Opinion Radical left vs Radical Right poll

[mmafan2000]

it seems to paint centrists as the parents in the room of rowdy children

Yes, exactly this. It doesn't matter where the overton window is, most importantly the center keeps the peace.

 

[mkess101]

They want it neither ignored nor deemed irrelevant to anything that it's relevant to. I don't think my view on this is sinking in. Try this: Imagine we live in a world where people put a lot of emphasis on height. People over 6'0" get a payment from the gov't, get to sit in front in public transportation, have the front seats reserved for them at sporting events, etc. Short people then lobby for a change in the system, whereby everyone is equal. Would tall people be right to say that short people are ignoring biology to advocate for that change? "They just want to pretend that they're not short? That's anti-science! Ignoring biology."

The question of whether biological men should compete with women in sports is entirely a question of social values (I happen to agree with you that they should not, but that's neither here nor there). It's not a scientific one. It can be informed by science, but unlike "is the world getting warmer?" it can't be solved by it.



Actually, for most of our history as a species that farms, science would have fucked up farming techniques. Ditto for food preparation. I've given the example of nixtamalization before. It's a food-processing technique that is somewhat involved and difficult, and that people used for a long time without knowing its benefits. They were just following what they learned from elders. If some liberal went back in time, and said, "why are we doing this?" They would not have gotten a reasonable answer, and they likely would have stopped doing it. They wouldn't have seen any immediate consequences, but over a period of years, they'd develop severe health problems related to malnutrition. That is one of thousands of examples you can give. For most of our history, culture and religion were the main methods of transmission of knowledge and skills, and they are not the same as science, though looking backward, science can effectively sanction many cultural or religious practices.

The benefit we have in the west is that the Western (to a greater extent) Catholic Church broke up kinship groups throughout much of the regions that they had authority over, which essentially freed/forced people to think differently in ways that eventually led to liberalism. Great book on the subject just dropped. Here's a review. But it sort of glosses over (does briefly mention) regional differences within WEIRD countries. Certain parts of America, for example (the South generally, rural areas) are more clannish and less open to that type of thinking.

Forgot I never actually replied, oops.

I know we're not really aligning on the trans discussion, but your hypothetical with height actually highlights a bit what I'm saying. Imagine in your scenario that famous people were then targeted by shorter people for not calling them tall. Famous people who never argued that people under 6' shouldn't enjoy the same benefits as those over that height. People under 6' coordinated in efforts to ruin other people's careers because those people wouldn't change their social media account to reflect that they believed everyone who feels tall needs to be addressed as tall, no matter their height. Imagine a conversation in the workplace where coworkers are talking and one says to the other "Yeah you know Scott, the shorter guy that wears glasses..." and that employee is fired for referring to Scott as "shorter". The trans community has made it clear that simply common courtesy and allowing them to live as they please isn't enough. If you don't actively buy in to their view of what defines gender (ie that biology is irrelevant) you can be a target.

Just read what's gone down with JK Rowling (and more specifically the case of Maya Forstater who Rowling expressed support for who was fired for being "transphobic" for no reason other than that she dared state her belief that biology determines gender).

Here's a stark reality: If someone is publicly asked "Do you think trans women are women and trans men are men?" and their answer is "I believe every human should be treated with respect and allowed to live however they please" they WILL be labeled a transphobe. Not might, WILL. So in the end yes, we are absolutely being asked to deem biology irrelevant. People are having their lives ruined for not asserting that biology is irrelevant in determining a person's sex.

The second part is interesting for sure, and it's admittedly something I'm not all that well educated on. I can buy that culture and religion for sure drove most of the practices. I would imagine that at times there must have been an intersection of those things as well though? Religious and cultural leaders would likely often have been the ones with access to better information? So that they passed things on to the rest of the populace that science had helped them to discover, even if while passing it on they credited something else? Not sure, just a thought.

 

[Bacco]

Both are scum

Both are not even representative of their side ideology, but incarnate their side's escrements.
They may be useful in the power game, but that's because ideals -sadly- don't win the power game

Ideally Europe would need few years of "pure" scum-free radical right to make return the balance, then both extremes can go fuck themselves, as long peace don't make people lose touch with reality... again

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

We're polite, not nice.

Many Canadians are actually huge assholes.

Can confirm