Page 173 of 183 FirstFirst ... 73123163171172173174175 ... LastLast
Results 1,721 to 1,730 of 1822

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1721
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    My favorite recent event is all the congressional republicans who voted for Trump and McConnell's tax cuts (reduce government revenue) who have now passed resolutions declaring the national debt an emergency.

    If I voted GoP it would be difficult not to see it as an insult to my intelligence.
    tax cuts pay for themselves dummy.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #1722
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,880
    Potentially worth a listen, haven't had time yet myself.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-...mittee-no-bull
    "He died on that hill even though no one was attacking"
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  3. #1723
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,880
    Haven't posted on race issues in a while but I wanted people's take on this one...I suppose it might be a freedom of religion thing too. At any rate, "the GoP isn't racist"

    "He died on that hill even though no one was attacking"
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  4. #1724
    its just racism
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #1725
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    My take is that is an obviously racist meme and the "just racism" analysis is still too reductive and is counterproductive to the progressive cause.

    If you want to say that Trump's GOP appeases enough traditional conservative base with red meat on traditional conservative issues and wins on the margins in the battleground states by dog whistling and fear mongering, well, at least that's some kind of analysis.

    I don't think I'm imagining the through line in this narrative that if you vote(d) for a Republican, you at minimum empower racism and very probably are you yourself a racist.

    Again, as stated months ago, this is unbelievably pernicious as a matter of pure politics.

  6. #1726
    argument strategy aside, to a first principle approximation ... its just racism. racism predicts accurately the republican position on almost every topic. sexism predicts the others. if you can accurately predict and model an otherwise self conflicting set of beliefs someone has (see also "try and come and take my guys, i also support the police") as racism, then its just racism.

    now, telling folks they are being racist is never an effective strategy to convince that person of something. but thats argument strategy, not you know, the cold facts of the situation. the only way for humans to stop behaving in racist ways comes from inside, not outside.

    its just racism. you can boil all of it down to racism. it all makes sense when you see this. all of the supposedly hypocritical positions, self conflicting positions that republican's hold make perfect sense, when you realize its just racism.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-04-2019 at 01:12 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #1727
    in other news and back to my argument of "when you have a social stigma about something no shit you get bad data from your studies, and this feeds back on itself creating more social stigma, and thus even more bad data until everything other than hetero normative relationships and gender roles (despite being a total rolling disaster with a total garbage success rate) is considered OK ..."

    https://thinkprogress.org/same-sex-p...e_YggEUJNTghPY

    ok, that was a long sentence.

    the point remains, as soon as you remove the social stigma of alternative relationships, you notice that healthy adults in healthy adult relationships have the same success rates in there own children. ie, the predictive factor is the adults capability to form and maintain relationships, NOT the structure of those relationships ie sex, gender etc etc. so don't bring your bullshit "think of the poor children" shit to me, be an emotionally mature adult, and a parent, and have strong relationships, and your kids will be just fucking fine regardless of who you are in relationships with, or who you are, or are not, fucking.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-06-2019 at 10:28 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1728
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    762
    Hmm, this weirdly seems to be a situation where I'd argue against you, but your premise is what I would call "not my argument". And your evidence doesn't address my argument either, which is why I find the evidence supportive of my position. So let's step back into that.

    The article discusses a two parent system, but just an alternation of two identical sexed parents instead of parents from the opposite sex. But when I think of the poor children, the most dominant issue of concern has been measured in adults that function in an "aunt or uncle" type capacity - whether they are truly biologically related or not. Previous studies quoted upthread showed the dangers of these relationships leading to a higher instance of child abuse when extra adults exist in the family dynamic that sit in the "aunt or uncle" type role. Polyamory does increase the likelihood of extra adults that are not direct parents existing in the family dynamic. Doesn't really matter if the two parents are both male, both female, or male and female, just be extra careful when the number exceeds two. Or don't have kids.


    EDIT: TL;DR, be really committed swingers to help keep your kids from abuse at the hands of the other guy in your V.
    Last edited by Unfated33; 03-06-2019 at 11:12 AM.

  9. #1729
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Hmm, this weirdly seems to be a situation where I'd argue against you, but your premise is what I would call "not my argument". And your evidence doesn't address my argument either, which is why I find the evidence supportive of my position. So let's step back into that.

    The article discusses a two parent system, but just an alternation of two identical sexed parents instead of parents from the opposite sex. But when I think of the poor children, the most dominant issue of concern has been measured in adults that function in an "aunt or uncle" type capacity - whether they are truly biologically related or not. Previous studies quoted upthread showed the dangers of these relationships leading to a higher instance of child abuse when extra adults exist in the family dynamic that sit in the "aunt or uncle" type role. Polyamory does increase the likelihood of extra adults that are not direct parents existing in the family dynamic. Doesn't really matter if the two parents are both male, both female, or male and female, just be extra careful when the number exceeds two. Or don't have kids.
    1. most poly folks with kids that i know, maintain a two adult household. they date, but by and large, keep to a primary parenting relationship.

    2. throughout most of human history, the normal family unit has been multi-generational, multi-adult relationship families. its still the norm worldwide. this only stopped in the 1950s, due to american opulence. and now is returning to the norm. having trusted adults around to help with the kids, house work etc is the norm everywhere else.

    3. if you are dating a child molester, in any relationship structure, then you've got bigger problems that being poly, gay, or straight.

    4. folks having perfectly fine multi-adult relationships are likely not going to volunteer said information, whereas when a legal issue arises it makes such a thing easily searchable. and easily catalogable.



    the argument i am posing is that trying to study a stigmatized social issue, will always lead to an abnormally skewed result. in order to fairly study that stigmatized issue, it needs to no longer be stigmatized. ie, how many studies showing how fucked up kids of homosexual relationships do you want me to produce from the 1950s to 1980s? there are hundreds. and i don't doubt there results either, the product of homosexual relationships of that time would be fucked up ... not because of the function of the homosexual relationship, but because of living with the stigma in a time that everyone doing so was branded as wrong. and any positives outcomes were likly not reported, because who the fuck wants someone meddling around in there otherwise pretty nice life?

    and you don't have to take my word for it. every one of those points i numbered was true, and is now proven true as to why studying socially stigmatized things inherently leads to false negatives. because the stigma. you are testing societies stigma, not the effect you think you are.

    another great example of the problem would be drug use. very easy to catalog all the times drug use has gone badly. we have easily searchable databases on it. pretty hard to find documentation on all the times drug use was totally fine and lead to no adverse outcomes, because no one is going to report that.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-06-2019 at 11:22 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #1730
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    762
    Dad and Grandpa is statistically different from Dad and Uncle. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing against multi-adult families, simply multi-adult families where the adults are peers and partners in age. But if future studies come out that show that Aunts and Uncles, or adults that act in a relationship similar to a non-parent aunt or uncle, do not increase the risk of child abuse, I'm open to changing my mind. I feel that I remain justified in thinking of the poor children based on the best available information we have right now.

    I would argue that dating outside of a "primary" relationship is more in line with swinging than poly, but I suppose I draw the lines weirdly. But I'll stick to my guns on that because otherwise the idea of a primary parenting relationship seems to imply that there are rules and hierarchy in place. Such rules and hierarchy go against the very idea of purist relationship anarchy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •