3 ms·

If only Americans were separating themselves into merely two distinct groups. From what I can tell, it's more like they're separating themselves into about 320

If only Americans were separating themselves into merely two distinct groups. From what I can tell, it's more like they're separating themselves into about 320 million different groups. And everyone hates everyone else, and if you think the elites aren't fanning the flames of this with every tool at their disposal, then you really haven't been paying attention. The buckets you're talking about are an illusion. "Clash of cultures" is bullshit - it doesn't exist. Let's assume for a minute that I'm not very unique, and so these opinions I hold are common, and try to figure out what it means: If I think transgender people by definition have gender dysphoria, does that make me an intolerant bigot? What if I also think that if an operation is the best way to relieve them of the stress of that condition, then they should have the operation? And if I also support universal health care, so that I think the state should end up paying for that operation, well now I can't tell if I'm supposed to be an intolerant bigot or a bleeding heart or what. If I think that, strictly speaking, a person does actually choose to be gay, in the sense that the state of their mind is informed by both physiological and psychological factors (like just about anything else), does that also make me an intolerant bigot? What if I also think that, well, if it's a choice, it's still a person's right to make that choice, just like they ought be able to marry whoever the hell they want and otherwise be totally unaffected by that decision, seeing as how it has absolutely no consequences to anything at all other than what happens in that person's bedroom, which is of course nobody's fucking business. A lot of LGBT people will take great offense at what I've written, despite all of my relevant policy goals pretty much aligning exactly with theirs. And, likewise, few people in the family values camp will be able to find much common ground with me, even though I've echoed some of where they are coming from culturally. So, what am I? Well, I'm a member of homo sapiens from the planet Earth, like everyone else, and if everyone could just shut the fuck up for a minute and keep that in mind when they interact with other human beings - and I'm glaring now mainly at the far Left and the Religious Right - we'd have approximately half the problems globally that we have now, and we'd be giving the psychopaths at the top of our social order a lot less leverage against us, which is also probably a good thing.

cbd1984 12y ago
> If only Americans were separating themselves into merely two distinct groups. From what I can tell, it's more like they're separating themselves into about 320 million different groups. And everyone hates everyone else, and if you think the elites aren't fanning the flames of this with every tool at their disposal, then you really haven't been paying attention. Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? > If I think that, strictly speaking, a person does actually choose to be gay, in the sense that the state of their mind is informed by both physiological and psychological factors (like just about anything else), does that also make me an intolerant bigot? I don't know, do you think people choose to be straight or bi? Do you think a straight person could choose to be gay, or either of them choose to be bi, or vice-versa(-vice-versa)? Because if you can't really choose to be another way, it isn't a choice the way the term is used in this context, and you're being obfuscatory.
- deciplex 12y ago
  > Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either show me that entrenched media and political organizations aren't exacerbating existing, previously rather benign, divisions in society. And creating new ones. Or, you'd have to convince me that I'm interpreting what I'm seeing in American politics and public life, the wrong way. It would be a tough sell, but is theoretically possible. For the other part, perhaps I overstated my case with the "320 million groups", but with regard to the contention that there are two buckets in direct opposition that Americans are naturally sorting themselves into - no, I don't think you can convince me of that. At least, I'm not sure how. > I don't know, do you think people choose to be straight or bi? Do you think a straight person could choose to be gay, or either of them choose to be bi, or vice-versa(-vice-versa)? Because if you can't really choose to be another way, it isn't a choice the way the term is used in this context, and you're being obfuscatory. I think people choose to be straight or bi or gay in much the same way people choose to be good at math, or enjoy science fiction. Which is to say, some of it is innate, and some of it might also be upbringing, or other environmental factors. I guess 'choice' isn't the right way to put it as you say, I'm just not convinced it is 100% genetic in every case. And, I mean, you often hear that sexual orientation is more of a continuum rather than a binary choice (or ternary, or whatever). And if that's true, then it seems there is an element of choice involved. To what degree, I can't say. But, I will remind you that you're completely ignoring my point on that, which is that it doesn't fucking matter. Even if it was 100% free choice and a straight person could choose to be attracted to the same sex instead, or vice-versa[0], it should have no bearing on anything at all, other than what happens in that person's bedroom. And that person should be able to come out as gay, and marry their partner of choice, etc etc., and suffer absolutely no social or legal or workplace or whatever repercussions at all. Obviously. You're demonstrating my point here. I am quite confident that when it comes to LGBT issues, you and I would agree on just about every single item of actual consequence. But, because I apparently hold a few guiding principles as opinions, which you don't agree with (which, by the way, are absolutely open to debate and not set in stone at all), instead of looking at me as an ally, I'm an adversary instead. So it goes with much of America these days. [0] (for the record, I do not believe this is the case, but for the sake of argument...)

cbd1984 12y ago

> If only Americans were separating themselves into merely two distinct groups. From what I can tell, it's more like they're separating themselves into about 320 million different groups. And everyone hates everyone else, and if you think the elites aren't fanning the flames of this with every tool at their disposal, then you really haven't been paying attention. Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? > If I think that, strictly speaking, a person does actually choose to be gay, in the sense that the state of their mind is informed by both physiological and psychological factors (like just about anything else), does that also make me an intolerant bigot? I don't know, do you think people choose to be straight or bi? Do you think a straight person could choose to be gay, or either of them choose to be bi, or vice-versa(-vice-versa)? Because if you can't really choose to be another way, it isn't a choice the way the term is used in this context, and you're being obfuscatory.

deciplex 12y ago
> Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either show me that entrenched media and political organizations aren't exacerbating existing, previously rather benign, divisions in society. And creating new ones. Or, you'd have to convince me that I'm interpreting what I'm seeing in American politics and public life, the wrong way. It would be a tough sell, but is theoretically possible. For the other part, perhaps I overstated my case with the "320 million groups", but with regard to the contention that there are two buckets in direct opposition that Americans are naturally sorting themselves into - no, I don't think you can convince me of that. At least, I'm not sure how. > I don't know, do you think people choose to be straight or bi? Do you think a straight person could choose to be gay, or either of them choose to be bi, or vice-versa(-vice-versa)? Because if you can't really choose to be another way, it isn't a choice the way the term is used in this context, and you're being obfuscatory. I think people choose to be straight or bi or gay in much the same way people choose to be good at math, or enjoy science fiction. Which is to say, some of it is innate, and some of it might also be upbringing, or other environmental factors. I guess 'choice' isn't the right way to put it as you say, I'm just not convinced it is 100% genetic in every case. And, I mean, you often hear that sexual orientation is more of a continuum rather than a binary choice (or ternary, or whatever). And if that's true, then it seems there is an element of choice involved. To what degree, I can't say. But, I will remind you that you're completely ignoring my point on that, which is that it doesn't fucking matter. Even if it was 100% free choice and a straight person could choose to be attracted to the same sex instead, or vice-versa[0], it should have no bearing on anything at all, other than what happens in that person's bedroom. And that person should be able to come out as gay, and marry their partner of choice, etc etc., and suffer absolutely no social or legal or workplace or whatever repercussions at all. Obviously. You're demonstrating my point here. I am quite confident that when it comes to LGBT issues, you and I would agree on just about every single item of actual consequence. But, because I apparently hold a few guiding principles as opinions, which you don't agree with (which, by the way, are absolutely open to debate and not set in stone at all), instead of looking at me as an ally, I'm an adversary instead. So it goes with much of America these days. [0] (for the record, I do not believe this is the case, but for the sake of argument...)