Jay Dyer, What’s the Endgame for Atheists? |352|

That comment is so cryptic, I don't think I understand it - some examples of what you mean might be helpful.

So far, there has been very little discussion about what I consider vital. Tolerance of 'non standard' sexual behaviour, seems to oscillate from generation to generation (or maybe a little longer). As with most oscillations, almost everyone would be happier if some damping were applied!

David

I just wanted to know if there was any sign of "conservative" tolerance for opposing views. We hear a lot of about tolerating "conservatism" in universities, but are there lectures about Gnosticism, the biological research suggesting gendered brains akin to the desired gender of trans, and so on at "conservative" institutions?

I've not heard of any such thing. Thus it seems to me "liberals" and "conservatives" alike aren't interested in a genuine exploration of ideas, but merely appealing to the principle of free speech as a shaming action foisted on the other side.
 
I just wanted to know if there was any sign of "conservative" tolerance for opposing views. We hear a lot of about tolerating "conservatism" in universities, but are there lectures about Gnosticism, the biological research suggesting gendered brains akin to the desired gender of trans, and so on at "conservative" institutions?

I've not heard of any such thing. Thus it seems to me "liberals" and "conservatives" alike aren't interested in a genuine exploration of ideas, but merely appealing to the principle of free speech as a shaming action foisted on the other side.
Maybe this conversation is getting too profound for me (or maybe it is just losing focus). Are we talking about whether:

1) Lesbian and Gay individuals are currently discriminated against. (I think they enjoy a pretty free life in the West right now.)

2) Whether Lesbian and Gay people can be as happy as they would be if they had been born straight. (I'd argue that there is a small advantage to being straight - but if you aren't straight, you can still enjoy life. I would say there is also value in letting young people sort out their feelings on their own. As you know, I am much more dubious that operating on trans people is going to help them in the long term.)

3) Whether conservative activists disrupt liberal debates on campuses to anything like the extent that liberals disrupt conservative debate. (I would say that the disruption is pretty much one way.)

4) The danger of demanding more and more 'rights' until a backlash is fuelled. (I think there is a real danger of this happening - but then that was what I thought we were discussing :) )

Surely you can guess my view of 'research' about gay/trans brains etc! More junk research!

David
 
Surely you can guess my view of 'research' about gay/trans brains etc! More junk research!

David

So you don't even need to look at the research to condemn it? Sounds like "skeptic" type thinking...

It's odd you think a subjective experience like an NDE or sense of God is worth anything but a subjective experience of gender isn't. Seem to me either subjectivity has value or it doesn't, and the subjective sense of God is weaker evidence b/c it is talking about something beyond the boundary of the experience's subjective self.

On the rest of your points:

1) Lesbian and Gay individuals are currently discriminated against. (I think they enjoy a pretty free life in the West right now.)

Depends on where you are. You can be fired for being gay in quite a few places, from what I've read.

2) Whether Lesbian and Gay people can be as happy as they would be if they had been born straight.

Surely this depends on each individual?

3) Whether conservative activists disrupt liberal debates on campuses to anything like the extent that liberals disrupt conservative debate. (I would say that the disruption is pretty much one way.)

I was thinking of the more general accusations of bias. But yes I'd agree this a problem though not as big a deal as some might make of it. There are many, many universities in the Western World and it still seems to me these disruptions are only isolated incidents.

4) The danger of demanding more and more 'rights' until a backlash is fuelled. (I think there is a real danger of this happening - but then that was what I thought we were discussing :) )

I sincerely doubt this is going to happen, not sure what else I can say beyond that.
 
This 'modern PC liberalism' you appear to be sneering at, whilst sometimes used disingenuously for sure, makes a real difference to many people's lives and shows those in society who are comfortable in their confidence that their way is the only way, that the world is much more diverse than they think and you know what? Maybe they'll even develop a little empathy.

If by Political Correctness you mean 'avoiding prejudicial or perjorative language or behaviour which may cause offence' I can't see how anyone can object to that. Sometimes it is necessary to have rules which some people don't need but clearly others do because they're either too ignorant, selfish or dumb to reach that conclusion themselves. Rules that delineate what is acceptable and what isn't. Whatever the rule is about anything, someone will find a way to use it for their own advantage. That's not a reason to denigrate it imho.

By going after free speech and becoming caricatures, the PC crowd has only secured an inevitable backlash. We already saw this with the generation that followed the hippies (60s-70s) and now its repeating itself. The increasing evidence that Generation Z may be the "most conservative generation since WWII" (as they so subtly put it) does not come from a vacuum, this is a direct response to the "PC politics" of Millennials. And by mixing "acceptance" and "diversity" as part of the package, the PC crowd has forced a pushback that is going to target those groups, despite a lot of them disliking having other people speaking on their behalf (the whole "not your shield" thing).
 
By going after free speech and becoming caricatures, the PC crowd has only secured an inevitable backlash. We already saw this with the generation that followed the hippies (60s-70s) and now its repeating itself. The increasing evidence that Generation Z may be the "most conservative generation since WWII" (as they so subtly put it) does not come from a vacuum, this is a direct response to the "PC politics" of Millennials. And by mixing "acceptance" and "diversity" as part of the package, the PC crowd has forced a pushback that is going to target those groups, despite a lot of them disliking having other people speaking on their behalf (the whole "not your shield" thing).

It's an interesting question - I've looked at some of this before and it's not clear that "conservative"/"liberal" in these surveys means the same thing as it did in earlier times. (Part of why I put the terms in quotes.)

Some of this also seems largely based around two surveys only? The one by Gild and the one by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation. Interestingly enough some have suggested the "conservatives" will be secular libertarians and the "liberals" will be religious socialists...the "skeptic" leaders seem to suggest this...
 
Can you outline the sort of unreasonable "rights" that

a. are being demanded, and
b. will fuel a backlash?
One of the crucial things to realise is that attitudes (and laws) regarding sexual matters vary over time. For example, if you think back to Victorian times, things were very tough, but attitudes were much more reasonable if you go further back still. Something made the Victorians change and become far more censorious. We tend to think there is steady progress in these matters - but that isn't true if you take the long view.

Remember, I live in the UK - the US may not have travelled as far down the the 'rights' road as the EU has.

To answer your question, one potential flashpoint is the teaching of homosexual/transgender subjects in schools. Some parents don't even like their kids being taught about sex at all in school - so imagine the potential problem over this. Religious parents are likely to have even more objections. OK there may be valid reasons to teach kids about homosexuality, but is it wise to go on pushing everyone else out of their comfort zone.

Another possible issue might be ever more protection. Laws exist in the UK to prevent people being sacked (or otherwise discriminated against) because they are gay, or because of their race. The problem is, that bosses who want to shed staff, may decide it is safer to shed white straight people - or workers may decide this is going on. Alternatively, if someone is sacked for valid reasons, they may go to a tribunal to claim that it was really because of their sexual orientation or because of they were black.

If rights activists make certain people effectively more privileged than the rest, you can see where that may lead.

David
 
Last edited:
What a dunce!
Not to denigrate Engineering, my son wants to be an engineer :).

I don't think it necessarily qualifies him as an expert on gender though, or climate or many of the other subjects he puts himself out there to be a so-called expert on.

So no offense to engineers. I wasn't saying I thought he was an idiot. I don't think he is. But I don't think he's really qualified to call himself "the science guy".
 
without getting into meaningless political squabbles we can at least acknowledge that this kind of silliness seems to reinforce the point of this episode... i.e. there are forces trying to shape culture in ways, and for reasons, we're not aware of.
Right, that was precisely my point. :)
 
Ah, the moral of every Godzilla film ever. Frankly, if that is the case I am sure that the US are past the point of no-return... But France has been decadent for a while (it's literally the birthplace of the Decadent Movement and we know that they had been pushing the envelope for a couple centuries prior to that) and it still stands, shriveled from its former glory but very much alive... So, I would argue that this would mostly apply to larger countries and empires, where a coordination of heterogeneous groups is imperative.
Yes, agreed. Rome existed for centuries after Augustus (IIRC, I'll have to look it up, I'm horrible with dates!). So by no means am I saying America or even the western world is on the verge of collapse (contrary to much of the popular fear mongerers today) but it's really, really hard to deny that civilizations go through cycles. Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope outlines this well. It's a matter of whether or not Western civilization can avoid this cycle. A civilization doesn't spiral down overnight. America has bucked the trend more than once, and love us or hate us, we are a resilient people. We may yet rise from the ashes.
 
Not to denigrate Engineering, my son wants to be an engineer :).

I don't think it necessarily qualifies him as an expert on gender though, or climate or many of the other subjects he puts himself out there to be a so-called expert on.

So no offense to engineers. I wasn't saying I thought he was an idiot. I don't think he is. But I don't think he's really qualified to call himself "the science guy".

lol no offense taken! So your son has... "the knack"

 
By going after free speech and becoming caricatures, the PC crowd has only secured an inevitable backlash. We already saw this with the generation that followed the hippies (60s-70s) and now its repeating itself. The increasing evidence that Generation Z may be the "most conservative generation since WWII" (as they so subtly put it) does not come from a vacuum, this is a direct response to the "PC politics" of Millennials. And by mixing "acceptance" and "diversity" as part of the package, the PC crowd has forced a pushback that is going to target those groups, despite a lot of them disliking having other people speaking on their behalf (the whole "not your shield" thing).
I find it interesting that the generation of the SJW's (millenials) were raised by and then heavily influenced by the "hippy" boomers. It's basically a revamp of the 1960's-70's "free love" garbage. Though I'd say it's taken a markedly more sinister turn, with the blatant attempts to restrict speech.

I see arguments like @Obiwan a lot. It's what Dr. Jordan Peterson refers to as the archetypical Oedipal mother or devouring mother. It's weaponised empathy. "I must restrict your rights so as to protect (whatever marginalized group) from the "violence" of your words." First, it makes the assumption that you speak for them and that you know what's best for them. Second, it makes the incredibly condescending assumption that these groups (meaning all of the people who "belong" to this group, as if they are homogeneous) are inherently weak and need your or societies protection.

Words aren't violence. Moreover, free speech is important precisely so that you know exactly what people are thinking. You cannot force people to believe what they don't believe. In fact, I think in doing so, you will only reinforce their preconceived belief system and further force them into a mindset that they are being marginalized which can lead to a very pathological mind set. You want to know what people are thinking. Very bad things come about when people are silenced.
Cogent:

See also:
 
I find it interesting that the generation of the SJW's (millenials) were raised by and then heavily influenced by the "hippy" boomers.
Really? I think most parent's of millennials are GEN-Xers. You may need to reformulate your generalization.
 
Really? I think most parent's of millennials are GEN-Xers. You may need to reformulate your generalization.

Yeah, I actually agree with you. It's like the millennials are being set up to take the fall. It's mainly the media talking shit and blaming it on the M's. (Though it's true, Tumblr is pretty bad.) But it's a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s telling everyone else what Millennials are up to. So annoying.
 
Yeah, I actually agree with you. It's like the millennials are being set up to take the fall. It's mainly the media talking shit and blaming it on the M's. (Though it's true, Tumblr is pretty bad.) But it's a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s telling everyone else what Millennials are up to. So annoying.
Yes. As the parent of 2 millennials and obviously having encountered many of them through the course of life, it's pretty safe to say that generalizations simply don't apply. I actually feel bad for this generation of kids. College debt and wage stagnation are a double whammy. People having kids where both parents work at $12.00/hr. Ugh. When my daughter talks about having kids I shudder. And bring them into what kind of world?
 
Yes. As the parent of 2 millennials and obviously having encountered many of them through the course of life, it's pretty safe to say that generalizations simply don't apply. I actually feel bad for this generation of kids. College debt and wage stagnation are a double whammy. People having kids where both parents work at $12.00/hr. Ugh. When my daughter talks about having kids I shudder. And bring them into what kind of world?

FDRS?

Mrs. FDRS?
 
Back
Top