darq @ darq @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

513

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not really a cognitive disconnect. Most of us know that some members of a minority group will vote against the interests of their own identity. Perhaps because they have some other trait such as wealth that insulates them from the consequences of their politics, or perhaps because they are ignorant. But Quislings have always existed, we know, it's not a shock.

There's a reason why the feminist saying "the personal is political" is so threatening. Because it denies precisely the reasoning seen above and elsewhere in this thread.

Conservatives often complain about progressives ending relationships and friendships over "politics". Because they want to draw a hard line between the two, where as long as they behave civilly to people's faces, it doesn't matter when they vote to make the same people's lives materially worse. Because "politics" is something... I don't know, abstract?

Police violence, particularly against people of colour. Protests? Too disruptive! Literally just kneeling? Too disrespectful!

Even MLK Jr. mentioned this in his letter from a Birmingham jail:

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

It's still avoiding the point. Furthermore, there is no mischaracterisation in saying that conservative politicians are opposed to LGBT-rights.

I didn't comment about who you voted for.
I commented on the deflection.

You know for someone who acts like they care about "civil debate", you certainly don't engage in good-faith.

Have you? It has absolutely nothing to do with "winning" anything.

No. Read again. He quoted me saying "you might simply value other things more", and responded with "Correct. My priorities are: 1, 2, 3. If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it."

He values his personal wealth and comfort over the struggles of minorities. At best, he does not care about the plight of minoritised people. If a politician or policy offers him a benefit, but will increase the suffering of people who are not in his in-group, he still supports that policy. If a policy or politician focuses on alleviating suffering, but may come at some perceived expense to him, he opposes it.

He's been quite clear about it.

I mean, that would be being honest about it.

He said that he values those more than dignity of minorities. Like, not implied it, directly said it.

So no. I'm not putting a single word in his mouth.

Literally how?
You enumerated your priorities, and to quote you: "If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it."
Eliminating discrimination is not among the priorities you listed.

So you value you personal wealth ad comfort more than the ability of minorities to live their lives free of discrimination.

I don't get why you get so insulted when people point this out?

It's not about "winning" a debate. Like ??? We don't conceptualise "debate" that way.

My entire life, for pretty much every progressive issue, has been filled with people saying "We agree with your cause but not the way you are going about it." literally no matter what "going about it" looks like.

Every effective proposition is shot down. There is no "solution" that is ever acceptable. Because changing the status quo is always interpreted as too radical.

So... I'm not keen on playing these kinds of stupid games?

And that’s precisely the attitude that prevents people from having a civil debate. By manipulating definitions and using them to represent your opponent as an inhuman villain (or, in your own words, monsters), you’re the one trying to remove someone’s humanity.

Ironic. By representing a differing view as "manipulating definitions" like this, you pretend I'm engaging in the conversation maliciously, and completely ignore what I'm saying. You aren't going to get closer to understanding other people unless you engage in good faith.

In the eyes of progressives, conservative politicians undermine the dignity of minorities. You might not agree with that, you might not care about that, you might simply value other things more.

And cut the hyperbole. I haven't tried to remove your humanity. Do you really not know what that is like?

The real issue is an inability to agree to disagree.

That's not a fair representation of the people you are talking about. We can agree to disagree about a lot of things. But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.

We will never agree to disagree about other people's humanity. Being willing to do so would make us monsters.

Sounds like they need to update their system.

Oh definitely. Desperately.

Maybe it’s just me, but in the digital age I don’t think there’s an excuse for systems like this to be too difficult to change. Heck, if you designed it like an idiot, then you deserve to pay the costs to fix it.

Thing is. I don't even think it would be that difficult to change. It's not like it's the first time we've ever had newer versions of forms. And the change isn't even drastic, just de-gender the terms. Partner 1 and Partner 2, Parent 1 and Parent 2.

One of the simple benefits of the paper-based way Japan tends to favour is that it can be updated and overriden by the person performing the process.

It strikes me as wild but so much of the opposition towards LGBT rights in Japan is, effectively, a paperwork issue. Backed by bigotry, but fronted by paperwork.

The koseki system, or family registry system, basically cannot handle same-sex couples or parents. The system only allows for one male partner and one female partner, one male parent and one female parent. So Japan can't register same-sex marriages or parents.

But this might also be why sterilisation is required for trans people. Because the requirement for recognition of gender isn't actually just to be sterilised. The requirements are to be unmarried, have no children, and be permanently sterile. Because anything less than that could lead to a system where a marriage involves two same-sex partners, or a child has two same-sex parents. Which is impossible using the current paperwork, so it is forbidden.

So trans people have to be sterilised, and if they have children already, they can never be recognised by the current system. Because bureaucracy.

As others have said, a lot of things.

Inflation is soaring all over the world. And we know that companies are taking advantage of the excuse to raise prices in excess of inflation. Brexit dealt a huge blow to the UK specifically. A war in Europe restricting the flow of quite a few staple goods.

And the Tories systemically gutting every social safety net they reasonably can over the past 13 years.

And for major cities like London, private landlords take full advantage, using every excuse they can to increase the rent by the maximum they can year-over-year. Which also has the secondary effect of forcing working-class people to move very frequently, which is expensive. I knew very few people who were renting and hadn't moved at least once in the last 3 years. Some moved multiple times.

Hardly surprising. Watching the same grocery items increase in price 3 times in 6 months, sometimes to over 150% of the original price, it was clear people were going to be in trouble.

Pair that with skyrocketing rents, especially in the landlord's paradise that is London. And the fact that even getting into a rental often requires a lot of money upfront. The cracks are widening.

A lot of people were barely holding it together before. It's only going to get worse unless drastic changes are made.