Political leanings, and how they change over time

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Political leanings, and how they change over time

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#302315 14-Nov-2022 14:23

I find US politics far more interesting than NZ politics, not just for the obvious reason that it's more entertaining, but also because what happens there tends to flow on to the rest of the western world.

I really don't know what to make of the US at the moment, as both parties are both incredibly unappealing. Are we going to be pushed to the same political extremes in NZ in the coming years, where you can't even have a discussion with some with an opposing view?

As I get older I find myself having more conservative view points than when I was younger. I'm still fairly centrist, but probably lean more right these days if I'm honest. There are still plenty of "right-wing" policies and ideas I disagree with, just as there are "left-wing" policies and ideas I support.

I'd be interested to know how other members political leanings have changed over the years, and even have a civil discussion with those who may have differing views to myself (or at least see if civil debate is still possible).

1 | 2

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2996047 14-Nov-2022 14:41

I am all for having a civil discourse, but be warned old age has only made me more entrenched in my views. A lot of politicians on both sides are full of hot air and BS, but I strongly feel that the world can only be saved by genuine progressive politics. Conservative means keeping things the same and that is the path to doom. If we are to survive and thrive, we must be imaginative and daring.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2996073 14-Nov-2022 16:21

Rikkitic:

Conservative means keeping things the same and that is the path to doom.

I don't know that "conservative" has to mean keeping things the same. Or if it does, then perhaps conservative isn't the right word to describe what I more often find myself agreeing with.

Maybe it's not that I'm conservative, maybe I just disagree with the specific policies being pushed by the "progressives"?

I'll share some probably unpopular opinions:

Abortion - I think the pro-life camp make a far more logically consistent argument by simply saying that life begins at conception. I don't find the "my body, my choice" argument particularly compelling since it ignores the central argument of the Pro-life camp, i.e. they believe the fetus is a person with rights as well. That being said, I'm pro-choice up to 15 weeks (which seems to be a reasonable compromise in my eyes), and thereafter if the continued pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy.

Trans rights - I think an adult should be able to do what they want. But I struggle with the concept of "affirmation therapy"; especially when it comes to children, teens, and young adults. I don't think true therapy should be assuming a diagnosis either way. And I don't agree with trans women competing in most sports against biological females - regardless of what hormones they may be on now, the changes they underwent during male puberty give them an unfair physical advantage.

Affirmative action - I've always felt that this should be based on socio-economic factors, not race. If any particular race is disproportionality impoverished, then a socio-economic approach will still target members of that race appropriately.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2996075 14-Nov-2022 16:45

All of the above are fake pseudo-intellectual arguments pushed to add a veneer of legitimacy to prejudiced thinking. What you are saying is you know what's best for others. That is crap.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2996087 14-Nov-2022 17:21

Rikkitic:

All of the above are fake pseudo-intellectual arguments pushed to add a veneer of legitimacy to prejudiced thinking. What you are saying is you know what's best for others. That is crap.

I'm expressing my views, and am open to hear differing opinions and even be convinced I'm wrong.

Rikkitic:

I am all for having a civil discourse

It doesn't seem like it. You offered nothing except attacking an opposing opinion with insults and no arguments.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2996114 14-Nov-2022 18:10

Paul1977:

It doesn't seem like it. You offered nothing except attacking an opposing opinion with insults and no arguments.

In my old age I am cranky and I lack energy for detailed dissertations. Apart from that, I feel that you and I have been here before. But okay, I will try to give you some (highly abbreviated) arguments.

1. Abortion is a non-issue made up mostly by hysterical religious types. In truth it is not about killing babies, but defining what a human being is. A few cells that have started dividing do not make a human being. All they represent is potential. What makes a human being is realised potential that comes from many of those cells combined with experiential inputs that form character and personality. Without this all you have is just a clump of cells. The problem is not at what point these cells become a person, but at what point hysterical religious busybodies think they have a god-given calling to tell other people, especially pregnant women they don't know and have never met, what to do with their lives.

2. People who undergo full male puberty tend to be bigger and stronger on average than those who follow the female direction. Post-pubescent hormone treatment removes some of the muscular strength advantages of testosterone, but does not affect leverage strength from a larger size and bigger bone structure. Anti-trans sentiment is just more irrational prejudice wrapped up in phoney justifications by people who fear change. Instead of basing sporting competitions only on gender, a much fairer measure would be physical size together with gender, similar to how boxers are placed in weight classes. There is always overlap between male and female. A female trans athlete comparable in size to a cis female, will not be competing with an unfair advantage. This is just an excuse for prejudice.

3. For decades and centuries, dominant cultures have benefited at the expense of subjugated ones. Since Europe discovered Africa, this distinction has largely been based on race. Skin colour makes it easier to see who is a slave. It also makes it easier to see who should receive affirmative action.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2996461 15-Nov-2022 09:58

Rikkitic:

In my old age I am cranky and I lack energy for detailed dissertations. Apart from that, I feel that you and I have been here before. But okay, I will try to give you some (highly abbreviated) arguments.

1. Abortion is a non-issue made up mostly by hysterical religious types. In truth it is not about killing babies, but defining what a human being is. A few cells that have started dividing do not make a human being. All they represent is potential. What makes a human being is realised potential that comes from many of those cells combined with experiential inputs that form character and personality. Without this all you have is just a clump of cells. The problem is not at what point these cells become a person, but at what point hysterical religious busybodies think they have a god-given calling to tell other people, especially pregnant women they don't know and have never met, what to do with their lives.

2. People who undergo full male puberty tend to be bigger and stronger on average than those who follow the female direction. Post-pubescent hormone treatment removes some of the muscular strength advantages of testosterone, but does not affect leverage strength from a larger size and bigger bone structure. Anti-trans sentiment is just more irrational prejudice wrapped up in phoney justifications by people who fear change. Instead of basing sporting competitions only on gender, a much fairer measure would be physical size together with gender, similar to how boxers are placed in weight classes. There is always overlap between male and female. A female trans athlete comparable in size to a cis female, will not be competing with an unfair advantage. This is just an excuse for prejudice.

3. For decades and centuries, dominant cultures have benefited at the expense of subjugated ones. Since Europe discovered Africa, this distinction has largely been based on race. Skin colour makes it easier to see who is a slave. It also makes it easier to see who should receive affirmative action.

We have been here before in other forums, but they generally get locked or full of people hurling insults. I think issues like this are worth discussing without that happening. Whether that proves to be possible is another question entirely. If any of my assertions are factually incorrect anyone can feel free to correct me. Likewise, anyone who has a different views to my own are welcome to express it, and explain why they believe their views to be the correct ones. I don't know if any minds will be changed, but I'd like to think people can at least gain a better understanding of opposing views, even if they disagree.

1. When you say abortion is a non-issue, do you mean that you feel it shouldn't be an issue? It seems to me it clearly is a very big issue for a lot of people. I'm not religious, and am not swayed by religious arguments. I see it as a moral argument, and religious people have simply constructed their moral belief system based on their religion. But non-religious people can form a similar moral belief system. Writing Pro-Choicers off as religious busybodies telling other people what to do is only a valid argument if everyone accepts the position that a fetus is not a person. If the personhood debate isn't important, then why should I object to an adult stranger killing another adult stranger - it's none of my business, right?

I think most people, religious or not, would agree it's immoral to unjustifiably kill a person. So I think the argument is almost entirely about defining when a fetus becomes a "person", and then to a lesser extent when it's justifiable to kill a person. I don't really like any of the definitions of "person" put forward. I give the Pro-Choice position credit because it is at least definable, but I don't agree with it because it is at best a definition of when new "life" is formed, not when a new "person" is created. But then what does that leave for defining when a fetus does become a person? The other extreme is to say it's when it's born, but that has the obvious issues that it's being defined simply by locality i.e. what's the real difference between a fetus in the uterus at 9 months vs a newborn baby? The other argument (one you raised) is having formed character and personality from experiential input. The problem I see with that is: what character has a new born baby formed from experiential input? I'd argue a new born has nothing more than the temperament that their genetics gave them, so then aren't we back to locality?

2. There is anti-trans sentiment out there, and perhaps much of it is irrational. However, just because some people are prejudiced against the whole idea doesn't automatically make all criticism against any aspect of it prejudiced. There's more physical difference between males and females than just size that gives a biological male an advantage in many athletic events. I don't think there's a solution that would be both fair, and also not upset some people. The fairest system would be to have trans sporting divisions, but that would almost certainly be seen as discriminatory (and would probably lack the necessary numbers to be viable).

The bigger issue for me, which you didn't touch on in your response, is the idea of affirmation therapy as the currently accepted approach; especially in relation to children, teens, and young adults. I'm sure that there are many people who genuinely have gender dysphoria whose lives and self-worth would be improved by transitioning. But it's a decision that leads to permanent and irreversible physical changes, so people need to be damned sure it's the right decision. Therapists, doctors, and surgeons have the responsibility to be sure it's the best long term option for the person they are treating. My understanding of affirmation therapy is that the therapist is essentially supporting what the individual has already decided, so the diagnosis has been decided before the therapy even begins. We all know adult biological females who were "tomboys" as children, but after going through puberty and growing into adulthood are happy and confident women; but if you'd asked them at 10 years old if they'd rather be a boy would have very probably said yes.

3. I'm not arguing that there aren't races and populations that haven't been historically oppressed. I'm not arguing that current forms of racism don't exist. I'm also not arguing that historic racism hasn't lead to current inequalities. But I don't see that race based approaches such as affirmative action (as they call it in the US) can (or will) achieve the desired outcomes. The idea that skin colour makes it easier to identify who needs a leg up strikes me as pretty insulting to the people these policies are aimed at.

There are plenty of white families trapped in the poverty cycle, just as there are plenty of wealthy people of colour. It's out of proportion and that needs to to change, but continuing to frame everything in race only serves to prolong any racial division that still exists. Helping people based on need makes more sense long term sense to me.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2996667 15-Nov-2022 14:20

People use different writing styles for different media and contexts. Obviously I would not adopt a social media tone for an academic paper. You raised some points and I tried to address them in a semi-serious fashion without getting too mired in detail. If you want a fully annotated discussion, you need to look elsewhere.

Why ‘semi-serious’? Because these are ponderous issues and I do not feel like providing pages and pages of ponderous responses. My replies are intentionally glib but not without substance.

Of course I do not maintain that all poor people are coloured, and all white people are privileged. That should go without saying. I am using exaggeration to make a point. I assumed you would see that. My point is that race-based approaches are used because they generally work to identify people in need, who tend to be in need because their parents and grandparents were systematically exploited. What technique would you use?

As far as trans goes, a fully transitioned trans female does not possess any inherent competitive advantage over a cis female of similar size and weight. Likewise, a trans male is just as strong as a comparable biological one. The differences between large females and small ones are a hell of lot greater than the ones between trans females and cis ones of similar proportions, but big ones and little ones are still allowed to compete against each other in athletic competitions. The criteria are traditional. That doesn’t make them sensible.

Without wanting to insult you again, I suspect you are pontificating on this subject from your armchair. If you actually knew some trans people, including very young ones, you might have a little more respect for the anguish they suffer. In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your understanding of affirmation therapy is wrong. The fact that you compare tomboys to trans people demonstrates that.

When I say abortion is a non-issue, I mean people are arguing about the wrong thing. It is not about morals or respect for human life. It is about being right. It is not unlike the anti-smoking brigade. Let’s pick a cause to feel morally superior about and all jump on the bandwagon. My morality is bothered a lot more by unwanted and unloved babies squirted out to join the procession to prison.

I don’t deny that many people have strong feelings about this subject. That doesn’t make their views sensible. It is not a competition of whoever can shout the loudest.

Abortion is a choice that belongs exclusively to the woman who has to carry the foetus. It is nobody else’s business. Butt out.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2996794 15-Nov-2022 16:15

Rikkitic:

People use different writing styles for different media and contexts. Obviously I would not adopt a social media tone for an academic paper. You raised some points and I tried to address them in a semi-serious fashion without getting too mired in detail. If you want a fully annotated discussion, you need to look elsewhere.

Why ‘semi-serious’? Because these are ponderous issues and I do not feel like providing pages and pages of ponderous responses. My replies are intentionally glib but not without substance.

Of course I do not maintain that all poor people are coloured, and all white people are privileged. That should go without saying. I am using exaggeration to make a point. I assumed you would see that. My point is that race-based approaches are used because they generally work to identify people in need, who tend to be in need because their parents and grandparents were systematically exploited. What technique would you use?

As far as trans goes, a fully transitioned trans female does not possess any inherent competitive advantage over a cis female of similar size and weight. Likewise, a trans male is just as strong as a comparable biological one. The differences between large females and small ones are a hell of lot greater than the ones between trans females and cis ones of similar proportions, but big ones and little ones are still allowed to compete against each other in athletic competitions. The criteria are traditional. That doesn’t make them sensible.

Without wanting to insult you again, I suspect you are pontificating on this subject from your armchair. If you actually knew some trans people, including very young ones, you might have a little more respect for the anguish they suffer. In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your understanding of affirmation therapy is wrong. The fact that you compare tomboys to trans people demonstrates that.

When I say abortion is a non-issue, I mean people are arguing about the wrong thing. It is not about morals or respect for human life. It is about being right. It is not unlike the anti-smoking brigade. Let’s pick a cause to feel morally superior about and all jump on the bandwagon. My morality is bothered a lot more by unwanted and unloved babies squirted out to join the procession to prison.

I don’t deny that many people have strong feelings about this subject. That doesn’t make their views sensible. It is not a competition of whoever can shout the loudest.

Abortion is a choice that belongs exclusively to the woman who has to carry the foetus. It is nobody else’s business. Butt out.

You ask what technique I would use to identify people in need, but I was very clear I believe it should be based primarily on socio-economic grounds.

I wasn't comparing trans people to tomboys as if to say they're the same thing, which they obviously aren't. My concern is around potential misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria in young people leading to permanent physical changes they may later regret. Only time will tell if my concern is unwarranted.

In regards to unwanted or unloved babies, I'm in favour of (what I see as) sensible abortion laws. Elective abortions up to around 15 weeks. That's not a policy that is forcing anyone to have unwanted children.

I don't want to misrepresent you, but you seem to have "all or nothing views" on most topic you discuss - but maybe it just seems that way because of your desire to not get "too mired in detail". I don't believe you can have a meaningful discussion without the details. None of these are simple black and white issues (no racial pun intended), but they are far too often treated as if they are.

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#2996954 15-Nov-2022 23:23

I'll nail my colours to the pole.

For many years I was a National supporter, ' cause that was who my parents voted for, and never really gave it any further thought. Too busy having fun,families, career and all the myriad of consequential and inconsequential that clutter everyday life.
I still think Rob Muldoon was pretty awesome and the gas to gasoline project was a good idea and may have held NZ in good stead in light of recent international issues.

However, as I've gotten older, and perhaps a little wiser, I've started to lean left on the premise of "what's in it for NZ overall, for my kids generation , rather than just me"

To me, Labour is more progressive, National is staid and comfortable.

My vote will swing either way. I prefer that any particular party that gets in, will have that for 3 terms. Enough to get their longer term projects underway, if not completed.
Then I'll switch my vote to another. Could be Greens, was the Outdoors Party once.

I was pleased that Helen Clarke had her 3 term reign, ditto John Key, and now I would like to see Jacinda Ardern have her 3 terms.

To be fair, many policies I don't agree with, but there is probably more that I do agree with, but overall I do truly believe that NZ is been pretty well served by our political system, and whoever is Prime Minister will minister to NZ as best as they can with what they have been given

We really dont know how lucky we are .. F.Dagg

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2996965 16-Nov-2022 08:02

Paul1977:

I don't want to misrepresent you, but you seem to have "all or nothing views" on most topic you discuss - but maybe it just seems that way because of your desire to not get "too mired in detail". I don't believe you can have a meaningful discussion without the details. None of these are simple black and white issues (no racial pun intended), but they are far too often treated as if they are.

My views are not ‘all or nothing’. They are a response to the way you frame discussions.

You don’t ask questions. You make moralistic declarations disguised as questions. This is a dishonest ploy. If my replies seem aggressive, they stem from that.

Your questions also betray an unacceptable degree of ignorance. It is like asking a rocket scientist why she doesn’t just use petrol to get to Mars. If you want decent answers, you need to study the subjects.

You don’t want to understand why people have abortions. You just want to impose an arbitrary limit on them and then go away feeling generous because you gave them 15 weeks.

You clearly don’t know anything about gender dysphoria. You don’t know anything about young people driven to suicidal despair because they can’t escape bodies they hate. Guess what? Puberty also causes permanent physical changes they may later regret. Your argument is arrogant and disrespectful. Worse, it is based on ignorance.

Another moralistic declaration disguised as a question is the one about affirmative action. This is racism dressed up to look like even-handedness. Donald Brash does that too.

You are of course fully entitled to hold and express any opinion you like. But your manner of doing so is devious and I don’t much care for it. I have said what I want to on these matters. Someone else can carry this on if they want to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2997154 16-Nov-2022 16:51

Rikkitic:

My views are not ‘all or nothing’. They are a response to the way you frame discussions.

You don’t ask questions. You make moralistic declarations disguised as questions. This is a dishonest ploy. If my replies seem aggressive, they stem from that.

Your questions also betray an unacceptable degree of ignorance. It is like asking a rocket scientist why she doesn’t just use petrol to get to Mars. If you want decent answers, you need to study the subjects.

You don’t want to understand why people have abortions. You just want to impose an arbitrary limit on them and then go away feeling generous because you gave them 15 weeks.

You clearly don’t know anything about gender dysphoria. You don’t know anything about young people driven to suicidal despair because they can’t escape bodies they hate. Guess what? Puberty also causes permanent physical changes they may later regret. Your argument is arrogant and disrespectful. Worse, it is based on ignorance.

Another moralistic declaration disguised as a question is the one about affirmative action. This is racism dressed up to look like even-handedness. Donald Brash does that too.

You are of course fully entitled to hold and express any opinion you like. But your manner of doing so is devious and I don’t much care for it. I have said what I want to on these matters. Someone else can carry this on if they want to.

The bolded section above is a very good point. It's a shame you're too aggressive and rude to expand on it further in a civil manner.

You make plenty of moralistic declarations yourself, however you seem to feel your opinions are so self-evidently superior that they don't need to be explained. You call others views ignorant and bigoted but don't offer any insight as to how.

You've barely addressed a single argument I've made, or question I've asked; except to say I'm arrogant, bigoted, ignorant, racist, dishonest, devious, and disrespectful. Yep... I'm the disrespectful one.

If this is how you engage in civil discourse, I don't much care for it.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2997155 16-Nov-2022 17:08

SepticSceptic: I'll nail my colours to the pole.

For many years I was a National supporter, ' cause that was who my parents voted for, and never really gave it any further thought. Too busy having fun,families, career and all the myriad of consequential and inconsequential that clutter everyday life.
I still think Rob Muldoon was pretty awesome and the gas to gasoline project was a good idea and may have held NZ in good stead in light of recent international issues.

However, as I've gotten older, and perhaps a little wiser, I've started to lean left on the premise of "what's in it for NZ overall, for my kids generation , rather than just me"

To me, Labour is more progressive, National is staid and comfortable.

My vote will swing either way. I prefer that any particular party that gets in, will have that for 3 terms. Enough to get their longer term projects underway, if not completed.
Then I'll switch my vote to another. Could be Greens, was the Outdoors Party once.

I was pleased that Helen Clarke had her 3 term reign, ditto John Key, and now I would like to see Jacinda Ardern have her 3 terms.

To be fair, many policies I don't agree with, but there is probably more that I do agree with, but overall I do truly believe that NZ is been pretty well served by our political system, and whoever is Prime Minister will minister to NZ as best as they can with what they have been given

We really dont know how lucky we are .. F.Dagg

I'm a bit the same in regards to having always voted for National because my parents did.

I thought it was time for a change and some "young blood" so voted Labour the first election where Jacinda Ardern was leader. I sat out the following election because it just seemed that in NZ politics it seems to make very little difference who is in power.

I'm not a fan of MMP, or at least how it works in NZ. It really makes it feel like by vote doesn't count, when the like of Winston Peters could essentially decide on his own who is in power.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#2997349 17-Nov-2022 10:13

Paul1977:

The bolded section above is a very good point. It's a shame you're too aggressive and rude to expand on it further in a civil manner.

You make plenty of moralistic declarations yourself, however you seem to feel your opinions are so self-evidently superior that they don't need to be explained. You call others views ignorant and bigoted but don't offer any insight as to how.

You've barely addressed a single argument I've made, or question I've asked; except to say I'm arrogant, bigoted, ignorant, racist, dishonest, devious, and disrespectful. Yep... I'm the disrespectful one.

If this is how you engage in civil discourse, I don't much care for it.

You are right of course and I apologise for being so abrasive, though I stand by my arguments. The problem is the opinions you cite act as triggers for me, especially the first two. These are standard right wing tropes that keep getting dished up by conservatives pretending to want to have an unbiased discussion.

Religious proselytisers sometimes try to disarm potential converts by engaging them in an innocent conversation having nothing to do with religion. Gradually they shift the subject to their true purpose, drawing the victim in. This is a well-established technique.

It is also a commonly used rhetorical device on social media, particularly by those with a right wing agenda. Someone starts by saying I just have a question about this thing. But the truth is the questioner already has the answer they want, and is just trying to sneak it into the conversation, hoping their target will imbibe it without really thinking about it. This is how people get sucked into rabbit holes.

I don’t have much patience with this kind of thing and I get triggered by it. I also don’t have a whole lot of energy anymore and a proper rebuttal takes careful thought and the citing of references. I am not prepared to devote that much effort to my replies.

Bearing that in mind, I will say this: I feel it is useless to debate the subject of abortion because it doesn’t go anywhere, especially when framed the way you have presented it. Like most people, you want to talk about limits based on gestation. I believe this is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the real issue. There should be no limit of any kind because any attempt to impose one is an unacceptable intrusion into the dignity of the mother. The real issue is not about termination of a pregnancy, but about defining what a human being is. We can’t debate this because we are talking about different things.

Transgender issues happen to be something I have knowledge of. For years I worked with a Dutch professor of endocrinology, now retired, who specialised in gender issues and is an acknowledged international expert in the field. I used to edit his academic research papers and put them into proper English. He also happens to be a close friend and I have learned much from working with him. The question you raise in regard to young people is another trope and it is in fact based on ignorance. For some reason transgender people, especially young people, have become the target of bigots in America and elsewhere, who seem to think the moral fibre of the country is threatened by people using the wrong bathroom and who raise fake issues like the one you cite to justify their prejudice. This ignores the considerable expertise and great caution that does in fact characterise the professionals who work in this field. Questions like yours imply that gender clinics are run by clowns dashing around passing out sex hormones to all who request them. This is insulting to the people who do this work. So is questioning the intense anguish of those who seek their help. Of course there are appropriate procedures in place to screen out those who are not suitable for treatment. It is not sex change on demand at any age. Armchair critics with no real knowledge of the issue cast doubt by asking ignorant questions about young people and irreversible change. This triggers me.

Affirmative action has become another racist trope and that also annoys me. The argument that racial minorities should not receive any special consideration because everyone is equal now ignores the realities of history. Racial minorities do tend to be further down the socio-economic scale and targeting support on the basis of race is not necessarily a bad idea. Whether it works well in practice is another matter, but criticising it because it is race-based is silly. This is not an area I have expert knowledge of, but I imagine that basing it on race is just a convenient and less expensive way of identifying those most likely to benefit.

Anyway, this is as much detail on these issues as I feel able to provide. Again, I apologise for the civility fail. We don’t need to be enemies.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2997425 17-Nov-2022 12:09

At the moment I am a bit landlocked politically.

As time goes by I lean more heavily towards what I'd say is a social democrat in the European sense, which is a rabid left winger by National standards and right wing scum by Labour/Green standards. But I am less concerned with who does the doing provided the doing gets done. I struggle to accept going backwards under one party as preferable to going backwards under another.

I have always found the paradox of those railing the hardest against 'culture wars' being the ones who cling to ideas like libertarianism and self-determination when it comes to tax, property and government hard to understand. But I flat out refuse to entertain it and am happy to call it for what it is when it comes to trying to trying to make political point scoring out of vulnerable people or young people who have enough on their plate.

We have so many problems with our functional state. The most pressing issue in my life is not what people choose to call themselves. I could only dream of having that kind of time or energy to spare.

My biggest concern after a government with an explicit majority having continued to struggle to get anything done is people don't seem to care as long as they think they're doing OK - why bother with people living in motels if you don't live next door to it - and the fact that modern accountability is dead. Ineffective ministers can preside over a public service that won't listen to them either way. The outcome is the same.

So many things that we should be ashamed and spurred into action over, but that are never anyone's fault to the extent that they take responsibility for them.

I wonder if our transition to incrementalism under MMP has resulted in a boiling-pot conundrum where the electorate just don't care anymore. Sudden, wild transitions like the 1984 Labour government provoke intense feelings, but do generally make people consider the role of the state in our lives and what we should expect (given we are the ones who ultimately pay for it). Maybe we are poorer for our stability after all.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2997444 17-Nov-2022 13:18

Rikkitic:

You are right of course and I apologise for being so abrasive, though I stand by my arguments. The problem is the opinions you cite act as triggers for me, especially the first two. These are standard right wing tropes that keep getting dished up by conservatives pretending to want to have an unbiased discussion.

Religious proselytisers sometimes try to disarm potential converts by engaging them in an innocent conversation having nothing to do with religion. Gradually they shift the subject to their true purpose, drawing the victim in. This is a well-established technique.

It is also a commonly used rhetorical device on social media, particularly by those with a right wing agenda. Someone starts by saying I just have a question about this thing. But the truth is the questioner already has the answer they want, and is just trying to sneak it into the conversation, hoping their target will imbibe it without really thinking about it. This is how people get sucked into rabbit holes.

I don’t have much patience with this kind of thing and I get triggered by it. I also don’t have a whole lot of energy anymore and a proper rebuttal takes careful thought and the citing of references. I am not prepared to devote that much effort to my replies.

Bearing that in mind, I will say this: I feel it is useless to debate the subject of abortion because it doesn’t go anywhere, especially when framed the way you have presented it. Like most people, you want to talk about limits based on gestation. I believe this is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the real issue. There should be no limit of any kind because any attempt to impose one is an unacceptable intrusion into the dignity of the mother. The real issue is not about termination of a pregnancy, but about defining what a human being is. We can’t debate this because we are talking about different things.

Transgender issues happen to be something I have knowledge of. For years I worked with a Dutch professor of endocrinology, now retired, who specialised in gender issues and is an acknowledged international expert in the field. I used to edit his academic research papers and put them into proper English. He also happens to be a close friend and I have learned much from working with him. The question you raise in regard to young people is another trope and it is in fact based on ignorance. For some reason transgender people, especially young people, have become the target of bigots in America and elsewhere, who seem to think the moral fibre of the country is threatened by people using the wrong bathroom and who raise fake issues like the one you cite to justify their prejudice. This ignores the considerable expertise and great caution that does in fact characterise the professionals who work in this field. Questions like yours imply that gender clinics are run by clowns dashing around passing out sex hormones to all who request them. This is insulting to the people who do this work. So is questioning the intense anguish of those who seek their help. Of course there are appropriate procedures in place to screen out those who are not suitable for treatment. It is not sex change on demand at any age. Armchair critics with no real knowledge of the issue cast doubt by asking ignorant questions about young people and irreversible change. This triggers me.

Affirmative action has become another racist trope and that also annoys me. The argument that racial minorities should not receive any special consideration because everyone is equal now ignores the realities of history. Racial minorities do tend to be further down the socio-economic scale and targeting support on the basis of race is not necessarily a bad idea. Whether it works well in practice is another matter, but criticising it because it is race-based is silly. This is not an area I have expert knowledge of, but I imagine that basing it on race is just a convenient and less expensive way of identifying those most likely to benefit.

Anyway, this is as much detail on these issues as I feel able to provide. Again, I apologise for the civility fail. We don’t need to be enemies.

Apology accepted.

I just don't think you can separate the issues of aborting a pregnancy and defining what a human being is. I believe at some undefined (possibly undefinable) point during gestation the fetus does become a human being. Whether that's at conception, at birth, or any time in between is the crux of the entire debate (in my opinion anyway). And once a fetus is a human being I believe it's no longer solely about the mothers rights and choice. But agree to disagree.

Gender dysphoria is certainly a real thing and I don't think I questioned the anguish of people suffering from it. I know that historically it's been a thorough and careful procedure to determine if people should receive hormones and surgery, just as you've described from your knowledge and work history. Maybe it is just effective right wing propaganda, but it seems like many more young people are self identifying as transgender in the past few years than ever before and it also seems like it's now easier for individuals to get hormones etc. If that's not the case, then I actually don't have an issue. But, having considered commentary and arguments from both side of the debate, if it is all right-wing propaganda then the left have done a very poor job of setting the record straight.

I honestly don't understand how you think the bolded section above is the argument I made. I don't think everyone is equal, but I do think that special consideration should be based on actual current need, regardless of the historical cause of the inequality. I don't believe a policy like this ignores historic realities; and don't see how race is an easier way to determine need than things like household income, geographic location, etc. I believe race-based policies fuel racial division. But again, agree to disagree.

On a more general note, I agree that many right-wing commentators and fanatics use some of the same arguments I've made and questions I've asked as a foot in the door to convert people to their full-blown ideology (although the left are guilty of similar tactics as well). But I think you do people a disservice if you assume that anyone making these arguments have those same nefarious intentions, or that if they do that people fall for it.

1 | 2