If DeSantis wins

[Silvanus]

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.

No, what I'm doing is describing the approach you've taken in a way that doesn't let you off the hook for its implications.

For instance: I said you're invalidating my lived experience. And you'd undoubtedly call that a poor interpretation. But let's look at what you've actually done: you're currently telling me that my own characteristics are a result of my choices. I'm telling you, from my own lived experience, that's not the case. You're choosing to weigh your own speculation about me more highly than my own testimony.

So, yeah, you're invalidating my lived experience. You can gripe about that 'interpretation' if you like. From where I'm sitting, it's a perfectly apt description of the approach you've taken. Ditto the other shit.

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.

Yet that was the sole explanation you offered for why people might be gay in overwhelmingly repressive societies. You considered that single, speculated explanation enough to handwave the fact that people are still gay when there is no expedience and overwhelming threat to them.

 

[gorfias]

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.

Not sure death rates have changed much since the New Deal in the US. Before then, you did have families caring for themselves. Today, we have homeless people dying in the streets and kids from broken homes shooting each other to death.
Interesting graph. US does have a homicide dip after the implementation of the new deal but it spikes again.

 

[tstorm823]

Yet that was the sole explanation you offered for why people might be gay in overwhelmingly repressive societies. You considered that single, speculated explanation enough to handwave the fact that people are still gay when there is no expedience and overwhelming threat to them.

A) I can't sit here and account for every single person alive. Maybe they want to be rebellious, maybe they fell in love with one specific partner in their lives, maybe their repressive society makes it difficult to get pleasurable time alone with a woman without it being arranged for them. Of course I could imagine more than one reason.
B) I don't have to imagine more than one reason. The position you are defending is that gay people, all of them, are just inherently gay by nature. And until you back off that position, which I expected you to do a long time ago, one example is a sufficient counterpoint.

 

[tstorm823]

Not sure death rates have changed much since the New Deal in the US. Before then, you did have families caring for themselves. Today, we have homeless people dying in the streets and kids from broken homes shooting each other to death.
Interesting graph. US does have a homicide dip after the implementation of the new deal but it spikes again.
View attachment 8706

As much as I dislike drinking and drugs and the cultures surrounding both those things in the US, and would love for them all to just disappear, that dip after the New Deal is equally aligned with the end of prohibition, the spike back up in the 70s overlaps the start of War on Drugs, and the drop back down lines up with social norms easing up on drugs and states starting to legalize at least some uses of marijuana.

 

[Bedinsis]

For the record, the Kinsey scale includes degrees of bisexuality and includes and acknowledges the exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual orientation.

 

[Trunkage]

As much as I dislike drinking and drugs and the cultures surrounding both those things in the US, and would love for them all to just disappear, that dip after the New Deal is equally aligned with the end of prohibition, the spike back up in the 70s overlaps the start of War on Drugs, and the drop back down lines up with social norms easing up on drugs and states starting to legalize at least some uses of marijuana.

It was sort of easing of norms but also there was a generation of typical African Americans that was lost to drugs flooding the streets and these new drugs being way more addictive. Younger siblings and kids saw this and moved away from the crazier drugs

At this time, there is hope the same thing will happen with the opiod crises currently wrecking society but it's too early to tell

 

[Silvanus]

A) I can't sit here and account for every single person alive. Maybe they want to be rebellious, maybe they fell in love with one specific partner in their lives, maybe their repressive society makes it difficult to get pleasurable time alone with a woman without it being arranged for them. Of course I could imagine more than one reason.
B) I don't have to imagine more than one reason. The position you are defending is that gay people, all of them, are just inherently gay by nature. And until you back off that position, which I expected you to do a long time ago, one example is a sufficient counterpoint.

You can indeed imagine more than one reason; I never doubted that. What I find telling is that your go-to speculation, the one you considered sufficient alone, was the one that reduces people to thrill-seeking fetishists. Your disdain for people like me shines through choices like that (and the victim-blaming that is inherent in it).

You were presented with the phenomenon of people being gay and facing extreme, lethal discrimination, and your first rebuttal was, "well a bunch of them probably get off on danger".

On the second point: you didn't provide an actual, demonstrable "example". You provided /speculation/, directly contradicted by our own testimony.

 

[tstorm823]

You can indeed imagine more than one reason; I never doubted that. What I find telling is that your go-to speculation, the one you considered sufficient alone, was the one that reduces people to thrill-seeking fetishists. Your disdain for people like me shines through choices like that (and the victim-blaming that is inherent in it).

You were presented with the phenomenon of people being gay and facing extreme, lethal discrimination, and your first rebuttal was, "well a bunch of them probably get off on danger".

On the second point: you didn't provide an actual, demonstrable "example". You provided /speculation/, directly contradicted by our own testimony.

Yes. I responded to the words you were saying. I responded directly to the thing you were saying with a response you 100% know to be true. "Oh my god, tstorm is such a bigot for acknowledging the premise that I made."

You implied everyone hates risk and danger. I disagreed. You are not going to defend that implication because you know it isn't true, and now you are forgetting the context that you are the one who started that conversation, and pretending that I was just thinking of any possibility in a vacuum and went for that one. But it was a direct rebuttal to your claim, one that should have immediately reminded you "oh, some gay people are different than me, right."

 

[Bedinsis]

Question: if someone is bisexual, is it then accurate to say that they are gay? I feel that the answer to that question determines what group is being addressed when it comes to talking about gay people and might be the cause for some friction within this thread.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes. I responded to the words you were saying. I responded directly to the thing you were saying with a response you 100% know to be true. "Oh my god, tstorm is such a bigot for acknowledging the premise that I made."

Oh, spare me this poor misjudged victim act, because I couldn't give less of a shit about it.

Highlighting outlier fetishes doesn't address the premise at all; all it does is show where your mind goes first whenever you think of gay people.

You implied everyone hates risk and danger. I disagreed.

This is a lie.

I implied that attraction to danger is a completely insufficient, insulting explanation to handwave the existence of gay people under repressive regimes.

 

[Silvanus]

Question: if someone is bisexual, is it then accurate to say that they are gay? I feel that the answer to that question determines what group is being addressed when it comes to talking about gay people and might be the cause for some friction within this thread.

No, bisexual people aren't gay (or straight). Gay & straight imply some exclusivity of preference, or at least heavy inclination in one direction.

Source: i am one.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh, spare me this poor misjudged victim act, because I couldn't give less of a shit about it.

I am not a victim, that doesn't change the fact that you're misjudging.

I implied that attraction to danger is a completely insufficient, insulting explanation to handwave the existence of gay people under repressive regimes.

You're really caught up on this stupid thing.

Honestly, you're not so dumb as to be incapable of thinking "oh, people risk their lives over things all the time." Some people risk their lives just to enjoy the moment, some people put their lives on the line for things they consider higher priorities, I'm sure you understand these things without me listing every possible reason someone would put their life in danger. You are upset because I'm not saying "oh, you're right, nobody would ever risk their life if they could choose, it must not be a choice", but your premise is false, people constantly choose to risk their lives for any number of reasons. You want me to think "oh, nobody would choose to be exiled from their family", but if you set aside sexuality as the subject for two minutes, you might remember that lots of people specifically and intentionally do things to piss off their parents. This is not unique. Why would we conclude that nobody would ever choose this specific thing that might risk their life or hurt their relationship with their family when people choose thousands of other things that do exactly that?

 

[Silvanus]

You're really caught up on this stupid thing.

Funny, that!

Honestly, you're not so dumb as to be incapable of thinking "oh, people risk their lives over things all the time." Some people risk their lives just to enjoy the moment, some people put their lives on the line for things they consider higher priorities, I'm sure you understand these things without me listing every possible reason someone would put their life in danger.

And you're not so dumb as to think this presents an explanation for why people in general are gay despite enormous personal cost and lethal risk.

You are upset because I'm not saying "oh, you're right, nobody would ever risk their life if they could choose, it must not be a choice", but your premise is false, people constantly choose to risk their lives for any number of reasons.

No, stop, you're strawmanning again. I didn't say "nobody would ever", and i've already explained that to you explicitly. I said it's an insufficient and insulting explanation to offer when we're discussing huge communities of people suffering discrimination.

You want me to think "oh, nobody would choose to be exiled from their family", but if you set aside sexuality as the subject for two minutes, you might remember that lots of people specifically and intentionally do things to piss off their parents. This is not unique. Why would we conclude that nobody would ever choose this specific thing that might risk their life or hurt their relationship with their family when people choose thousands of other things that do exactly that?

I've addressed the "why would we think nobody would ever [...]" tiresome strawman already above.

Just wanted to remark how quickly it devolves into rank victim blaming again. Those disowned kids were doing it to piss off their parents, after all, eh.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Question: if someone is bisexual, is it then accurate to say that they are gay? I feel that the answer to that question determines what group is being addressed when it comes to talking about gay people and might be the cause for some friction within this thread.

As far as strict internet definitions, no. A gay man is distinct from a bisexual man. Especially when talking with people outside the community, it's best to keep things simple like that.

As far as the much more malleable non-internet queer community is concerned? Man, definitions are weird and break down constantly. Think Venn Diagrams instead of boxes.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ohh, for anybody wondering, tstorm is using a Motte and Bailey fallacy: make an extremely audacious and offensive argument (the Motte) and then when rightly called out for it, retreat back into the Bailey of a much more defensible argument and act aggrieved at the unfairness of your opponent

Motte-and-bailey fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tstorm823]

And you're not so dumb as to think this presents an explanation for why people in general are gay despite enormous personal cost and lethal risk.

One more time: there is no "in general". People all have different reasons in their lives. Stop expecting me to present an overarching explanation that doesn't exist. This is what I mean when you're treating people as a monolith, you are expecting a singular explanation that covers everyone, and it doesn't exist.

Ohh, for anybody wondering, tstorm is using a Motte and Bailey fallacy: make an extremely audacious and offensive argument (the Motte) and then when rightly called out for it, retreat back into the Bailey of a much more defensible argument and act aggrieved at the unfairness of your opponent

I'm not acting aggrieved. It is not offending me to be misinterpreted. It is an impediment to the conversation.

 

[Silvanus]

One more time: there is no "in general". People all have different reasons in their lives. Stop expecting me to present an overarching explanation that doesn't exist.

I'm not expecting you to present an overarching explanation. I never expected you to. Pretending I'm expecting that of you, rather than simply criticising the shitty, prejudiced explanation you did offer, is a deflection.

I find it very telling that your go-to explanation is an extremely niche fetish, and you then acted as if the phenomenon no longer presents any sort of explanatory challenge to your position. It's indicative of your derisory attitude.

This is what I mean when you're treating people as a monolith, you are expecting a singular explanation that covers everyone, and it doesn't exist.

So you /are/ saying that if someone says a characteristic isn't a result of choice, they're automatically treating those people as a "monolith".

So why do you apply that reasoning to me when im describing gay people, and not to yourself when describing ethnicities?

 

[tstorm823]

So why do you apply that reasoning to me when im describing gay people, and not to yourself when describing ethnicities?

Let me ask you two questions then:
a) Why are people the ethnicity they are?
b) Why are people gay?
Let's see if you can answer both of those questions the same way.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm not acting aggrieved. It is not offending me to be misinterpreted. It is an impediment to the conversation.

Which is entirely due to your Motte of "gay people living in places where they're at great risk of dying are doing so because they sexually crave danger and choose to be" initial argument, yeah.

Just say that was wrong, bro.

 

[Silvanus]

Let me ask you two questions then

I'll answer them as soon as you answer mine.