4 ms·

Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. There will always be policy focus opportunity cost. I can totally un

Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. There will always be policy focus opportunity cost. I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary, would think that focusing on equality efforts for them is not a high priority issue and that legislators should focus on economic issues affecting many more people. People mostly care about what is affecting them and people they know.

morelisp 7y ago
> Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? Even ignoring the indivisibility of the economic and social spheres (ask a black person if the CRA was an "economic issue" - ask a trans person if whether they can safely pee at work is an "economic issue"), and that it's not a zero-sum game (for example, the heightened scrutiny required by transphobia tends to cost more resources), I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issues. And as mentioned, the people who are furthest left and most vocal on economic issues are often the people furthest left and most vocal on civil rights. Conversely, people who spend a lot of time talking about how social issues should not be such a big deal (Peter Thiel, for instance - Paul Graham also, albeit with a much smaller platform) are the same who lean right economically. How many examples do you need to see this is a false dichotomy? How many examples did you see to convince yourself it was a dichotomy at all? > I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense), but also, we're talking about people who live in Nebraska or Ohio, not hermits. We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person - if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them.
- Thriptic 7y ago
  > Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? Sure, although I feel like your response is largely due to an uncharitable reading of my post. Whether someone can use a specific bathroom has an impact on a tiny percentage of the US population; pretty much only trans or non-binary people. Sure it's still economic in some contexts and it was incorrect for me to insinuate that it was totally social, but it is not economic or social policy that affects the vast majority of the population. Tax policy, immigration, trade policy, regulation, worker education, general schooling, government grants and investment, etc matter to far more people. Time spent on niche issues is going to appeal to fewer people by definition, and I could see people getting angry that legislative time is being spent in this manner while broader economic issues appealing to more people remain unsolved. Personally I feel that supporting those communities is morally important, but I understand why other people believe it takes a lower priority relative to economic issues affecting them personally. > I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issue People are clearly signaling through their voting that grossly insufficient time is being spent on economic issues. Key problems remain unsolved. > I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense) That statement implies I am referring to lesbian, gay, or bi people. I don't see what is unclear about that based on my wording. The concept of being trans is more of a logical leap for a straight person than the concept of being bi, gay, or lesbian for pretty obvious reasons. I don't think this requires further explanation. > We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Many, many, many people have never met an openly LGBT person. Even more are not friends with one in a close enough manner to have the types of honest, informative discussions to cut through popular misconceptions. > if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them. Yes, a large number of people intentionally self segregate into communities where other people are like them. They still get to vote.
  - morelisp 7y ago
    > > Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? > Sure, [a bunch of broad non-specific examples] OK. > You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest.
    - Thriptic 7y ago
      Bathroom example is a specific example; there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina I want to say about 5 years ago, and it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states. Further you didn't contradict anything else I said or any of the other basic claims I've been making. Sorry political reality and the concept of self-interest make you unhappy. > Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest. Last I checked there were more than 8 states in the United States. Further, your response doesn't invalidate what I said in any way. You are an n of 1 and we are talking about tens of millions of people in there states. Just because you met a LGBT from a state doesn't mean that everyone else from that state met them or any other LGBT. Please point out where I said there were no gays in the Midwest.
      - morelisp 7y ago
        > there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina So because the republicans passed a law positively discriminating against trans people (and doing a bunch of other weird shit - this was not a well-planned bill), and people are sick of the social issues, they... voted republican? Not to mention the economic fallout of HB2 was brutal - despite its short life it cost the state thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. Again we see things aren't really in tension - the democratic position was less political work, greater economic benefit, and justice. The "political reality" is that republicans started a fight by stripping rights, then got to play a fake victim. > it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states. That attention was primarily passing more transphobic legislation. What were we supposed to do? "Well, I guess you can keep taking our rights away one by one, because the economic issues are more important!" There's no more productive conversation to be had concerning your views on sexuality in some mysterious, isolationist states. They're simply unmoored from reality.

morelisp 7y ago

> Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? Even ignoring the indivisibility of the economic and social spheres (ask a black person if the CRA was an "economic issue" - ask a trans person if whether they can safely pee at work is an "economic issue"), and that it's not a zero-sum game (for example, the heightened scrutiny required by transphobia tends to cost more resources), I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issues. And as mentioned, the people who are furthest left and most vocal on economic issues are often the people furthest left and most vocal on civil rights. Conversely, people who spend a lot of time talking about how social issues should not be such a big deal (Peter Thiel, for instance - Paul Graham also, albeit with a much smaller platform) are the same who lean right economically. How many examples do you need to see this is a false dichotomy? How many examples did you see to convince yourself it was a dichotomy at all? > I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense), but also, we're talking about people who live in Nebraska or Ohio, not hermits. We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person - if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them.

Thriptic 7y ago
> Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? Sure, although I feel like your response is largely due to an uncharitable reading of my post. Whether someone can use a specific bathroom has an impact on a tiny percentage of the US population; pretty much only trans or non-binary people. Sure it's still economic in some contexts and it was incorrect for me to insinuate that it was totally social, but it is not economic or social policy that affects the vast majority of the population. Tax policy, immigration, trade policy, regulation, worker education, general schooling, government grants and investment, etc matter to far more people. Time spent on niche issues is going to appeal to fewer people by definition, and I could see people getting angry that legislative time is being spent in this manner while broader economic issues appealing to more people remain unsolved. Personally I feel that supporting those communities is morally important, but I understand why other people believe it takes a lower priority relative to economic issues affecting them personally. > I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issue People are clearly signaling through their voting that grossly insufficient time is being spent on economic issues. Key problems remain unsolved. > I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense) That statement implies I am referring to lesbian, gay, or bi people. I don't see what is unclear about that based on my wording. The concept of being trans is more of a logical leap for a straight person than the concept of being bi, gay, or lesbian for pretty obvious reasons. I don't think this requires further explanation. > We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Many, many, many people have never met an openly LGBT person. Even more are not friends with one in a close enough manner to have the types of honest, informative discussions to cut through popular misconceptions. > if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them. Yes, a large number of people intentionally self segregate into communities where other people are like them. They still get to vote.
- morelisp 7y ago
  > > Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? > Sure, [a bunch of broad non-specific examples] OK. > You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest.
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    Bathroom example is a specific example; there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina I want to say about 5 years ago, and it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states. Further you didn't contradict anything else I said or any of the other basic claims I've been making. Sorry political reality and the concept of self-interest make you unhappy. > Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest. Last I checked there were more than 8 states in the United States. Further, your response doesn't invalidate what I said in any way. You are an n of 1 and we are talking about tens of millions of people in there states. Just because you met a LGBT from a state doesn't mean that everyone else from that state met them or any other LGBT. Please point out where I said there were no gays in the Midwest.
    - morelisp 7y ago
      > there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina So because the republicans passed a law positively discriminating against trans people (and doing a bunch of other weird shit - this was not a well-planned bill), and people are sick of the social issues, they... voted republican? Not to mention the economic fallout of HB2 was brutal - despite its short life it cost the state thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. Again we see things aren't really in tension - the democratic position was less political work, greater economic benefit, and justice. The "political reality" is that republicans started a fight by stripping rights, then got to play a fake victim. > it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states. That attention was primarily passing more transphobic legislation. What were we supposed to do? "Well, I guess you can keep taking our rights away one by one, because the economic issues are more important!" There's no more productive conversation to be had concerning your views on sexuality in some mysterious, isolationist states. They're simply unmoored from reality.