill advised..

From that perspective, it opens up domestic partnership as a concept that can be explored more freely, without considering what may or may not be "marriage". You could get married at that point to a cactus, by a priest in a church (assuming any priest would do that), or even by the stinky hippy your brother knows who decided he knows how to say "cactus and wife". But it wouldn't be a contract because that would require consenting adults persons as parties, because children, animals, and plants can't enter into contracts. Edit: and be in domestic partnership with as many people as you like, since I don't see any compelling legal argument against allowing people to partner with multiple people for domestic purposes.

 

[Tigers!]

So, we can agree on a lot of things. Can we agree that...

Regulations we have should not be removed until we can agree on what to replace them with?

No conservative has any problem with that statement. That is what we have being saying for decades. Glad someone is listening.

That a reasonable solution to pork legislation would be to design some mechanism (regardless of how difficult it would be to design such a mechanism) to censure those who attach unrelated legislation to a bill, and remove the attempted "pork"?

The devil is in the detail i.e. one man's pork is another essential service.Worth trying though.

That while most politicians are corrupt, that some are much more corrupt and criminal?

I do not know what you yank politicians are like but in Oz I would say most are not corrupt. That being said we had a scandal erupt in Victoria this year. Fortunately for the state government Covid-19 has pushed it off the pages of the press.

That while other people's feelings do not obligated you, that acting in disregard of their feelings fully justifies them treating you as a person who lacks empathy, and likewise justifies them in ignoring your feelings about things (and them outright not playing whatever game you wish to play)?

No problem with that.

We will probably disagree about guns. I think that we are all, every last one of us, perfectly capable of acting with the full measure of human madness, and that having a deadly weapon at arm's reach in those pivotal moments makes anyone a killer; that the best place for a gun, which anyone should be free to seek licensure and training to own, is in a container that prevents immediate access.

Coming from Oz we have tight gun laws and I cannot see why you yanks do not tighten yours. You have too many guns in the hands of idiots who shoot first, it seems, then do not ask questions.

As for language, I support whatever mode of utterance manages to get an idea from one head into another.

With reason yes.

As to marriage, I take a different view: I want all legal mention of the term "marriage" replaced with "civil union" or "domestic partnership contract". "Marriage" means different things to different people, it itself being a "marriage" of religious and social principles that needs to see it's day in divorce court; a "domestic partnership contract" is clearly a vehicle of civil law, and nothing but. As such, I find being forced to call what your religion (regardless of how anachronistic your beliefs happen to be) defines as not-a-marriage as one for the sake of a law to be ill advised..

From that perspective, it opens up domestic partnership as a concept that can be explored more freely, without considering what may or may not be "marriage". You could get married at that point to a cactus, by a priest in a church (assuming any priest would do that), or even by the stinky hippy your brother knows who decided he knows how to say "cactus and wife". But it wouldn't be a contract because that would require consenting adults persons as parties, because children, animals, and plants can't enter into contracts. Edit: and be in domestic partnership with as many people as you like, since I don't see any compelling legal argument against allowing people to partner with multiple people for domestic purposes.

That merry go-round will go on for ever.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, we can agree on a lot of things. Can we agree that...

Regulations we have should not be removed until we can agree on what to replace them with?

90% of the time, yes. I reserve the right to decide that some regulations are so bad they should be rolled back even if we don't replace them. Most of them aren't that way... but when you get into the more industry-specific stuff, sometimes they get weird for no good reason at all.

That a reasonable solution to pork legislation would be to design some mechanism (regardless of how difficult it would be to design such a mechanism) to censure those who attach unrelated legislation to a bill, and remove the attempted "pork"?

Sure.

That while most politicians are corrupt, that some are much more corrupt and criminal?

Sure. But there's a point where "more evil than that other evil guy" just doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. The lesser evil is still an evil.

That while other people's feelings do not obligated you, that acting in disregard of their feelings fully justifies them treating you as a person who lacks empathy, and likewise justifies them in ignoring your feelings about things (and them outright not playing whatever game you wish to play)?

Meh sure. I don't think that's necessarily reasonable, but whatever. Mostly, I can actually be empathetic toward other people's situations and feelings without believing that their feelings take precedence in policy or even in interactions. I can empathize with someone who feels offended by not being allowed to marry a 12 year old while still holding firm that they shouldn't be allowed to marry a 12 year old. I can feel empathy and sympathy for someone struggling to make ends meet while simultaneously not supporting UBI. If they want to decide that I'm a douchenozzle because I don't let their feelings govern my views, that's fine. I get to think they're selfish jerks right back

We will probably disagree about guns. I think that we are all, every last one of us, perfectly capable of acting with the full measure of human madness, and that having a deadly weapon at arm's reach in those pivotal moments makes anyone a killer; that the best place for a gun, which anyone should be free to seek licensure and training to own, is in a container that prevents immediate access.

Okay then. I'm pretty confident in my ability to stay rational, and I'm pretty inclined to call the cops as a first step. But some people are idiots who i don't necessarily trust to make good decisions or maintain control. {lemme tell you about the friend who"took control" and checked whether I had a pulse and was breathing when I was in the middle of a seizure and was conscious and responsive... }

As for language, I support whatever mode of utterance manages to get an idea from one head into another.

As to marriage, I take a different view: I want all legal mention of the term "marriage" replaced with "civil union" or "domestic partnership contract". "Marriage" means different things to different people, it itself being a "marriage" of religious and social principles that needs to see it's day in divorce court; a "domestic partnership contract" is clearly a vehicle of civil law, and nothing but. As such, I find being forced to call what your religion (regardless of how anachronistic your beliefs happen to be) defines as not-a-marriage as one for the sake of a law to be ill advised..

From that perspective, it opens up domestic partnership as a concept that can be explored more freely, without considering what may or may not be "marriage". You could get married at that point to a cactus, by a priest in a church (assuming any priest would do that), or even by the stinky hippy your brother knows who decided he knows how to say "cactus and wife". But it wouldn't be a contract because that would require consenting adults persons as parties, because children, animals, and plants can't enter into contracts. Edit: and be in domestic partnership with as many people as you like, since I don't see any compelling legal argument against allowing people to partner with multiple people for domestic purposes.

Usually, I'm much more inclined to focus on whether communication is successful than on specific word choice. I don't care whether you call it marriage or civil union or domestic partnership. I agree with your overall view regarding the contractual aspect of it, I just don't have any hangups around the words used for it.

But sometimes I go the opposite direction - I frequently get very irked by loaded language and narrative framing that is intended to instigate an emotional (and thoughtless) response. Outrage bait pisses me off. Language is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool. Language can sway a person's perception of reality, it can anchor their interpretation of events, and it can influence their responses.