Lauchs @ Lauchs @lemmy.world

Posts

46

Comments

1,412

Joined

2 yr. ago

Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!

My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.

I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don't give it much credence other than the basic "I generally think it's good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others." But even if their reason is religion, if there's actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.

Not sure if I'm making sense, it's been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.

Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!

Oh interesting, I've never really taken libertarian positions seriously but that might be worth a look.

Good definition.

And you're a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.

I just gotta believe there's something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump's immigration strategy or something, I'd love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I'm missing.

I used to read the National Review and disagree with 9/10 articles but after Krauthammer died, they went crazy on the trump train.

Foreign Affairs sort of counts? A lot of people with whom I disagree publish essays there...

The Economist, I go 50/50.

I dunno. I'd like the most plausible and persuasive form of the Conservative argument, I've got Conservative friends but I don't think that's really enough.

I adore that your sources were: Yourself, a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian.

Because I don't watch many late night comedians I'm absorbing the wrong sources? Jesus fuck.

Admittedly, I did watch Stewart's take and it was pretty silly. The essence was that because Harris said things, the Right should've listened. Which is as dumb as people on the Right saying that "trump said he respects and loves women so I don't get how the libs think he's anti woman."

Oliver's point is similar, Harris was quiet on trans stuff. Which okay but being quiet on an issue just means the other side gets to paint you howver they want on it. Which is EXACTLY what the trump campaign did by running this vile, but effective ad (which I believe was their most frequently run ad in the last few weeks of the campaign) to ZERO pushback from Harris (again, no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this.) You might also read this PBS article where a journalist points out that, of the money they tracked, the trump campaign spent more on anti trans ads than on housing, immigration and the economy combined.

To say that trans issues weren't a thing this election because your side didn't talk about then is absurd.

And frankly, you are compromising the human rights of a group, it's the poor billions who will suffer the effects of climate change. I get that neither you, nor anyone you know will be affected. And that the suffering of those who live elsewhere isn't really a trendy cause so easily forgettable but personally, I think they should be included in our moral calculus.

then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like "biological males in female sports" and what have you.

I mean, before this thread I hadn't thought about it much but damn, the sport thing would be such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes.) Given that it's an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on it does seem like an easy way to demonstrate we aren't the crazy party.

Like most things, I think the answer is a frustrating "depends."

I've made some life long friends through workplaces. I've made workplace friends whom I haven't really ever thought about when I switched jobs.

Maybe the key is tone the relationship to whatever it'd be if you just knew each other through other friends? If you get along but don't super click, a casual friendly work acquaintance is probably right. Do you two really get along, have some shared interests/perspectives etc? Then why be constrained with only kicking it at work?

And if the public doesn't go along, we just keep killing the planet and billions of the poorest and most vulnerable folks so we can feel good about ourselves?

That seems pretty damned privileged to me.

And yes, it's a silly hypothetical to illustrate a point, that's what hypotheticals are. It's not like we tie people to train tracks and see what trolley drivers do.

Just seems wild to me that you assume everyone is down with what we believe to be right. It's easy to say you are dragging society forward when the consequences of not winning elections are fairly mild for you while the people at risk live elsewhere and are desperately poor.

And yet again, I don't actually believe there's a way for the Left to pitch trans issues in a way that A) wins broad support and B) doesn't alienate our progressive base, so it's kind of a moot point. (Even throwing it back to states, which mostly works for Dems as we have the biggest states etc and there's still freedom of movement probably wouldn't be enough.)

I mean, Byron had to flee England for fear of lynching and Oscar Wilde spent two years in prison for homosexuality.

And the abolitionists weren't wildly popular but they were popular enough to win a broad base of support in the North.

And I'm sure folks a couple hundred years ago could multi task.

How is it a false equivalence though? The basic notion is that there are things you can be morally right on that may cause more actual harm.

Meanwhile, I only ever started this to answer someone's question. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think it's an effective tactic as you'd split the progressive vote.

That being said, culture war shit and immigration is what the Right is running and winning on.

If you want to reign in the rich and corporations on climate change, it ain't going to come from the Right. So, we need to win elections.

So, again, I'll ask a fairly simple question.

Say the abolitionists had included gay rights but back in the 1800s. Unless you have a wild perspective of history, it's pretty safe to assume they wouldn't have won nearly as much popular support as they did. So, how much longer would you have allowed slavery in order to be morally right but unable to help either slaves or homosexuals?

Edit: Becaude its not just trans folks at risk, it is the billions of poor people who will die from climate catastrophes. They don't have our privilege of knowing that even if the climate goes bad, we'll be basically okay.

We have two vulnerable groups to protect, one is much larger than the other, by orders of magnitude.

Shouldn't be but they tend to be.

Sometimes people just straight up use them as agree/disagree buta lot of folks struggle to admit that an argument in favour of something with which they disagree can still be a worthwhile argument.

Plus the idea that trans rights lost Democrats the election is ridiculous. There were zero trans speakers in the DNC, and Harris did cater to transphobes by saying she will go with state laws.

You think republicans were watching the DNC or are listening to Harris on trans rights?

There is a reason that one of the ads the trump campaign ran most heavily was about trans issues and casting Harris as too liberal on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel (it's a horrific ad, so uhh, trigger warning but you can see what they're doing.)

How many conservatives do you know socially and how many of them didn't say this was a victory against woke?

so the question remains, who else are you willing to throw under the bus because you think that their rights are too edgy?

I mean, I just answered the logic of the question. I'm not sure what the answer is, nor am I confident abandoning part of the Dem coalition works as we'd split the progressive vote which is death in a 2 party system.

BUT. If the Far Right keeps winning elections, which they generally seem to do by killing the Left on culture issues (this keeps playing out across the world) this will doom billions of the poorest on Earth.

I'd ask you a similar question. Forget trans rights, say the abolitionists had included gay rights but back in the 1800s. Unless you have a wild perspective of history, it's pretty safe to assume they wouldn't have won nearly as much popular support as they did. So, how much longer would you have allowed slavery in order to be morally right but unable to help either slaves or homosexuals?

Do I wish the world were better? Absolutely! But, we live in the world that is, not the world we wish it was.

Finally, this is exactly what utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism is trying to promote the maximum good for the maximum number of people. The chief criticisms are generally around situations much like this, where the philosophy implies you are willing to inflict unfair suffering on a small number of people to maximize the collective gain of everyone else (technically including the small number.) What do you think Utilitarianism is?

I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it's a win against "woke" while the money/interests behind it tend to be "let's burn this planet down and get ALL the oil." If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we'd win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.

(Unsure if this would work or if it'd just split the left etc myself but I think that's the logic.)

An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would've joined the Union or maybe the movement would've never gotten off the ground and there's a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn't pick our battles.

It's a utilitarian answer to a Sophie's choice.

My first instinct would be to lean on whatever digital stuff got you through covid?

Or maybe there's drop in sessions of whatever hobbies you enjoy doing with folks? I've met a lot of awesome immigrants playing rec league soccer.

Having read the other comments, is there much of a Russian community where you are? Even restaurants or some such?

Yup!

So, I'd argue there's two parts two good sex, the orgasm and the whole post coital endorphins, blood flow and good vibes described above.

For all but the orgasm, it's not quite the same but after any exercise where I well and truly push myself just a bit past what I thought I could do feels fairly similar.

If you're not in shape, swimming is pretty good for this as no matter what shape you're in, you can push yourself to exhaustion without much risk of hurting yourself. When you're done the lap after the one you thought would be your last, hug the wall, gasp for air and feel the triumph flow through you. If you're not feeling rubbery, exhausted and amazing, next time, swim for longer and push through the mental wall that made you stop. Either way, you can always jump in the hot tub and feel like a champ.

As for the orgasm, picture a longer sneeze. Or the magnificent release of a pee that you've held in too long.

"None of the Tiktoks I saw said anything about that, are you sure?"

It's worth reading the article. You might be conflating a report released in 2024 with the numbers from 2023.

People have called for it but it slowed during the war etc. There's a reason Smotrich waited until after the American election to announce that he was tasking government officials to draw up plans etc.

Gaza violence is not the same as annexing the West Bank.

I don't encounter a lot of ads but I was just listening to the Economist talk about this one which the trump campaign played over and over again and it struck me as a small window of an answer to your question.

The ad strikes me as cruel but the thrust (and I imagine there's a blend of fact and fiction) is that Harris used tax money to pay for a woman's sex change after being convicted of first degree murder and serving life in prison. They also have Harris saying she was using her power to "push forward the movement and the agenda."

Even for supporters of trans rights, I imagine not everyone loves having to defend using tax money to pay for expensive gender surgery, especially on criminals.

So I could see people, who might otherwise be supportive of trans folks in their own lives, being "against trans people" on an issue framed like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel

I just don’t think it’s as much of a random fad for kids as conservatives worry.

I agree. And the science might as well!

But I think Conservatives look at recent research, especially anything touching social sciences, as the product of what they view as an extremely liberal academic elite. Admittedly, I am similarly skeptical of most reports and analyses by the Heritage foundation and the like even when they share their methodology.

A charitable version of the conservative parent viewpoint might be something like "if my kid is genuinely trans, of course I'll support them. But I am a parent and know best about how to protect them, even if it is from themselves."

At the end of the day, I think a lot of conservative parents are opposed to the idea that government, or experts, or whomever could over-rule them about their own kids. Especially on a subject about which they probably feel somewhat uncomfortable.

I also don't think religion is a requirement for close mindedness, though there is significant overlap.