5 ms·

Could you please elaborate on that last paragraph? Some of those differences in specific policies seem incredibly significant in their outcomes. To say they are

Could you please elaborate on that last paragraph? Some of those differences in specific policies seem incredibly significant in their outcomes. To say they are meaningless seems a little reductive if not completely false. A great example would be LGBT rights. Republicans broadly support stripping these rights and protections from discrimination away and Democrats do not. That is profound difference in existence for LGBT people if one party’s policy goals are implemented versus another. Even if on every other topic they are in agreement but this one, that is still a significant difference in my opinion.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
My opinion is that LGBT rights shouldn't be considered a political position, but is simply an extension of human rights. Politicians should never be getting involved in people's private lives unless there are people being significantly harmed by it. It seems that it's largely "religious" people that seek to impose restrictions on how other people live their lives and that's been demonstrated by several wars between religions to be incompatible with multi-cultural societies. Obviously, I don't believe that there should be any intersection between religions and politics, or at least if religions get involved in politics, then they should lose any protections that other religions get and be taxed like other businesses.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  I don't know what it is but authoritarians are really focus on imposing a system on people. Where women are chattel and any exhibition of sexual agency is severely punished. Men can have agency but any deviation from a very limited dominant sexuality is also punished severely. And men are required to jump through a bunch of hopes to prove themselves worthy of sex. One notes that communists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, and absolute monarchists, are all like that. So it's political in that regard.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Okay but it is a political position. Gay marriage has only been around for ten years
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    When politicians start messing around in people's private lives and try to outlaw such a basic human need for love and companionship, then it's clear that the politicians are not working on behalf of people, but are instead following a different, authoritarian agenda. Same sex marriage has been around for a lot longer than ten years. The first legal same sex marriage in the U.S. was 1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage > At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines, named Sporus.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Gay marriage is such an interesting one to me because by voting that through we effectively removed regulation rather than added it. I was such a big advocate for the push to legalize gay marriage because the government has absolutely no business telling people who they can and can't marry, and the legal distinction caused ridiculous ripple effects in everything from healthcare to taxes for anyone that wasn't allowed to marry their partner. At this point I guess the political debate would be that the government can, in fact, tell us who we're allowed to marry?
- bad_user 3y ago
  Religion, at least the Abrahamic kind, is a recipe for morality. Even more, the law in modern countries, at least in the West, is shaped by Roman law and Christianity. Liberalism itself is an ideology that's strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. If you think that you can separate politics from religion, I've got some news for you.
  - crabrangoon 3y ago
    That's a stretch and regardless, what influenced the ideas of liberalism is a non-sequitur. No one has the right to use violence against someone for being gay or transgender. Whether being gay or transgender is immoral or not is a religious question and not something politics can adequately answer.
    - bad_user 3y ago
      Morality, as in the principles for distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, is very relevant for politics. The naive would say, "just let science settle it", but that's not how society works. Just an example: is banning abortion an injustice to women, as they lose autonomy of their body, or is abortion a crime? Is an abortion 1 month before birth a crime? What about killing a baby 1 month after birth? I am radically pro-choice, BTW, due to seeing what happened in my (Warsaw-pact) country that banned abortions. But there are no good answers, which is why compromises need to be made. E.g., abortion on request in Europe is usually allowed until 12–14 weeks old. No one should have the right to "use violence" against someone for their sexual preferences, ethnicity, religion, or gender identity. We agree here. But what about free healthcare? Should transgender people have access to free, universal healthcare for their needs? I, for one, think they do, I think everyone should get free healthcare. But notice how we aren't talking of "violence", but about spending the state's resources, coming out of people's taxes. Bigots may think being gay or being trans is immoral. But they are, IMO, the minority. Moderates care about other topics that are not bigoted and that often are a question of morality. Another commenter said that religion is just a bunch of made up shit. That's a silly view of the world. Religion is tradition, religion is a codification of best practices, as a sort of learned knowledge that is passed between generations. Some of those practices are obsolete, or downright harmful in modern times, but some are as relevant as ever. If you let reasoning, for example, be the only guiding principle in politics, the problem is that politicians and the people are blinded by the fact that science is often biased, doesn't have all the answers, or that whatever findings we have are incomplete. And when nihilism takes over, you can easily arrive at the conclusion that certain groups of people need to be eliminated in order for society to thrive (e.g., the Jews, the handicapped, the bourgeoisie). I, for one, am not happy that one of Canada's answers to poverty appears to be assisted suicide. The belief that all human life is sacred, and that everyone needs to be free to live and to find their happiness, is ultimately a religious belief, much like liberalism in general. And that's good, actually.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
Absolutely, great question. Looking at any one policy there can be differences, I'm more thinking about the broad vision for each party. Im not actually familiar with the specific LGBT protections that Republicans may want to roll back, or whether it's political pandering versus proposed legislation. If you don't mind expanding on what they're targeting I'd be interested to hear more. A separate, though just as divisive topic, is abortion rights. I've watched for 20+ years as each side screams across the aisle and yes they have different opinions but at the end of the day it has always seemed to me a battle over where to draw the line. Both sides support new legislation, and therefore new governmental reach, defining what a person can do with their body. They can't agree on when an unborn child is considered human and must be protected, but both sides want the government to tell us what we can or can't do. Growing up in the 90s the parties were always pitched as big government vs small government, balanced budget vs spending for social causes, war hawks vs anti-war, etc. My opinion at this point is that we have two parties that are different in degree but not kind - both are pro-war, big government, money printing machines that have done a great job at keeping up a front of a two party system. This is why I say the left/right split seems lost here today, I don't see any divide in core principals driving the parties. Granted, though, that for anyone who is a one or two issue voter there can be very different policies that would push one to either side.
- kemotep 3y ago
  Sure specific legislation and court rulings that have passed that target LGBT people include things like: * Bans on teaching about the existence of LGBT people[0]. * Bathroom bills[1] that could call for genital inspections that would require this person[2] to use a women’s restroom because they were born with a vagina. * Democrats passing (and majority of Republicans opposing) The Respect for Marriage Act, which enshrines into Federal law the right to marriage, regardless of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. * Bans on gender affirmative care but only for LGBT people, not cisgender individuals.[4] So these are actually laws, beyond just rhetoric, these are actions that discriminate. There are stark differences that are irreconcilable between the parties. One supports LGBT rights the other opposes. Your point about Abortion is baffling. You are claiming that one group wanting to not make abortion illegal is engaging in government overreach? That doesn’t make any sense to me. The approaches the two parties take to war, immigration, government spending, taxes and so on are different if you look into it. There are a lot of similarities. American hegemony is going to be very similar even if a third party had control of the white house. Even thinking both parties are the same is something similar to both the left and right do! So are communists and neonazis the same because they both believe America is bad and both parties are the same? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_curriculum_laws_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_curriculum_laws_in_t... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill?wprov=sfti1 [2]:http://thefightmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BuckAngel1-s.jpg http://thefightmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BuckAngel1... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-bill-protecting-same-sex-marriage-2022-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-b... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_Unit...

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

My opinion is that LGBT rights shouldn't be considered a political position, but is simply an extension of human rights. Politicians should never be getting involved in people's private lives unless there are people being significantly harmed by it. It seems that it's largely "religious" people that seek to impose restrictions on how other people live their lives and that's been demonstrated by several wars between religions to be incompatible with multi-cultural societies. Obviously, I don't believe that there should be any intersection between religions and politics, or at least if religions get involved in politics, then they should lose any protections that other religions get and be taxed like other businesses.

Gibbon1 3y ago
I don't know what it is but authoritarians are really focus on imposing a system on people. Where women are chattel and any exhibition of sexual agency is severely punished. Men can have agency but any deviation from a very limited dominant sexuality is also punished severely. And men are required to jump through a bunch of hopes to prove themselves worthy of sex. One notes that communists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, and absolute monarchists, are all like that. So it's political in that regard.
edgyquant 3y ago
Okay but it is a political position. Gay marriage has only been around for ten years
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  When politicians start messing around in people's private lives and try to outlaw such a basic human need for love and companionship, then it's clear that the politicians are not working on behalf of people, but are instead following a different, authoritarian agenda. Same sex marriage has been around for a lot longer than ten years. The first legal same sex marriage in the U.S. was 1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage > At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines, named Sporus.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Gay marriage is such an interesting one to me because by voting that through we effectively removed regulation rather than added it. I was such a big advocate for the push to legalize gay marriage because the government has absolutely no business telling people who they can and can't marry, and the legal distinction caused ridiculous ripple effects in everything from healthcare to taxes for anyone that wasn't allowed to marry their partner. At this point I guess the political debate would be that the government can, in fact, tell us who we're allowed to marry?
bad_user 3y ago
Religion, at least the Abrahamic kind, is a recipe for morality. Even more, the law in modern countries, at least in the West, is shaped by Roman law and Christianity. Liberalism itself is an ideology that's strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. If you think that you can separate politics from religion, I've got some news for you.
- crabrangoon 3y ago
  That's a stretch and regardless, what influenced the ideas of liberalism is a non-sequitur. No one has the right to use violence against someone for being gay or transgender. Whether being gay or transgender is immoral or not is a religious question and not something politics can adequately answer.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    Morality, as in the principles for distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, is very relevant for politics. The naive would say, "just let science settle it", but that's not how society works. Just an example: is banning abortion an injustice to women, as they lose autonomy of their body, or is abortion a crime? Is an abortion 1 month before birth a crime? What about killing a baby 1 month after birth? I am radically pro-choice, BTW, due to seeing what happened in my (Warsaw-pact) country that banned abortions. But there are no good answers, which is why compromises need to be made. E.g., abortion on request in Europe is usually allowed until 12–14 weeks old. No one should have the right to "use violence" against someone for their sexual preferences, ethnicity, religion, or gender identity. We agree here. But what about free healthcare? Should transgender people have access to free, universal healthcare for their needs? I, for one, think they do, I think everyone should get free healthcare. But notice how we aren't talking of "violence", but about spending the state's resources, coming out of people's taxes. Bigots may think being gay or being trans is immoral. But they are, IMO, the minority. Moderates care about other topics that are not bigoted and that often are a question of morality. Another commenter said that religion is just a bunch of made up shit. That's a silly view of the world. Religion is tradition, religion is a codification of best practices, as a sort of learned knowledge that is passed between generations. Some of those practices are obsolete, or downright harmful in modern times, but some are as relevant as ever. If you let reasoning, for example, be the only guiding principle in politics, the problem is that politicians and the people are blinded by the fact that science is often biased, doesn't have all the answers, or that whatever findings we have are incomplete. And when nihilism takes over, you can easily arrive at the conclusion that certain groups of people need to be eliminated in order for society to thrive (e.g., the Jews, the handicapped, the bourgeoisie). I, for one, am not happy that one of Canada's answers to poverty appears to be assisted suicide. The belief that all human life is sacred, and that everyone needs to be free to live and to find their happiness, is ultimately a religious belief, much like liberalism in general. And that's good, actually.

flagrant_taco 3y ago

Absolutely, great question. Looking at any one policy there can be differences, I'm more thinking about the broad vision for each party. Im not actually familiar with the specific LGBT protections that Republicans may want to roll back, or whether it's political pandering versus proposed legislation. If you don't mind expanding on what they're targeting I'd be interested to hear more. A separate, though just as divisive topic, is abortion rights. I've watched for 20+ years as each side screams across the aisle and yes they have different opinions but at the end of the day it has always seemed to me a battle over where to draw the line. Both sides support new legislation, and therefore new governmental reach, defining what a person can do with their body. They can't agree on when an unborn child is considered human and must be protected, but both sides want the government to tell us what we can or can't do. Growing up in the 90s the parties were always pitched as big government vs small government, balanced budget vs spending for social causes, war hawks vs anti-war, etc. My opinion at this point is that we have two parties that are different in degree but not kind - both are pro-war, big government, money printing machines that have done a great job at keeping up a front of a two party system. This is why I say the left/right split seems lost here today, I don't see any divide in core principals driving the parties. Granted, though, that for anyone who is a one or two issue voter there can be very different policies that would push one to either side.

kemotep 3y ago
Sure specific legislation and court rulings that have passed that target LGBT people include things like: * Bans on teaching about the existence of LGBT people[0]. * Bathroom bills[1] that could call for genital inspections that would require this person[2] to use a women’s restroom because they were born with a vagina. * Democrats passing (and majority of Republicans opposing) The Respect for Marriage Act, which enshrines into Federal law the right to marriage, regardless of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. * Bans on gender affirmative care but only for LGBT people, not cisgender individuals.[4] So these are actually laws, beyond just rhetoric, these are actions that discriminate. There are stark differences that are irreconcilable between the parties. One supports LGBT rights the other opposes. Your point about Abortion is baffling. You are claiming that one group wanting to not make abortion illegal is engaging in government overreach? That doesn’t make any sense to me. The approaches the two parties take to war, immigration, government spending, taxes and so on are different if you look into it. There are a lot of similarities. American hegemony is going to be very similar even if a third party had control of the white house. Even thinking both parties are the same is something similar to both the left and right do! So are communists and neonazis the same because they both believe America is bad and both parties are the same? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_curriculum_laws_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_curriculum_laws_in_t... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill?wprov=sfti1 [2]:http://thefightmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BuckAngel1-s.jpg http://thefightmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BuckAngel1... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-bill-protecting-same-sex-marriage-2022-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-b... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_Unit...