It’s just so tiresome. — Fire Ologist

I agree. Stalin is not a meme in USA culture, but was far worse in many a way, at least when it comes to sheer number of deaths. And the gulags weren't kinder than the Nazi concentration camps. And other more recent examples abound.

Please do. — Fire Ologist

To my knowledge, the UN defines hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". The "demeans" part is too foggy to my liking; I'd much prefer "dehumanizes". And "promotes violence" I would hope is self explanatory. Quite famously by now, the Jews before world war two were first dehumanized via speech, with promoted violence against them following suit. So too were the Gypsies (about 1 million of them died too by the end of the war). The same occurred in Bosnia, in Rwanda, more recently in a place where to merely express humanitarian disapproval with mass starvation and the like is to be called Anti-Semitic and worse, with political consequences galore for many. Many are being silenced against speaking up for humanitarian ideals (and last I heard, Christ was quite the humanitarian person - as are the many humanitarian Jews now arrested for speaking their minds. As are many an atheist, and so on). And to be frank, I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding.

So I'll go back to hypotheticals, this being a philosophy forum. If a group of people A scream out in solidarity while gaily dancing, "Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", those who claim this has no bearing on a preparation for physical violence have both a lot to evidence and a lot of history to refute.

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.

But if all conservatives must be racist sexist pigs, what’s the point of asking their opinion on anything anyway? Right? — Fire Ologist

Right. Same can be said on behalf of liberals. BTW, never saw a bumper sticker saying "conservatives suck". I've however seen plenty saying "liberals suck", neighbors included. Myself, I'm technically more of an independent - but, at least where I'm from, the hatred of the right toward the left far outweighs the hatred, if any (which is not the same as disapproval) I've personally encountered in the other direction.

The left and the right can both be tyrannical, — Fire Ologist

Amen to that. You have Stalin (left), you have Hitler (right) and you have many another . My problem isn't with political sides and their differing views on how to improve society. Or at least I don't take one side and avoid the other in a tribalism mindset. My problem is with tyranny period. And when a majority of people in a society scream out "death to those we don't like the smell of" or some such, that is tyranny.

Trump in his own way is just as bad as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden when it comes to this bullshit. — Fire Ologist

Of course. But only Trump is on record for inciting violence during his rallies.

Question is what, and are the checks and balances in place. I wasn’t afraid with Obama and Biden, and I’m not afraid with Trump. — Fire Ologist

Agreed with the first part. Pretty certain that the checks and balances in place pertain to the very community we're living in, vis a vis the community's rejection of political violence. Wherever you stand, Jan. 6th was about political violence. And all those currently in political power don't give a damn. Trump has joked about serving a third term. If this were to be (not beyond all possibility, for laws, as we know, can be changed more rapidly by authoritarian personalities and powers than by those who at least pretend to respect democratic values before the wide public), then the USA will become about as democratic as current Russia is. Putin too is an elected president, don't you know. "Afraid" might be overstating it, but I do find quite a lot to be concerned about.

Those who have no problem with speech that dehumanizes others and incites violence against them pretty much guarantee that such speech proliferates. And when it does, non-Orwellian understood tyranny follows. (The tyranny of the good, or the tyranny of truth, would be a blatant example of Orwellianized forms of the word.)

Nor sure how coherent my post is, or how well it comes through. But its late for me and I'm tired. So I'll stop short and leave it as it is. Hope I've answered at least most questions you've had.

But you can lie and say I turned off Electrical Grid B to an electrician, perhaps in theory even just walking by without being employed by the company, and an electrician goes to work on it and gets killed. That's illegal. Or, you can stand by a bridge you know is dilapidated and cover leaves over it and if a person asks if it's safe, you can say "Sure", and they are also killed. That's quasi-legal, simply because no one can prove you did anything. So, no, this idea that speech cannot lead to real human death, possibly mass causality has already been legally codified. That ship has sailed, mate. So, that realization hitting you (or anyone who was ignorant of such) aside. What are you truly hoping to proliferate?

Here’s a chance to prove your case. Let’s see you injure me with words.

It’s just so tiresome.
— Fire Ologist

I agree. — javra

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer.

So since you didn’t respond to my answer to your question, I don’t know whether you believe me or not. Most left leaning people don’t believe conservatives when they say they are not racist. That’s what they say to my face. The left can’t imagine it is coherent to want a strong border and to like Mexico. They think we are liars, and they think they know our true feelings. Which is prejudice and bigotry against conservatism, and unobservant. And just so wrong. About me. And there are millions of black, gay, women repubs - race is just not important at all to conservatism. The vast, vast majority of us know that Hitler is evil. Such a demeaning question. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but if Hitler isn’t morally culpable for unjust deaths, nothing makes any sense at all.

Now you never addressed my question:

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black, lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that?

But back to hate speech laws…let’s look at the text you provided and I’ll give you my opinion (which is a form of speech called political that should be protected):

hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". — javra

“Demeans” is too vague. Get it out. “I don’t think your shoes go with that outfit” is demeaning to some, and sometimes the facts are embarrassing and demeaning. What is demeaning may bring moral approbation, but cannot equitably bring legal punishment. It’s too vague. So “demeans” has to be taken out (which you seem to agree).

“Promotes violence” is too vague. “Promotes” is in the eye of the beholder, and “violence” is too often used metaphorically. The phrase “buy a gun” promotes violence against squirrels and deer. The phrase “fight” meaning resist politically can be said to promote an insurrection, or maybe just voting and debating. The phrase “beat the Democrats” or “whip the republicans” speak for themselves. Some people are so frail, words alone are the violence. That is a psychological problem or maturity problem for them, not the basis of a law limiting political speech. The phrase “dog-whistle” scares me and makes me fear for my life and must be stopped as hateful. Such bullshit. Get “promotes violence” out of the law too. It’s too “Minority Report” and “thought police” for me to enforce fairly, and I am a a fair guy.

Promoting violence is already called “incitement to riot” or “conspiracy to commit a crime” - we already have laws and don’t need to find anyone demeaned or from a favored or “at risk” group in order to enforce these laws. Being mean and saying you wish others were dead is terrible, but not something I want or need the government picking and choosing to enforce this way and that way - what a total mess that would be. Like the UN is a total contradictory mess most of the time.

“Other identity factors?” Do these need to be explicit by the perpetrator of the “hate speech” - does he need to say them, or can some jury define the identity of who was being bullied? If the latter, if hatred of some group can be inferred and need not be expressly spoken by the hater, then “other identity factors” means anyone can make a case about a hate crime about anything. America, the ones who first implemented “freedom of speech”, has too much common sense to delude ourselves that any good will come from a hate speech law. Except for left leaning Americans, who for some reason wish Trump had “hate speech” laws on the books at his disposal.

It will never pass, unless enough republicans are silenced or shot.

"Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", — javra

Sounds like a free Palestine, or BLM. rally. Wasn’t there chanting about killing all pigs, meaning cops? But the chanting part, we have to allow.

Don’t you think we can deal with terrible people chanting by simply countering with more speech? Like by chanting “stop being assholes” or “wanting death means you are too stupid to debate” or something? Make some posters? Hate speech might better be defined as “a loud display of ignorance for all to hear.”

The problem is the assaults and the destruction of property and the killing during these peaceful protests. Not the language that is supposed to be behind them.

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra

That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. Total self-censorship of that view in the average public square. But that got everyone nowhere. And it led to a Trump victory despite all of the felony convictions and hatefulness he breeds.

Trump happened because conservatives can no longer stand watching what has unfolded.

Hate speech laws are all really about suppressing conservative speech, because everyone knows conservatives hate so many groups of people. Right?

You cannot censor thought. Let the thoughts come out so we can debate with the issues and show people how stupid their thoughts are. Otherwise we breed reactionaries and radicals in their mom’s basements.

Hate speech laws are dumb. I hate the idea.

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer. — Fire Ologist

First off, because I’ve talked to more than one person who affirms he wasn’t. And, with them being national socialists, they quite stringently affirm themselves and the “national socialism” they uphold to be thoroughly right and conservative – abhorring everything about the left. And, as a reminder, I don’t know you. I’m not supposed to be telepathic, am I? You certainly don’t evidence yourself to be in what you reply.

But far more importantly than this, I repeatedly asked you what makes Hitler so if not his very speech. Something you have not yet addressed, and I’d very much like to hear your comments on.

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak. — javra

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black, lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that? — Fire Ologist

(if we "all should know the answer to" then wasn't the question rhetorical? All the same:) Obviously not. For starters, it would all depend on what her interests are, what she prioritizes politically, and so forth. Is that answered clearly enough?

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra


That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. — Fire Ologist

You got me curious. I've mentioned my self-cencorship of humanitarian ideals, like the wrongs of mass starvation. As to thinking the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. And I live in "liberal" California. But, since you've brought this up, many of these same individuals I've so far talked to want to deny that over 1% (over 1 in every hundred) humans are birthed intersexed (with mixed genitalia) - neither male nor female. And that's a pretty significant percentage. But other than this issue of sex and gender, which I"m not yet buying, what else has folk such as Rush Limbaugh, etc, been censored from saying?

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.
— javra — javra

Ok, my bad. I skimmed that part and must have missed it that you are glad we agree. I’m glad too.

But all speech is not political speech. When Hitler was campaigning and running for office and shouting at some pulpit, he was engaged in political speech and we should protect that type of free speech for all opinions. We get to debate every single idea we can think of.

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. These types of speech are heavily regulated and will always have to be. Checks and balances. That’s why “hate speech” laws are dangerous, because they give enforcement power to the government regarding anyone’s stupid opinion. And they allow the Furor to arrest those who say things he doesn’t like.

We need to let Hitler speak his mind, so we can know not to elect him and we can know what arguments to make to defeat his stupid ideology of hate (like the lefts stupid ideology of identity power struggles).

We don’t use the government to regulate political speech. That’s what Hitler did. He didn’t just speak. He did many things besides speak.

Not all speech is political. When I say “hey, watch out for that bus”. I’m not expressing a political opinion. Political opinions and debate have to be protected. When Hitler said “build that concentration camp and bomb Stalingrad” he wasn’t just speaking - he was enacting policy and committing murder like a maniac. If a cop says “drop that weapon” he isn’t offering suggestion - you better fall in line or get ready for a fight.

I find it confused for you to say that “he never did anything else but speak.” This is the best way I can address you asking me how Hitler, who you say only used speech, was culpable for so many unjust deaths. Not all speech is political. So just because he used words to command his followers, he did much more than political speech.

the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. — javra

Philly’s DA, Larry Krasner, the chief law enforcement guy, just said at a town hall how republican policies are racist and sexist. First of all, who really cares, because the left’s policies are racist and sexist too. Race a sex issues are getting so old. But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion.

A despicable man like Trump was elected anyway because too many people are fed up with such blind stupidity.

And if the repubs start attacking free speech from the left, the repubs will get smacked by the conservatives. We don’t like government. Trump is liked because he isn’t a creature of politics.

Notice I didn’t just say “I like Trump because…”. I Used the passive voice “Trump is liked because….” This is my conditioning, by our left leaning media and DEI loving culture. Saying “I like Trump” can get you shot or fired. Certainly gets you hated.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right?

Your tonality to what I've said in my previous posts makes me presume you have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. Such as, for one example, your suggestion that fascistic mentality, which we both dislike for its authoritarianism, has nothing to do with conservatism or the political right - being instead a leftist leaning mindset.

This mindset, I will acknowledge, being relatively new to me. If you feel like commenting, and if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.)

As to:

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. — Fire Ologist

Is not "death to [x]" of itself a command - one that intends to bring about a certain order to states of affairs via speech? If the weakest of us all gives the strongest amongst us an order, does it signify anything in terms of what those spoken to do? As to enforcing laws, laws are nothing but words - verbal or written - that don't mean squat in practical terms without any physical enforcement. Sometime by a government that is intended to be of a people, for a people, and by a people. Not that I'm an expert on Hitler, but can anyone cite instances where Hitler physically enforced the laws that were put in place? If not, they were again just words. And the speech of politicians is one aspect of what political speech is. There need not be a debate involved.

At any rate, thanks for your previous answer.

But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion. — Fire Ologist

That would be quite good, but it would be a different discussion that the merits/demerits of hate speech and the dangers/benefits of its being freely allowed without any so called "political correctness" getting in the way.

Here's just one example: When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best for one and all both in the short term and long term. But again, this would greatly deviate from the issue of hate speech and its intersection with free speech.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right? — Fire Ologist

This being an example of the apparent deep resentment I've previously mentioned. No, not right. Does that then make Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset?

have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. — javra

I see where you are coming from about my tone. But it’s not resentment. It’s frustration. It’s tiresome convincing people that I don’t like Hitler, or that I don’t secretly like oppressing women or something. Because there is no way to satisfy any request for such proof. Only a confession will do. And the debate on the issues is over before it started. Conservatives have let themselves be framed as racist sexist pigs for so long it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s frustrating to deal with that in good faith.

But the actual progressive views and policies, some of them make total sense. No resentment from me when someone else has a better view. I don’t write off anyone because of their politics. I answered your question about Hitler. I try to show I am arguing in good faith, but, because I am clearly not progressive, usually political conversations stay around Hitler and Nazis and how racist I must be. Same for all conservatives. Same since the 1980’s.

Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset? — javra

So let’s be precise. Is Trump drafting legislation to make it illegal for the news to speak negatively of him? Because that would be stupid, and sounds like a dictator. The shit that comes out of his mouth sometimes. But I am sure such legislation can’t and won’t happen. Biden went so far as to set up the Disinformation Governance Board or something - much scarier to me, not because it was Biden, but because it had an enforcement structure to it, as opposed to crap Trump says.

Trump is not merely a chief executive officer enforcing laws and implementing policies. As you know I’m sure, every word he says does not cause there to be a new policy. People do resist the all powerful president when he’s an idiot. That’s how the checks and balances work. But He is still a politician, and a citizen, and gets to speak his mind, even when it is a stupid idea that goes against a free press. He has some dictatorial ideas for sure. That won’t lead to policy imposed on the public though. Obama and Biden deported a lot of illegal immigrants you know. Trump isn’t really a dictator.

There were people who said electing George W. Bush was going to be the end of democracy, that he wanted to allow women be raped, etc. But no president in my lifetime has been pilloried as badly as Trump. So if he gets overly sensitive and says “it should be illegal to make fun of me” I get it. But I’m sure we’ll see how that doesn’t go anywhere at all.

When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best — javra

Basically full agreement on all points here. You sound conservative to me, no contradiction, but like you implied, who really cares about the label - the issue is what is best. (Plus I wouldn’t wish the disparaging title “conservative” on anyone unwillingly).

So let me show you some nuances from my perspective on what we basically agree, to make a point.
Merit based hiring drawing from a pool of all worthy applicants regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. Total agreement. It makes sense for there to be laws on the books to foster fair, merit based hiring practices. Many are good laws, some are too vague and misused, some are bad - needs to evolve and continue being debated, and tested in court, but call it liberal or call it conservative — merit based hiring is good, and many entities need to be regulated to keep it that way.

But DEI in corporations through the HR department - to avoid employment law issues - that is mostly crap and counterproductive. All it does is confuse common decency and humble respect owed between all people, by favoring one group and disfavoring another group. All it does is promote reverse racism and sexism. It’s been terrible policy. It has led to so much abuse. It has little to actually do with merit. It rewards bad behavior more often than it helps anyone.

So if someone thinks I am conservative, and hears me saying DEI is crap, they will assume I am racist and sexist, and will think I’m lying about merit based hiring for all races and sexes. Usually we don’t get past whether Hitler would have been in favor of DEI or not.

I also agree with welfare and Medicare and a net for unfortunate circumstances. But It’s the same on every issue though. For me to suggest some sort of parameter for how to distribute welfare, because I’m conservative, it is really just me showing how I don’t care about all black, hispanic and disabled people. If I suggest “no welfare for that” someone will say “but that person is black, so you are just hating black people again.” You see how it works?

The policy is always secondary to identity politics, and conservatives have the same identity as Hitler.

So let’s jump to hate speech legislation. I think it’s too vague and too impossible to enforce, and will lead to drastically inequitable outcomes, and will certainly be abused by politicians to silence their opposition. So hate speech legislation is crap. But because I am a conservative, what I must really mean is that I am okay with people hating trans, or gay, or immigrants. I don’t get to pass Go on that issue. I am a Nazi for some reason again because “hate speech legislation” is bad policy.

Or, like all republican politicians have to do, I have to answer for spreading hate all of the time if I want to have a policy discussion.

if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.) — javra

So, lots to unpack. But first, I don’t see this as a political question. And that is important to understand. If it is not a political issue, then it cannot lead to any government policy. So the outcome of any debate about an authoritarian tradition like men heading the family and wives being subservient, doesn’t really matter in the public sphere. It’s for each family to figure out for themselves. The dynamics of a marriage between husband and wife is more a psychological discussion, sociology discussion, anthropology discussion, and a religious tradition conversation (Jewish, Christian, Islam all have opinions on this too). But it is not a political tradition. Not for at least 100 years.

So if you are asking me how I think government should insert itself into such a debate with policy (like a rule of thumb type law about how to beat your wife, or voting rights for women), I’d say the government has to treat all adults, men and women, equally and can make no law about the inner dynamics of a family. (And wife beating is abhorrent which should be needless to say, but again, I am a republican so I have to remind people that I don’t like wife beating). It was always wrong in the US for there to be slavery, and always wrong for women not to have the vote. We all used to be apes that had no need for governing. We’ve come a long way finally for women.

Women voting is fairly new, and one of the great contributions of progressive thinkers. It took too long for it to become policy.

But if you are just asking me, as a conservative, what do I think about “man as head of the household, and wife as subservient to her husband”? I like the way My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it: “The man is the head of the family, but the woman in the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she wants.” This was said by the wife. So I try to seek the wisdom in the traditions that brought us to today, and, in this case, the wisdom handed down from both my mother and my father, but I live in the world I live in today. Most women hear “wife to be subservient” and they think “you just keep telling yourself that.” And the family goes on just fine.

Lastly, yes that is an authoritarian tradition. It has the word subservient in the very tradition. But I am not oppressed by the rules I voluntarily submit to. Sometimes the certainty of law and authority set you free. Placing a man at the head of the family can be a burden and duty for the man, and liberation for the wife. It’s not a simple dynamic here that necessarily enslaves one while making a master of the other. And politically, the husband and wife must be treated absolutely as equals. Just like every other adult citizen.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. We resist these things in adolescence, and we should question everything, but that is before we know some realities must be humbly accepted at times. We think for ourselves to determine which authority is good and right, and when to follow, and when to resist - but we also have to make our choices and act, and we don’t get to avoid the existence of authority over us in our actions. Facts are dictators. Death is a tyrant. Taxes must be paid, or prison awaits. At times, someone has to represent the family, or someone has to be held responsible for the family, whether it be the man or the wife. Religion, not the government, provides a tradition that helps people who ask what to do determine for themselves how the family dynamics work. I would tell anyone they were wrong or what to do - but if they ask, I’d say there is wisdom in picking a head to the family at times, and a wisdom to making that head the man.