comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
Is that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point."
] |
>
You just made the case for not engaging with conservatives | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax."
] |
>
I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason
for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said
position
Ok so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing.
If you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare.
Perhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality.
In reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate.
Give me an example of a "convincing reason"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider "convincing" enough. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives"
] |
>
This is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.
On average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.
I would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough."
] |
>
Not just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible.
In US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person."
] |
>
Really, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this."
] |
>
Cute post | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world."
] |
>
Cant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:
They like everything republicans do.
They hate everything anyone else does.
Thats it - thats their identity. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post"
] |
>
This is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.
I am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity."
] |
>
US point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.
Blew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy” | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides."
] |
>
Humans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.
One uses justice and fairness
The second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.
Logic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”"
] |
>
Your last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked"
] |
>
The 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.
But the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning.
If the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.
Today in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.
Untruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways"
] |
>
Most people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left."
] |
>
To whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable.
A few examples might be…
Purpose vs no purpose
Things are meaningful vs things have no meaning
Suffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome
Determinism vs indeterminism
Materialism vs transcendence
Just to name a few.
Most of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.
Not to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle? | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given."
] |
>
I've always had leftist political views, but realistically: everyone, both left wing and right wing, relates to their views from a predetermined emotional bias.
Just because the evidence supports some of our views, doesn't mean that they are founded in it.
Nor are we are very much more rational or logical in our support of them than the right wing are - or that we would abandon them if we saw evidence to the contrary. Granted, some psych studies show the left wing is better about this, but not by much.
The fact is, the truth is complex and difficult to elucidate past our assumptions for anyone, unless one has a lot of specialist knowledge.
The youtube video you linked is a prime example of this. It presents evidence that would seem convincing to anyone who isn't a developmental biologist - and indeed that presenter is a physicist.
But realistically, it's an oversimplification, misrepresenting some popular concepts (androgens, disorders), and ignoring more complex facets of development (e.g. androgen sensitivity, receptors, what sexual categorisation is) to come to a false conclusion.
She clearly arrived at this conclusion by naturally being drawn to concepts/studies that made her feel more comfortable in her views - rather than an honest, in-depth review of the field.
So why should you treat conservatives like they are rational, and engage in debate?
Because there is nothing rational about ostracising groups of people - doing this just demonises them in your eyes, and prevents any understanding from ever developing.
The impulse to cancel, disregard, cordon off segments of society isn't rational, it's entirely emotional. Sometimes it's safety - it's difficult to interact with people who find one less than human, for example.
But if it's your family, you relate to them and will continue to do so. That's a prime opportunity to bridge that gap, and question/test our own assumptions - which is true empiricism.
The only way we can arrive at a collective understanding is by conversation. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given.",
">\n\nTo whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable. \nA few examples might be…\nPurpose vs no purpose\nThings are meaningful vs things have no meaning \nSuffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome\nDeterminism vs indeterminism\nMaterialism vs transcendence \nJust to name a few. \nMost of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.\nNot to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle?"
] |
>
Then how are you supposed to enact your own side's change if you can't argue with them without violence against them | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given.",
">\n\nTo whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable. \nA few examples might be…\nPurpose vs no purpose\nThings are meaningful vs things have no meaning \nSuffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome\nDeterminism vs indeterminism\nMaterialism vs transcendence \nJust to name a few. \nMost of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.\nNot to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle?",
">\n\nI've always had leftist political views, but realistically: everyone, both left wing and right wing, relates to their views from a predetermined emotional bias.\nJust because the evidence supports some of our views, doesn't mean that they are founded in it.\nNor are we are very much more rational or logical in our support of them than the right wing are - or that we would abandon them if we saw evidence to the contrary. Granted, some psych studies show the left wing is better about this, but not by much.\nThe fact is, the truth is complex and difficult to elucidate past our assumptions for anyone, unless one has a lot of specialist knowledge.\nThe youtube video you linked is a prime example of this. It presents evidence that would seem convincing to anyone who isn't a developmental biologist - and indeed that presenter is a physicist. \nBut realistically, it's an oversimplification, misrepresenting some popular concepts (androgens, disorders), and ignoring more complex facets of development (e.g. androgen sensitivity, receptors, what sexual categorisation is) to come to a false conclusion. \nShe clearly arrived at this conclusion by naturally being drawn to concepts/studies that made her feel more comfortable in her views - rather than an honest, in-depth review of the field.\nSo why should you treat conservatives like they are rational, and engage in debate? \nBecause there is nothing rational about ostracising groups of people - doing this just demonises them in your eyes, and prevents any understanding from ever developing.\nThe impulse to cancel, disregard, cordon off segments of society isn't rational, it's entirely emotional. Sometimes it's safety - it's difficult to interact with people who find one less than human, for example.\nBut if it's your family, you relate to them and will continue to do so. That's a prime opportunity to bridge that gap, and question/test our own assumptions - which is true empiricism.\nThe only way we can arrive at a collective understanding is by conversation."
] |
>
People who complain have never lived in a socialist or communist country. I have. Try moving to China for awhile and see how much your complaints matter. We have it great here in the west. Yes it isn’t perfect. Nothing is. | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given.",
">\n\nTo whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable. \nA few examples might be…\nPurpose vs no purpose\nThings are meaningful vs things have no meaning \nSuffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome\nDeterminism vs indeterminism\nMaterialism vs transcendence \nJust to name a few. \nMost of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.\nNot to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle?",
">\n\nI've always had leftist political views, but realistically: everyone, both left wing and right wing, relates to their views from a predetermined emotional bias.\nJust because the evidence supports some of our views, doesn't mean that they are founded in it.\nNor are we are very much more rational or logical in our support of them than the right wing are - or that we would abandon them if we saw evidence to the contrary. Granted, some psych studies show the left wing is better about this, but not by much.\nThe fact is, the truth is complex and difficult to elucidate past our assumptions for anyone, unless one has a lot of specialist knowledge.\nThe youtube video you linked is a prime example of this. It presents evidence that would seem convincing to anyone who isn't a developmental biologist - and indeed that presenter is a physicist. \nBut realistically, it's an oversimplification, misrepresenting some popular concepts (androgens, disorders), and ignoring more complex facets of development (e.g. androgen sensitivity, receptors, what sexual categorisation is) to come to a false conclusion. \nShe clearly arrived at this conclusion by naturally being drawn to concepts/studies that made her feel more comfortable in her views - rather than an honest, in-depth review of the field.\nSo why should you treat conservatives like they are rational, and engage in debate? \nBecause there is nothing rational about ostracising groups of people - doing this just demonises them in your eyes, and prevents any understanding from ever developing.\nThe impulse to cancel, disregard, cordon off segments of society isn't rational, it's entirely emotional. Sometimes it's safety - it's difficult to interact with people who find one less than human, for example.\nBut if it's your family, you relate to them and will continue to do so. That's a prime opportunity to bridge that gap, and question/test our own assumptions - which is true empiricism.\nThe only way we can arrive at a collective understanding is by conversation.",
">\n\nThen how are you supposed to enact your own side's change if you can't argue with them without violence against them"
] |
>
China isn't communist. It's not even socialist. It's the largest capitalist economy in the entire world.
Being a capitalist economy immediately excludes you from being communist/socialist..... they're just a little mutually exclusive to each other.
But nice Relative Privation Fallacy | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given.",
">\n\nTo whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable. \nA few examples might be…\nPurpose vs no purpose\nThings are meaningful vs things have no meaning \nSuffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome\nDeterminism vs indeterminism\nMaterialism vs transcendence \nJust to name a few. \nMost of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.\nNot to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle?",
">\n\nI've always had leftist political views, but realistically: everyone, both left wing and right wing, relates to their views from a predetermined emotional bias.\nJust because the evidence supports some of our views, doesn't mean that they are founded in it.\nNor are we are very much more rational or logical in our support of them than the right wing are - or that we would abandon them if we saw evidence to the contrary. Granted, some psych studies show the left wing is better about this, but not by much.\nThe fact is, the truth is complex and difficult to elucidate past our assumptions for anyone, unless one has a lot of specialist knowledge.\nThe youtube video you linked is a prime example of this. It presents evidence that would seem convincing to anyone who isn't a developmental biologist - and indeed that presenter is a physicist. \nBut realistically, it's an oversimplification, misrepresenting some popular concepts (androgens, disorders), and ignoring more complex facets of development (e.g. androgen sensitivity, receptors, what sexual categorisation is) to come to a false conclusion. \nShe clearly arrived at this conclusion by naturally being drawn to concepts/studies that made her feel more comfortable in her views - rather than an honest, in-depth review of the field.\nSo why should you treat conservatives like they are rational, and engage in debate? \nBecause there is nothing rational about ostracising groups of people - doing this just demonises them in your eyes, and prevents any understanding from ever developing.\nThe impulse to cancel, disregard, cordon off segments of society isn't rational, it's entirely emotional. Sometimes it's safety - it's difficult to interact with people who find one less than human, for example.\nBut if it's your family, you relate to them and will continue to do so. That's a prime opportunity to bridge that gap, and question/test our own assumptions - which is true empiricism.\nThe only way we can arrive at a collective understanding is by conversation.",
">\n\nThen how are you supposed to enact your own side's change if you can't argue with them without violence against them",
">\n\nPeople who complain have never lived in a socialist or communist country. I have. Try moving to China for awhile and see how much your complaints matter. We have it great here in the west. Yes it isn’t perfect. Nothing is."
] |
> | [
"/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nCiting the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.\nSo the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?\nIf you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.\nNow whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do.",
">\n\nTrue and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing.",
">\n\nIt’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports",
">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal.",
">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)",
">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason.",
">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.\nThis makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.\nIf you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.\nIn person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion \"on their own.\" And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.\nBut again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds.",
">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.",
">\n\nA reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.\nYou might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it.",
">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics.",
">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.\nEvery study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.\nThe actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning.",
">\n\nDid you?\nYou're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.",
">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. \nThe OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief",
">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.",
">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.",
">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.",
">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?",
">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.",
">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.\nIn short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold.",
">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”",
">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?",
">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"",
">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try",
">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays. If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate. That would make you and your manners the problem.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position\n\nThis tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything. If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you? Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.",
">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: \"I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that.\"\n\nI mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him.",
">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).",
">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.",
">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.",
">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.",
">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing",
">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.",
">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's",
">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?",
">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo",
">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.",
">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.",
">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?",
">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"",
">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?",
">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.",
">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source",
">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.",
">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.",
">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?",
">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.",
">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.",
">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.",
">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"",
">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?",
">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.",
">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.",
">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.",
">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).",
">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?",
">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)",
">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.",
">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?",
">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.",
">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.",
">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.",
">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with",
">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.",
">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.",
">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?",
">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.",
">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.",
">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.",
">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA",
">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.",
">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data",
">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”",
">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.",
">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.",
">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?",
">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.",
">\n\nBoth sides do this",
">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.",
">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.",
">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.",
">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.",
">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.",
">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.",
">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.",
">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.",
">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.",
">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.",
">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem.",
">\n\nI don't. That's the point. I don't think the idea that you can exist in society without paying for public services is reasonable. Therefore the only reply for someone who says they legitimate believe they shouldn't have to pay for public services is \"leave society\" if you truly feel that way.",
">\n\nThe conservative position is not that they should use government services without paying for them, but rather there should be less government services, thus requiring less payment.",
">\n\nSure, right up until it's a service they use. Seniors will bitch 24/7 about free community college, but don't you dare touch medicare - that's not socialism, that's their god-given right as Americans! Farmers will freak out about green energy subsidies, but don't you dare touch agricultural pork. And so on.\nThey want to be taken care of, and they don't want to take care of others. That's the hypocrisy.",
">\n\nAnd leftists will complain about billions then go text on their IPhones and order stuff off Amazon. Congratulations you’ve discovered that every living person is a hypocrite.",
">\n\nYa, not wanting to stop participating in a system that you draw benefits from even though you feel it is an abusive and exploitative system because you’d have to stop drawing those benefits it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.",
">\n\nDid you see where I said a different kind of hypocrisy? I’m not interested in a semantic debate around hypocrisy, my point is that the two kinds of hypocrisy are very different. If everybody stopped interacting with immoral companies over night, the world as we know it would collapse. If only a handful did, then they’d be living under a bridge for nothing. “Just stop interacting with capitalism” isn’t a reasonable take. \nThat’s not the case for people who want government spending to be cut in all areas that don’t directly benefit them.",
">\n\nIt sounds like you really do what to have a semantic debate around hypocrisy. It also sounds like you agree that complaining about the immorality of something while at the same time reaping benefits from that thing is hypocrisy. It’s also sounds like you agree that something simply being hypocritical doesn’t curate the argument. So what exactly are we disagreeing on?",
">\n\nWe’re disagreeing on whether or not certain kinds of hypocrisy are relevant to OP’s thesis about the worth of debating somebody. \nIf somebody says “government spending is bad!” But simultaneously thinks the government should give them subsidies because they’re a farmer, that person likely will not have a productive conversation with you because their only political ideology is selfishness. The hypocrisy matters in this case because they will openly disregard their political stance as soon as they’re affected. \nIf somebody says “Besos should pay more in taxes and pay his workers better!” While still using Amazon, their political ideologies are pretty clear, and it’s just a matter of whether or not they’re willing to live in a ditch to punish besos for not paying his workers. The “hypocrisy” doesn’t matter here because they’re not fighting against their own political ideology. \nIf the government increased taxes on the rich and strengthened labor rights, very few leftists would oppose it.\nIf the government cut spending across the board for all programs, many if not most people on the right would oppose it. \nThat’s the difference here.",
">\n\nI mean, the exact same things can be said about anyone that feels strongly in their beliefs. Religion, political, etc.. You're picking conservatives because they oppose your views and that's who you engage against primarily. \nPlay devil's advocate sometime and engage against the people with the same viewpoints as yourself and you'll find the same thing.\nA decent argument for being against trans women in women's sports is that the goal of fair competition is to remove any potential variables that may effect the outcome. Most sports have replay systems to lower or eliminate the variables of referees effecting the outcome of the game. Trans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity. How that translates to athletic performance is irrelevant. It's a variable.",
">\n\n\nTrans athletes have a variable. A set of balls. And those balls produce testosterone, which increases bone density, enlarge hearts, and increase lung capacity.\n\nTell me you have no idea what transition care involves without telling me you have no idea what transition care involves.\nMy testosterone is a shade below female average, and barely a tenth the low end of the normal male range. Because I've taken a pill every day for the last eight years to suppress my body's production of it.",
">\n\nRegardless. Going through puberty before \"transition care\" would still create an additional variable which is the main argument I'm making here.",
">\n\nAnd the goalpost-moving begins.\nOkay. Do you have any actual statistical evidence that trans athletes who transitioned after puberty have an advantage relative to cis people, or to trans athletes who transitioned before it?",
">\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable. I didn't say one way or the other if they have an advantage. The goal in most competitions is the remove as many variables as possible so that the game is \"fair\" to all those competing. Which is why only certain attire is allowed, etc. \nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal then by all means, let them compete. But you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.",
">\n\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that it's a variable.\n\nSo is wealth. So is level of access to training. So is genetics (and no, Y chromosomes don't make you swole by themselves). We split sexes because it's such a large effect (when looked at from the perspective of cisgender people) that it dwarfs others, not just because it's \"a variable\".\n\nIf there's 100% indisputable evidence that suggests they are equal\n\nHow do you suggest we acquire this \"indisputable evidence\"? Tell me what level of study would count for you.\n\nBut you won't find that evidence because biologically they are not equal. \n\nAnd there we go, back to confidently asserting your belief with no evidence while demanding \"indisputable\" evidence from your opponents.\n\nAnd anytime someone loses to a trans athlete they will argue the integrity of whatever game they are playing.\n\nI mean...yes? That's precisely why the \"BUT FALLON FOX WON A FIGHT ONCE!!11!1\" panic is stupid. The competitor who was complaining about her had won her own previous fight, with a cis woman, considerably faster than Fallon beat her, but somehow no one was bitching about that.",
">\n\nYour resolve is admirable for sure. I'm a hillbilly from the desert in Texas so I doubt I'll have reasonably coherent responses to what you've said.\nI personally have no skin in this game as I am not a woman nor do I have daughters competing.\nLol I do appreciate the talk though!",
">\n\nJust a couple points:\n\nPrivatization has failed in America\n\nWe don't have proper privatization in the US, it operates much more like a state backed cartel, which screws consumers and benefits suppliers. So that's not really a good counter-factual. It sounds more like neither of you have attempted to seriously engage with the other's position. \nOn the transgender issue I would say it depends on the sport, would you for example try to maintain that biological males, maintain no advantage over females in MMA or boxing? It's also not a question of how good the athletes themselves do, but whether or not their sex provides an absolute advantage. It's not \"did this male swimmer do much better than any female could\" but \"Does being male give them an unfair advantage\"",
">\n\nAll evidence that we have says they don't have an advantage so yes I would say they have no advantage as we know of to the best of our current ability.",
">\n\nOP won't reply to this because any conservative 'fact' is simply dismissed as right wing propaganda. OP is simply the evil that OP is trying to banish.",
">\n\nLiberals too. Most \"us vs them\" types aren't interested in changing their views lol",
">\n\nHave you tried looking for examples of conservatives changing their minds based on reasoned debate?\nWhy not search for people arguing for some conservative policies on this subreddit and see if there are deltas?",
">\n\nI was one such conservative, but the examples of such (that I know) all are now leftists and thus not really conservatives so they no longer count.",
">\n\nI'm not sure what view you are asking us to challenge, then. \nYour CMV topic is that conservatives aren't interested in reasoned debate and that there's no point in interacting with them. However, you say here that you've encountered some conservatives with an interest in reasoned debate whose minds could be changed, including yourself in the past. \nThe only way those two statements fit together is if there are no more conservatives like this, anywhere. That should strike you as unlikely.\nCould you clear this up?",
">\n\nIt's not \"all conservatives\" just like it's \"not all men\" and \"not all cops\"\nThe point is the number of conservatives willing to do so is low enough that I've never met one outside of leftists saying \"I used to be a conservative\" and thus it's not worth putting forth the effort to reason with them when the odds are massively against you to actual have a constructive debate.\nEssentially, it's a cost too high for such little gain.\nAlso every leftist I've personally met who used to be a conservative wasn't really ever a conservative and was a child who became a leftist. They weren't conservatives, they assumed their parents were right and then learned otherwise.",
">\n\nThere's been a lot of good points already but I want to look at your healthcare argument more: almost no conservatives in the UK want a US-style healthcare system. You're making the classic mistake in thinking only two types of healthcare in the world exist: The UK and the US one. Wanting more privatisation doesn't means you want something resembling the US. Every other country in Europe has more a more private system but still has universal access. A single payer model like the NHS is not generally looked at positively on the continent. \nTackling your post more widely, it's likely your family simply don't want to argue with you. This could be because you're overly confident, talk too much about your opinions or they just don't want to create tension. Generally as I've got older I've been less willing to engage with people who always want to discuss politics around the dinner table, particularly if they come across as a know-it-all. You can give the most long, articulated argument you want, backed up with your sources, but that doesn't mean you're right. People skew towards sources that agree with their subconscious views and both the left and right are guilty of that. And either way, frankly no want wants to hear your long drawn out points at a family gathering.",
">\n\nThe latest instalment from our project monitoring the effects of the UK's exit from the EU on our health care system finds the clearest evidence yet that Brexit and its changing relationships with neighbouring countries are exacerbating the severe challenges facing health and social care in the UK today in terms of staffing, accessing essential medicines, and the overall economic picture.\nBrexit proves UK Conservatives debate skills have failed us all.",
">\n\nI'm on an unpopular pedestal definitely. I'm fully up for debating someone of the opposite political spectrum if they're reasonable \"also if it's a subject I know a good amount of\" I do care about a reasoned debate. Granted I've went from trump supporting republican to complete party hating conservative who'd rather see us all get along before we collapse.",
">\n\nNot sure if you will read this, but I just wanted to say I had a lot of the same thoughts about conservatives but I think I just wasn't looking at the right channels. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Candance Owens all make incredibly unreasonable, emotion based arguments. I watched Reason TV and read some of their articles and I actually thought many of their arguments were incredibly reasonable. I am still a leftist but I understand the other side more after seeing their content",
">\n\nIf you’re unable attempt to see the other sides position and give it a charitable analysis, you’re no better.\nTake trans athletes - studies do show they retain advantages. Here’s a British study shared by a liberal US outlet. If you cannot acknowledge that gender fluidity risks undermining the integrity of women’s sports you’re rejecting data and objective reality. The rational discussion is around a parameters and process - the binary “allow them” and “ban them” are equally brain dead and ideological.\nSimilarly, you have to acknowledge the behavioral issues associated with 100% public health care - there’s relatively little accountability for personal health, noting intrinsically putting back pressure on spiraling costs, and the consensus building around rationing and prioritizing of ‘discretionary’ procedures is tough.\nThe US incurs about 10% higher and ministration costs, but choice and outcomes for its upper middle class is much better. \nThe US isn’t the only system to model after, you can rather resonantly argue for more hybridized systems where discretionary stuff is private and emergency + basic preventative / clinics is free. \nTo be a European saying conservatives is wrong is a little bit sus - European systems are becoming less competitive globally, losing to the US and Asia. The difficulty in starting and optimizing businesses is a big train.",
">\n\nNot to be too attacking here but your video says that trans athletes have an advantage over biological females. It’s explicit on that point. \nSeems like you’re being an unreasonable debater by presenting a source as saying something that it doesn’t.",
">\n\nWhat about the argument for abortion? That's depends heavily on a person's ethics, I don't see how you could think that conservatives don't have a good argument against it? Their argument is that they think people are killing babies",
">\n\nIt's our current understanding that the number of abortions performed when it is legal vs illegal is relatively stagnant.\nIf this is the case making it illegal is unethical. As you are now saying \"I don't care that it doesn't lower abortions performed, these women deserve to be punished\"\nThe more proven effective way to lower abortions performed is implement proper sex ed and give free contraceptives.\nIt doesn't matter that they see an abortion as killing a baby. They aren't doing anything to lower the number performed, only make themselves feel morally superior about their position.",
">\n\nIncredible, I reached the exact same conclusion regarding liberals!",
">\n\nI am a conservative, and I disagree.\nIssue 1\nTransgender Athletes:\nBeing born a male and experiencing male puberty is an advantage in any athletic competition. There is no athletic competition where biological females dominate biological males.\nMales have different muscle mass. Males have different bone density. Males have different bone structure.\nA transgender woman still has male bone density & skeleton.\nA transgender woman still has a male muscle mass.\nAllowing transgender women to compete against biological women is unfair to biological women.\nFor starters transgender women dominate women's sports. They absolutely destroy biological women almost every time they compete.\nThere are like 800 boys right now in high school that could out run a female Olympic gold medal sprinter.\nIf one of those 800 boys happens to transition... Suppose they are number 352 best in the boys. They will be the #1 woman runner by a long shot.\nThen you have more physical sports. A transgender woman gave a cis woman brain damage in a boxing match. The cis woman was unaware her opponent was a trans woman until after the match.\nThen you got all these athletic women whose dreams of being an athlete go up in smoke. They will no longer want to compete if they have no chance of winning. What is the point of being #1 cis woman runner if that makes you the #27 fastest woman because 26 transgender women are faster than you? It chases cis woman away from athletics due to unfair competition. Cis women lose scholarships and education opportunities from this.\nA good solution to this could be an \"Trans Only Sports League\".\nIssue 2\nSocialized Medicine:\nThere are certain benefits to socialized medicine. There are also drawbacks. It would be for everyone. The problem is when you make healthcare for everyone it will reduce the quality, increase wait time, or be very expensive. So ultimately it would be a bad deal for a lot of people, but a good deal for some people.\nThen you have issues like \"elective surgeries\". Why should my tax dollars pay for a boob job for someone? That is another wrench in the works.\nGenerally there are 3 universal aspects to anything that is produced. They are in constant competition with one another.\n\nQuality (How good is it?)\nQuantity (How much of there is it?)\nCost (How expensive is it?)\n\nTo improve in one of these areas you generally need to make it worse in another area.\nIf you make something high quality it is hard to make it for low cost and for everyone.\nIf you make something low cost it is hard to make it for everyone and good quality.\nIf you make something for everyone it is hard to make it good quality and low cost.\nI will give some real world examples:\nRice in china: It's for everyone. It's cheap. It's not many people's favorite food.\nLamborghini: Very expensive car. Very high quality. Very few can be made that way.\nDoctors do not like to work for free. They cost money. We don't want to enslave doctors. Slavery is bad.\nHowever, there is a solution to this problem. We just need to improve our technology.\nWe could train machines to be doctors. Robots work for basically free they cost electricity and parts. We need technological advancement to make doctors that have AI that can perform better than a human.\nI would suggest money go to research and development of an AI doctor to make it so human doctors are less necessary and eventually obsolete. These AI doctors would be for the benefit of everyone. No need to enslave human doctors. No need for long waiting lists. No need for high costs. Everyone gets the care they need.",
">\n\nFirst we should stop using \"biological women\" you are allowed to say males and females. You can drop the \"biological\" part because biology actually disagrees with binary sexing and gender (manhood and womanhood) are social constructs, you would never admit your logic defines me as a \"biological woman\" no matter how strictly I fit that definition (XX, have a vagina, lack testes, no srY gene).\nSecondly, advantage is not a strict numerical projection. Essentially you're saying \"they have a technical advantage\" and the left is saying \"prove it's unfair.\"\nIt's the \"left handed fencer\" argument. Your logic only works if you are also willing to say \"left handed individuals should be banned from fencing against right handed individuals\" they've proven a statistically significant advantage. Surely it's unfair right? No. It isn't. While a statistically significant advantage it does not show itself to be competitively dominant. Essentially the fact that right handed fencers can compete at parity with left handed fencers proves (at least under our current evidence) there is no unfair advantage.\nYour healthcare argument know works for America so I'm completely ignoring it. Because in pretty much all of Europe socialisation of healthcare has proven to drive costs down, increase access and maintain quality.\nAlso: only the UK experiences people leaving for healthcare by any significant margin. America, the most privatised system, actually experiences the most medical egress to countries with socialised catastrophic care.\nWait times are a function of triage (the more critical you are, the less you wait) and therefore this point falls flat and shows you lack an understanding of the socialized systems",
">\n\nI don't like to use the term \"Cis\". I believe it to be a heterophobic slur commonly used by non binary and trans people to attack non LGBT people and exclude them.\nI have seen LGBT people bash people by saying \"Die Cis Scum!\" and some have even seen some people with tattoos of that phrase. I find it to be a hate filled word.\nCis is not a term created by heteronormative people. Rather it is an oppressive label placed upon us by some radical left college professor from their ivory tower.\nI refuse to use your oppressive language because it makes me feel uncomfortable.\nGender is not something I personally believe in, but I believe that other people believe in it and I respect their beliefs.\nTo me biological sex is the one and only reality. It is the one and only truth.\nGendered thinking is a belief system much like a religious institution or a political system.\nYou may ask me. \"What is truth?\"\nThere are 3 types of truth.\nScientific truth, Personal truth, and political truth.\nThe male and female binary is a \"Scientific Truth.\" It can be proven with science and peer reviewed.\nWhat you speak of as a \"Social Construct\" and you are correct. It is a personal truth. Much like a persons religion. That is their system of faith that is not backed by the science.\nLastly we have a \"Political Truth\". That is something like \"Video games cause violence.\" It's not a scientific truth. However, the media has pushed it and repeated 10,000 times so that it becomes a political truth. Truth by repetition.\nI respect others rights to believe what they wish and to observe their own personal truth or political truth when it comes to gender. It is not now nor will it ever be a scientific truth.\nYour argument that sex is not binary is perhaps that \"Some people are intersex.\" That's true! You are right. Some people are a hermaphrodite or some other genetic mutation that is not strictly \"male\" or \"female\". Which is the norm.\nWhen I say people are \"Male and female\". I mean that is the norm much like \"People have ten toes.\" Of course some people do exist who do not have ten toes. My uncle had real bad diabetes. He had to get a foot amputated. He was down to 5 toes. I read a story in the paper about some baby that was born with 12 toes. The anomaly does not change the rule.\nWhat you bring up is people with ambiguous genitals or some sort of medical condition such as Klinefelter Syndrome where they have XXY chromosomes. Making them an \"Intersex\" person.\nThe vast majority of \"Non Binary\" or \"Transgender\" people are not \"Intersex\".\nLeft handed people in sports such as fencing as you say, or even a south paw in boxing or a left handed pitcher should not be banned from athletics. That's a different case.\nLeft handed people can not lift more weight than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not run faster than right handed people.\nLeft handed people can not hit harder than right handed people.\nIt's about even on all fronts when it comes to the physical.\nThe difference that could give them an advantage is one through technique. Not a physical advantage.\nA high school boys under 15 soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team. If a girls under 15 team ever beats a group of male athletes in an athletic competition I would be willing to cede the point. A bunch of 14-year-old girls are just not going to get in their with the NFL and throw them around like rag dolls\nMales and females are not built the same way.\nAs for the healthcare argument I have seen some serious problems with socialized medicine. \nWhat about that Canadian woman who was offered euthanization instead of a chair lift for her home because she is in a wheel chair she has been waiting a long time to get the care she needs?\nWhat about all all the people who die waiting too long for a transplant in socialized medicine?\nGranted, you have a point there is a certain percent of the population that get at least some care that they wouldn't under socialized medicine.\nHowever, I think the way to go is to get some advanced AI doctors in there to solve the problem. We need to improve medical technology first. We need to fund that, then everyone can get better care and it will be affordable to give to everyone.",
">\n\nI'm sorry. I'm not gonna meaningfully interact with this. It's either obviously bad faith or you're actually misinformed as to the nature of bimodalism and human sexuality and then there's the gender thing which I have not the time nor inclination to handhold you through a topic we literally make entire degrees around understanding.\nGood day, I hope you enjoy your weekend.",
">\n\nReason is logic within truth. You cannot make your “own” reasoning, that’s called making shit up and believing in it because your cognitively incapable of having intelligence therefore you resort to delusion. Being too dumb to understand things does not imply things are not reasonable.",
">\n\nI’d say this is a you problem and that I’ve witnessed both sides have a good, friendly debate on politics, but judging by some of the things you say, you wouldn’t care to listen nor believe it.",
">\n\n\nSo I've come to the conclusion that conservatives don't actually care about reason or debate and that interaction is pointless. It serves no purpose.\n\nAnyone could say the same about The Left... In fact, the big accusations going round the Social Media Sites is \"The Left cant defend their positions, so they resort to banning Right Wingers outright\".\nYou then cite examples, which are... examples...\n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, even if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nWhich is literally the foundation of Leftist politics. \"Defund The Police\" says hello. American Bail reform, which is putting criminals on the street for no reason. There are countless examples of the Left wanting bad policy, because it \"feels good\" and \"is a nice thing to do\".\n\nNow, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions\n\nThey probably have, but you've not listened, not understood, or just didnt care enough to give them a chance......\n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\n......And THAT is why. \nIf you TRULY want to start understanding things, throw away this \"Right vs Left\" idea that youre walking into. People meme on \"the enlightened centrist\", but i'll take being someone who understands both sides have good and bad points (and also being hated by both sides because im not far enough with them) over being you for one side or the other...",
">\n\n\"defund the police\" is a very reasonable position that the right has caricaturised into an unreasonable position based on the headline.",
">\n\nYeah! Damn those evil Right Wingers for ^(checks your comment) reading and understanding the definition of words... Damn those Right Wingers for deciding that the people who wanted the Police completely gone were absolutely insane, how could they!\nEither youre intentionally not getting it, or YOURE doing the very thing your CMV accuses Right Wingers of doing...",
">\n\nThe actual position though is not the headline.\nBeing against the position because of the headline and not the substance of the argument is actually bad faith acting.",
">\n\nI’d argue having a radical headline that is completely detached from your actual position is the bad faith acting",
">\n\nI think this is what a lot of non-left aligned people are quite frustrated with. What's ostensibly on the tin is not what's claimed to be inside. For example, defund the police? Actually, it means xyz (which often is not the same as defunding the police). Even on a politicking level, it doesn't seem like a convincing position because, as the saying goes, if you have to explain your slogan then you've already lost.",
">\n\nIve learned as a conservative, after my economics class, that most of the stuff we are saying has been redifined, so even though we think we are debating, we are almost never talking about the same thing, and that we have a different premise on the way the world works. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on it called A Conflict of Visions.\nInflation to a leftist is Average Wages vs a Basket of goods. Inflation to a Conservative is how far away are we from 20 dollars an ounce.\nWe don't want a Hitler to take control of the country, or Stalin or Mao or King George. They are all Crazy Authoritarian Leftists to us. No piece of paper or Law can save anyone from this happening. The only thing that can is an educated populace. And I don't mean high school or college degrees, I mean in politics and history and finance. The Constitution doesn't Guarantee your rights, it just lays out what the government will try to take away right before going full tyrannical. \nWe want individual rights to triumph over the general consensus, because throughout history, whenever this wasn't happening, the people were left to the whims of the ruler. And they can do whatever they want, like Prima Noctra. In the US in modern times, most leftists say they want to solve some problem, but all their \"solutions\" are through the government, which we consider to be the number one enemy to the people, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) One of the founding documents, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, lays it out quite well. \nTo us, we are doing fine on our own, (society) so if you want us to fix a problem, not by literally getting together and solving it, (society) but creating another huge expensive beaurocratic agency that sucks in more than it helps, and move closer to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, being ABLE to do the crazy stuff those people did. These people were able to do what they did because all the power in the country was centralized. So we want decentralized. \nPlus, we would like an actual debate on the issues ya know? All Ive ever seen is leftists say, \"it's science, it's for the children, it's for the poor, we have to or we will all die.\nOr even, ohhh theres a denier.\"\nBut I have never met a leftist that will explain what they mean, usually they show me a news article without even a link to the source. Confirmation Bias.\nPlus, most leftists for some reason think the right has been in charge for a while or something? Wierd. FDR one of the most leftist presidents, literally appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices. Passed the \"safety net\" bills, and made income tax. After the previous court ruled it all unconstitutional 4 times. All of these things were made even worse in the 60s and now what are our problems, too much debt, expensive healthcare, low wages, not enough housing crappy schools. All literally taken over in the 30s, and then again in the 60s. Look at any financial graph of this time period. \nWhen Nixon came off the gold standard, that was America going bankrupt and not admitting it. Since the 30s numerous presidents have had to start wars to keep the money flowing. Obama even sent mercenaries to take the Libyan gold. We are currently half socialist, have colonial, and the colonial is just to pay for the socialist at home. \nWe are the ones that want less war, and less social programs, so there is less stealing of other nations wealth. And less ability by the Hitler and Stalin types to use our wealth against us. We are actually afraid of you leftists. We are afraid that if you get all the money and all the power, you will do what you have always done and start massacuring your chosen enemy, (in todays age, White cisgender males, in the Hitler Era, Jews) and try to create whatever utopia is in your head.\nWe don't want a tje promise of a utopia at the expense of the moneh now, we want a nice, short, easy to understand set of rules 95% or people can live by, and that change relatively few times, so that people can be free. Every horrible dictator has promised a utopia if you just let them nationalize everything. Well we say no. No genocide, no mass graves none of that. And the smaller the gov, the less likely it is to opress people.\nNo lefty I have ever talked to actually will try to understand any of this. It's instantly \"ughhhh god how dumb blah blah blah.\" But in a democracy, only a majority vote will get you what you want. So if what you have to offer is really so appealing, then explain it.",
">\n\n\nthey're all crazy authoritarian leftists to us\n\nLists Hitler amongst them.... clearly you know nothing of Nazism. Nazism isn't a leftist position. It's a far right one.",
">\n\nStrasserism, the proto-Nazi ideology, is essentially Marxism + Antisemitism.\nIdeologically the difference between Nazism and Marxism is comparable to the difference between Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam.",
">\n\nNone of those Muslims sound Christian.",
">\n\nFrom what I’ve gathered OP is just an asshole about politics and nobody wants to talk to them about it because they are unwilling to concede anything and incapable of seeing anything from the other side. Your the problem OP, not your conservative family.",
">\n\nI kind of see that the other way around. Most conservatives I speak with are very open to debate and have low toned chats with about things. It's liberals that tend to come across as loud, obnoxious, hateful, and culturally uneducated. Most of the time any conservative is really concerned with the economic state and basic human and constitutional rights where as liberals just want to be the ones that are right even when they're blatantly wrong. \nI think the difference comes down to this, conservatives I don't think would be in support of fixing the problems they recognize where as liberals would be about the same problems",
">\n\nThis. As a conservative, I've had online \"debates\" with people many times but it almost always ends the same. The person I'm arguing calls me stupid or some other insult, and basically shuts down the discussion by saying something along the lines of \"I can't even bother arguing anymore\" and that's that. And usually it's only after 2-3 replies. Granted, I've never really debated anyone in person. Not that I wouldn't, but it hardly comes up as much as it does online. But from what I've seen, I think many more liberals resort to name-calling and even violence when prompted to defend their beliefs- as opposed to conservatives.",
">\n\nWell than maybe stop supporting genocide and then we can talk like adults. As a conservative, you support a way of life that is incompatable with huge sums of the population",
">\n\nWhat? I don’t even know what to say to that… THIS is the definition of making generalizations and being generally uneducated on a topic… if this way of life was so incompatible with “huge sums of the population”, why would people even vote for em? Why would they win pretty much every other election? You could say the same thing about liberalism, I just don’t get what saying this adds to anything tbh… AND SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GENOCIDE? Must have missed a memo…",
">\n\nYou don't win almost every election wiseass.",
">\n\nIt says “every other election” buddy…\nEDIT: which btw… it’s pretty fucking true",
">\n\nLiberals have views that they'll never budge on or even want to discuss either. Abortion, human rights, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. I might agree with liberals on those topics, but liberals are equally unwilling to listen to debates on these topics, and will never change their mind.",
">\n\nWait wait wait.\nHold up.\nConservatives want Church to be involved with State affairs?\nHave they not heard of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?\nWhy am I not surprised that the Right wants to overthrow the Constitution again?",
">\n\nIt's more things like the Bible being taught in public schools and school prayers and shit like that.",
">\n\nI'm all game. We could use the Satanic Tenants in public school.",
">\n\n\"Left-wing people's views have flaws\" does not mean right-wing people's views have any value whatsoever. They can offer alternatives all they want, but those alternatives are worse pretty much without exception, and are usually offered more with the goal of fucking over people they think deserve it than with any compassion in mind.",
">\n\nHierarchies are valuable. Those who fight against them don't want to do away with their own positions, either. Left-wing practices are nonsense.\nThe right support less moral systems, but not because they're assholes. It's because they realize facts like \"Communism doesn't work\", it's not because they want poverty and inequality",
">\n\nHow are hierarchies valuable?\nAnd there are many people who would sacrifice their position in a hierarchy for equitable distribution of resources.\nThere's something asshole-ish about going through life ignoring the abject suffering of others - or displacing responsibility for it.",
">\n\nFlat structures don't work outside of tiny groups like families, and perhaps villages in traditional countries where people know eachother and help eachother out (and this stops working when people move around a lot)\nThey also form manually, as people are comfortable with different amounts of responsibility. The lower statuses, so to speak, are mostly chosen voluntarily.\nAnd consider academia, don't we have strict standards? Don't we gatekeep with exams and publications and having to defend ones PhD thesis? We hold people to standards, so that the elite can provide and get the authority they require in turn.\nIf a member of your family go to get surgery, surely you'll want to make sure that the person who performs this task is as competent as possible?\nWhile CEOs have higher levels of psychopathy, the figures you will see are exaggerated. While it does happen that an asshole is just giving out orders, that's not the default.\nThat all people in high positions are just exploitative assholes is a naive viewpoint which makes me doubt your familiarity with how the world really works. And again, the type does exist, but without hierarchies and roles and structures, nothing is going to function.",
">\n\nI think 'they don't work' isn't really supportable. People have lived in groups with different forms of political organisation for hundreds of thousands of years.\nIt's arguably true that humans vie for power in many situations - including families - but it's equally true that equal cooperation has always been key to our functioning and survival.\nHow 'comfortable' people are with power isn't a natural preference, it develops due to social impositions. Nobody chooses to give up their power 'voluntarily' unless the alternative has become unviable. All humans naturally have agency and wish to exercise it.\nYou're conflating hierarchical power structures in society - where some people wish to amass more power over others - with the concept of a meritocracy where they actually deserve it.\nThis is the ideology that people are sold in some countries (like the States) but it doesn't actually correspond to your hierarchies, which are simply based on hereditary wealth, not merit.\nIf I have surgery, I want someone who has been trained and had their skill tested. Not the most powerful or wealthiest doctor in the hospital.\nI didn't say anything about 'people in high positions' being assholes - although judging by managerialism and the stats you're downplaying, they probably are.\nIt's not naive to say some people are assholes - it's naive to think they earned the right to be that way.\nI think anyone who believes that some people deserve or have earned power over others, and justifies this by blaming the powerless, is an asshole.\nHow the world works isn't how it should work - the status quo doesn't have moral superiority.",
">\n\nI didn't discuss changing the system or how that should be done - I just argued against the rhetoric that the right wing has inhumane ideologies because they 'know correctly there is no other option'. \nThat's really myopic and obviously insupportable - and verbatim the ideology that has been espoused by one state.\nThe 'people' don't determine the system in a clear, democratic, systematic way. How people are governed is a complex mass of some people's will exerted over others, people becoming acculturated, persuaded, learning, rebelling, acquiescing. \nWhether a system persists or not depends on a myriad of factors - many of them circumstantial, or luck. Again: just because something _is_ doesn't make it morally superior or correct.\nI agree with you that complex societies have many problems, dating back ten millennia. But while competition has been marketed in the 20th century, cooperation has quietly co-founded human existence in the background the whole time. It's just the former gained publicity with social darwinism, for a number of reasons.\nI don't understand the point you're trying to make with Japan - but surely the existence of a society different to the US is evidence that it isn't the only way?\nMy whole point is to argue with your assertion that \"undeserved hierarchies of power suck but they're the best we can do\".\nNo, they're not, but that's the idea you've been sold and accepted as a way of coping with a terrible world. \nWe will not do better as long as we continue to believe this. And why is doing away with hierarchy not the answer? There is no support for this.\nYou seem to lack an understanding of how elites with hereditary wealth amass more wealth due to inequality, and exert power over society in order to continue to do so. This isn't about passing on resources to your kids, it's about building a class of elites who extract resources from other people, generation after generation.\nIf you truly believe, with no evidence, that these people deserve power over others because they have 'better genes' then we have nothing more to discuss.\nThis isn't about eating the rich - it's about realising that the top 10% are complicit in inequality and undeserved suffering of the bottom 50%, and are assholes for inventing weird reasons (like 'genes' or 'bootstraps' or similar absolutely made-up nonsense) to justify having things they don't need while other humans suffer and die in the dirt.",
">\n\nWhat would you say to or about the many conservatives (like myself) who have been debated with and then ended up changing their minds, partially inspired by those debates?",
">\n\nConservatives don't want to be nagged at by people who read a single viewpoint and quote it as fact. They also don't want to discuss politics with family and friends at every opportunity. You may as well go into church and start telling people how wrong they are, whatever you believe it's ok for others to disagree with you, but not want to dislike you for trying to tell them they're dumb for not listening to you and believing what you believe.",
">\n\nI would agree on your points, I disagree with probabably nearly all conservative beliefs however it's naive and just wrong to see it as a conservative thing. Honestly, how open are you to hearing out and trying to understand conservative talking points? Probably not much and same goes for them, once people make their opinions most are pretty closed to hearing other opinions and echo chambers created by social media aren't helping wether it be Conservatives or socialists, most are equally as unlikely as to debate in good faith",
">\n\nI think there is often a misunderstanding of the argument making each believe they are correct. For instance, I can pretty much entirely deconstruct anyone's argument on why transathlets are fair, so does that mean if you don't change your mind then you are everything you said is wrong with the right? \nFor the trans athlete you actually did not state the primary concern I have heard. The left will focus on testosterone, which some right will argue is the problem, but I actually agree with the science that it is not as big of a factor, HOWEVER there are obviously factors that exist otherwise there would not be such a mass difference in male and female athletes. What you have done here is cite a video argues more in favor of the right, she states \"The data shows that transwomen hold an advantage even after years of hormone therapy over ciswomen\" so we confirm via various metrics of that transwomen will have an advantage. \nSo the argument naturally becomes we should look at natural physical differences that already exist creating unfairness anyway. This is easily put to rest. There is always a line in the sand that we draw with fairness in sports (i.e., no enhancing drugs). This means if the advantage is so extreme we do not allow it. And the difference is monstrous between men and women. For example, I have several friends that ran track in high school. Non of them are even state champions but they were all top 20 competitors in their state. Also, each of them would be the world record holder for women in their event because the difference is so massive between men and women. Most people on the right agree with separating transwomen into their own category because of the mass advantage (which again your video said existed) and this is something we already do to eliminate mass advantage (i.e. weight classes in many sports). \nSo just now I have made a very strong stance against allowing transwomen into competition so your point that people disagreeing with the \"science\" do don't actually care about reason is also entirely debunked because I used that same science to show the other side of the argument. This means it may be that you just see those that disagree with what you believe to be fact as always not caring about reason when it may just be that you are not seeing all the facts or from their perspective as well.",
">\n\nOp has been repeatedly shown evidence contrary to their claims of there being \"no data\" and has not acknowledged that evidence, nor shifted their position. Op has also been shown that Lia Thomas did in fact gain a significant competitive advantage that took her from 554th to 5th in the 200m freestyle, and 89th to 46th overall, and is still citing Lia Thomas as an example that allegedly proves their point.\nDon't expect to get a rousing fact based conversation out of this one, they'll just ignore any effective point you make and refuse to concede their position. Just slightly ironic given the nature of the CMV",
">\n\nHere's the thing, you are enforcing the same closed mindset that you see in them. I have seen it extremely prevalent in both sides that they think any possible opinion from the other side cannot possibly make sense or be right and dismiss it. It's not a conservative thing but rather a political thing where people simply listen to another and try to understand it",
">\n\nI think conservatives can make sense. The Tories almost always make sense when explaining their ideas.... but that's just it they make sense. They don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny or evidence (I mean half the shite the Tories say it's just that: shite. Well worded shite but still shite).",
">\n\nNational Healthcare. A good example, visit your local VA, doctors hands tied by government beauacracy, patients laying in their own filth because overworked and understaffed nursing, oh yeah give me government health-care. Don't believe me, I've experienced it as a disabled veteran. The government ties the hands of the doctors and nurses with the idea that one fits all. And care for patients in pain, here's a motrin, because God help us you might get addicted to something stronger that might help. Yeah conservatives don't listen, maybe if left wing do gooders lowered their volume we all could hear the truth!",
">\n\nThat's just saying \"America is too fucked for this to be a good idea\" but the point wasn't for American politics. So likening to American politics is pointless, because we don't have the same issues as you lot.\nPrivatisation is not a good idea for the UK but a mixed system like Canada is probably better for America than you're dystopian hell shite you call healthcare now (I hold LPR status in America, I've seen firsthand the difference). I can't honestly say much about the US system other than you need a new one cause your current system's arse over tit in a bushel of apples.",
">\n\nSamuel Clemons once said the following...\n\nWe are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.\n\nMany people are capable of reasoned thought, open minds, and critical thinking. A lot of people believe they engage in it... Right up until they are completely convinced they know the answer. At that point, most people consider opening that debate to be a waste of time. Would you sit down and really consider the possibility that COVID vaccines are dangerous? Or that the holocaust didn't happen? Would you entertain a reasoned debate with an open mind? If you're being honest, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.\nConservatives are no different than any other ideologue in this regard. Such people believe they know the answer, so need not seek any more truth. They build shingles, because they're no longer in 'search for the truth' mode. They're in 'advocate their truth' mode. As I suspect you are on more than a few topics.\nThis isn't to say conservatism isn't a net negative. I agree with you that it is. This is only to challenge your notion that they're not interested in reasoned debate. I believe they are no more or less interested than the next group in debate and discussion for any topic they haven't already concluded they know the answer to.\nI believe, if you are honest with yourself in your discussions with your family, that you aren't listening and considering the arguments you hear when you discuss these matters half as much as you are considering how you are going to respond to it.\nDoes that mean you're not interested in reasoned debate? Or does it mean that you're human, with the same biases and blind spots as anyone else, including conservatives?",
">\n\nAnd your family is representative of all conservatives?",
">\n\nI’m not a conservative, but conservatives and independents go on infinitely more 3rd party media where it’s hard to hide from questions. A good example is a ton of guests on Tim Pool or Rogans shows. I don’t watch much Pool any more, but he’s always been extremely open to having leftists defend their views from him and his team (Pool’s kinda a classical liberal, his co host is an anarchist and his other host is a hippy). They simply won’t go on aside from Vaush and Destiny. Another example is abortion. Feel however you feel about abortion. Im not going to convince you, but the conservatives can have that argument because it’s actually consistent. Murder. Ask a leftist and you may get “women don’t make this decision lightly or it’s just a clump of cells.” Again, feel however you want, this argument is inconsistent and dogshit. \nAlso, if anyone here is going to tell me Rogan the pot smoking, DMT tripping podcast host is a conservative, and Tim Pool, a dude who continually says he supports universal healthcare is a conservative, save it. I know what a conservative is, you’re wrong.",
">\n\n\n\nDo you believe your online and family experiences make up a statistically acceptable sample? Can you really make statements about “all conservatives?” I frequently feel my circle of associates represents the world. But then I remember social media and conflict avoidant humans create an environment that just reinforces what I already think.\n\n\nHave you eliminated other causes? How do you know you aren’t biasing the sampling? Could you be the one causing discussions to shut down with comments like “I don’t think any conservative has ever…?”\n\n\nI realize each side of the debate seems to think the other is really stupid. Many people on each side, statistically, are stupid. So the notion that there are tons of stupid conservatives isn’t entirely incorrect. But the literature seems to indicate values are a stronger indicator of which group you support than IQ. Could it be that they seem dumb because you are assuming they have the same goals? If you aren’t assuming this, how many pieces of academic literature have you read from conservatives? Can you really say you’ve surveyed their ideas in depth? Maybe those around you are just bad at expressing their beliefs. I know I have moments where I think “I should have said X or Y,” all the time after discussions.",
">\n\nI think by the hubristic mischaracterizations in your post, you might classify yourself as a conservative! (Since it seems pointless to debate with you). You don’t think any conservative had ever had a justified reason for their policy preferences? Maybe look at leading conservative figures (academically, not publicly). You’ll learn a thing or two because , right now, your arguments read like they were written by someone with the intelligence of Donald Trump.",
">\n\nWhat do you think the chances are that you’ve been so caught up in a propaganda machine that you believe things that are on their face blatantly false, and your conservative family is trying to be nice to you while you grow up?\nI don’t have to listen to a lady try to spin facts and skew data to know that their are physical and mental difference between men and women. Sure a gender dysphoric person can represent a brain from the other sex after massive hormonal dosing, but you can’t take a 32yo MMA fighter, give him a year of estrogen and pretend like he’s fighting on even footing with a woman that’s trained her entire life. \nThere are facts like the earth is flat right? /s \nThe worst part is when the government is using ALL of our media to push an agenda and combining it with “shame” for not agreeing with the agenda you can end up in a situation where your life and identity are tied to these beliefs. If you were to say something to all your “liberal” friends like, “you know we shouldn’t be pushing a war with Russia!” They’ll shout you down and might not want to hang with you anymore, even though every one of them doesn’t want war with Russia.",
">\n\nI'd say that an overwhelming part of the population is not interested in reasoned debate, and just want their opinions to win without caring about logic, facts or truth. \nIf you're left wing, facts are more often on your side than proving you wrong, so sure you are going to play the \"be reasonable, look at facts and logic\" card. But there are plenty of cases where facts prove ideologically left wing positions to be false, and in that case you'll see the exact same level of bigotry and brain-shutdown that you see on the opposite side of the spectrum.\nThis means that if you want to change anyone's point of view, whatever their political border, better touch their feelings than try to debate with numbers and studies.",
">\n\nCan you offer an argument. Why should biological men be in womens sports.",
">\n\natleast they can define \"woman\"",
">\n\nNo individual can. But go ahead what is a woman?\nBtw when the republicans were asked this very question 27 of them gave non-answers, 3 refused to answer, and 1 gave a definition that excluded all but 1 single human on earth (said \"my wife\" which means by his definition, only his wife is a woman)\n7 gave objectively incorrect answers\nSo go ahead: what is a woman",
">\n\na woman is a biological female. has XX chromosomes and female genitalia",
">\n\nThis is such a conservative View.",
">\n\nSeveral major international sporting bodies have studied the question of trans athletes and they came to a very different conclusion to you and your preferred internet link. There is more to debate than just quoting people who agree with you.\nPerhaps it’s you that is refusing to listen to differing opinions and engage with anything that does not fit your preconceptions.",
">\n\nThe real joke is that the OPs preferred internet link explicitly states that trans women have a physical performance advantage, even as long as 3 years after transitioning.\nIt's like the OP found a link talking about trans women in sports and just assumed it backed up his unsupported position.",
">\n\nThe point of debates is not to convince the person you’re debating, it’s to sway others witnessing the debate to your side. If it’s just you and the other person, then don’t engage. If you’re being witnessed by others, debate the irrational person to show witnesses how irrational and wrong their point of view is.",
">\n\nYou are basing all conservatives on the interaction of a few of your family members?",
">\n\nWhich side is the one who constantly name calls and bans people from participating if they disagree\nMost conservatives are happy to have a discussion on anything you disagree with them on\nAnd will continue to be cordial after\nThe left on the other hand consistently calls us all sorts of phobic and bans us from ever platform",
">\n\n\"Paradox of tolerance.\"\nAs much as I disagree with cancel culture they're always just going cite Popper",
">\n\nParadox of tolerance is a poor excuse for censorship",
">\n\nI noticed that, in the American politics, conservatives want to have reasonable debates and their opponents want 0 interaction with conservatives, only insulting them",
">\n\nYou must not have been tuned in the last decade when we've tried educating conservatives while they stuck their fingers in their ears going \"la la la I can't hear you.\" Instead of dragging them kicking and screaming into modern society we've just opted to give up on them now.",
">\n\nAll you have to do to prove OP right is ask a conservative about Trump. He’s flawless in their eyes despite all he’s done wrong. I got into a debate with a guy on here about why conservatives are so obsessed with Hunter Biden and his laptop but don’t seem to apply the same energy to conservatives who are accused of crimes. The man said that bc there wasn’t a conservative who’d done the exact same crime as Hunter Biden I was comparing apples to oranges. When I clarified that I meant crime period not simply Hunter’s crime he refused to engage past that point bc doing so would mean he’d have to admit they don’t care about crimes committed by conservatives. What people who aren’t conservatives have to realize is conservatives whole world view and view of themselves is wrapped up in conservative ideology so to see any wrong in their beliefs is to admit they’re fundamentally wrong or bad people and since they will never admit it they refuse to see it so they won’t have to deal with it. They do it socially too just look at climate change. Despite all evidence, the simply deny it. Same with racism, deny. Same with Covid, deny. For them truth isn’t objective it’s based on what their opinions are, so yea debate with them is pointless.",
">\n\nSo I'm going to set aside the argument I had initially plan to make when I saw this post, which was that there are in fact individual conservatives who are interested in reason to debate, and instead argue that a lot of the same conservatives you were talking about do care about reason and debate. It's just that they completely disagree with what the outcome of a debate should be as well as with the fundamental underpinnings of desired policy.\nWhen I was taking a philosophy class, my professor talked about sex education policy as an example. He said that if we really wanted to prevent teen pregnancies, we could enact a policy to sterilize all teenagers. Now obviously that's a bad policy because we aren't actually interested in making sure teenagers are physically unable to get pregnant, we just want them to make smarter reproductive choices and avoid getting pregnant until they are ready. But the point is that the way a debate is framed and what is considered an acceptable outcome is dependent on what you personally care about.\nA lot of modern conservatives love reasoned debate, they just think that the ultimate policy outcome should enforce a rigid hierachy with specific groups (usually white straight wealthy Christian men in the US) on top. You can debate someone like Joel Skousen until you're blue in the face, he won't accept anything that doesn't enforce what he sees as traditional right wing values. \nAs Hume said, \"reason is and must always be the slave of the passions\". And many conservatives just have different passions than you.",
">\n\nΔ This is a pretty good explanation of the phenomena. Though I still view this kind of thinking to be rather negative for society.",
">\n\nThis feels like a slimy delta. All the responder is doing here is suggesting that most conservatives are elitist white supremacists, which I'm guessing you were perfectly comfortable agreeing with before this thread. \"Oh, they're not bad at debating, they're just bad people ;) \"",
">\n\nI don't think all conservatives are elitist white supremacists, though an unfortunately large percentage of the ones in power are. But I do think a lot of conservatives still arrive at their policy conclusions based on different premises than most liberals and lefties",
">\n\nDefinitely in agreement on the second point.",
">\n\nIs that Sabina??? She isn’t conservative or even a political YouTuber she has a science channel, relax.",
">\n\nYou just made the case for not engaging with conservatives",
">\n\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason \nfor their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said \nposition\n\nOk so for example healthcare. We know that private organizations do a much better job of innovating and optimizing. \nIf you want high quality healthcare. You want private healthcare. \nPerhaps people simply put an emphasis on themselves. Most people who can afford healthcare would prefer for it to be higher quality. \nIn reality healthcare is a gigantic mess of nuances. It could be a lot cheaper if we didn't regulate it so badly and didn't make becoming a medical professional such an mammoth task. But that is a different debate. \nGive me an example of a \"convincing reason\"? Doesn't have to be real. Just something you would consider \"convincing\" enough.",
">\n\nThis is something that is often overlooked. The US has, by far, the best healthcare in the world. If you're rich.\nOn average is a very different story, but I can easily see how rich people would prefer a system where they get the tip top of medical care, even if means that poorer people suffer comparatively worse outcomes. Whether you believe that's moral or not is really a discussion about ethics, and no one is objectively right or wrong.\nI would posit that an 80 year old cancer patient receiving a tax-funded $500,000 treatment that will extend their life for 6 months to be a heinously unethical misuse of society's scare resources. Others might disagree, especially those personally related to that person.",
">\n\nNot just if you're rich. When I was in Ukraine the building for the public health facility was so run down. I couldn't believe this was a place where you treat sick individuals. It was horrible. \nIn US when I needed my appendix removed. I was treated in an ER that cost $50 mil to build. Operated on in an OR that cost $10 mil to build. The doctor performing the operation got paid $300k a year. And a bunch of other very expensive equipment and highly paid professionals were part of my treatment. Because I was poor I ended up paying $0 for the whole thing. So it's not just rich people benefiting from all this.",
">\n\nReally, ever try to discuss facts with a Liberal? Useless, pointless discussion. Completely uneducated and illogical responses demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on whats going on in the world.",
">\n\nCute post",
">\n\nCant change your view - they are republicans. They have 2 rules:\nThey like everything republicans do.\nThey hate everything anyone else does.\nThats it - thats their identity.",
">\n\nThis is my US based experience, but a relative of mine had watched Fox News everyday and became super conservative. A really intelligent and otherwise kind person. Eventually with Trump she got so fed up with them that she started watching MSNBC, now she is as liberal as they come.\nI am not sure how much lying, spinning, and echo chamber you deal with in the UK, but if you can get out of it, it is easier to shake off the programming and consider the other side. You may end up with the same opinion but at least you will be more aware of what the arguments are and why you believe what you do. It’s a stronger position to be in and easier to explain yourself when you can understand thinking from all sides.",
">\n\nUS point of view. I saw something where a liberal was able to explain their point of view to a conservative and they understood where they were coming from and totally got why separation of church and state was important to them. Made sense how it would impact everyone and how many people think it is bad for society and their rights to practice other religions or not practice any. Then said straight up that they just fundamentally want school to force Christian prayer because he wanted the country to become a theocracy (without using that word). That his whole point of getting involved with politics is to make that happen.\nBlew my mind. So yeah, sometimes, we are just so opposed, it doesn’t matter if people are open to being convinced of the other side. “Yes, prayer in school would lead to all these things you see as horrible. And that is why I want it. Thank you, I love Christian theocracy”",
">\n\nHumans seem to have 2 different styles of moral structure.\nOne uses justice and fairness\nThe second uses justice and fairness but adds subjection to authorities, and the group. And a feeling of purity.\nLogic does not apply to the second group if the authority, ie church, political party, etc says something is right or wrong, then that is it. No questions asked",
">\n\nYour last paragraph implies that the second group are conservatives, but really it seems to cut both ways",
">\n\nThe 2 moral structures are the non changing base. They may call themselves different names at different times. Conservative, liberal, pious, etc.\nBut the second group actually trusts other people they see as authority, or the in group, more than they trust their own reasoning. \nIf the preacher, witchdoctor, president said so then it is just true. And no reason or argument can change their faith in their leader, group as being in right.\nToday in the US this knoledge is definatly used to propagandize people into the conservative, right side view.\nUntruthfull appeals to reason are used to propagandize to the left.",
">\n\nMost people that buy into the false ideological duopoly firmly resist any idea that that aren't given.",
">\n\nTo whatever degree you reason with conservatives or they engage in reason in debate with you, the both of you reason from a position. That position is a pole planted in the ground that is made up of “facts” that one simply takes as a given and stays grounded to while they engage in rational debate. By that I mean there is a lens that you use to view the world and your reason operates within the bounds of the presuppositions brought to bear by the lens itself. This lens itself is often chosen or maintained by presuppositions that one is likely not even aware of. If you’re talking to people that you already acknowledge as intelligent and rational, then you probably aren’t talking to people that cannot reason or are incapable of logical debate, you’re experiencing friction where the axioms that you both hold are not reconcilable. \nA few examples might be…\nPurpose vs no purpose\nThings are meaningful vs things have no meaning \nSuffering is to be avoided vs suffering is to be overcome\nDeterminism vs indeterminism\nMaterialism vs transcendence \nJust to name a few. \nMost of the time, at bottom, when people cannot agree an something they are arguing about things like this, not a particular policy or political position.\nNot to mention, the examples you gave…trans sports, healthcare etc….these are far from simply settled issues. You say no data agrees with their position but I promise you that is not the case, the issue is with what data seems to often be which data we choose to accept and who it comes from. Ask your self why it is that you are so unmovable In your conviction that you have the right answer on these things? Have you fully understood what arguments against them are saying or have you already decided that an opposing position cannot and should not be correct because of some prior principle?",
">\n\nI've always had leftist political views, but realistically: everyone, both left wing and right wing, relates to their views from a predetermined emotional bias.\nJust because the evidence supports some of our views, doesn't mean that they are founded in it.\nNor are we are very much more rational or logical in our support of them than the right wing are - or that we would abandon them if we saw evidence to the contrary. Granted, some psych studies show the left wing is better about this, but not by much.\nThe fact is, the truth is complex and difficult to elucidate past our assumptions for anyone, unless one has a lot of specialist knowledge.\nThe youtube video you linked is a prime example of this. It presents evidence that would seem convincing to anyone who isn't a developmental biologist - and indeed that presenter is a physicist. \nBut realistically, it's an oversimplification, misrepresenting some popular concepts (androgens, disorders), and ignoring more complex facets of development (e.g. androgen sensitivity, receptors, what sexual categorisation is) to come to a false conclusion. \nShe clearly arrived at this conclusion by naturally being drawn to concepts/studies that made her feel more comfortable in her views - rather than an honest, in-depth review of the field.\nSo why should you treat conservatives like they are rational, and engage in debate? \nBecause there is nothing rational about ostracising groups of people - doing this just demonises them in your eyes, and prevents any understanding from ever developing.\nThe impulse to cancel, disregard, cordon off segments of society isn't rational, it's entirely emotional. Sometimes it's safety - it's difficult to interact with people who find one less than human, for example.\nBut if it's your family, you relate to them and will continue to do so. That's a prime opportunity to bridge that gap, and question/test our own assumptions - which is true empiricism.\nThe only way we can arrive at a collective understanding is by conversation.",
">\n\nThen how are you supposed to enact your own side's change if you can't argue with them without violence against them",
">\n\nPeople who complain have never lived in a socialist or communist country. I have. Try moving to China for awhile and see how much your complaints matter. We have it great here in the west. Yes it isn’t perfect. Nothing is.",
">\n\nChina isn't communist. It's not even socialist. It's the largest capitalist economy in the entire world.\nBeing a capitalist economy immediately excludes you from being communist/socialist..... they're just a little mutually exclusive to each other.\nBut nice Relative Privation Fallacy"
] |
I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.
Conspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style. | [] |
>
That’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style."
] |
>
Think that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does."
] |
>
I’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more? | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking"
] |
>
Anonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the "Man in the middle" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.
Having hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.
A year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube.
In the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?"
] |
>
Wait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election? | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later."
] |
>
Her entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?"
] |
>
Hmm, play book sounds familiar | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for."
] |
>
Sucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar"
] |
>
The Dunning-Kruger Party. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP."
] |
>
and there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party."
] |
>
Exactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop... | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything."
] |
>
Could she just fuck off already!!??!! | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop..."
] |
>
I think Kari "Fuck Off Already" Lake is currently running second to Kari "Loser" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!"
] |
>
The goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails."
] |
>
The media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts."
] |
>
Yeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system."
] |
>
Our institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective"
] |
>
Garland is actually a Sea Squirt:
... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.
His total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses."
] |
>
It’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable."
] |
>
Media should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine."
] |
>
Agreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :( | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves."
] |
>
For people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :("
] |
>
Two years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is "accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system."
This really is a "why not keep trying" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for "an unprecedented amount of political donations," with "much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'" Mostly, however, the money went "to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates." Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her "Save Arizona" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose."
] |
>
Paying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup."
] |
>
I guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too."
] |
>
She’s such a loser. Lu who zer. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her."
] |
>
And to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer."
] |
>
She belongs in a padded cell. What trash | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist."
] |
>
They are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash"
] |
>
Karunt of all Karunts! | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do"
] |
>
She needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!"
] |
>
I have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost."
] |
>
She is gunning to be his VP candidate | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024."
] |
>
Mob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate"
] |
>
UN-policed parts of the internet
lol the wut | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s."
] |
>
Unpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut"
] |
>
I don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol"
] |
>
"Believing" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything."
] |
>
& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump."
] |
>
They are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed."
] |
>
If she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad."
] |
>
start? was this author asleep on Jan 6th? | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick."
] |
>
Isn’t she getting fined like $33k?
Yeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?"
] |
>
Well according to corporate media we need to hear both sides. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon"
] |
>
More like victimhood… These people act like victims if they don’t get what they want… | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon",
">\n\nWell according to corporate media we need to hear both sides."
] |
>
It feels more like a whimper, and she is kinda a laughing stock in the country. I do not see much republican support for her either. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon",
">\n\nWell according to corporate media we need to hear both sides.",
">\n\nMore like victimhood… These people act like victims if they don’t get what they want…"
] |
>
This is them making ammunition for the “what-aboutism” cannon. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon",
">\n\nWell according to corporate media we need to hear both sides.",
">\n\nMore like victimhood… These people act like victims if they don’t get what they want…",
">\n\nIt feels more like a whimper, and she is kinda a laughing stock in the country. I do not see much republican support for her either."
] |
>
Wild…people have created these weird alternate universes where you can escape to online and on your smart phone. I think grifting is just the new thing as people move away from formal religion. Most people just need someone to follow and now you don’t have to go anywhere on Sunday to do it. | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon",
">\n\nWell according to corporate media we need to hear both sides.",
">\n\nMore like victimhood… These people act like victims if they don’t get what they want…",
">\n\nIt feels more like a whimper, and she is kinda a laughing stock in the country. I do not see much republican support for her either.",
">\n\nThis is them making ammunition for the “what-aboutism” cannon."
] |
> | [
"I still suspect the idea behind this shit is desensitize the public to false claims, then cheat their asses off and when the Dems try to fight it, they point back at how none of the fraud claims were true, even though it was the GOP doing it the whole time.\nConspiracy theory, I know, but it would be their style.",
">\n\nThat’s called pivoting. When the initial plan doesn’t work, convert it into something that does.",
">\n\nThink that was the initial plan. Remember that time carl rove melted down when the election numbers weren't what he was expecting? He seemed awfully sure of that he thought the numbers should be. Same year anonymous claimed they stopped election hacking",
">\n\nI’ve looked for more info on their claim to have stopped a GOP hack in Ohio(?) that Rove freaked about but have never found more than the claim. Anyone know more?",
">\n\nAnonymous in a video, described how he used 4chan on Reddit to hack Rove's emails and then the RNC servers. He obtained the instructions for how to use the \"Man in the middle\" software to change the results of the elections in several key states. He found that all he had to do to neutralize the election fraud software was to change the password.\nHaving hacked into Rove's computer and the RNC servers, he watched while Rove made over 100 attempts to alter election results in the hours after the polls closed.\n\nA year or 2 later, there was a PBS special about the Republican fraud software. This is the source you should look for. It is probably on YouTube. \nIn the program they interviewed some of the senior programmers at Reddit, one of whom said that the person dressed as Anonymous in the video had been the chief programmer at Reddit. She also said he had been murdered a few months later.",
">\n\nWait - are you saying Aaron Swartz was murdered for preventing the GOP from stealing an election?",
">\n\nHer entire campaign was based on if she lost. She lost and won't accept what she was running for.",
">\n\nHmm, play book sounds familiar",
">\n\nSucking enough to lose, and being too much of a loser to know it, is a badge of honor in today’s GOP.",
">\n\nThe Dunning-Kruger Party.",
">\n\n\nand there's little reason to believe he and his allies won't return to brainstorming shiny new ways to take a run at another coup effort. The odds of there being no downside to trying don't seem to have changed much. The money keeps flowing. The criminal referrals were headline-grabbing, but have no power to make Garland do anything.",
">\n\nExactly. These GOP Fascist traitors need to be punished, or they'll never stop...",
">\n\nCould she just fuck off already!!??!!",
">\n\nI think Kari \"Fuck Off Already\" Lake is currently running second to Kari \"Loser\" Lake in the Nickname Stakes but it's coming up on the rails.",
">\n\nThe goal of everything is to make it so painful that good people just stop fighting either because the good people are broke from fighting or just exhausted and the rest just try to keep their heads down so they don't get piled on by deranged wingnuts.",
">\n\nThe media needs to ignore her. Who cares if she's to immature to concede. Let her spend money filing challenges that go nowhere and pretending to be some kind of rebel against the system.",
">\n\nYeah that’s the thing. I feel like this whole effort relies on coverage and she’s on life support at this point. Just stop covering it and those fundraising emails will stop being effective",
">\n\nOur institutions are not failing — this was how they were designed to work. Wealthy, powerful people using the law to their advantage while everyone else is paralyzed from retaliation. This article crystallized my sense of this. My prediction is that Trump and the rest of his cronies, even if indicted, will never face any real punishment because they have sufficient power and wealth to avoid it. We, the USA, will stay in this limbo state of slow-boiling insurrection until some catastrophe happens while the democrats are in power and the republicans get sufficient votes or public support to finally make the insurrection a reality. Everyone is trying to not think about it, but that is the plain and obvious state of affairs we find ourselves in. Merick Garland is not going to magically grow a spine, the democrats are not going to spontaneously understand the peril we are in, wealthy donors aren’t going to evolve a conscience, and the GOP base isn’t going to become ethical or educated. That leaves our institutions and they are not failing — this is how they work. We’ve always had an open door to authoritarian rule because our framers and our rulers would rather have a dictator with an elite class (them) than actually share power with the masses.",
">\n\nGarland is actually a Sea Squirt:\n\n... swims around like a tadpole until it finds the place where it will spend the rest of its life and attaches itself head first to the sea floor. The sea squirt will then absorb its spine, eye and small brain (it no longer requires them) effectively eating its own brain.\n\nHis total lack of eyes, brain, and spine is just a natural consequence of having found a place he's comfortable.",
">\n\nIt’s not a “forever coup,” it’s the daily whine.",
">\n\nMedia should market it as such, give it the glamorous glow it really deserves.",
">\n\nAgreed. Until these Lake-types are not held accountable, this is our future. :(",
">\n\nFor people who complain about snowflakes, they sure get butt hurt when they lose.",
">\n\n\nTwo years later, that gamble is paying off nicely. The political and logistical headaches for holding Trump or any of the other high-level coup plotters accountable have, indeed, prevented Attorney General Merrick Garland from arresting any of them. That's why the January 6 committee went out of its way to make criminal referrals for Trump and Eastman. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said, the only thing that will stop Trump's future attempts is \"accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system.\" \nThis really is a \"why not keep trying\" situation for Trump and his allies. Call it a forever coup, with some part of the larger plan to seize power always in motion. They don't lack resources, for one thing. On the contrary, the forever coup is quite profitable. As the January 6 report shows, the Big Lie has opened the spigot for \"an unprecedented amount of political donations,\" with \"much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would 'Stop the Steal.'\" Mostly, however, the money went \"to fund the former President's other endeavors and to enrich his associates.\" Lake's never-ending efforts to steal the Arizona election look to be more of the same. Her \"Save Arizona\" fund is steadily raising money. There's even an option to become a monthly donor, hinting at the indefinite nature of this attempted coup.",
">\n\nPaying $33K to the other side's lawyers is a good start. To some candidates that's a ton of money especially considering it has to come out of their own pocket, they can't use campaign money for it. Sure maybe they could find donors or suckers to pony up the cash, but I'm sure that well will dry up eventually too.",
">\n\nI guarantee you there are people lining up to pay Kari Lake’s fines for her.",
">\n\nShe’s such a loser. Lu who zer.",
">\n\nAnd to think, she used to be just another bubbly news reporter that supported Obama. Seriously people, Trump is the fucking antichrist.",
">\n\nShe belongs in a padded cell. What trash",
">\n\nThey are using mass media as a tool to keep people misinformed just your average dictatorship would do",
">\n\nKarunt of all Karunts!",
">\n\nShe needs help. It’s so wonderful that she lost.",
">\n\nI have a feeling she's going to be Trumps running mate in 2024.",
">\n\nShe is gunning to be his VP candidate",
">\n\nMob Mentality needs to be taken care of, along with disinformation and UN-policed parts of the internet. That along with the continuing judicial disgust that these cases see in the courts could bode well for America going into the 2020s.",
">\n\n\nUN-policed parts of the internet\n\nlol the wut",
">\n\nUnpoliced not blue helmets UN policed lol",
">\n\nI don't like the idea of sanctioning people who challenge election results. That would indeed have a chilling effect and make it hard to challenge legitimate issues with an election knowing that you'd be risking a penalty if courts ruled against you. There's also no way to prove she doesn't legitimately believe her claims, even if they're untrue. She does have a right to dissent and speak out against an election result, even if she's wrong or is incompetent at legal proceedings. As long as she's following the law and sticking with legal options, there's no reason to silence her. She'll simply be dismissed in the end with no real threat to anything.",
">\n\n\"Believing\" without evidence equals sanctions if a lawsuit is filed. It is a frivolous lawsuit otherwise. She can speak out all she wants, but it is libel / slander if she names people / voting machines without evidence hence Dominion's lawsuits. There are state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require a plaintiff have evidence prior to filing suit. This is true for any lawsuit. So, she is not following the law at all. She is a big cry baby like dump.",
">\n\n& just WHAT can we the people do about it? Why aren't young ,new, attorneys jumping in to right these wrongs & make a name for themselves to save democracy? We are hosed.",
">\n\nThey are bilking their believers. Ultimately this should correct itself as the money stops flowing. But for now we have no choice but to let them be suckered. Sad.",
">\n\nIf she keeps this shit up she should be barred from public office. That would fix things right quick.",
">\n\nstart? was this author asleep on Jan 6th?",
">\n\nIsn’t she getting fined like $33k? \nYeah that’s absolutely nothing to this buffoon",
">\n\nWell according to corporate media we need to hear both sides.",
">\n\nMore like victimhood… These people act like victims if they don’t get what they want…",
">\n\nIt feels more like a whimper, and she is kinda a laughing stock in the country. I do not see much republican support for her either.",
">\n\nThis is them making ammunition for the “what-aboutism” cannon.",
">\n\nWild…people have created these weird alternate universes where you can escape to online and on your smart phone. I think grifting is just the new thing as people move away from formal religion. Most people just need someone to follow and now you don’t have to go anywhere on Sunday to do it."
] |
2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1. | [] |
>
Imagine! | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1."
] |
>
You shouldn’t need 3 doctors | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!"
] |
>
Not unpopular | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors"
] |
>
Way to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention. | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular"
] |
>
Better safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is. | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention."
] |
>
This is why wait times are so long. Dumb people seeing doctors when they don’t need to be. | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention.",
">\n\nBetter safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is."
] |
>
My parents had me at the doctor's a little too often in my opinion now that I'm an adult, so I understand where you're coming from because I'm sure there were people that needed that doctor's time more than I did.
I don't really blame them though because often they took me not because they thought I needed an antibiotic or even a real diagnosis, but because they're jobs required doctor's notes for days off.
Which meant if they had to stay home because I was too sick for school, but it was just like the flu, we had to go to the doctor's office so the doctor would agree I was too sick for school and needed to stay home, and write a note saying so. It is a waste of everyone's time, but in their case it really came down to bad corporate sick time policies. | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention.",
">\n\nBetter safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is.",
">\n\nThis is why wait times are so long. Dumb people seeing doctors when they don’t need to be."
] |
>
What do you consider "basic medical knowledge"? | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention.",
">\n\nBetter safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is.",
">\n\nThis is why wait times are so long. Dumb people seeing doctors when they don’t need to be.",
">\n\nMy parents had me at the doctor's a little too often in my opinion now that I'm an adult, so I understand where you're coming from because I'm sure there were people that needed that doctor's time more than I did.\nI don't really blame them though because often they took me not because they thought I needed an antibiotic or even a real diagnosis, but because they're jobs required doctor's notes for days off. \nWhich meant if they had to stay home because I was too sick for school, but it was just like the flu, we had to go to the doctor's office so the doctor would agree I was too sick for school and needed to stay home, and write a note saying so. It is a waste of everyone's time, but in their case it really came down to bad corporate sick time policies."
] |
>
Open heart surgery apparently | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention.",
">\n\nBetter safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is.",
">\n\nThis is why wait times are so long. Dumb people seeing doctors when they don’t need to be.",
">\n\nMy parents had me at the doctor's a little too often in my opinion now that I'm an adult, so I understand where you're coming from because I'm sure there were people that needed that doctor's time more than I did.\nI don't really blame them though because often they took me not because they thought I needed an antibiotic or even a real diagnosis, but because they're jobs required doctor's notes for days off. \nWhich meant if they had to stay home because I was too sick for school, but it was just like the flu, we had to go to the doctor's office so the doctor would agree I was too sick for school and needed to stay home, and write a note saying so. It is a waste of everyone's time, but in their case it really came down to bad corporate sick time policies.",
">\n\nWhat do you consider \"basic medical knowledge\"?"
] |
> | [
"2-3 doctors. With the cost of healthcare we’re lucky to get to 1.",
">\n\nImagine!",
">\n\nYou shouldn’t need 3 doctors",
">\n\nNot unpopular",
">\n\nWay to many times I've seen parents take their kid to the doctor and nothing was actually wrong that needed a doctor's attention.",
">\n\nBetter safe than sorry honestly, if one can afford the luxury of healthcare that is.",
">\n\nThis is why wait times are so long. Dumb people seeing doctors when they don’t need to be.",
">\n\nMy parents had me at the doctor's a little too often in my opinion now that I'm an adult, so I understand where you're coming from because I'm sure there were people that needed that doctor's time more than I did.\nI don't really blame them though because often they took me not because they thought I needed an antibiotic or even a real diagnosis, but because they're jobs required doctor's notes for days off. \nWhich meant if they had to stay home because I was too sick for school, but it was just like the flu, we had to go to the doctor's office so the doctor would agree I was too sick for school and needed to stay home, and write a note saying so. It is a waste of everyone's time, but in their case it really came down to bad corporate sick time policies.",
">\n\nWhat do you consider \"basic medical knowledge\"?",
">\n\nOpen heart surgery apparently"
] |
/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
One nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.
Combine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.
Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
every partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples.
Maybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
If there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for "individuality" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.
Am I missing something ? | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful"
] |
>
if one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?
If the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?"
] |
>
It seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.
To take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances? | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me."
] |
>
Your objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.
I'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets
Does that clarification help ? | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?"
] |
>
Not quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others? | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?"
] |
>
But I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.
I'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.
In the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).
You seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.
So I think you misunderstood.
TLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?"
] |
>
So in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall."
] |
>
Combined = Yes
Decisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.
You don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view."
] |
>
So basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together"
] |
>
relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.
So I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying "there are exceptions to the rule" and "there's great diversity among relationships."
Well there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like "you should drink water every day" and "don't smoke a pack of cigarettes" and "you should exercise 4 times each week"
...
Now, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.
...
But we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.
//
So I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships."
] |
>
But you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.
Where you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.
Honestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise."
] |
>
Well thank you for your time and contribution. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive."
] |
>
(a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.
Perhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this.
(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.
And likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.
Edit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason
Edit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading
Edit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive.",
">\n\nWell thank you for your time and contribution."
] |
>
OP pwease wespond
I'm coming. Lots of comments. Be right there | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive.",
">\n\nWell thank you for your time and contribution.",
">\n\n\n(a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.\n\nPerhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. \n\n(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.\n\nAnd likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.\nEdit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason\nEdit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading\nEdit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention."
] |
>
You're good haha, take your time | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive.",
">\n\nWell thank you for your time and contribution.",
">\n\n\n(a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.\n\nPerhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. \n\n(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.\n\nAnd likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.\nEdit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason\nEdit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading\nEdit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention.",
">\n\n\nOP pwease wespond\n\nI'm coming. Lots of comments. Be right there"
] |
>
Did none of the arguments from the post you linked that were awarded deltas convince you? | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive.",
">\n\nWell thank you for your time and contribution.",
">\n\n\n(a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.\n\nPerhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. \n\n(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.\n\nAnd likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.\nEdit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason\nEdit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading\nEdit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention.",
">\n\n\nOP pwease wespond\n\nI'm coming. Lots of comments. Be right there",
">\n\nYou're good haha, take your time"
] |
>
(2) Although a couple functionally pools their resources and jointly manage their finances, they each maintain a separate checking or small line of credit for petty, discretionary spending (that is accounted for in their joint budget but handled separately).
Maybe this isn't what you were looking for, but I don't think this is as narrow an exception as you think. I think this in some way pretty standard, but with the (important) differentiating factor of how good they are at maintaining the joint budget. If a family has a detailed budget, they clearly fall into the "exception", but if they have a more informal budget, they're basically in the spirit of this exception, but are just kind of bad at budgeting, which is obviously not great, but not really bad in the way you describe.
I think the other exception that you should probably include here that includes a pretty big swath of people is couples where there aren't really enough finances for it to matter. If one spouse makes all the income and controls the bank account, and the other spouse just has a credit card which the first spouse pays down, I wouldn't really call this "joint finances", but ultimately the credit card statement ends up serving as a defacto "budget" for better or for worse, and this ends up being functionally pretty similar to your second exception. If they're just bad at money or the spouse with the bank account just chooses not to pay off the cards or the other spouse maintains secret cards, that's obviously bad, but again for kind of different reasons.
On the flip side, if both spouses make a ton of money, it might just never really occur to them to combine finances, because they both can meet their own financial needs and it just isn't really that important. Budgeting is still a plus, but one reason why these couples might get lazy with their budget is because they have so much money that it just doesn't really matter. But yes, they should still be talking frankly about stuff like mortgages and child college savings plans, but again, this starts to become pretty close to your exception #2.
(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.
Similarly, I don't think this actually makes it any easier to divorce. Might vary a bit by state and country, but usually unless a prenup was signed, any "separate" finances are still going to get carved up in divorce, and keeping them separately probably actually makes sorting everything out harder.
tl;dr I think your exception #2 is a lot broader and fuzzier than you make it out to be, and there are a lot of normal financial situations that end up getting pretty close to it, and most of the problematic scenarios that you're worried about are just bad financial management regardless of joint vs separate finances. In other words, I think a lot of your instincts are broadly correct, but I think you're misattributing them to the way the finances are split or not split. | [
"/u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOne nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.\nCombine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\nevery partnership is going to be different. Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples. \nMaybe your partnership isn't one of those. But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful",
">\n\n\nDifferent spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage. If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.\n\nIf there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for \"individuality\" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.\nAm I missing something ?",
">\n\nif one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?\nIf the former, maybe that falls under (2). if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me.",
">\n\nIt seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.\nTo take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances?",
">\n\nYour objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.\nI'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets\nDoes that clarification help ?",
">\n\nNot quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others?",
">\n\nBut I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.\nI'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.\nIn the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).\nYou seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.\nSo I think you misunderstood.\nTLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall.",
">\n\nSo in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.",
">\n\nCombined = Yes\nDecisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.\nYou don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together",
">\n\nSo basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships.",
">\n\n\nrelationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.\n\nSo I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy. You're saying \"there are exceptions to the rule\" and \"there's great diversity among relationships.\"\nWell there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like \"you should drink water every day\" and \"don't smoke a pack of cigarettes\" and \"you should exercise 4 times each week\" \n...\nNow, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.\n...\nBut we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.\n//\nSo I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise.",
">\n\nBut you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.\nWhere you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.\nHonestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive.",
">\n\nWell thank you for your time and contribution.",
">\n\n\n(a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.\n\nPerhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. \n\n(b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.\n\nAnd likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.\nEdit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason\nEdit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading\nEdit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention.",
">\n\n\nOP pwease wespond\n\nI'm coming. Lots of comments. Be right there",
">\n\nYou're good haha, take your time",
">\n\nDid none of the arguments from the post you linked that were awarded deltas convince you?"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.