Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 24874 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #200 on: June 29, 2019, 08:20:32 PM »
So a mother has to choose a homosexual couple to adopt their child in order not to be a hateful bigot?  Ridiculous.  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.

No, of course not.

You said that conservative women would not be likely to choose a homosexual couple to adopt a child.  If the woman is doing this solely due to their sexual orientation (the only criteria you specified), then the woman is a bigot by definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 08:24:52 PM by GuitarStv »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #201 on: June 29, 2019, 09:25:40 PM »
This was interesting, Chesterton on the caveman and his (or her, for that matter) art.

Our myth of progress holds that everything is an improvement on before, so that if you go back far enough then all life was nothing but shivering poverty, brutal violent oppression and misery, and that only the foolish and malicious would wish things to be as they were. But as eloquently described by Chesterton, even the Stone Age had its beauty and joys.

Quote
When the psychoanalyst writes to a patient, “The submerged instincts of the cave-man are doubtless prompting you to gratify a violent impulse,’ he does not refer to the impulse to paint in water-colors; or to make conscientious studies of how cattle swing their heads when they graze. Yet we do know for a fact that the cave-man did these mild and innocent things and we have not the most minute speck of evidence that he did any of the violent and ferocious things.

https://theblogthatwasthursday.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/chesterton-on-cave-paintings/


I do not wish to go back to the Stone Age, but it is wrong to suppose that each age before us has nothing of value, and that the world was nothing but victims and perpetrators.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1462
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #202 on: June 30, 2019, 09:26:02 AM »
One of the bigger problems we're seeing right now - in the US and to a lesser extent in Canada - is applying labels to groups
of people and then encouraging each group to fight against the other.   The fight is usually based on some extreme position
advocated by only a small number of people in the group.

So we see self identified conservatives calling liberals names, and self identified liberals disparaging the intelligence of conservatives.

The polarization seems to be created by different organizations usually as a means of increasing their influence.   The
popular media is a key example.   Fox news will promote ridiculous stories about liberal agendas.   The Washington post will
publish equally ridiculous articles about the Trump family.    The Russian government is another key example...

Social media provides immense leverage to increase polarization.  Younger generations will seize upon some controversial
keynote that resonates with their experiences and promote this through social media.   
Older generations with their longer term experiences are viewed as irrelevant and ignored as old timers have a much smaller presence on social media.

But the reality is liberals and conservatives share many common values.   We're foolish to be fighting amongst ourselves while authoritarian
world powers are struggling to supplant the democratic order that we've build over the last 200 years.   I may not be the number one
fan of the US's military adventures, but I like the US government a lot more than the Chinese or Russian government.

It would be useful to remind ourselves of the original values of conservatism and liberalism, and remember that we are all
citizens of the same nation whether we call ourselves conservative or liberals, republicans or democrats.

Back to the thread topic, social conservatism is defined as

Quote
the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.

whereas liberalism is

Quote
a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.

These belief systems are not incompatible, and it is hard to argue that either one is often wrong, let alone always wrong.

Do any of us really believe that our politicians are effectively representing conservatism or liberalism?



John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #203 on: June 30, 2019, 07:42:56 PM »


It would be useful to remind ourselves of the original values of conservatism and liberalism, and remember that we are all citizens of the same nation whether we call ourselves conservative or liberals, republicans or democrats.


What matters most for me  is the freedom to choose where we situate ourselves on  the political spectrum.

I don't devalue anyone because of their choice of political orientation.

On the contrary, I'm happy that they have a choice and have chosen to make use of it.

And I'm ever mindful that I am a person who sits, via my computer, in what is alternatively a  global classroom, global marketplace of ideas, and global court of public opinion.



Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #204 on: June 30, 2019, 08:08:58 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.

I'd argue that perspective doesn't matte as much as actions.  Making drugs illegal is a socially conservative reaction to a point of view.  But the point of view that drugs are generally bad for people, is that really socially conservative?

For example, I'm for legalization of marijuana even though I've never tried it and have no real plans to do so in the future.  As you said, drug use probably doesn't lead to better outcomes (at least that is my perspecive).  Does that mean that I'm socially conservative?


The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.

It's in the 'forcing it on other people' part that my concern lies with social conservatism.  I've got no issue with what you believe in your heart of hearts . . . it's only when you act upon it in a way that hurts others that we'll end up in a fight.


A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.

Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others.  What's true for me is not necessarily true for everyone else.  Stable marriages have benefits - agreed (mine certainly does).  But bad, unstable marriages do not have those benefits (my parents certainly did not - which is why they eventually divorced).  The only people who can decide what is best in a relationship are the two people in the relationship.

My problem is not with the viewpoint that stable marriages have benefits!  Multiple opinions and viewpoints are great, and debate benefits us all by helping us to consider a problem from all angles.  It's when that idea becomes action, forced upon others that I have a problem.  The modern social conservative movement seems largely based around forceful enactment of these viewpoints.  Each of the social conservative issues I listed is one that is a problem because of the actions that social conservatives are supporting which force others to comply with their wishes.


I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.

Sure.  As mentioned, I personally share the 'socially conservative' viewpoints you've outlined here . . . I obviously don't think that they're wrong.

C'mon man. Your arguments here are along the lines of people saying, I'll never be Democrat because Democrats supported the KKK. If we can't talk about things in the context with which they actually happened, what is the point of this discussion in general? So no, I'm not saying you're a social conservative, nor did I ever. I don't really care what your views are on drugs in regards to this conversation because you're not in the era I specifically mentioned. The point is, if we're talking about social conservatives being right or wrong, we have to talk about the specific era where the issue was. Am I a guaranteed social liberal now because I am 100% against slavery. No, of course not. The point is, being much more pro drug was a socially liberal position in the 60's. Being against that was a pretty much social conservative position in the 60's. Social conservative position of pushing back against drug use was not wrong. It was the correct perspective even if the enforcement of it was wrong.

Pro marriage is/was the same thing. I've never heard a social progressive person promote marriage on any kind of platform with the exception of promoting allowance of gay marriage. Now that that's been accomplished, it's a non starter from any progressive I've heard. If social conservatives have too limited of a view of marriage for you, that's fine. They still are promoting it. Social progressives are neutral at best, to neutral with some mockery of it, to strong emphasis that it's outdated at the more extreme. Promoting stable marriages as at least generally good is certainly not something that's wrong. Again, going back to my friend's quote, more wealthy liberal elites may talk about how marriage is outdated but they tend to get married, stay married more, with positive results for themselves financially, for their kids, etc. Social conservatives are not wrong on this.

I thought up another one in the mean time, and this one is evolving as we speak. Social conservatives have been against pornography for a good long time. Social liberals were either neutral on it or promoted it as something to liberate women or whatever arguments they were. Social liberals in some circles are now backtracking, realizing that it comes part in parcel with objectification of women, certainly promotes unrealistic expectations in generations of men...it literally alters the brain in people that look at it. Not only were social conservatives opposing pornography well before this new take, many of their reasons lined up with the reasons now being put forth by social liberals. Trust me, I have been raised hearing these things over a decade before I've seen any of these articles about them - watching porn affects you more than the momentary act of doing it, it changes how you see women, etc. Social conservatives were/are not wrong on this.

I agree that the dynamic changes when the perspectives are enforced by government force on either side (someone anti gun who would never own one versus full on gun control of everyone). We can have a discussion about social conservative perspectives that have become law. I'd need to think on it because it wouldn't be as easy of an argument, of course. First, though, I'd like you to admit that we've now given you multiple situations where social conservatives' perspectives weren't wrong which was at least part of your initial question.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #205 on: June 30, 2019, 09:38:21 PM »

And I'm ever mindful that I am a person who sits, via my computer, in what is alternatively a  global classroom, global marketplace of ideas, and global court of public opinion.

Wow, @John Galt incarnate! I really like that.

We're foolish to be fighting amongst ourselves while authoritarian
world powers are struggling to supplant the democratic order that we've build over the last 200 years.

I agree. I suspect that if we could mentally liberate ourselves from partisanship, both American liberals and conservatives would agree with this.


It would be useful to remind ourselves of the original values of conservatism and liberalism, and remember that we are all
citizens of the same nation whether we call ourselves conservative or liberals, republicans or democrats.

Back to the thread topic, social conservatism is defined as

Quote
the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.

whereas liberalism is

Quote
a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.

These belief systems are not incompatible, and it is hard to argue that either one is often wrong, let alone always wrong.

Do any of us really believe that our politicians are effectively representing conservatism or liberalism?

That is a really interesting question.

I actually think quite a few elected representatives are sincerely attempting to represent one or another. What gets tricky is that sometimes, many get mired in partisan strategems. It's perfectly possible that the particpants' view is that the strategems are necessary to advance the cause of (fill in conservative/liberal ism here).

The strategems often seem inconsistent with the stated philosophy, so there's a question about what "effective" is. I think quite a few are trying from their viewpoint, but that partisan inconsistencies greatly limit the number of politicians who can clearly be seen from both sides of the aisle as consistent effective exponents of their philosophy.

PS. Sorry if I took your rhetorical question in an unintended direction.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #206 on: July 01, 2019, 07:06:26 AM »
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?

This was an argument about defending traditional marriage by suggesting that divorce is problematic specifically because men who marry divorced mothers are more likely to abuse children.

You are perfectly capable of attacking that argument through reasoned discussion, as the forum rules suggest. There's no need to break forum rules and lower the quality of discussion by attacking the person, telling them to STFU.

You don't say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people are pedophiles.  You don't say white people shouldn't marry black people because black people are criminals.  And you don't say single mothers shouldn't remarry because new husbands are child abusers (unless you're kbecks).  It's just a terrible thing to say.  I absolutely can and will tell people like that to stfu, their bigotry is not welcome in polite society.  And if the forum moderators have a problem with it, they are free to speak up in defense of bigotry.

She didn't say women shouldn't be ALLOWED to divorce. So your analogy to gay people "shouldn't be allowed to marry" is logically irrelevant. As someone (Marty998?) said, you're setting up a strawman. Then you're associating it with a person (Kbecks) who didn't say either of the inflammatory statements you compared to her comment.

A bigot behaves unfairly and negatively towards someone because of preconceptions instead of what the other person actually does. You're behaving unfairly and negatively towards her, but not because of what she said, only because of what you thought she said. The mistake is by you.

Saying "new boyfriends and step dads in particular can be abusive and predatory" is not any different than saying "single mothers and unwed mothers in particular are unfit to raise children."

@sol, they're very different.

The first one is an assertion about what can be. Do you notice the words "can be" in the middle of it? It's a statement that individual members of a group may have a certain negative characteristic, but it doesn't claim that all members of the discussed class have that negative characteristic. The second one is categorical statement that all members of a group have a negative characteristic.

Also, she said the first one. She didn't say the second one. So attacking her as if she did was wrong.


« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 07:50:07 AM by BicycleB »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #207 on: July 01, 2019, 07:58:22 AM »
@BicycleB  Thank you.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3386
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #208 on: July 01, 2019, 08:42:20 AM »
@BicycleB  Thank you.

I think you were right when you said “  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.

You are nicer than I would be.

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #209 on: July 01, 2019, 08:49:35 AM »
@BicycleB  Thank you.

I think you were right when you said “  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.

You are nicer than I would be.

I think y'all should continue the conversations. I have been very entertained by this thread.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #210 on: July 01, 2019, 09:16:08 AM »
@BicycleB  Thank you.

I think you were right when you said “  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.

You are nicer than I would be.

Thanks. I feel bad that Sol was triggered and flipped out.
I think the conversation about how pornography hurts women and men is an interesting one. One concern about pornography is that it becomes more and more and more extreme and deviant, and that causes problems for people -- the actors (STDs and risky sex, as just one example), and the audiences (distorted expectations of reality).  If we toss in underage porn and human trafficking, it just gets worse.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 09:20:54 AM by KBecks »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3512
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #211 on: July 01, 2019, 11:29:19 AM »
@BicycleB  Thank you.

I think you were right when you said “  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.

You are nicer than I would be.

Thanks. I feel bad that Sol was triggered and flipped out.
I think the conversation about how pornography hurts women and men is an interesting one. One concern about pornography is that it becomes more and more and more extreme and deviant, and that causes problems for people -- the actors (STDs and risky sex, as just one example), and the audiences (distorted expectations of reality).  If we toss in underage porn and human trafficking, it just gets worse.
I'm not going to come out for or against pornography because I don't know enough. But I think it's interesting that some people can become addicted to pornography, to the extent it very much negatively affects their personal (relationships) and sexual lives. Some celebrities have come out about it (Pamela Anderson is another) https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/how-terry-crews-battled-and-eventually-overcame-his-pornography-addiction/
Apparently sexual dysfunction is increasing in a whole group of younger men, that had not been seen in previous generations, and the hypothesis is the use of porn. Basically, because of over use of porn, can't keep it up, have sex with live partner. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/

I think like many things it's best in moderation but some cannot do moderation.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 11:44:16 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #212 on: July 01, 2019, 06:29:51 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.

I'd argue that perspective doesn't matte as much as actions.  Making drugs illegal is a socially conservative reaction to a point of view.  But the point of view that drugs are generally bad for people, is that really socially conservative?

For example, I'm for legalization of marijuana even though I've never tried it and have no real plans to do so in the future.  As you said, drug use probably doesn't lead to better outcomes (at least that is my perspecive).  Does that mean that I'm socially conservative?


The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.

It's in the 'forcing it on other people' part that my concern lies with social conservatism.  I've got no issue with what you believe in your heart of hearts . . . it's only when you act upon it in a way that hurts others that we'll end up in a fight.


A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.

Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others.  What's true for me is not necessarily true for everyone else.  Stable marriages have benefits - agreed (mine certainly does).  But bad, unstable marriages do not have those benefits (my parents certainly did not - which is why they eventually divorced).  The only people who can decide what is best in a relationship are the two people in the relationship.

My problem is not with the viewpoint that stable marriages have benefits!  Multiple opinions and viewpoints are great, and debate benefits us all by helping us to consider a problem from all angles.  It's when that idea becomes action, forced upon others that I have a problem.  The modern social conservative movement seems largely based around forceful enactment of these viewpoints.  Each of the social conservative issues I listed is one that is a problem because of the actions that social conservatives are supporting which force others to comply with their wishes.


I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.

Sure.  As mentioned, I personally share the 'socially conservative' viewpoints you've outlined here . . . I obviously don't think that they're wrong.

C'mon man. Your arguments here are along the lines of people saying, I'll never be Democrat because Democrats supported the KKK. If we can't talk about things in the context with which they actually happened, what is the point of this discussion in general? So no, I'm not saying you're a social conservative, nor did I ever. I don't really care what your views are on drugs in regards to this conversation because you're not in the era I specifically mentioned. The point is, if we're talking about social conservatives being right or wrong, we have to talk about the specific era where the issue was. Am I a guaranteed social liberal now because I am 100% against slavery. No, of course not. The point is, being much more pro drug was a socially liberal position in the 60's. Being against that was a pretty much social conservative position in the 60's. Social conservative position of pushing back against drug use was not wrong. It was the correct perspective even if the enforcement of it was wrong.

Huh.  I thought I was mostly agreeing with you in my last post.  Again, I care mostly about what you do with the position . . . because that's what impacts the world.  What you hold as your personal belief, I don't really care about.  We do seem to be agreed that the social conservative implementation of policy has more often than not been wrong (regardless of whether or not it was coming from a good place).


Pro marriage is/was the same thing. I've never heard a social progressive person promote marriage on any kind of platform with the exception of promoting allowance of gay marriage. Now that that's been accomplished, it's a non starter from any progressive I've heard.

When you say 'progressive' do you mean 'liberal'?  I'm not sure that equating the two terms is correct.  Why would any socially liberal person promote any kind of marriage?  I want to let people who want to be married get married.  Once they're free to do so, the decision is best made by the two people interested in getting married.  Why would I stick myself into their business?


If social conservatives have too limited of a view of marriage for you, that's fine. They still are promoting it. Social progressives are neutral at best, to neutral with some mockery of it, to strong emphasis that it's outdated at the more extreme. Promoting stable marriages as at least generally good is certainly not something that's wrong. Again, going back to my friend's quote, more wealthy liberal elites may talk about how marriage is outdated but they tend to get married, stay married more, with positive results for themselves financially, for their kids, etc. Social conservatives are not wrong on this.

What would you consider me?  Socially liberal, or conservative?  I'm not neutral about marriage, generally I think it's a great idea provided the two people have laid the groundwork necessary.  I've argued for marriage (as in the post you quoted above)  I've argued against mockery of marriage in the past.  There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives' (which, again, I'm assuming you're using in place of liberal).


I thought up another one in the mean time, and this one is evolving as we speak. Social conservatives have been against pornography for a good long time. Social liberals were either neutral on it or promoted it as something to liberate women or whatever arguments they were. Social liberals in some circles are now backtracking, realizing that it comes part in parcel with objectification of women, certainly promotes unrealistic expectations in generations of men...it literally alters the brain in people that look at it. Not only were social conservatives opposing pornography well before this new take, many of their reasons lined up with the reasons now being put forth by social liberals. Trust me, I have been raised hearing these things over a decade before I've seen any of these articles about them - watching porn affects you more than the momentary act of doing it, it changes how you see women, etc. Social conservatives were/are not wrong on this.

I agree with you (and social conservatives) on porn in general.  As you've outlined, it's not good for the straight male brain in a variety of ways.  (Although as a sidebar, I'd make an argument that porn exists to a great extent because of the long standing - and winning - social conservative view that limited the legalization of prostitution.  But that's a whole other can of worms to open up, and I'm not sure there's enough ink in my keyboard to cover it.)

Now, does that mean that a blanket ban on porn is the correct way forward?  For a lot of reasons, I don't think so.


I agree that the dynamic changes when the perspectives are enforced by government force on either side (someone anti gun who would never own one versus full on gun control of everyone). We can have a discussion about social conservative perspectives that have become law. I'd need to think on it because it wouldn't be as easy of an argument, of course. First, though, I'd like you to admit that we've now given you multiple situations where social conservatives' perspectives weren't wrong which was at least part of your initial question.

Sure.  Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit.  There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong.  I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head.  In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong.  Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to.  It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem.  I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #213 on: July 01, 2019, 07:26:29 PM »
Quote
There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives' (which, again, I'm assuming you're using in place of liberal).
Likewise with the generalisations of conservatives.

It's almost as if we were all human beings, or something.

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1589
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
  • One does not simply work into Mordor
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #214 on: July 01, 2019, 08:20:19 PM »
There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives'.
This is the most ironic sentence I have ever seen written on this forum. Probably by a factor of ten. I am staggered.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #215 on: July 01, 2019, 08:24:47 PM »
It's almost as if we were all human beings, or something.

Speak for yourself, hew-mann.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #216 on: July 02, 2019, 05:59:53 AM »
Sure.  Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit.  There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong.  I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head.  In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong.  Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to.  It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem.  I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

So the appropriate title would be -- are social conservative laws always wrong?

I wonder what you think about social conservatives who share their ideas with others?  I have a friend who does pro-life sidewalk counseling, for example.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #217 on: July 02, 2019, 07:23:54 AM »
Sure.  Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit.  There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong.  I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head.  In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong.  Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to.  It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem.  I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

So the appropriate title would be -- are social conservative laws always wrong?

That is correct.


I wonder what you think about social conservatives who share their ideas with others?  I have a friend who does pro-life sidewalk counseling, for example.

Personally, I generally find street evangelism a bit distasteful as it's often rather aggressive and in your face (which makes sense, if people were interested in the message being told they already would have learned about it - we live in the information age).  That said, I believe that your friend should certainly have the right to try to get the message out in this way - provided it's being done as a conversation rather than an attack.

Example of OK sharing of ideas:
"Hi, I'd like to talk to you about God and homosexuality.  Do you have a few minutes?"

Not OK sharing of ideas:
"Got hates fags, who will burn in eternal damnation for their filthy sins . . . those pedophile sodomites!"

I'm sure that your friend is a reasonable person, and therefore uses the former rather than latter approach.

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #218 on: July 02, 2019, 07:47:11 AM »
Sure.  Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit.  There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong.  I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head.  In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong.  Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to.  It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem.  I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

So the appropriate title would be -- are social conservative laws always wrong?

I wonder what you think about social conservatives who share their ideas with others?  I have a friend who does pro-life sidewalk counseling, for example.

Sidewalk counseling, is that what they're calling it these days?   Sounds so … benign. 
But coupled with the electing of legislators who pass laws regarding forced ultrasounds, forced waiting times, forced multiple appointments, needless and expensive medical staffing levels and hospital associations, along with refusing to provide sex education in schools, etc. etc. is way beyond "sharing of ideas." 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #219 on: July 02, 2019, 10:28:05 AM »

Sure.  Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit.  There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong.  I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head.  In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong.  Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to.  It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem.  I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

That's fine. I see what you're saying. I do think that both your title and the opening statement do not coincide with your viewpoint above:

I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . .  slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.  and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.

Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate.  So what exactly is the draw to the movement?  What are it's long term goals?

They seem to imply more than just conservatives implementing laws causing problems. It seems to imply that social conservatives are on the wrong side of history. I would not say you are a social conservative to answer that one question, but I would say that the fact that you for example, as a social liberal, wouldn't promote expanding drug use as a good idea or promote pornography as liberating to women show that the social conservatives are not always on the wrong side of history. Social conservatives tend to make the most positive impact when the ideas are promoted outside of legal channels, but that's not exclusive to them. When either side gets into politics, things tend to get messy and the impact is not as easily determined.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8492
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #220 on: July 02, 2019, 09:37:40 PM »
Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings.

Don't try to make this about me.  When a racist person says something extraordinarily racist, you don't want them to say "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" and you don't want them to say "I'm sorry you're such a fragile snowflake that you can't take a joke."  You want them to say "I'm sorry for being racist.  That was wrong of me, I will try to be less racist in the future."

You're dealing in sexism.  It's offensive.  Your apology was insincere and inadequate for the scope of your mistake, which you still fail to recognize or admit.

I'm done.  I'm sure the forum will be fine without me. 

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #221 on: July 02, 2019, 10:21:07 PM »
^Were you to consistently believe there's a bigger offense than people actually did, and then consistently make unfair attacks on them, perhaps it would be better without. But you don’t. (In the post above, you make negative speculation on her motives, assuming Kbecks is lying. That's an ad hominem attack, which violates forum rules. @sol, think of this: If she is telling the truth, wouldn't she logically say exactly the things she is already saying?)

But most of the time, you offer a range of thoughtful remarks, cogent analysis, hilarious yet accurate comments, and thoughtful explorations of Mustachianism, including your personal testimony now that you've reached FIRE. Hopefully you'll return to the positive contributions soon enough.

Incidentally, I can see room for continued discussion of whether Kbecks's disputed remark was sexist, and some related remarks as well. It just should be reasoned discussion on a fair basis. My guess is that about 80% of what you think she meant, she didn't mean; her remarks as written leave open the possibility that she didn't mean it, you just are in a mode where you only look at the most negative possible interpretation; and if you ever feel less triggered, you'll contribute valuable thoughts in discussing the other 20%. Take care. I hope to see you around.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 06:22:48 AM by BicycleB »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #222 on: July 03, 2019, 11:07:42 AM »
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed
with you and no one has come to cut out my tongue.

You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. It seems that you felt I was attacking your family and your fatherhood.  I did not mean it that way in the least.  Because I am a real conservative, you are making many assumptions. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 11:12:27 AM by KBecks »

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #223 on: July 03, 2019, 11:15:43 AM »
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.

You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.

Your statement may not only apply to women who bring another man into the household, but also men who bring another woman in.

My father remarried, and while I wouldn't qualify my treatment from my stepmother as abuse, I was definitely not as well treated by her as my stepsisters were by my father, to the point where it became a very toxic household, and our relationship today is tenuous at best.

As has been stated, it's something my father should have considered prior to going into the relationship. I think he probably regrets the way things turned out, but he is still married to her, so maybe not.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3512
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #224 on: July 03, 2019, 11:31:48 AM »
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.

You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.

Your statement may not only apply to women who bring another man into the household, but also men who bring another woman in.

My father remarried, and while I wouldn't qualify my treatment from my stepmother as abuse, I was definitely not as well treated by her as my stepsisters were by my father, to the point where it became a very toxic household, and our relationship today is tenuous at best.

As has been stated, it's something my father should have considered prior to going into the relationship. I think he probably regrets the way things turned out, but he is still married to her, so maybe not.

yes ditto, women who are not the biological mother also do not have the same compelling biological urge to care for and use resources on nonbio kids. We are basically overcoming pretty deep wired underpinnings to be good step parents and good adoptive parents. It's not just horror stories, but also benign neglect and preference. A friend of mine's mother died when he was young, and the father remarried and had more kids. The new mother would ensure that her kids were fed but often there was no food left over for the oldest kids. He remembers going to bed hungry. But it motivated him to work from a very early age so he would have money to buy food. 

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #225 on: July 03, 2019, 11:40:45 AM »
^Were you to consistently believe there's a bigger offense than people actually did, and then consistently make unfair attacks on them, perhaps it would be better without. But you don’t. (In the post above, you make negative speculation on her motives, assuming Kbecks is lying. That's an ad hominem attack, which violates forum rules. @sol, think of this: If she is telling the truth, wouldn't she logically say exactly the things she is already saying?)

But most of the time, you offer a range of thoughtful remarks, cogent analysis, hilarious yet accurate comments, and thoughtful explorations of Mustachianism, including your personal testimony now that you've reached FIRE. Hopefully you'll return to the positive contributions soon enough.

Incidentally, I can see room for continued discussion of whether Kbecks's disputed remark was sexist, and some related remarks as well. It just should be reasoned discussion on a fair basis. My guess is that about 80% of what you think she meant, she didn't mean; her remarks as written leave open the possibility that she didn't mean it, you just are in a mode where you only look at the most negative possible interpretation; and if you ever feel less triggered, you'll contribute valuable thoughts in discussing the other 20%. Take care. I hope to see you around.

When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many.  Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication.  Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #226 on: July 03, 2019, 01:56:12 PM »
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

Quote
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Rings quite true in this thread.

Sorry but this article is asinine. It truly doesn't matter if someone says I believe in X but votes for someone who enacts Not X. Many, many concepts could be subbed in for X here but the point remains the same.

These days, especially, it truly doesn't matter if in your heart of hearts you believe in democracy and the inherent value of all human beings but you find yourself voting for a fascist authoritarian regime separating families, treating asylums worse than criminals, and running big tanks through the heart of the capital city.

This is what is meant when folks say "intent doesn't matter." If your actions are hurting other people, you are still beholden to fucking stop them, even if you didn't mean to cause any hurt.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #227 on: July 03, 2019, 02:22:48 PM »
This brings the question, Sol feels I am sexist. Is that the only proof needed
nowadays? The offended are automatically correct?

I apologized, and he feels it is not genuine. Does that make it so?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 02:25:44 PM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #228 on: July 03, 2019, 02:33:24 PM »
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.

You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.

Your statement may not only apply to women who bring another man into the household, but also men who bring another woman in.

My father remarried, and while I wouldn't qualify my treatment from my stepmother as abuse, I was definitely not as well treated by her as my stepsisters were by my father, to the point where it became a very toxic household, and our relationship today is tenuous at best.

As has been stated, it's something my father should have considered prior to going into the relationship. I think he probably regrets the way things turned out, but he is still married to her, so maybe not.

Yes, the wicked stepmother is archetypal and based in truth.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #229 on: July 03, 2019, 03:26:29 PM »
This brings the question, Sol feels I am sexist. Is that the only proof needed
nowadays? The offended are automatically correct?

I apologized, and he feels it is not genuine. Does that make it so?

You will be sent to a reeducation camp, but it's fine because you were wrong!   <--re education camps were a progressive idea.

Along with bloodletting, residential schools (in canada, teaching people to lose their native culture), electro shock therapy, experimental lobotomies, etc.

I believe those were all progressive ideas at the time.

The thing is, we discard useless progressive ideas quickly, and we celebrate their successes equally quickly.

Conservative ideas that work are generally ignored, and conservative ideas that don't work are slow to be discarded.  So I think there's a sampling or survivor bias of some kind involved here.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #230 on: July 03, 2019, 05:24:18 PM »
Residential schools were certainly not liberal.  They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries.  They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves.  Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture.  There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.

Bloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals.  For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments.  It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you.  You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong.  The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.

Electroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology.  As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done.  Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all.  I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance.  That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #231 on: July 03, 2019, 06:05:54 PM »
Residential schools were certainly not liberal.  They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries.  They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves.  Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture.  There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.
I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.

Quote
Bloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals.  For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments.  It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you.  You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong.  The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.
Never said anything about social liberals, again.  And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated.  But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.

Quote
Electroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology.  As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done.  Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all.  I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance.  That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.
Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism?  Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side.  Or perhaps it's the other way around.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #232 on: July 03, 2019, 06:17:29 PM »
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too.  I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7012
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #233 on: July 03, 2019, 06:35:18 PM »
Quote
When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many.  Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication.  Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.

This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.

Many people don't LISTEN these days.  Or maybe it's just my office.  People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point.  They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand.  I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating.  If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...

So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish.  Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.

The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.

We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"...   I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #234 on: July 03, 2019, 06:48:07 PM »
Quote
When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many.  Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication.  Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.

This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.

Many people don't LISTEN these days.  Or maybe it's just my office.  People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point.  They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand.  I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating.  If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...

So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish.  Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.

The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.

We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"...   I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea.  I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that...  I don't have the answer.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28098
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #235 on: July 03, 2019, 10:48:46 PM »
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too.  I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.

Or better yet, you both just drop it?
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #236 on: July 03, 2019, 10:52:34 PM »
This is actually an interesting cultural thing, too. In any communication, ideally the speaker tries to be clear, and the listener tries to understand. But do we put the bulk of the responsibility on the speaker or the listener? Western culture puts the bulk on the speaker, eastern culture on the listener.

This is something a Westerner learns when speaking to Japanese or Chinese or Indian and they say, "yes, yes." In the Western world, "yes" means "yes, I understand." In the east, it means, "yes, I am listening." So you could be explaining something and then later be confused when it turns out they didn't understand a single fucking thing you said. They didn't ask for clarification because if they don't understand they assume it's their fault.

On the flipside, the easterner may be offended at how blunt and direct the Westerner is.

I wouldn't know about this, except that my wife, while Australian of European heritage, has worked as a Japanese-English interpreter/translator.

Obviously, these are generalisations and individuals vary, especially in today's globalised culture where aspects of one culture mix into another. But there it is, still, and these cultural differences illustrate personal ones.

In person, one part of speech is tone. This is absent in text, which is why in this text-heavy world we've introduced emojis, so that we know the difference between "you bastard" spoken affectionately and "you bastard" spoken in contempt. Absent tone, people tend to read their own mood and past experiences into your text. Which is why relatively neutral comments can be taken as extreme praise or condemnation, why measured criticism can be taken as extreme bigotry, and so on.

If the last 10 people I spoke to in person who said "you bastard" meant it in a contemptuous way, then the 11th time it happens and it's just in text, I'm going to have those 10 other people in my head, and read it that way, and maybe I'll get offended and storm off.

With that in mind, perhaps we Westerners writing here need to think more eastern in our reading. After all,  while I can adjust what I say so that a particular individual can understand it as I intend it, our writing on a forum can be read by hundreds of people, there's simply no way I can adjust it to fit them all, especially as I don't know them all. Perhaps the onus does need to be on the listener.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #237 on: July 03, 2019, 11:35:06 PM »
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too.  I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.

Or better yet, you both just drop it?

The first apology was sincere. Now, what's the point?
I think that Sol naming me in his sig line counts as being a jerk, btw.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28098
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #238 on: July 04, 2019, 12:19:28 AM »
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too.  I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.

Or better yet, you both just drop it?

The first apology was sincere. Now, what's the point?

There is no point. You both are quite entrenched in your positions and convinced you are in the right (particularly the moral right). That's what I suggested dropping it, and moving on.

Quote
I think that Sol naming me in his sig line counts as being a jerk, btw.

I agree. It's rude and unbecoming. Of course, he would probably say the same thing about your original comment, based on how he interpreted it.

Short of you two being able to see it from the other person's viewpoint (and I think Sol's response to that would be fairly obvious, about why you wouldn't try to see a viewpoint of a racist, so why would you for someone he deems sexist, etc. because, again, entrenched in one's opinion), it seems the best thing to do is drop it (which, yes, would include removing petty signatures). No?
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #239 on: July 04, 2019, 06:07:28 AM »
OK, thanks.

One question - since Sol has flouted the forum rules and said he expects to be banned, etc. etc. Has he received a warning or other action for this thread?

I understand he's well known, popular, and has been here for years, etc. 

Sol and I have co-existed here for 5 years with no big problems that I can remember except this one, so it is no big deal to me.

I am unhappy about the signature, though.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 06:11:52 AM by KBecks »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28098
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #240 on: July 04, 2019, 07:08:12 AM »
One question - since Sol has flouted the forum rules and said he expects to be banned, etc. etc. Has he received a warning or other action for this thread?

Yes.

I'd be happy to discuss further questions about moderation over PM if you'd like, but don't feel like it should/needs to be addressed publicly beyond the above. :)

Cheers!
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #241 on: July 04, 2019, 07:25:04 AM »
Residential schools were certainly not liberal.  They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries.  They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves.  Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture.  There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.
I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.

Quote
Bloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals.  For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments.  It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you.  You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong.  The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.
Never said anything about social liberals, again.  And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated.  But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.

Quote
Electroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology.  As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done.  Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all.  I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance.  That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.
Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism?  Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side.  Or perhaps it's the other way around.


The topic of conversation was social conservatism.  The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism.  I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism).  Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably.  My apologies.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #242 on: July 04, 2019, 10:40:54 AM »
Quote
When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many.  Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication.  Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.

This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.

Many people don't LISTEN these days.  Or maybe it's just my office.  People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point.  They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand.  I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating.  If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...

So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish.  Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.

The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.

We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"...   I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea.  I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that...  I don't have the answer.

Personally, I think it is my responsibility to assume good faith on the part of others and would generally counsel my friends to do the same.  But I don't expect others (particularly those I do not know well) to do the same, so I also think it is my responsibility to tailor my words not to offend to the best of my ability.  If I do say something that offends others, I think it's my responsibility to figure out why they received a message that I wasn't intending to send so that I can better tailor my messages in the future to avoid the same mistake if possible.   I view it this way because 1) I like taking personal responsibility for as much of my own life as I reasonably can (I guess because it makes me feel more in control of my life), 2) I think the primary purpose of speaking is to communicate a message, so if I'm going to be speaking I want the message received to match the message I intended to send as closely as possible and 3) I'm also just not in the least interested in allowing those who do have malicious intent to use my poorly stated message to make others think that their beliefs are more widespread than they are.

I also just don't like placing responsibilities like 'assuming good intent' on those that I'm not close to.  Once you know me and I've done enough to reasonably earn your trust, sure.  For strangers/random people on the internet though, I don't know their history.  They may have a very good reason for not having that kind of trust and I think the best way to help others gain that kind of trust is to listen to them and try to understand their perspective.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11673
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #243 on: July 04, 2019, 04:31:23 PM »
Residential schools were certainly not liberal.  They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries.  They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves.  Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture.  There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.
I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.

Quote
Bloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals.  For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments.  It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you.  You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong.  The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.
Never said anything about social liberals, again.  And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated.  But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.

Quote
Electroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology.  As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done.  Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all.  I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance.  That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.
Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism?  Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side.  Or perhaps it's the other way around.


The topic of conversation was social conservatism.  The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism.  I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism).  Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably.  My apologies.

Any Canadian of a certain age knows conservatives can be progressive, after all they named a political party the Progressive Conservatives and had Red Tory MPs. I wish Flora MacDonald was still around.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14288
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #244 on: July 04, 2019, 05:09:02 PM »
The conservatives under Joe Clark were quite a different party than the modern day version of the Conservative party in Canada.  I probably would have voted for them from time to time.  :P

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #245 on: July 04, 2019, 06:08:15 PM »
Quote
When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many.  Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication.  Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.

This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.

Many people don't LISTEN these days.  Or maybe it's just my office.  People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point.  They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand.  I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating.  If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...

So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish.  Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.

The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.

We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"...   I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea.  I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that...  I don't have the answer.

Personally, I think it is my responsibility to assume good faith on the part of others and would generally counsel my friends to do the same.  But I don't expect others (particularly those I do not know well) to do the same, so I also think it is my responsibility to tailor my words not to offend to the best of my ability.  If I do say something that offends others, I think it's my responsibility to figure out why they received a message that I wasn't intending to send so that I can better tailor my messages in the future to avoid the same mistake if possible.   I view it this way because 1) I like taking personal responsibility for as much of my own life as I reasonably can (I guess because it makes me feel more in control of my life), 2) I think the primary purpose of speaking is to communicate a message, so if I'm going to be speaking I want the message received to match the message I intended to send as closely as possible and 3) I'm also just not in the least interested in allowing those who do have malicious intent to use my poorly stated message to make others think that their beliefs are more widespread than they are.

I also just don't like placing responsibilities like 'assuming good intent' on those that I'm not close to.  Once you know me and I've done enough to reasonably earn your trust, sure.  For strangers/random people on the internet though, I don't know their history.  They may have a very good reason for not having that kind of trust and I think the best way to help others gain that kind of trust is to listen to them and try to understand their perspective.

As long as you live in a generally stable society, I feel like it's worthwhile to assume good intent.  And I agree with what you've said.  The risk, as I see it, lands just as much on the person talking as the person listening; my concern is that our current culture seems to celebrate victim status a little too eagerly(see Jussie Smollett and the politicians that came to his "defense").

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #246 on: July 04, 2019, 06:16:16 PM »
The topic of conversation was social conservatism.  The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism.  I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism).  Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably.  My apologies.
No need to apologize!  I'm still a bit confused though.  Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always.  So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.

I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming?  Conservative/liberal/progressive?  Definitely not libertarian, anyway.

How about the integration of Islam into secular western society?  That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia.  (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)

Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.

Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you.  But I do find this subject fascinating.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11673
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #247 on: July 05, 2019, 07:24:25 AM »
The conservatives under Joe Clark were quite a different party than the modern day version of the Conservative party in Canada.  I probably would have voted for them from time to time.  :P

And Brian Mulroney brought in Canada's first environmental protection act.

I did get to vote for Flora when I lived in Kingston.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11673
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #248 on: July 05, 2019, 07:26:53 AM »
The topic of conversation was social conservatism.  The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism.  I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism).  Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably.  My apologies.
No need to apologize!  I'm still a bit confused though.  Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always.  So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.

I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming?  Conservative/liberal/progressive?  Definitely not libertarian, anyway.

How about the integration of Islam into secular western society?  That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia.  (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)

Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.

Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you.  But I do find this subject fascinating.

I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #249 on: July 05, 2019, 07:47:54 AM »
The topic of conversation was social conservatism.  The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism.  I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism).  Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably.  My apologies.
No need to apologize!  I'm still a bit confused though.  Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always.  So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.

I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming?  Conservative/liberal/progressive?  Definitely not libertarian, anyway.

How about the integration of Islam into secular western society?  That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia.  (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)

Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.

Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you.  But I do find this subject fascinating.

I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.

Yeah, I’m American and fairly left-leaning, and fail to see how those are “conservative” ideas.