If DeSantis wins

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,472
7,045
118
Country
United States
Getting waaaay off topic (part of why I'm avoiding politics) but if sexuality is a spectrum, isn't that true in most cases? Historically, many cultures were just one giant South Park style mound of humping people. But if they didn't knock it off, no one would be producing food and they wouldn't survive.
I don't...I don't think that's accurate
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Fake (or distorted or very old and obsolete) news: Styx is mostly libertarian. Small Government. You need a big government to be a nazi/fascist.
This depends what you mean by "small government" and "fascism".

One of the criticisms of certain "small government" conservatives in the USA is that they favour small government in the economic sphere, but significantly bigger government in social restrictions. Fascism is essentially a shorthand for "authoritarian, illiberal nationalism." I see absolutely no reason there cannot be an authoritarian, illiberal nationalist government with modest taxation.

And that's what the USA can end up with. I think you can see it right here and right now, in the form of a lot of the Trump base. Many libertarians should be as appalled at that as your average liberal, but then many people who call themselves libertarians are actually small government conservatives. (No idea about Styx, mind.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,132
965
118
Country
USA
Orientation is not behaviour. Conflating orientation with action is a common reductionist tactic.
I'm talking about complicated webs of motivations driving people, you're talking about an invisible yet inherent and immutable trait that dictates a person's existence, and you're calling me the reductionist? Reductionism is exactly what you're doing, you're taking a complex topic like human sexuality and giving one single consideration weight over the entire thing.
Illogical bullshit. That's neither a premise nor a logical conclusion.

"People don't choose to be born with dwarfism" --> "Oh, so you're saying prejudice would be fine if they did!?"
That's not the premise I was responding to. You were saying considering something a choice is rationalization to hate it. Your logic is:

"People choose to wear sneakers" -> "You're just rationalizing your hatred of people wearing sneakers!"
How exactly does treating a characteristic as not a result of choice mean one must treat it as a "monolith"? Do you think black people are a monolith because they didn't choose their ethnicity?
I think the thing that makes someone black is the same for all black people. I don't believe that is true of being gay.
And "yell you into submission"-- yeah, sorry, but my tone isn't going to be very amicable when you're being this incredibly denigrating to me. Insisting my lived experience is false; that it was my own choice to be assaulted; that I deserve to be discriminated against in work and employment. You treat me as if I'm less than human. I'm not going to soften my replies.
Half of that is incorrect inferences you are making, and half of that is you implying the wrong thing. You bring up housing or work discrimination based on conversation where the discrimination is "housing programs intended for parents with kids aren't meant for people without kids" and "jobs teaching religious education aren't for people who are opposed to those religious doctrines." I know you're not out there trying to steal programs from single mothers or teach religion in a Catholic school, so give it a rest.

You "chose to be assaulted" is nonsense from nowhere. I said nothing like that. I'm guessing you're trying to say you were assaulted for not being straight, but you're inserting victim blaming into the middle. If a woman chooses to be a waitress and is assaulted at work, you're neither going to deny her agency in that choice nor claim she chose to be assaulted. I'm also not going to deny her agency nor claim she chose to be assaulted. Why are you tacking bad motives onto my words?
I have, as supportive evidence, the near-universal testimony and lived experience of the community in question, who're literally telling you they didn't choose.
You keep saying that, but there are many gay people who don't agree with you. You're taking political slogans as some universal agreement. Example:
" I don’t think I was born gay. I don’t think I was born straight. I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love. "

Is that person a bigot? Is the gay person claiming everyone has infinite capacity to try on different things, to cultivate our tastes and preferences, rationalizing their bigotry?
And all you have is... moronic, denigrating speculation that we must be sexually excited by danger.
You're missing the word some. I speculate that some people are aroused by danger, because that's undeniably true in other contexts and you're not going to dispute it.

You: Nobody would put themselves in danger for sexual preference.
Me: Some people specifically prefer danger in their sex life.
You: You think all gay people are sexually excited by danger!

I mean, come on. You have to at least be able to concede that point.
Interesting

So, being interested in the opposite sex is a choice
Let me put it this way: all people like food, some have different tastes, some of which is natural and some of which is cultivated behavior. Some people like pickles right away, while most don't, but anyone can decide they want to like pickles and eat them until they acquire the taste, and the people who like pickles to begin with have no obligation to eat them. I'm sure many biological or cultural factors exist outside a person's control that contribute to the proclivity to enjoy pickles, but nobody is born inherently a pickle-eater, nor is anyone incapable of becoming a pickle-eater.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,365
1,958
118
Country
USA
This depends what you mean by "small government" and "fascism".

One of the criticisms of certain "small government" conservatives in the USA is that they favour small government in the economic sphere, but significantly bigger government in social restrictions. Fascism is essentially a shorthand for "authoritarian, illiberal nationalism." I see absolutely no reason there cannot be an authoritarian, illiberal nationalist government with modest taxation.

And that's what the USA can end up with. I think you can see it right here and right now, in the form of a lot of the Trump base. Many libertarians should be as appalled at that as your average liberal, but then many people who call themselves libertarians are actually small government conservatives. (No idea about Styx, mind.)
The element that I think differentiates Fascism from right wing authoritarianism is totalitarianism. A small government authoritarian is still not going to be able to micro manage every last aspect of your life. Maybe they could focus on one thing or another but everything? Monitor communications, punish wrong think, control finances so that if one engages in wrong think, their assets can be frozen and more? That takes a lot of power. Even in a democracy though, you only need 51% of the vote to get to there.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You are, as always, a terrible reader.
Read the actual fucking bill. I did that's why I said the BILL says nothing about limiting what kids can and cannot say.

What about all the other stuff that isn't just that?
Like what...?

Not having this circular conversation again. Have a nice life. You're wrong about almost everything you say on every topic amd you're not a smart person.
Yes folks, you heard it here, eating real food is wrong and not something people should do!!!

All of the advantages of the keto diet are largely anecdotal at best. What's telling is that the most prominent advocates for keto and carnivore are largely the likes of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and thosw diets are very often framed in opposition to vegan and plant based diets. Basically some people decided to own the libs so hard by risking scurvy in the 21st century. They're are right wing grifters claiming that plant based diets are a deep state conspiracy to feminise men.
LMAO, Joe Rogan isn't right wing. Also, I totally didn't realize Robert Atkins is a right wing grifter too. See, this is what happens when you make everything political...

Incoming "this is fine actually" in 3...2...
You mean I supposed to take a known liar's word on things now. Rebekah Jones has been shown to be a massive liar.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,472
7,045
118
Country
United States
LMAO, Joe Rogan isn't right wing. Also, I totally didn't realize Robert Atkins is a right wing grifter too. See, this is what happens when you make everything political...
Robert Atkins died twenty (20) years ago, he's not a top advocate for anything
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,011
3,022
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Let me put it this way: all people like food, some have different tastes, some of which is natural and some of which is cultivated behavior. Some people like pickles right away, while most don't, but anyone can decide they want to like pickles and eat them until they acquire the taste, and the people who like pickles to begin with have no obligation to eat them. I'm sure many biological or cultural factors exist outside a person's control that contribute to the proclivity to enjoy pickles, but nobody is born inherently a pickle-eater, nor is anyone incapable of becoming a pickle-eater.
Homosexuality is natural. Every gendered species does it (this is separate from every individual doing it, which is not the case). Forced heterosexuality (I.e. banning or restricting homosexuality to mandate heterosexuality only) is incredibly unnatural. It's cultivated behaviour and requires a lot of violence to enforce

But I get it, some like homosexuality automatically and some are willing to try to see if they like it. Then some of this group does not
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,011
3,022
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Robert Atkins died twenty (20) years ago, he's not a top advocate for anything
I would point out that I dont think Antivaxxers fit neatly into Left/Right spheres of influence. But, as Rogan has noted himself, he gravitates to Right Wingers and has trouble actually questioning them as he does those on the Left
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
A small government authoritarian is still not going to be able to micro manage every last aspect of your life.
Ah, but they kind of can.

A totalitarian state essentially needs a lot of police (including intelligence services, etc.). But if you take a look at what Western governments spend money on, it's overwhelmingly healthcare, social care and welfare / pensions. They can cut a lot of that, and only need to keep a fraction of it to fund policing to totalitarian levels. If you want to look at a country that taxes much less than the USA and is much less free, just take a look at China.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,312
1,844
118
Country
4
Fake (or distorted or very old and obsolete) news: Styx is mostly libertarian. Small Government. You need a big government to be a nazi/fascist.
I guess all those references to (((the jews))) in the comments are just a freak coincidence then.
Fuck nazis and those who apologise for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,365
1,958
118
Country
USA
Ah, but they kind of can.

A totalitarian state essentially needs a lot of police (including intelligence services, etc.). But if you take a look at what Western governments spend money on, it's overwhelmingly healthcare, social care and welfare / pensions. They can cut a lot of that, and only need to keep a fraction of it to fund policing to totalitarian levels. If you want to look at a country that taxes much less than the USA and is much less free, just take a look at China.
An interesting question. I will review the size of China's government. EDIT: It takes a big government to hire watchmen to watch the watch men who are in turn watched by still others. I just now read a story about a Chinese monitor network in Australia watching students in that country, there to ensure they don't engage in prohibited speech and actions.
I would write, when a government spends money on the people that is not necesarily a benign thing. Right now, Biden keeps reminding people that, no matter how much they oppose his positions, they better vote for him or they'll lose Social Security, even though he is on video speaking about the need for bipartisan cuts to that program. Social Security has done some good things, but its had a ton of unintended consequences. Buddy economist tells me it has contributed to people's abilities to compete for jobs at lower wages, while relieving them of saving privately or family planning that would include parents taking care of kids and then kids taking care of parents. So, be ready to get your kids killed in WW3 or you might lose this government program.

I guess all those references to (((the jews))) in the comments are just a freak coincidence then.
Fuck nazis and those who apologise for them.
Yes, as a Jew, I can certainly state, F Nazis and those who apologize for them. People in the comment section can be glowies, leftist trolls, and actual Nazis who often criticize Styx for not hating on Jews, writing things like, "Styx, just say it! It's the Jews!!!". Perhaps Styx does not as he realized George Bush and Joe Biden are not Jewish. I put those people on mute.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,005
6,321
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm talking about complicated webs of motivations driving people, you're talking about an invisible yet inherent and immutable trait that dictates a person's existence, and you're calling me the reductionist? Reductionism is exactly what you're doing, you're taking a complex topic like human sexuality and giving one single consideration weight over the entire thing.
Quite aside from the fact that ascribing something to nature isn't "reductionist"-- is it "reductionist" to say my hair colour is XYZ because of my parents, rather than a result of a "complex web of motivations"?-- this doesn't even address what I said.

Orientation isn't a behaviour. Don't conflate them.


That's not the premise I was responding to. You were saying considering something a choice is rationalization to hate it. Your logic is:

"People choose to wear sneakers" -> "You're just rationalizing your hatred of people wearing sneakers!"
It's not inherently, by logic alone, a rationalisation for prejudice.

But it is used as one by many people, including you. I can see that from your countless other contributions and attitudes over the years. For someone already disposed to be prejudiced, the "choice" idea provides a cover to shift responsibility onto the victim.


I think the thing that makes someone black is the same for all black people. I don't believe that is true of being gay.
Uh-huh, but this doesn't address the question. Treating something as not a choice, in your view, means you're treating them as a "monolith". Do you therefore think that black people are a "monolith"? Because if not, then its not a logical extrapolation of my position either.

You "chose to be assaulted" is nonsense from nowhere. I said nothing like that. I'm guessing you're trying to say you were assaulted for not being straight, but you're inserting victim blaming into the middle. If a woman chooses to be a waitress and is assaulted at work, you're neither going to deny her agency in that choice nor claim she chose to be assaulted. I'm also not going to deny her agency nor claim she chose to be assaulted. Why are you tacking bad motives onto my words?
The victim blaming is inherent in your position. You said that gay people in dangerous situations could just be sexually excited by danger, and that contributes to why they're gay, in order to provide that danger. You had absolutely fuck all basis to say that, you conjured it in order to ascribe culpability onto the victim, but here we are.

Don't try to weasel your way out of your own victim blaming position as soon as you're confronted with an actual example of the person you're accusing.


You keep saying that, but there are many gay people who don't agree with you. You're taking political slogans as some universal agreement. Example:
" I don’t think I was born gay. I don’t think I was born straight. I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love. "

Is that person a bigot? Is the gay person claiming everyone has infinite capacity to try on different things, to cultivate our tastes and preferences, rationalizing their bigotry?
That would be someone whose sexuality is fluid over their lifetime, and has misinterpreted it to mean that they switched from one binary choice to another at some point.

That person is also a huge outlier.

You're missing the word some. I speculate that some people are aroused by danger, because that's undeniably true in other contexts and you're not going to dispute it.

You: Nobody would put themselves in danger for sexual preference.
Me: Some people specifically prefer danger in their sex life.
You: You think all gay people are sexually excited by danger!

I mean, come on. You have to at least be able to concede that point.
Obviously some people have a danger fetish.

But you didn't just stop there, did you? You used that as an explanation for why entire communities are the way they are in repressive cultures, and in doing so shifted the blame for the danger onto the victim.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,472
7,045
118
Country
United States
" I don’t think I was born gay. I don’t think I was born straight. I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love. "

Is that person a bigot? Is the gay person claiming everyone has infinite capacity to try on different things, to cultivate our tastes and preferences, rationalizing their bigotry?
They aren't, but you're using their words to rationalize *your* bigotry for sure.

Actually try and understand their argument instead of stopping at "that means it's a choice, ha!" (Hint: their argument is that humans don't fit into strict definitions *at all*)
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,132
965
118
Country
USA
Hint: their argument is that humans don't fit into strict definitions *at all*
Yes, exactly.
But it is used as one by many people, including you. I can see that from your countless other contributions and attitudes over the years. For someone already disposed to be prejudiced, the "choice" idea provides a cover to shift responsibility onto the victim.
So you've decided that I am prejudiced, and therefore my argument is to support prejudice, though the same argument wouldn't if I wasn't prejudiced, even though you know that I am based only on my arguments... sure.
But you didn't just stop there, did you? You used that as an explanation for why entire communities...
Read the word "some", please. Don't just skip over that word, read and understand it.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
I would write, when a government spends money on the people that is not necesarily a benign thing. Right now, Biden keeps reminding people that, no matter how much they oppose his positions, they better vote for him or they'll lose Social Security, even though he is on video speaking about the need for bipartisan cuts to that program. Social Security has done some good things, but its had a ton of unintended consequences. Buddy economist tells me it has contributed to people's abilities to compete for jobs at lower wages, while relieving them of saving privately or family planning that would include parents taking care of kids and then kids taking care of parents.
Yeah, but it's not that simple.

Firstly, some parents don't want to take care of their kids, some kids don't want to take care of their parents. So do we let those children / OAPs starve? If we create a legal obligation for families to look after their own, that risks extreme financial stress, particularly low income families: should a family be thrust into deprivation because they're unlucky enough to have a grandparent with dementia and have to pay for their care, or mom/pop give up their job to care? Not only that, but a legal obligation to care for one's relatives is "big government": government reaching into people's lives and forcing them to do things. The same goes for things like savings. Are we really going to force people to save, or let them starve if they do not? What happens if their savings are wiped out by mom/pop requiring a triple heart bypass operation?

Next, lower wages. I would suggest the prime driver of lower wages is competition, often international. Does a company want to pay American workers $30k when it can pay Chinese $5k? If we remove lots of forms of income support and effectively compel companies to pay $40k (instead of $30k) so we can reduce welfare, doesn't that just make it even more attractive to shunt jobs to China? You can try to prevent this with trade protectionism, but trade protectionism, broadly, is favoured by literally no economists whatsoever. If you increase the labour cost to supply goods and services or restrict trade with protectionism then it increases prices, and if the prices go up your dollar goes less far, which means you are effectively poorer.

It's not that I disagree that there can be problems with welfare. It's just I've never seen anyone come up with a convincing alternative that won't result in people being left to die in the streets and/or a mass revolt by the poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,005
6,321
118
Country
United Kingdom
So you've decided that I am prejudiced, and therefore my argument is to support prejudice, though the same argument wouldn't if I wasn't prejudiced, even though you know that I am based only on my arguments... sure.
I'm not just using the argument itself as a circular reason to conclude you're prejudiced. I'm recalling the denigrating attitude you've shown towards certain groups of people and me myself. You've invalidated my lived experience and insisted your own speculation about my nature outweighs it; insinuated that victims of repression are sexually excited by danger; and opined that any relationships i could form would be shallow hedonism.

So yes, when someone with a long track record of prejudiced invective invokes the "choice" malarkey, its quite obvious why.

Read the word "some", please. Don't just skip over that word, read and understand it.
Yet that was the sole explanation you offered for why people are gay in overwhelmingly repressive societies.

If you were just talking about a small subset, why bring it up? What relevance does it have to the community as a whole? You were specifically using it as an explanatory example.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,132
965
118
Country
USA
I'm not just using the argument itself as a circular reason to conclude you're prejudiced. I'm recalling the denigrating attitude you've shown towards certain groups of people and me myself. You've invalidated my lived experience and insisted your own speculation about my nature outweighs it; insinuated that victims of repression are sexually excited by danger; and opined that any relationships i could form would be shallow hedonism.

So yes, when someone with a long track record of prejudiced invective invokes the "choice" malarkey, its quite obvious why.
You're recalling how you've interpreted my words, that's not the same as the words themselves. You have for years chosen to interpret what I'm saying as bigotry, rejecting any suggestion otherwise, and are circularly using previous assumptions to rationalize your new ones.
Yet that was the sole explanation you offered for why people are gay in overwhelmingly repressive societies.
How many times must I say that people are not a monolith. You cannot ascribe huge swaths of people with a singular motivation, as though all of their thoughts are the same. Other people are not you.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,011
3,022
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
DeSade sounds like an a$$hole. Lenny Bruce, Hugh Heffner. Lot of people through history talked a good game about free speech but actually meant, just for themselves until they have enough power to censor others. For the most part your position is not one I've ever heard before.
I mean, Hitler was a Free Speecher.... again just for themselves. So was Marx. US Founding Fathers who banned most people from speaking politically. Castro. Robespierre. Cromwell

Like, Jordan Peterson keeps going on about Free Speech and then trying to eliminate transpeople from soceity. Sometimes in the same debate or even paragraph

If you are using the term Free Speech publicly, you 99% of the time only mean Free Speech for yourself and faction. It's a buzz word like liberty that you say to score political points.

Edit: forgot the other half. Most people are adults and can organise an orgy AND do enough to get fed daily. It's not mutually exclusive
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,102
3,830
118
Plato was a big fan of Socrates, who was killed for speaking his mind. Plato's ideal republic punished people who criticised Plato's ideal republic, IIRC
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias