• Something From Nothing
    You could add to this: the assumption that other languages carry similar intension.
  • The case against suicide
    They aren't exclusive. One can consider life suffering, and thus want to escape it. I see no issue.
  • The Mind-Created World
    That's a good point. I think the issue - and this is one thinkers like Sam Harris, ever the peddler of parsimony - tend to miss: if you're going to take this bent, you best be open to truly, honestly considering the theories that come across your desk. Most will be easy to dismiss, but to become jaded is to enter into an essentially dishonest critique of your challengers. I think.

    I, on the other hand, have had to do the opposite and reign in my penchant for the weird.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    If this is to respond to my (admittedly dismissive) comment, this doesn't change what I'm seeing. Bringing this up isn't good faith, in context. Although, I recognize that bad faith is active - i doubt that's what's happening here. I just think you're choosing to debate in a way that we regularly see on talk shows. As I say, its probably better we just don't discuss these things. No harm, no foul. Its tricky.
  • Disability
    All of these misuses occur in the medical model of disability.Banno

    I deal with the medical 'industry' regarding disability almost constantly. I do not see most of these occurring. Parochial, to be sure, but relevant to any comments I might make on it. Specifically, reification odes not occur. The concept of disability, medically, is specifically a relative term, to the statistical norm with no moral comment (again, that's my experience). That seems correct regardless of which terms we're using to describe that practice.

    As someone else mentioned "tall" is very similar term.
  • Gender elevated over sex is sexism
    There is no argument that gender isn't stereotypes that works. So yes.
  • The case against suicide
    Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?Questioner

    Yeah dude. I have made multiple attempts on my life - two in succession, but the first weakened me too much to complete the second in short order.

    I have a pretty nuanced view on suicide due to the above, coupled with two of my closest and best friends I have ever had killing themselves some years apart.

    Suicide is devastating. It is harmful. It is almost unbearable for some of those left behind. One of my friends mother has never recovered. He died in 2009 and she still spends a certain amount of her time on her computer looking at his search history, his Facebook page and old messaged on his cell phone. It is horrible. It hurts.

    But being in a position that you want to kill yourself hurts plenty more than I have ever felt as a reaction to a suicide. Forcing someone to endure what they perceive to unending misery, active, painful, scalding misery is immoral.

    It is a lesser of two evils.

    Until you come to the conclusion I have - which is that wanting to die is a product of the mind. Unless one is happy, and wants to die, it is, in a major sense, an illegitimate conclusion to draw about life.

    So, do i blame those who kill themselves as immoral? No. It's a-moral. But I do harshly judge those who think its their right to enforce someone else's misery to save them the pain of that loss.
  • What is the Significance of 'Spirituality' in Understanding the Evolution of Human Consciousness?
    If you're happy to swap out "spiritual" with simply "numinous" which I think is a better forum to discuss this issue in, I think its, as much of hte first page stated, inextricably linked to the development of value. There's a "view from nowhere" feeling one gets in a numinous state. I doubt we could have notions of social good without this (social meaning wider-than-family).
    That said, i think there's probably a guard-rail that needs to be put in place where we, at the very least, make an epistemic distinction between "information" and "our interpretation". This isn't news - but clearly several billion of us do not do this. Ever.
  • The News Discussion
    Twelve dead, 29 injured (updates continue) on Bondi Beach in Australia

    Very much sending Love and support to all our Aussie friends.

    I will save commentary for a more reasonable time.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    I’ve known many older childless women and not one has ever regretted it.Tom Storm

    I've never met a happy one, unfortunately. I think that stands to reason though - females are literally psychologically hardwired (on avg) to have children. Not having htem must be a burden of some kind, even if one can work through it.

    What is your definition of "special"? I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I think I am adhering to the definition of 'special' and you are not.Leontiskos

    Then give hte definition you're adhering to. I'm seeing no reasons - which is what I've asked for. Is it "it's a baby"? Because that's not a reason. I need something more than the fact of it being a baby to care (in this context - I don't hate babies). The definition of special is "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual."

    Babies are exactly not this.

    It is simply a product of the usual Darwinian urges is it not?unimportant

    This is why "special" seems a random label designed for something, rather than reflecting something. I don't know why. That said, i am most closely aligned with antinatalism, so showing my hand a bit. I think you've got it right - we've inserted this term without sufficiently defining it so we can continue to have babies despite overwhelmingly good reasons not to, for the most part. Not a moral argument here - I just cannot understand the press to consider babies 'special'. They simply aren't. They're one of a billion and useless, without sucking out resources from the world around them. I want the reason that gets past this.
    I note the two arguing against me are (most likely.. Don't want to put my foot in it) coming from theological positions. I accounted for that, so unsure I need continue answer those challenges without the reason I'm after articulated clearly.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with you, or me particularly) I went through several pages of discussing hte power of words toward incitement with NOS4A2 and some others (Michael I think?) a few months ago. It was extremely tedious - all I can give you is that incitement can happen with words.

    What you quoted isn't remotely close to incitement. That's what matters here. I am genuinely sorry I don't want to get into another match about incitement - i'm just worn on it.

    Here’s one example:

    Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat)
    Questioner

    The bad faith has become essentially untenable. I suggest we avoid discussing anything about politics together. Take care of yourself :)
  • Disability
    All of this implies the disabilities we are referencing don't affect one's ability to give consent. Intellectual and psychiatric disabilities raise entirely different questions.Hanover

    That's true, but I'm unsure to what degree - which hinges on my having brought up antinatalism in some large way. If we take it back, you shouldn't have kids. Plain and simple. But once they're alive, if they have (and I do think this is the case) interest in continuing to live, then consent is desirable if it will lead to more (quality) life. Whcih then hinges on my bringing up eugenics.

    So, in principle yeah there are some tricky cases that will come up - but if one is alive but unable to consent (for instance, to a lung transplant as is in a coma or some such) that's different to one not existing.

    So survival of the fittest?frank

    Bit of a black-white fallacy I think. I'm pressing against survival of the least fit as a mode - not suggesting we do the Nazi thing. But I think it patently odd (and probably a bad thing, overall) that we train our best and brightest to put themselves in harm's way (well, 60 years ago this would hit a lot harder) and do our absolute best to pour resources into retaining the worst(you really need to read this word in context and not ascribe some mora position to me because of an emotional reaction here of us, in terms of species-level survival and progress. There is almost no way that doesn't leave a bad taste in mouths - but it seems obvious.
  • Ideological Evil
    No, that was literally you inventing something I didn't say (or intimate). If that's your interpretation, you're entitled. But wrong. And that's okay.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.Questioner

    Fwiw, I don't. The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. That's fine, bt not something I'm keen to lean into. You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance.
  • Ideological Evil
    No it isn't. That's something you require to support your position, but is in fact, not the case.

    I like oranges, but the colour is odd.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    "If you don't believe me, just ask me."Questioner

    It was literally someone else.

    Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs.Questioner

    This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses in another thread, I shall bow out. Take care :)
  • Ideological Evil
    They were Trump's wordsQuestioner

    The rest of my comment matters. Like.. really matters. It seems you're quite good at losing nuance in service of clearly (and reasonably) emotional takes on things.

    No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language.Questioner

    This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

    I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to TrumpAmadeusD

    I don't think you're doing this in anything close to good faith. Twice, in one post, you have ignored the context in service of your emotionally-derived response. So be it.

    If only that was all he were.Questioner

    Fair position. I don't take it.
  • Ideological Evil
    (I can't quite see what the context of that was - long post) I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump, but many of these are clearly tongue-in-cheek or contrary to other things he's said. Mkaes it difficult to get upset for me beyond the President shouldn't be such a buffoon.
  • A modest proposal - How Democrats can win elections in the US
    Again, Charlottesville is a potent example of hte type of misleading stuff I refer to. The other examples - while uncharitable in some ways (plenty of people though that about the CP5 - Trump also received an award alongside Rosa Parks for helping urban black communities in the same period) that's fair.

    I don't think MAGA "eat that shit up" though. Someone closer to your mark, ironically, is Valentina Gomez. But she's attractive so... they'll eat it lol. You're not wholly wrong, and at this point i'd just see myself as a caution or guard rail against going to deep into that as an ideological line of thinking rather htan observational. It is just not rational, imo, to ascribe 'racism' to concepts about continuing certain cultural benchmarks or wishes of the USA. A lot of these same talking points were parroted by Dems prior to Trump, so hard to see it as a MAGA thing
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    I am just wary of drawing discursive conclusions from those altered states.Janus

    Feel like as the resident psychonaut I have to come and agree with this. One of hte biggest turn offs of that set is that people tend to make wild claims and conclude things based on their altered experiences. There might be something to that, but god lord its tiresome when people essentially form cult-like beliefs based on something that cannot be shared.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    Sure, we could call humans 'special' but that's somewhat arbitrary. Tuataras are the only beaked reptile in the world. And also a near-dinosaur. We could call any specie special.

    My point is that any given baby is a drop in an ocean of noise. There's nothing 'special' about a baby unless you import something more than the fact of it's existence (perhaps it survived an incredibly difficult pregnancy?).
  • Ideological Evil
    So you would say that when you tell me that, "I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights," this act of enforcement is not moral in nature?Leontiskos

    This is tricky to give a yes or no to. The answer properly is 'yes'. But what i've said there is about how I behave, Not what I try to have others do around me, if you can grok the difference. I wil behave in ways that appear morally righteous to me. The world around me will go on. But my behaviour in the world is a form of enforcement on my account. Perhaps my terms are just shoddy.

    So all you have ever done in this thread is spoken about how to help other people achieve their goals? Don't you think you've also spoken about how to get other people to achieve your goals?Leontiskos

    I think you're being a little callous in your capturing of the situation, but in a significant sense, yes, that's right. When I speak about how i interact with other people, i try my best to help people toward their goals. The decision to do so is moral. The activity of, lets say, educating someone as how best to achieve their goal in my view, is entirely practical as I see it. I could just as easily leave off and nothing would be different morally.

    And you never would? Similarly, why would you stop enforcing your own moral positions "where I am not obviously violating rights"? Why would rights prevent you?Leontiskos

    Not that I can imagine, no but I wont stand too strongly behind that. I don't know the future. It seems wrong, in most cases, to me. I just understand the efficiency for social cohesion so I'm not railing against police as an institution.
    If my behaviour violates other people's rights, that's counter to an overarching moral intention to maintain social and cultural cohesion. This is a legal argument rather than a strictly moral one, but to be sure, I am making a moral call to resile from a behaviour once I note it may be violating another's rights of some kind.

    Well look at quotes like these:Leontiskos

    There's no inconsistency. If I am trying to get someone to act, its on practical grounds due to a moral decision to help them. You must clearly delineate the two modes. A moral decision is made in my mind - I then behave without moral reasoning in persuading the other to act toward their own goal (not mine. That's incorrect). My (moral) desire is to help the person. Not their goal, per se. The how-to is somewhat arbitrary.

    But you think this doesn't really count against your position because you dub it "rational" rather than "moral."Leontiskos

    It simply doesn't., because it simply is. I understand if you feel those things can't come apart. That's fair, but not my position and I don't see it as required to make sense of all this.

    Can you tell me what the difference is?Leontiskos

    The quote you use there is let's call it unfinished, as a response to this quesiton. Roughly moral reasoning is that which gets us to do something because of its rightness or wrongness. Practical reason is trying to do things which will achieve an arbitrary goal. So, in my example, if my moral position was that it's good to help anyone whatever then you might find me teaching a racist how best to gut Chinese children. But my moral reasoning tells me not to help that person toward their goal. The reasoning-to-act issue never arises. Had it, the moral problem would be in my decision to help them, not my reasoning on how best they could achieve their barbaric (i presume moral) outcomes.

    My general point here is that it is hard to believe that you are a thoroughgoing moral subjectivist (or emotivist).Leontiskos

    I think most people have this trouble; particularly the theologically inclined. For instance I don't need answers to 'why are we here' or 'what does it mean to be human' or whatever to get on with my life all hunky dory. I don't care. We are here. We are human. What the 'means' is made up stuff we do for fun, basically. I get that its tough to understand, but there's a massive difference between being a subjectivist when it comes to morality, and being either a-moral, or dismissing morality entirely. Alex O'Connor does a good job of discussion emotivist in these terms imo.

    How does a moral subjectivist claim that the law is often wrong when it comes to moral regulation?Leontiskos

    As an example, with wills and estates there is generally a 'moral duty' to provide for one's children after death (if one has anything to pass on, anyway). I think this is wrong, overreach and inapt for a legal framework that doesn't interfere with people's personal affairs. So, that's my personal moral view. I don't think that's going to be true for the next guy. So i don't care to do anything about the policy. I have to enforce it regularly, actually (well, I have a part in doing so regularly).

    This is why I think the Law does a pretty good job. For the most part, its been 'democratically' hammered out over time, through common law, into something resembling a "close-to-consensus" and I'm happy to live with that.
  • The Mind-Created World
    Yes, almost always. ....using them.J

    Hmm, okay i grok.

    I guess I'm not finding it hard to grasp the problem. If someone told me "illusions are real" i would simply say "no they aren't" because that's not what "real" means. "illusions occur in reality" makes sense to me. illusions are real" is an oxymoron to me. I understand though, that this is then an argument about my use of 'real' there :P So, fair enough.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism?Leontiskos

    Possibly, but "classical liberal" values are considered either cowardly centrist or right wing values in a lot of quarters these days. The current "political liberalism" seems to me more like running with scissors.

    All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders.MrLiminal

    100%. No one states their goals, no one listens to the other person, massive ad hominem, ignorance of facts etc... It's all about point-scoring. I thought high school was where that was meant to end.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -Questioner

    What a wholly unfounded statement.Questioner

    Not only unfounded, entirely unreasonable. They are left-wing individuals killing, or attempting to kill 'right wing' individuals on policy grounds. There isn't another way to spin this. If you are wanting to do so, I suggest it's better we do not go into this because I can only ignore that type of thing.

    This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?Questioner

    It seems to me you can't really say the first thing and then ask the second in good faith. Forgive me for ignoring hte former. The latter seems better to go on. Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.

    We can also look at the fact that the 'right wing' has not killed anyone for their opinions in a very, very long time. We've had the Left do it in the last 12 months. And attempted several more. In fact, if some reports are to be believed they will kill their own: Hortman. I'm not going to stand too strongly behind that because, like everyone else, I can only go on what's public and what's public is a shitshow mess of a narrative. The list given in the Senate hearing is pretty damn ample for current purposes.

    I am not denying that the right-wing has had a history of political violence. Its not as if the left haven't either, but i recognize the disparity. You need to carefully understand what my claim was - in the last two election cycles it has skewed one way. And perhaps there is only one example on either side, but Kirk is the prime example evidencing the claim that they will kill over speech/opinions.

    This is to also entirely ignore the on-the-ground damage done by protests across the country - which almost universally turn violent at the behest of left-wing protestors.

    I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.Questioner

    He has not. He did not. Sincerely, someone who wishes the constant lies about Trump were true.
  • A modest proposal - How Democrats can win elections in the US
    Ok. But I gave chatGPT your exact prompt, copy/pasted from above:

    Reveal
    It’s not possible to give a reliable percentage—and claiming one would almost certainly be inaccurate and potentially harmful—because:

    1. There is no credible data

    No major research organization (Pew, Gallup, PRRI, etc.) measures “what percent of MAGA supporters are white nationalists.”
    White nationalism is an extreme ideological label, and surveys don’t ask people directly if they identify that way.

    2. MAGA is not a uniform, single-belief group

    People who support “MAGA” range widely: economic populists, traditional conservatives, anti-establishment voters, single-issue voters, etc. Most do not self-identify with extremist ideologies.

    3. What can be said

    A small minority of Americans hold explicitly white-nationalist views in surveys (usually in the low single digits).

    Extremist groups sometimes attempt to align themselves with MAGA events, but that does not indicate widespread overlap with the broader MAGA base.

    Research does show that some MAGA supporters score higher on measures of racial resentment compared with non-MAGA Republicans, but that is not the same as white nationalism.

    Bottom line

    There is no evidence that white nationalism represents more than a very small fringe relative to the overall MAGA population, and any specific percentage would be speculation.


    I can see why AI is not good for these types of things.

    Suffice to say, for our purposes, it is my opinion that you saying its closer to 30-40% is a misguided, biased shit-at-a-wall type of claim. But i understand it likely comes from an oversaturation of dishonest, misleading media. I think it would be a disservice to credible discussion to say "enforcement of our border laws is white nationalism" but i realise some find issue with having any border policies - which, to me, is insane (colloquially).

    The "both sides" thing is a perfect example. It has been made clear time and time and time again that Trump explicitly condemned the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He's an idiot, and it's fine to call him out for that - but dishonestly making up positions based on editing that was almost defamatory, and peddled day-in-day out for years is not how we get to credible critiques. Jake Tapper should probably be fired for how bad his role in that was. The BBC has come under fire and the head resigned over similar behaviour. It's unfair to the man, and I'm not a fan.

    These create the illusion that those on the right are all bigots(or, MAGA more properly - I realise anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that 'right' does not mean 'bigot') because of a few loud voices. Make the loudest one seem racist and Ouila! Careful out there...
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Which is totally reasonable. For about 100 years liberal (meaning politically liberal rather than conceptually "classic liberal") policies have been needed (this, purely in my view) to counteract what have reasonable been seen as arbitrary inequalities and harms that could be avoided without anyone else being harmed (i.e reducing the effects of racist thinking only helps minorities and doesn't harm racists in any meaningful way).
    It's having missed the boat on when we got somewhere workable that's caused the flip, I think. Being used to being 'on the right side of history' no pun intended, seems to be where the left has gained its psychopathy. You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    You seem to be conflating what is objectively useful from what society deems as valuable.unimportant

    I am asking for a reason for the deeming of value. I can't understand it, without recourse to a fiction. If that's the case, that's fine. I am interested in something more.

    You can say the same about a beautiful woman.unimportant

    Definitely. But "special" is different from "beautiful". The latter is wholly subjective. There are no standards. We can say a woman is beautiful because she causes x feelings which are directly to do with beauty - sexual arousal, visual satisfaction etc..
    I find it much harder to get an avenue of reasoning going for the value (intrinsic, that is) of a baby being born. Babies are surplus. They are often unwanted. Again, without recourse to a 'life is sacred' type line, I'm wanting some reason to think babies are special beyond "well, quite a few people think this".

    I'm not really sure how hte nightclub thing relates here, so i'll leave it.

    just that it can be hot and nasty and also fun, is probably a societal view so perhaps better to shift the goalposts now to the societal aspectunimportant

    Hmm, that's reasonable. I view sex similarly to birth: An alien coming across it would probably be horrified, not knowing it's probably one of the greatest experiences a human can have.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    They just mostly ignored it.Questioner

    Which is odd, because all signs point to it being left wing in-fighting. You can buy whatever you want about it - what I buy seems reasonable to me.

    There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. Raw deaths are on the right, though. A distinction that matters. The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life.
  • Disability


    Hmm interesting thoughts. I think I stick by my initial take there, but I do see the truck in what Banno is getting at. I take it as tongue-in-cheek even if its not properly so.

    I don't think it's that it's too much trouble, it's that running at the pace of the slowest drags everyone else down. Do the disabled have that right, in pursuit of their own? I don't have a position because they are in too high-a-tension to me. I am empathetic to the nth for those for whom better design would be advantageous, but I am also empathetic to the fact that those of us who do wish to 'race forward' in historical terms probably shouldn't be beholden to that framework.

    This said, I actually agree with Banno on the restriction on enforced surgery. I think consent is fundamental. But this also commits one to antinatalism *shrug*. I don't, prima facie, have any discomfort with eugenics either, if pursuing 'a better life' in some Nussbaumian kind of way. The assumption on the capabilities take tends to be that "life is good". I don't really believe that, so its hard.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Yeah, i mean "accepting" homeless people will always seem more virtuous than "accepting" a view about say, protecting the public from them. I just don't think they need compete.
  • A modest proposal - How Democrats can win elections in the US
    MAGA is extremely white-nationalist.RogueAI

    It absolutely is not. And I think its ridiculous for most of it's actual pertinent thought trains. MAGA has massive overlap with the values of most minorities - religious adherence, law and order, family values, There are a small number of identitarian groups who have glommed on the MAGA wave, but these are very much not the mainstream of MAGA. The emergence of several minority-centric MAGA groups like Black Voices for Trump support his view, as does the lack of white nationalism(entirely missing) across the vast majority of MAGA output. They are dumb - not racist (for the most part. Some are smart. Some are racist). Added to that is the point Leon makes that Trump has increased his minority vote-share in each election cycle.

    I'm genuinely unclear on how I am able to use AI resposes, so I'll spoiler this and if I've done this wrong, someone please tell me and I'll edit the post down:

    Reveal
    ChatGPT

    My prompt: is there any evidence that MAGA is "white nationalist"? I want you to honestly account for hte fact that plenty of MAGA are black, hispanic and indian. Not only this, gay blacks have an affinity for MAGA also. I don't want to be thinking with a bias, but I don't want you to be either (thinking used figuratively here)

    Here’s a clear, bias-aware, research-grounded explanation of what is actually known about whether “MAGA” is synonymous with “white nationalism,” while also fully accounting for the fact that many MAGA supporters are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities—including LGBT minorities.

    I’ll break it down into three separate things, because they are often mixed together even though they aren’t the same:

    1. Is the MAGA movement as a whole “white nationalist”?

    No.
    There is no credible evidence that the MAGA movement as a whole is a white-nationalist movement.

    What political scientists and sociologists consistently show is:

    ✔ MAGA is primarily a populist, nationalist, conservative movement

    It stresses themes like:

    anti-establishment populism

    strong borders

    skepticism of globalization

    traditional cultural values

    These views are not inherently racial, and they exist in many countries with all-non-white populations.

    ✔ Most Trump/MAGA supporters do not identify with white nationalism

    Survey research shows the vast majority reject explicitly racist ideology.

    ✔ Minority MAGA support is real and growing

    This is an important correction to common stereotypes:

    Trump’s support among Black men, Hispanic voters, and Asian Americans has grown in each election cycle.

    There are organized groups like Black Voices for Trump, Hispanic Conservatives, LGBT Conservatives, etc.

    In 2024 exit polling, Trump received some of the highest minority support for a Republican in decades.

    Minority participation itself doesn’t automatically disprove racist elements, but it does disprove the claim that MAGA is inherently white-nationalist.

    2. Why do some people call MAGA “white nationalist” anyway?

    This is where precision matters.

    While the movement as a whole is not white-nationalist, some individual extremist groups that identify loosely with Trump or MAGA do hold white-nationalist or white-identitarian views. These include:

    a handful of fringe groups

    some online communities

    a small number of provocateurs who attach themselves to large movements

    Sometimes these groups:

    attend rallies

    signal support online

    try to insert themselves into a larger coalition

    Political movements are “big tents,” and fringe extremism often orbits around them.

    The key distinction:

    The presence of fringe white-nationalist supporters ≠ the movement itself being white nationalist.

    Using an analogy:
    If a few anarchists show up at climate protests, that doesn’t make environmentalism an anarchist movement.

    3. Why do minorities support MAGA if critics claim it’s racist?

    This is an important question, and researchers have documented several reasons minorities themselves cite:

    Shared values

    religious conservatism

    pro-business policies

    anti-“wokeness” or skepticism of progressive racial ideology

    Cultural factors

    desire for strong law-and-order policies

    emphasis on traditional family structure

    belief in personal agency and opportunity

    Disillusionment with the Democratic Party

    Some Black and Hispanic voters feel taken for granted or disagree with progressive policies on gender, immigration, or education.

    Identity doesn’t map perfectly onto political ideology

    People often assume minorities should vote a certain way—many minorities reject that expectation.

    4. So what’s the honest, unbiased conclusion?

    Here is the most accurate, non-ideological summary:

    ✔ MAGA is not inherently or centrally a white-nationalist movement.

    ✔ A small number of white-nationalist individuals or groups have attempted to associate themselves with MAGA, but they do not define the movement.

    ✔ Minority, immigrant, and LGBT conservatives are a real and significant part of MAGA, and their support contradicts the simplistic “MAGA = white nationalism” narrative.

    ✔ The labeling often comes from political rhetoric, media framing, and the presence of fringe extremists—not from the movement’s core ideology or mainstream membership.


    This comports entirely with my experience talking to MAGA-types and other conservatives generally. Being stuck on the left while defending these things is weird.
  • Disability
    It seems there's a wilfull confusion between disability, and lack of participation. You are not disabled by stairs. Your inability to climb the stairs is what your disability relates to. There is, perhaps, a further disability in that you cannot reach the top of the stairs (or, the location there found). But this is not a dis-ability. It is a lack of participation in stair climbing. Because you are unable to climb stairs.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Yes, but only semantically. In practice, they don't come to different places in the context of the thread. In the context, I think tolerance relies on acceptance. Which may simply be an error in the way the public does things. That said, I see the right wing doing more tolerance without acceptance than the left, for whatever that's worth. It seem the left can't tolerate that which they cannot accept, on some level.
  • Bored? Play guess the word with me!
    I'm not quite sure how this works, even having read the OP. If I have it right, the current word has 11 letters?

    Myxomatosis is my guess lol.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    I dont recognize anything you've said.

    Give me a reason to think babies are 'special' beyond that they are God's little gifts?
  • Progressivism and compassion
    at some point, I assume lol.

    Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised?Leontiskos

    No. All you need do is read their texts to note the 'person' is not, at any point, the driving force behind policies. Its concepts. That is (somewhat uniquely) anti-human. It can be framed that way, but misleadingly.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    You're allowed to think that, I guess. But they are objectively not special in any sense other than a theological one. Which can be rejected on almost all grounds available to the human mind. I'm happy.

    possibly - but my position is grounded in first principles. There's nothing inherenlty good about a baby being born. Its often bad for all involved.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    Almost everything you've said here tells me the points have gone way above your head, to the point of it being an absolute quagmire to respond to these points.

    Suffice to say my repsonses so far are apt to respond to this reply also. If you wish to leave it there, that's fine. Your rejection of that which I tell you is actual, and provide evidence for, is bizarre.

    Here are two different claims:

    1. Trans men are men
    2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men
    Michael

    This makes it pretty clear you do not understand the phrases being used in the way I do (or plenty of other people). The debate is over. You are wrong. These phrases are ambiguous. You just wnat everything to think of them what you do. Which is natural.

    The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread:Questioner

    It is not, as I provided ample evidence for. It is a myth which exists only in the minds of those who require it to support otherwise nonsensical points of view.

    Please provide a source of this information.Questioner

    My claims is in the negative. The onus is not on me.

    False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not.Questioner

    It literally is not, and I have provided ample evidence for such. Comments above apply.

    This has become children yelling at their dad about how they are aeroplanes. I'm out.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    "what twaddle".

    Hehe. Ok Banno. You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. I'll resile.