Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[paleologos]

That seems to describe the Republicans in USA and other modern "conservative" movements quite nicely.

It is my opinion that conservatism is not a movement, but let's agree to disagree on that.

And yes, it does seem to describe the Republicans in USA today.
I have no doubt that there is a lot of partisanship on the right too but as it has been discussed before it is partisanship not for something but against something.
Did you think that I am a partisan?

And to be clear, I believe it requires some apprehension of nuance to speak of the voters of the American Republican party as a monolithic group.
There are profound differences between traditional Catholics, traditional Evangelicals, libertarians, the working class/unemployed/underemployed poor of the "deep south" and the alt-right.

To make things more specific:
Traditional Evangelicals and libertarians will never agree on the issue of abortion.
However, since the vast majority of libertarians are men - and Randists, they put abortion in the back burner for the sake of limited government and lower taxes.
(The Righteous Mind)
Also, traditional Evangelicals easily frown upon the attitudes of libertarians and the working class/unemployed/underemployed poor towards marriage and family.
But they agree on that matter with the Catholics, although they view with great suspicion the affiliation with the Vatican.

Finally, the alt-right are the ones pushing all the loony stuff.
And they are just so much noisier.
Not to mention they are easily selected by the "liberal" media as poster boys for all those who vote Republican.
What better way to galvanize the voters on the "left"?

So, "Republicans" are not all the same, they just vote the same.
In my eyes this is an exemplification of a multiple unholy alliance.

Melanie Phillips...
...
...criticism.

Shall I continue? Would you classify her as moderate and objective?

So I posted a video of her, where in 4:53" she concisely delivered the reasons that classical liberals have to find wokism loathsome.

And instead of addressing that part, you went about looking for ways to discredit her character (ad hominem), as if her improprieties would negate everything she has to say.
(A time honored communist tactic?)

Yes, she is guilty of several improprieties.
The content of the linked video is valid none the less.
You could have said something about that.

And you could have said something about the other videos but you didn't, oblivious of how your omission would make you look.
That's what I meant by:

This is so transparent.

a transsexual woman is a woman and should be treated as such.
same about trans men; they are men and should be treated as such.
Those who consciously reject this are harassing, harming a very mistreated minority.

So, refusal to indulge someone else's narcissistic delusions is "harassment" now?
Who made that decision?
The narcissistically "compassionate" enablers of the deluded people?
Let them grow some skin.

Those who consciously reject this are harassing, harming...

Expressing one's mind is now equated to "doing harm"?
What are they, snowflakes in the desert?
Are they going to melt, or something?

...a very mistreated minority.

Incels consider themselves mistreated, should we indulge them too?
I wouldn't do that either.

And by the way, when was the last time in the western world that someone got attacked for being trans?
There is no real danger in that way.

I don't know much about laws, but I don't think it should be a crime to misgender a person in a bar.

Is that the extend of our generosity?

Different story when someone does it from the media or incites others to participate in the harassment.

"Different" how?
This is still coy.
How should people be treated for printing in a newspaper, or a dissertation that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression?
Take a stance, raise your true flag.

I have a pretty clear idea of who I am.

Then take a stance and declare your opinion on how people should be treated for printing in a newspaper, or a dissertation that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression.

Do you want to give me your vision of who I am, perhaps?

There is food for the body and there is food for the mind and each of us needs to do his own chewing.
On my part, I am fresh out of pearls to cast.

Take a stance on how to treat people for publishing the opinion that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression.

[mishkin]

Take a stance on how to treat people for publishing the opinion that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression.

I will answer you, but I have to ask you first if you are saying that the sex at birth determines the gender.

[paleologos]

I am not the one saying it.
Biology says that gender is determined by the Y or X chromosome on the spermatozoon that has fertilized the ovum.
There are sometimes anomalies with excess or missing chromosomes but anomalies are outliers and do not disprove the rule.
This has been a scientifically established fact since the discovery of DNA.

[mishkin]

You are confusing sex and gender. I encourage you to do a quick search on google. Here wikipedia: Though the terms sex and gender have been used interchangeably since at least the fourteenth century,[1] in contemporary academic literature they usually have distinct meanings. Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[2][3][4][5] While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably,[6][7] most contemporary social scientists,[8][9][10] behavioral scientists and biologists,[11][12] many legal systems and government bodies,[13] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO[14] make a distinction between gender and sex.

In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent, and consistent with the individual's gender identity,[15] but in some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender.[2] Also in some cases, an individual may have sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex.

Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a distinction between biological sex and gender identity/role in 1955,[16][17] although Madison Bentley had already defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex" a decade earlier.[18][19] As originally conceived by Money, gender and sex are analysed together as a single category including both biological and social elements, but later work by Robert Stoller separated the two, designating sex and gender as biological and cultural categories, respectively. Before the work of Bentley, Money and Stoller, the word gender was only regularly used to refer to grammatical categories.[20][21][22][23]

I have many defects paleologos. I'm confrontational, I'm lazy, I'm vindictive, not very smart. but at least I try to inform myself a little when I start a debate. I do not write the first ### that crosses my mind, or ten nonsense poorly amalgamated in four paragraphs. And I do not insist on my ignorance.

[paleologos]

The text above is irrelevant.
People can be ignorant.

How should people (ignorant or not) be treated for printing in a newspaper, or a dissertation that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression?
You still have not taken a stance on how people should be treated.
And I mean both by the law and by other institutions, including social media.

Take a stance on that.

[mishkin]

It seems very good to me that in academic circles there are debates about whatever considered necessary in the pursuit of science, not for political purposes. Ditto for broadcasting these debates in mainstream media. Publicizing the opinion of adventurous scientists/doctors/biologists whose theories have been rejected by the scientific community when the welfare of people is at stake seems irresponsible to me.

more questions? (Until I get tired of it) I have no problem answering your questions, but I would like to see some progress from you. see that my work bears some fruit.

[paleologos]

You still have not answered the question.

How should we, the organized and civil society, treat the people who express publicly and through the media an opinion with which we do not agree?

It seems you are not tired of avoiding it.

[mishkin]

this is the third time you changed your question. Now you're talking about something as generic as "express publicly an opinion with which I don't agree." Are you talking about people who say that pizza can have pineapple? Of the people who say that climate change is a hoax? of people who say that transgender people are mentally weak people influenced by a fashion? Some things are just opinions, other things can be reasonably debated, others are mere insults of course without any basis that should be avoided.

The next question, please be very specific. Don't ask me to talk to you about freedom of expression, about forums where it is ok, in a very specific setting, to debate things that can be controversial, about what can be objectionable...

[paleologos]

You are grasping at straws and it is obvious.
The question has always been the same.
For me this was never about biology or compassion or inclusivity and the other nonsense.

Take a stance on how to treat people for publishing the opinion that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression.

How should we, the organized and civil society, treat the people who express publicly and through the media an opinion with which we do not agree?

What do you do with the people who say things that you find hurtful?
Because freedom of speech is most important exactly when we find what the other person has to say offensive.

Do you advocate for the enactment of laws that punish them?
Or do you bite the bullet like a grown up?

I can reword the same question a million different ways.
It's the same question.

You never gave an answer of any kind to the crucial part:
How do you treat others when you don't like what they say?

The side you have chosen does advocate for repressive legislation in the name of "compassion".
And they do it behind closed doors.
They are the same people who would tattle when they were children.

So far I have only seen demonstrations of pusillanimity.
I expect no change.

[mishkin]

Take a stance on how to treat people for publishing the opinion that it is biology that determines sex, gender and gender expression.

How should we, the organized and civil society, treat the people who express publicly and through the media an opinion with which we do not agree?

We have already made it clear before that the statement you put as an example is incorrect. Therefore, this statement should not be spread as if it were true. "As a society" we should reproach a media outlet for lying. Of course these ideas, although incorrect, can be debated. Debate yes - Propagating lies no.

[Muizer]

Finally, the alt-right are the ones pushing all the loony stuff.
And they are just so much noisier.
Not to mention they are easily selected by the "liberal" media as poster boys for all those who vote Republican.
What better way to galvanize the voters on the "left"?

It strikes me that your posts apply the exact same tactics to against progressives that you complain about when used against conservatives: present the extreme as typical for rhetorical purposes.

If conservatives do not see it that way, that is because they have the tendency to take the present as reference point for whether ideas are radical or not. But that really is a biased position. Historically, there's a trend of continuous, more or less moderate change, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone age. Moderate change is the reference point. Conservatism can be as radical as Progressiveness.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It strikes me that your posts apply the exact same tactics to against progressives that you complain about when used against conservatives: present the extreme as typical for rhetorical purposes.

What’s your definition of extreme? While 2020 Democrats are extreme by 2010 Democrat standards, the corollary is less true of Republicans based on the below data, so your comparison would appear to be rhetorical, at least on this side of the pond.

Do European center-left parties use their power to push for the kinds of things your interlocutor is complaining about, to the same extent as US Democrats?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If conservatives do not see it that way, that is because they have the tendency to take the present as reference point for whether ideas are radical or not. But that really is a biased position. Historically, there's a trend of continuous, more or less moderate change, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone age. Moderate change is the reference point. Conservatism can be as radical as Progressiveness.

Are you suggesting the lives of stone age civilizations would have been progressed by the technological capacity to provide sex hormones/perform sex change operations on minors or police speech regarding what a man/woman is?

With the exception of climate change policy (I’d wager most conservative parties in the West do not indulge in denialism to the degree American Republicans do), what basis do you have for conflating what conservatives hate about progressives with technological change or advancement?

When was the last time conservatives in the West actively opposed technological advancement in any sector of society?

[mishkin]

In which countries are surgical operations for sex change in minors (less than 18) allowed? It would be great if we made this clear once and for all. As far as I know, none.

[Abdülmecid I]

The Democrats have shifted to the left since Obama's presidency and the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, but almost exclusively in cultural issues. In economic issues, they remain considerably more right-wing than in the '70s. It began with the promising candidature of Gary Hart, but the trend accelerated with Bill Clinton and his shift to the center. Both shifts are purely opportunistic though. The last one aims at gaining support of younger voters with a visibly more progressive and liberal moral compass. The conservative orientation of the late '80s and '90s was a response to the electorate becoming considerably more conservative under Reagan's presidency. It's too early to judge the new strategy, but the centrist turn in economics proved successful, judging from Clinton's victories, following the 12-years old Republican domination of the Oval Office.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In which countries are surgical operations for sex change in minors (less than 18) allowed? It would be great if we made this clear once and for all. As far as I know, none.

Oddly enough, Europe is less insane than the US in that regard, because transgenderism is a religion primarily impacting the Anglosphere. In Canada, you can even be jailed for refusing to encourage and support your child if they choose to get a sex change.

https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication...gnment-surgery

However, bigoted European laws are out of compliance with the enlightened, progressive standard. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, recognized by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) and others as “the leading international, interdisciplinary professional or- ganization devoted to the understanding and treatment of gender identity disorders,” recommends bottom surgery as young as 15. WPATH lists no minimum age for chest surgery.

In the US, even with limited data, the numbers are explosive. Over half of surgeons who perform bottom surgery have done so on minors, for example. And that’s without getting into the fact that “puberty blockers,” the allegedly harmless and reversible precursor to surgery, permanently damage kids’ normal development.

The Democrats have shifted to the left since Obama's presidency and the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, but almost exclusively in cultural issues. In economic issues, they remain considerably more right-wing than in the '70s. It began with the promising candidature of Gary Hart, but the trend accelerated with Bill Clinton and his shift to the center. Both shifts are purely opportunistic though. The last one aims at gaining support of younger voters with a visibly more progressive and liberal moral compass. The conservative orientation of the late '80s and '90s was a response to the electorate becoming considerably more conservative under Reagan's presidency. It's too early to judge the new strategy, but the centrist turn in economics proved successful, judging from Clinton's victories, following the 12-years old Republican domination of the Oval Office.

At the same time, Trump marked the beginning of the end for Reaganomics on the right, coinciding with lockstep compliance from Wall St with Democrats on cultural issues. Marco Rubio recently cited socialist economists in a “report” decrying the dangers of financialization and the importance of labor to the economy. In 10 years, I bet a decent “Christian Workers’ Party” would be a viable third wing of American politics - not that we’ll get one.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...investment.pdf

[Muizer]

What’s your definition of extreme? While 2020 Democrats are extreme by 2010 Democrat standards, the corollary is less true of Republicans based on the below data, so your comparison would appear to be rhetorical, at least on this side of the pond.

Statistics are tricky, but looking at the graph, it seems that if you wanted to have a graph of 'extremeness' it would have to be centered around the mean, which I guess is the 'overall' line. That's because the 'overall' shift needs to be compensated for / deducted. If not, you could argue extrapolating backwards that we're all extreme in our tolerance of the Protestant heresy or something: True, but pointless.

Do European center-left parties use their power to push for the kinds of things your interlocutor is complaining about, to the same extent as US Democrats?

That's hard for me to say, because often the American news I am alerted to (e.g. here in the forum) in the sphere of social justice rarely concern official positions of the democratic party and its officials, lawmakers and executives etc.. More often than not it's incidents, especially ones that happen on a very local level or things that influential private people in arts, media, sports etc. are expressing. It's also quite clear there are pressure groups making themselves heard and that there are influential ideologues in academia. But to what extent that results in government action is not at all clear. So, I can't really tell what Democratic politics is about in the US and whether it is actively setting/ accelerating a trend or just following one.

As for Europe, I think in the West any polarization on social justice issues is mainly a division within the political right but that's a generalization that probably won't have muchsurvive the reality if you go country by country.

what basis do you have for conflating what conservatives hate about progressives with technological change or advancement? When was the last time conservatives in the West actively opposed technological advancement in any sector of society?

Meh, I think you know what I mean. If not, it's probably not worth the effort trying to explain.

[PointOfViewGun]

Oddly enough, Europe is less insane than the US in that regard, because transgenderism is a religion primarily impacting the Anglosphere. In Canada, you can even be jailed for refusing to encourage and support your child if they choose to get a sex change.

That's not what the article points out. He wasn't jailed for refusing to encourage and support of any kind. He was found in contempt of court for publicly discussing the child's personal life.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's not what the article points out. He wasn't jailed for refusing to encourage and support of any kind. He was found in contempt of court for publicly discussing the child's personal life.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but your assertion is false in any case.

The high court ordered the dad to not stand in the way of the 15-year-old’s hormone therapy and to try and better understand gender dysphoria, the outlet reported. He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence.

Moving on.

Statistics are tricky, but looking at the graph, it seems that if you wanted to have a graph of 'extremeness' it would have to be centered around the mean, which I guess is the 'overall' line. That's because the 'overall' shift needs to be compensated for / deducted. If not, you could argue extrapolating backwards that we're all extreme in our tolerance of the Protestant heresy or something: True, but pointless.

The graph shows two decades, not five centuries, so I’m not sure what the value of your comparison is. What I see is Democrats have shifted so far to the left in the last decade alone, they managed to drag the “overall” line to the left, despite Republicans holding steady or even shifting slightly to the right. Today, more Independents and Republicans find Democrats “too extreme” than they did 10 years ago, while all three cohorts show the opposite trend with respect to Republicans.

The point is, “what about conservatives” doesn’t hold water as a counter to complaints about left wing extremism, if only in the context that US Democrats are objectively more extreme than just a decade ago.

That's hard for me to say, because often the American news I am alerted to (e.g. here in the forum) in the sphere of social justice rarely concern official positions of the democratic party and its officials, lawmakers and executives etc….. So, I can't really tell what Democratic politics is about in the US and whether it is actively setting/ accelerating a trend or just following one.

My own response(s) to your post(s) within the last couple weeks alone make this assertion pretty bizarre, to say the least.

Meh, I think you know what I mean. If not, it's probably not worth the effort trying to explain.

I’m just asking why you conflate what your interlocutor is complaining about with matters of civilizational progress. I think I do know what you mean, but I thought I’d let you explain before I reply that maiming kids or policing speech about biology isn’t progress just because it’s change.

[PointOfViewGun]

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but your assertion is false in any case.
Moving on.

Is there a particular reason you highlight "attempts" and not "public attempts" there?

[Sir Adrian]

Andrew Tate's home got raided today by Romanian special operations police units and he and his brother were held in custody for questioning. They were questioned for almost 5 hours in a case that involves 5 counts of rape, human trafficking and creating and abeting an organized crime outfit.

This is the second raid since April and was based on new evidence that could possibly lead to the incarceration of both brothers.

Personally I hope they get 25 years in prison.

The Democrats have shifted to the left since Obama's presidency and the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, but almost exclusively in cultural issues. In economic issues, they remain considerably more right-wing than in the '70s. It began with the promising candidature of Gary Hart, but the trend accelerated with Bill Clinton and his shift to the center. Both shifts are purely opportunistic though. The last one aims at gaining support of younger voters with a visibly more progressive and liberal moral compass. The conservative orientation of the late '80s and '90s was a response to the electorate becoming considerably more conservative under Reagan's presidency. It's too early to judge the new strategy, but the centrist turn in economics proved successful, judging from Clinton's victories, following the 12-years old Republican domination of the Oval Office.

The democrats remain further to the right than any mainstream non-extremist European party.