New Pope Elected: Cardinal Robert Prevost Elected by Conclave

[Agema]

You realize you are talking about the side that isn't designing letters, prefixes, and pronouns with which to put everyone into boxes, right?

Oh, please. One side is exploring new terminology to try to describe differences in human experience to assist those individuals to express themselves. The right is trying to write off those differences in human experience as aberration or illness.

Which is what the right has always done: taken its narrow and taditional view and denying expression to anything outside. It's transexuality now, but before that the right was criminalising and pathologising homosexuality, and defining black people as subhuman, and diminishing women. It's all the same mindset and attitude, where the right believes its prejudices more important than the reality of the minorities it seeks to repress. It is a reductive and proscriptive view of the world.

The crazy thing is that even despite all these years, all the evidence that these once-repressed minorities can offer huge valuable benefits to society once unleashed from societal constraints, a tload of the right still want to recreate the repression and restrictions of yesteryear.

 

[Silvanus]

You realize you are talking about the side that isn't designing letters, prefixes, and pronouns with which to put everyone into boxes, right?

...but it is the side telling others what letters, prefixes, and pronouns they're allowed to use. Fitting everyone into those traditional boxes they're not comfortable with.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh, please. One side is exploring new terminology to try to describe differences in human experience to assist those individuals to express themselves. The right is trying to write off those differences in human experience as aberration or illness.

Which is what the right has always done: taken its narrow and taditional view and denying expression to anything outside. It's transexuality now, but before that the right was criminalising and pathologising homosexuality, and defining black people as subhuman, and diminishing women. It's all the same mindset and attitude, where the right believes its prejudices more important than the reality of the minorities it seeks to repress. It is a reductive and proscriptive view of the world.

The crazy thing is that even despite all these years, all the evidence that these once-repressed minorities can offer huge valuable benefits to society once unleashed from societal constraints, a tload of the right still want to recreate the repression and restrictions of yesteryear.

You're assigning "the right" to any historical thing you don't like. You're defining right as bad in a self-sustaining circle. Nevermind that some of what you say is the exact opposite historically of what you think it is: homosexuality was pathologized by the opposite people of those who criminalized it, the argument was choice vs innate, those are two opposite sides of the debate. You can't blame "the right" for both.

Those terms proscribe more than the right does. It is less restrictive to treat people as the same in kind but different in details than it is to make categories of how people are different in kind, sorting people into distinct classes like we were pokemon. It also callously denies human agency, as though nothing is a choice and nobody has any control over themselves. It is, as always, not a problem of people choosing their own lives, and more a problem that those championing that freedom suggest it is only freedom if they avoid doing what has made people happy for all of human history.

 

[Silvanus]

Those terms proscribe more than the right does. It is less restrictive to treat people as the same in kind but different in details than it is to make categories of how people are different in kind, sorting people into distinct classes like we were pokemon. It also callously denies human agency, as though nothing is a choice and nobody has any control over themselves. It is, as always, not a problem of people choosing their own lives, and more a problem that those championing that freedom suggest it is only freedom if they avoid doing what has made people happy for all of human history.

Peculiar, then, that social-liberals aren't the ones actually seeking to restrict who I can love, what I can identify as, or implement legal discrimination based on these things etc. The right are. That's in practice; that's empirical experience trumping the rationalisation you've cooked up based on decades-old pathological debates.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You realize you are talking about the side that isn't designing letters, prefixes, and pronouns with which to put everyone into boxes, right?

"You are only a man or a woman" isn't doing that?

 

[tstorm823]

Peculiar, then, that social-liberals aren't the ones actually seeking to restrict who I can love, what I can identify as, or implement legal discrimination based on these things etc. The right are. That's in practice; that's empirical experience trumping the rationalisation you've cooked up based on decades-old pathological debates.

Reality rejects the things you think you ought to be free to do. If you attempt to identify as what you aren't, you will find only pain, people will never match views your inner idea of yourself, and attempting to achieve that with increasing specificity is fool's errand. You want laws written for completely different reasons to be repurposed because otherwise the world does not match what your mind wants it to be. Nobody is telling you who to love, they're sometimes telling you who you can marry, an institution designed to protect mothers and children. You're not going to find the word love in a legal definition of marriage, and treating marriage as only a recognition of love has destroyed the institution. You're pursuing pain, and you see as evil anyone who might try to stop you.

 

[Silvanus]

Reality rejects the things you think you ought to be free to do. If you attempt to identify as what you aren't, you will find only pain, people will never match views your inner idea of yourself, and attempting to achieve that with increasing specificity is fool's errand. You want laws written for completely different reasons to be repurposed because otherwise the world does not match what your mind wants it to be. Nobody is telling you who to love, they're sometimes telling you who you can marry, an institution designed to protect mothers and children. You're not going to find the word love in a legal definition of marriage, and treating marriage as only a recognition of love has destroyed the institution. You're pursuing pain, and you see as evil anyone who might try to stop you.

Your ignorant presumptions about my life experience, and your rationalisations for why it's justified to proscribe and control others aren't of interest to me. I was simply pointing out that your contention that social-liberals are the proscriptive, restrictive ones rather than the right is horseshit. You're the one seeking to restrict and condemn what others feel free to do. You're doing it right now, and pretending others are the controlling ones.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Reality rejects the things you think you ought to be free to do. If you attempt to identify as what you aren't, you will find only pain, people will never match views your inner idea of yourself, and attempting to achieve that with increasing specificity is fool's errand. You want laws written for completely different reasons to be repurposed because otherwise the world does not match what your mind wants it to be. Nobody is telling you who to love, they're sometimes telling you who you can marry, an institution designed to protect mothers and children. You're not going to find the word love in a legal definition of marriage, and treating marriage as only a recognition of love has destroyed the institution. You're pursuing pain, and you see as evil anyone who might try to stop you.

"My truth is truth, and your truth is lies, because I say so. So I'll stop you from pursuing your truth so that you can adhere to mine, for your own good."

 

[Agema]

It is less restrictive to treat people as the same in kind but different in details

You are playing around with issues of categorisation in a way that is supremely pointless. What is restrictive is to restrict people, irrespective of whether that is because they are different in 'kind' or 'details' (whatever that even means). Whether you want to classify a group as "homosexuals" or "people who are homosexual", it makes no significant difference whatsoever to a policy of whether you will permit them rights relevant to their sexuality.

It also callously denies human agency, as though nothing is a choice and nobody has any control over themselves.

You can say that, but you'd do a lot better to actually demonstrate it.

It is, as always, not a problem of people choosing their own lives, and more a problem that those championing that freedom suggest it is only freedom if they avoid doing what has made people happy for all of human history.

You throw around concepts like happiness and harm without them being rooted in anything meaningful at all.

How did women of 1800 feel at not having rights, being shut out from a vast wealth of human endeavour? You have no idea. Is someone transgender less harmed by being railroaded into behaving as their sex? You have no idea. You want to claim there is some epidemic of unhappiness and harm caused by things you disapprove of, when you cannot even adequately explain why and how - except by using the "rationalism" you are foreswearing as inadequate.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You throw around concepts like happiness and harm without them being rooted in anything meaningful at all.

His rationale is "they were happy because they didn't know they could have it any other way" (which, by the way, is also a pro-slavery argument). It's all rooted in ignorance and repression.

 

[Hades]

One wonders if they did they for a bit of grovelling towards Trump.

I'm actually sure Trump won't end up appreciating an American pope, especially if its a good pope. Trump is unbelievably petty so an American leader who is respected or at least liked by the wider world will likely vex him since he isn't. Its bound to trigger jealousy to seen an American leader endorsed by a world that rightfully rejected Trump himself.

 

[tstorm823]

How did women of 1800 feel at not having rights, being shut out from a vast wealth of human endeavour?

Prior to the modern times arising via the industrial revolution and the rise in democracy, they weren't shut out of the vast wealth of human endeavor. Men did war, women did child rearing, and basically everything else was shared endeavor. When women's suffrage came about, there were women opposed to it because it was tied at first with going to war.

I'm quite certain that women with your view of the past are unhappy about it, but that's not what happened. When the man is tilling to soil and the woman is feeding the livestock, nobody feels like they're particularly getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Seanchaidh]

When the man is tilling to soil and the woman is feeding the livestock, nobody feels like they're particularly getting the short end of the stick.

Absolutely. Declare Year Zero and empty the cities!

 

[Agema]

I'm quite certain that women with your view of the past are unhappy about it, but that's not what happened. When the man is tilling to soil and the woman is feeding the livestock, nobody feels like they're particularly getting the short end of the stick.

And I repeat: you don't actually know this at all.

You don't know how many women longed to own their own property, govern their own lives, do things forbidden to them out of sheer prejudice. You don't know how many were trapped and miserable with abusive husbands, because society was so shit that the alternative was even worse. And yet we do know many women felt short-changed and resentful - because some of them left records saying so.

Then there is the "ignorance is bliss" argument you are deploying. Even at best this is pointless: society progressed and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There's no point arguing primitive women were happy unless you're arguing for a return to a primitive society.

 

[tstorm823]

There's no point arguing primitive women were happy unless you're arguing for a return to a primitive society.

That isn't true.

How you see the world of the past changes how you see things now changes how you seek to move into the future.

People who think women had differently roles because they were oppressed by men for millennia conclude our society is built on systems of oppression and try to burn them down. The seanchaidh method, if you will.

People who see society historically as more collaboration than oppression are not going to be inclined to burn it all down.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That isn't true.

How you see the world of the past changes how you see things now changes how you seek to move into the future.

People who think women had differently roles because they were oppressed by men for millennia conclude our society is built on systems of oppression and try to burn them down. The seanchaidh method, if you will.

People who see society historically as more collaboration than oppression are not going to be inclined to burn it all down.

wild thing to say when you're taking the side of the fascists

 

[tstorm823]

wild thing to say when you're taking the side of the fascists

I can't possibly take the side of people who don't actually exist outside of your imagination.

 

[Agema]

People who see society historically as more collaboration than oppression are not going to be inclined to burn it all down.

It doesn't matter whether there was "more" collaboration or oppression. There is no meaningful difference between 51% oppression and 49% oppression. 25% oppression and 10% oppression are also still oppression: the mass denial of opportunity, wasting of talent, font of dissatisfaction and frustration for teeming multitudes across centuries.

Why women had different roles from men, and what their roles were is and was obviously multifactorial. Within that clearly much would be a construction of society, and thus that a huge chunk of that would be what we can call in simple terms oppression of women. The subordination of women with men as primary beneficiaries. Obviously, those men who largely made and enforced those societies, wrote the rules and the histories and the holy texts, would tell us that what was the best thing for them happened also to be the best thing for society. Of course they would, wouldn't they?

 

[BrawlMan]

And I repeat: you don't actually know this at all.

He don't know shit in general. What else is new?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Obviously, those men who largely made and enforced those societies, wrote the rules and the histories and the holy texts, would tell us that what was the best thing for them happened also to be the best thing for society. Of course they would, wouldn't they?

That is 'conspiracy theory'.