/townhall/ - Townhall

>>13234
I didn't read any of that.  I'm going to bed. Keep it cool

>>13230
>>13234
So the tl;dr still applies of "I can't wait to get out of here and live somewhere with ethical and empathic people who aren't as bad as Americans."

Fuck America. Fuck Americans. They're a country without empathy and ethics.

>>13236


Lemme be your American ~

I don't think that getting someone pregnant technically has to be "gay" regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation because fertilization technology is a thing.

After all, and this isn't even political or even an argument, it's just a fact these days, given genetic donations leading to in vitro fertilization and test tube manipulation of chromosomes a man and a woman can have children without even shaking hands. Or kissing. Just a matter of one person visiting a clinic. Just saying.

>>13235
Goodnight.

I guess it could be "gay" if you wanted to make it "gay" and deliberately set up the process like that.

If you wanted to.

>/not sure why this scientific topic is so interesting, with me wanting to read more online on it now/

>>13199
>>13200
>>13202

Carry on, then, I suppose.

>>13195
>There's also the fact that you don't know what I look like, sound like, or anything else about me in those such terms, so the only way you can make and enforce a personal vow to never help me is to never help a stranger.
Alternatively it could well be operating within the presumption of your initial comment that I know it is you.

But, leaving that aside, I would bet I could tell. If only because it's going to be the guy with a gunshot wound telling me how awful I am, how everyone hates him, and how all my family and friends are psychopaths.

>>13198
>You are not becoming safer by trying to convince internet strangers that they don't care about you.
Also this.
You're not going to change the world into a better place by telling everyone how awful they are.
See >>13189

>>13200
Honest question; Why don't you just leave?
You've said how horrible it is so many times, now. It seems like an obvious solution to your problem.
Especially considering this has been going on for years.
You certainly could save money up, and flee the place that, to you, is so clearly doomed to be a hellhole.

>>13207
The irony is, I'm a moral anarchist.
I do not believe a state can be moral.
I oppose taxation as theft.
I want an end to the authoritarianism rampant in this country.

But of course, I'm certain you'd count me among those "SS members" supporting an "Evil Empire", because I'd have the audacity to tell you you're wrong.

>>13221
Nobody here believes that but you.
You're the one who rather evidently holds the ideological position that you're racially inferior.
Everyone else is trying to tell you that's stupid.

>>13223
Probably because the woke seem to want the opposite of that.
See the UK's arresting people for telling jokes as a great example.
Folk're trying to push that same 'hatespeech legislation' here in the US.

And this is to say nothing of the host of laws and policies pushed for preferential treatment based on race, sexual orientation, and gender.
My desire for equal treatment under the law rather necessitates my opposition to woke politics.

Oh, and of course, there's also the cultural angle, because of course, woke politics isn't only targetting state policy...
If I want my hobbies to keep consistent lore, instead of changing for "inclusion" which inevitably swings only one way, well that's another reason to oppose wokeness.

>>13223
>That's what being woke / anti-woke means. Objectively.
lmao, no

God /townhall/ just makes me so fucking suspicious of ponyville sometimes

I.get the positions of both Beautiful Cardinal and Lighthearted Goat in this thread but a lot of it comes off as arrogant certainty and generalization in both their parts.

Yeah, America has places where people are really shitty and xenophobic towards anyone different from them (even those who are presumably one of them if they're different from the rest of them), parts where it's established as a traditional part of the community culture there, oftentimes with a lot of public facing denial of it.

And then there are parts where people actually do care about others different than themselves and are welcoming to outsiders who want to be a part of their communities as insiders, America is hardly a cultural monolith.

I used to live in the former and relocated to the later and have experienced a great amount of healing from that. I also recognize that niether parts of the country are cultural moniliths either, I've encountered hatred and discrimination in both parts and good welcoming and loving people in both parts, but not in equal numbers.

As for the topic of the OP, from my experiences in both kinds of communities and my experiences in higher education, this idea that schools are "indoctrinating" students or whatever just comes off like a coping narrative. I never even majored in anything having to do with politics, history or philosophy. I majored in psychology at first and then computer science, that alone led me to think of things in a less dogmatic and more scientific/soft skeptic way and that was enough for me to be labeled as "woke" nowadays for doubting that coping narrative about higher or even primary education indoctrinating kids or something.

What I learned in higher education is to recognize cognitive biases, recognize we all have them, recognize that many of us who act like we're totally objective in our view of the world are essentially kidding ourselves because of our fear of accepting our fundamentally inescapable uncertainty, and that no one has any good rational reason to believe anything dogmatically. Human beings often experience less of reality than many think we do, our minds and brains filling in the blanks in information we take in with information we expect from the beliefs we already hold. From computer science I learn to think of things as interconnected systems like a computer and see that in all of the sciences I study on my own time. And from that I learn to interpret the world as long series of cause and effect, none of which any of us can individually track, which means none of us can build a worldview that we can dogmatically believe is correct when we are so often inescapably unaware of all the events that preceded and caused the events they directly experience that have shaped their worldview. Those thing I learned alone is enough to make me skeptical of the conservative worldview I was raised in and in turn, that alone has had me labeled as "indoctrinated", "brainwashed" or "woke".

And I don't believe much has changed about this, this narrative about higher education or even primary education being places where "indoctrination" occurs predates me, you see the same narrative being repeated by the most fervently conservative commentators in political commentary the 60s and 70s, which flew in the face of what I was experiencing in higher education in the late 2000s and certainly what I was experiencing in primary school in the 80s and 90s when things like environmentalism were really being heavily promoted by childrens books at the time.

But it seems like no matter what, this narrative keeps getting pushed because it's going to be believed by those in this country already biased against all education by their religion because of how much it comports with that preexisting bias.

>>13246
I feel at this point it is of utmost important that:
1. Anyone has a decent access to education
2. Educational programs can be set up to cater to certain directions and they can be vetted for neutrality.
3. Teachers should be free to teach the curriculum as set up front and should meet the objective curriculum standards
4. Parent who want to take part of their children's curriculum, tough break. A curriculum should meet objective standards and that is not to be catered to a parent's whim.

Education should remain standard access to anyone, no cutting down school and no forcing kids to go for labour instead.

>>13249

It's just unfortunate for the wishes of parents who truly believe they have ownership over their children's minds that gaining most intellectual skills has the risk of leading the children to develop their own worldview and mind independent of their parents. But those same parents know most people see attempts at owning their children for the rest of their lives is pretty un-American so they have to spin all attempts to rob their kids of the possibilty of developing intellectual independence with mere exposure to other perspectives as fighting the floating signifiers of "political correctness" in the 90s and 2000s and "woke ideology" in the 2010s to now. It's all bullshit

>>13250
Somewhere I feel that the definition of indoctrination can be wide and narrow.
Anything that is taught could be indoctrination: geography / biology / ICT. If you believe that google is evil, teaching kids how to work Google can be indoctrination.

Growing up in the 90s, we had some talk about gays, about sexual behaviour. We learned about drugs and all that stuff.
My daughter now has had classes on consent and on asserting yourself and setting boundaries. I don't think that should count as indoctrination.

I have learned in later years about colonial times and that it was not good on Africa.
I learned about the pitfalls of missionaries and the lead up and aftermath of the World wars. I feel hard pressed that that was indoctrination.
Most of the things I learned that could be considered sorta indoctrination were the cathechesis I had in the earlier year, but even that was relatively tame.
I don't think there's anything to kids being taught on how to be trans or how white kids are evil for being white nowadays. Athough, to be fair, I have not been part of the American school system.

I do feel like my own education may have been somewhat centered about being inclusive to migration, but I never felt it was hammere[?]d in.

>>13246
>>13249
Speaking of education, it's the wokes who tried to ban gifted 8th-graders from being taught algebra in San Francisco public schools.
https://www.the74million.org/article/san-fran-voters-overwhelmingly-support-algebras-return-to-8th-grade/

>>13250
You say this as though academia isn't full of the same thing.
I certainly encountered it in college. It resulted in a far more pessimistic, jaded outlook, as I realized those who are both placed in a position of responsibility as well as presumed to be some of the smartest among us, are oft idiots and fools who're just as susceptible to propaganda as the worst of us. And are certainly more than happy to repeat that propaganda uncritically, with as much disdain for those who'd disagree as the most devout zealot.

Bluntly put, anyone who claims education leads to intellectual independence is either hopelessly naive, or has fallen for the propaganda.

Ah, nice to see NonnyLighthearted Goat providing a productive conversation. However, I'm curious of who Beautiful Cardinal might be.

>>13251

The important portion of "indoctrination" is not the education itself, but the suggestion that the education you're being given is absolute and not to be questioned.  Which, technically speaking, is a lot of what happens in schools.  An overwhelming majority of schoolwork, for example, is graded by scantron, with a simple and flat right or wrong score attached to it based on how much you can remember (and agree with) the state's lessons.  There's no room for teachers or children to teach or hold contradictory ideas.

That said, most of it is also relatively infallible.  Math and language are essentially made up anyway, so the education is just explaining how everyone else in the world communicates.  Most of the sciences are understood as "theory", which is not to say that they're untested, but that we haven't found any better models.  You're encouraged to search for better models, and indeed if you are searching for that maybe you don't need to be in school to begin with, but for the time being children are being "indoctrinated" into the commonly agreed upon beliefs of the scientific community.

Where conflict with this indoctrination occurs is when some subset of the community essentially counts the local board of education as a foreign entity trying to teach their children things they oppose.  Most famous is definitely the evolution vs. creation debate, where the scientific community largely settled on evolution as a real thing that occurs, and by definition the scientific community is not the local community to which these civilians belong.  The theory of evolution was pretty literally shipped in from a foreign entity and it made a lot of people very angry.

These days, the lessons being shipped in are "woke".  More foreign lessons that the local community might not agree with, even if they're held in majority by their place of origin.  What exactly do these "woke" lessons consist of?  As usual, we're unsure, because the label is more of a vibe than a real definition.  The biggest offender in recent history is pretty well defined, though.  Critical race theory.  Its definition is right in the name: the theory that race is critical, usually in regards to political and economic trends.  

While its proponents can certainly cite evidence of this, its detractors want to teach that race is definitively non-critical, largely because that's how they were indoctrinated as children, not just by schools but also by the media.  It was a message that racism was over, you should pursue your dreams regardless of your race, no one should discriminate against another person, and somewhat more hopefully that no one will discriminate against another person.  Those lessons were also contentious at the time, but we've had 30-50 years of that indoctrination and now people are pretty on board with the idea.

So CRT people coming along, the "woke moralists", are effectively threatening to spark racial tensions that a majority of people want buried so we can move on to the egalitarian utopia we believe in.  And the biggest fear is that CRT won't be taught as a controversial opinion (like many people also suggested teachers approach creationism and evolution), but as a truth that is not to be questioned, like the majority of what's taught in a public school.  Indoctrination.

Now, to the OP's question, is this being taught in public schools?  No, not really.  CRT involves like some really deep dives into a lot of ancient history to explain stuff like generational wealth and to show that the racism of the past is still having major impacts today even with the people who were driving that racism dead and gone.  A majority of school age children would not even begin to understand what CRT studies are talking about and it's largely stuck as high level college courses, if not being relegated entirely to books and YouTube videos.  You can probably find some individual examples regarding one or two teachers, but those come up in the news because they're an exception and it isn't really indicative of any larger conspiracy.

>>13232
I could get you pregnant. I've got that magic dick.
>Americans are immoral shitpiles that're A-OK for the most part with molesting children and other such terrible things
I would argue that most Americans are not okay with children getting molested. Most Americans in 2024 are actually pretty okay with homosexuals, other races, and accepting of others outside of the norm; especially when comparing our populations with places where that shit doesn't fly like many countries in Africa. They still grind people into dust for being Albino out there.
>One, that's a false factual statement. That's what being woke / anti-woke means. Objectively.
Nope. Being woke means being awake to the idea of systematic racism and other ideas that suggest our system caters to heterosexual white people in America; which simply isn't the case in 2024. It's the current year.

Also you said something that caught my attention.

>You're an element fighting to uphold and support an evil Empire. And that's wrong. And that makes you a part of a shithole country working to exterminate me and people like me, based on shitty principles that view my empathy and ethics as inferior.
I don't think trying to stay alive is evil.
>destroy anybody gay, anybody black, anybody Jewish, anybody disabled
Systematically, nobody is trying to actively destroy any of those communities; however those communities need to hold their selves accountable. The disabled don't really have much to atone for; if anything at all, but the others absolutely have their skeletons pouring from out of the closet.

>>13260
Being disabled is pretty bad and evil, at least if we're going by American culture as believed by most Americans, I mean not only are you disappointing your parents and family by just existing and sucking up resources as well as time that they need for correctly born and correctly healthy people

You're also of a type of people more likely to molest children, more likely to steal, more likely to become homeless, more likely to fail to hold a job, less likely to get married, less likely to have adequate savings, and so on

There's also the fact that if you're intellectually disabled enough then you can't believe in God properly and thus God will be sending you to hell

Not that much different than being gay, being bisexual, being transgender, being Jewish, being black, being Asian, or other negatives according to American culture

I mean the viewpoint of disabled people in America held by most Americans is extremely stupid and clearly logically false in a way that historians will laugh at and cringe at the same way we laugh and cringe at Galileo being imprisoned over teaching correct astronomy, but I digress

>>13252
This is kind of a crying example of the core issue here since the actual story is about the vast majority of people in San Francisco by an overwhelming fashion, especially black people, Hispanic people, and other minorities, coming together to support firm math standards.

And this is a set of firm math standards that're deliberately meant to help the students there by preparing the disadvantaged kids for future study.

This is rather agonizing because it's the exact day-versus-night, up-versus-down, and left-versus-right opposite at a fundamental level to the culture war that's being asserted.

Jews, blacks, gays, Hispanics, etc are not forming an evil conspiracy of monstrous destruction to kill proper civilization with our disgusting immorality that's known as "wokeness". That's not us. That's not what we're doing.

The exact opposite is the case. This was a vote that minority groups spearheaded out of the belief that it would both A)help us and B)be logically the right thing to do.

My God. People who look at stories like this and think of how there's this monstrous bogeymen of demons out to get them no matter what are paranoid and removed from reality to the point that it's disturbing. I'd even call it mental illness. There's no evil woke conspiracy of minorities to kill America. It's not there. It doesn't exist.

If your local school sucks, then it's probably because of everything from a)poor environmental standards in the buildings' construction to b)terrible discipline standards among children to c)incompetent administrators with unjustly high salaries and that sort of shit.

It's not THE JEWS ARE OUT TO GET MY KIDS AND THE GAYS TOO AAAHHHHHHHHH THAT'S WHY HIS GRADES ARE SO BAD

I get that most Americans genuinely and sincerely think that minorities cause all problems in all areas of life from economic to foreign policy related to whatever else, but that's because they're just plain wrong

>>13262
>You're also of a type of people more likely to molest children,
This is the first time I am hearing anything about this as a stereotype.
>more likely to steal, more likely to become homeless, more likely to fail to hold a job, less likely to get married, less likely to have adequate savings, and so on
I mean if you're completely retarded, then all of that is technically true. And trust me, I'm not saying that to be a dick. I actually hate it when people are mean to the mentally retarded. However I'm not going to deny that it can lead to some issues in life.
>Not that much different than being gay, being bisexual, being transgender, being Jewish, being black, being Asian, or other negatives according to American culture

I'm pretty sure being non white isn't an actual considerer a disability.

I'm not going to lie. Your posts reek of someone trying to go out of their way to claim people who aren't white are victims which just simply isn't the case in this day and age for the west. The truth of the matter is that we're living in some of the most accepting times in American history. Human history even.
>Jews, blacks, gays, Hispanics, etc are not forming an evil conspiracy of monstrous destruction to kill proper civilization with our disgusting immorality that's known as "wokeness". That's not us. That's not what we're doing.
I would argue that out of all of the people you listed, Jews are the most adamant and organized when it comes to nepotism and trying to swindle goyim. Blacks and Hispanics get weird and tribal, but it isn't nearly the same as Jews or Zionists.

Black power and the idea of La Raza kind of go against what you're saying; and anyone who has ever had any contact with Asians know that as much as they hate each other, they will gang up on someone who isn't even remotely asian.

>>13265
Well obviously it's more acceptable to be disabled right now than it is a hundred years ago, or two hundred, or three hundred, and so on. When you'd just die horribly at an extremely young age if you were disabled. And that was that in a way that couldn't be changed given the level of technology and such back then.

Even America around the times of WWI, WWII, and the early Cold War period was also rather terrible since so much of science related to all sorts of medical things, such as developing mass produced injection drugs that can be portably refrigerated, wasn't practically worked out then.

That doesn't really change the fact that telling somebody who's disabled everything from, like I said before, like:

>you disappointing your parents and family by just existing and sucking up resources as well as time that they need for correctly born and correctly healthy people

>you being of a type of people more likely to molest children

>you being more likely to steal, more likely to become homeless, more likely to fail to hold a job, less likely to get married, less likely to have adequate savings, and so on

>and also you're intellectually disabled enough then you can't believe in God properly and thus God will be sending you to hell

It's not exactly very ethically fair to have American society modeled on telling disabled people this when if you're not disabled there's absolutely nothing whatsoever I can think of that would justify the hatred going that way. Like, come on, if you're white, then I can see at least in theory that you'd look at the New Black Panther Party, La Raza, or such as being a creepy, threatening force. What's the version of La Raza for, say, deaf women and also men in wheelchairs? Does it really exist?

It would be like if everybody with black hair arbitrarily thought that people with blond hair was disgustingly gross and shouldn't exist, based on nothing either personal, political, or whatever else

>>13265
And even if I assume for the sake of argument that you're true about there being evil Jewish conspiracies to destroy American culture and all, okay, I fail to understand what Joe Smith the neighborhood gay dude in a wheelchair who just wants to feed his family and live his ordinary life would have to do with any of that shit, especially if I'm being asked to understand why Joe should have his Social Security funds abolished and the local voting location changed so that there's no wheelchair ramps because MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Let alone why somehow getting rid of labor unions and abolishing same-sex marriage is somehow this magic bullet that will miraculously rescue the U.S. economy because shitters like Joe Smith are clearly the reason why America has been going down the tubes lately blah-blah-blah

>>13263
>especially black people
[Citation needed]
I've heard it was mostly Asians and whites.

>>13263
>There's no evil woke conspiracy of minorities to kill America.
Sure. I'd agree.
It's mainly populated by urban white leftists.

>>13273
There's a rather clear-cut logical next step: that if urban white left-wing activist people are doing something bad locally and if minorities aren't doing something bad locally, then you do attack the first group and don't attack the first group.

Never in a million years am I going to ethically buy the conservative Republican argument that if, say, a revolutionary communist who's a psychopathic mass shooter kills a bunch of school-kids locally that you should get revenge by hurting your next door neighbor who just so happens to be, by coincidence, a deaf gay dude or whatever.

And I know the MAGAs will look at the shooter's social media and say something like "hey, look, he talked about transgender thoughts and was hard of hearing, so clearly we've got to have collective punishment to get back at the alphabet people and the cripples for them slaughtering our kids".

But is it right? I've never killed anybody. I've never raped anyone. I've never tried to murder or molest anyone. I've never been a part of any terrorist attacks. And so on.

Why must I be punished due to other people's identity politics lumping me in with weirdos that I've not much if anything in common with? That don't in fact share my beliefs and don't support me?

Why am I guilty for their crimes?

>>13274

Are you implying this is something that commonly happens?  I don't recall any major stories of this kind of violence in recent memory, much less a trend.

>>13274
> you should get revenge by hurting your next door neighbor who just so happens to be, by coincidence, a deaf gay dude or whatever.
Nobody is telling you to do that.

I am not responsible for the made of fantasies in your own mind.
Frankly I don't feel any need to entertain the notion. It's obviously beyond any rationality and anybody who suggests such a thing as a serious notion is quite obviously mentally incompetent.

Which I have to admit is somewhat ironic giving your supposed defense of those with disabilities. Leaving aside your extrapolation on to the entirety of republicans, taking the words of the clearly insane seriously and demonizing them as a result is hardly a fair response.
Such people deserve sympathy as it is not their fault that they have these thoughts well beyond rationality or logic. Their minds are broken. We should regard them with empathy, not hatred.

>And I know the MAGAs will look at the shooter's social media and say something like
Nobody says that except for you frankly.

It honestly makes me wonder sometimes considering these are the thoughts that seem to exist in your mind and yet you push them onto others.
It suggests they may well have a deep root in your subconscious.

>Why am I guilty for their crimes?
Nobody has suggested that you are that is simply your own paranoid delusions getting the better of you.

>>13274
>And I know the MAGAs will look at the shooter's social media and say something like "hey, look, he talked about transgender thoughts and was hard of hearing, so clearly we've got to have collective punishment to get back at the alphabet people and the cripples for them slaughtering our kids".

On the flip side, if the shooter is black I'm going to look at their black culture (oops I mean hiphop) and blame them for behaving like an animal on that, right?

Believe it or not, there is no grand American conspiracy to get rid of gays or trans folk when it comes to the people or official government. Most people are just trying to go to work and pay their bills.
>>13275
>>13276
I'm going to strike the two of you as well, because if you think homosexuals and trans people aren't targeted on a regular basis, then that is just as ignorant. It just isn't a systematic operation. Most people are more accepting, but that doesn't mean it is completely overwhelming either


We are currently living in a transitional phase where old norms are being replaced with new ones. Of course you two are going to have completely separate view points based on your own life experiences.

To suggest it does happen at all is stupid; just as to think that everyone around you is that invested in trans/gay people is just as dumb

>>13286
>if you think homosexuals and trans people aren't targeted on a regular basis
Nobody's said that.
That's not what is being argued at all.
It falls in the same umbrella of out-of-nowhere nonsense as his initial statements.

>>13287
>Are you implying this is something that commonly happens
That implies the idea is absurd, when in reality it happens a lot.
>I am not responsible for the made of fantasies in your own mind.
He was speaking a hypothetical; one which isn't outside of the scope of reality.

>>13288
>That implies the idea is absurd, when in reality it happens a lot.
It is not common.
It doesn't happen a lot.
Remember; this is in response to >>13274

>revolutionary communist who's a psychopathic mass shooter kills a bunch of school-kids locally that you should get revenge by hurting your next door neighbor who just so happens to be, by coincidence, a deaf gay dude or whatever.
This is not a common occurrence.

>And I know the MAGAs will look at the shooter's social media and say something like "hey, look, he talked about transgender thoughts and was hard of hearing, so clearly we've got to have collective punishment to get back at the alphabet people and the cripples for them slaughtering our kids".
This is not a common occurrence.

Do you see the issue here?
If I tell you plane hijackings by mormon extremists is not a common thing to happen, that doesn't mean I'm saying thieves don't break into cars looking for loose change.
These things are entirely unrelated.

>>13289
>>>13274
That's really odd, because for some reason it said that those two posts were replying to one of mine. I see the confusion now.

I guess I just don't understand at a fundamental ethical level how you guys on /townhall/ all think.

Like if you're at the line in an ice cream shop, do you ask the person behind the counter who they voted for and, if it's not Trump, do you immediately make fun of them and turn around to shop someplace else in protest? If the person happens to look or sound, in your opinion, like somebody who's probably Jewish or probably gay to you, then would the same thing apply to them? What about other businesses and their employees?

And what about your own work colleagues? How do you make them maintain your sense of ideological purity that's required for all around you? All of this seems exhausting to me?

Why do you even care about other people's religions, skin colors, ethnicities, and so on? Why can't you just let people live their lives? Why must identity politics eat everything done everywhere by everybody?

Why does the MAGA movement get a veto over my day-to-day personal life to where whatever I do, say, or think that they disapprove gets quashed? Alternately why would any another 'X' movement by any other political label get to have the same power either (supposing I lived in Lenin's Moscow or other other horrible society drowning in left-wing political extremism)? Why can't we have freedom?

{{P.S. Before you comment something like "But what about the woke-ish types nannying over personal lives too", please note that I literally just compared them to death by drowning a few words above.}}

>>13292
>>13292
>I guess I just don't understand at a fundamental ethical level how you guys on /townhall/ all think.
Theoretically, I am consequentialist.  But in practice, I mostly follow a mix of deontology and virtue ethics.  Consequentialism is just too intractable to apply in practice, and there is a lot of value in a society that shares widely held practical ethical norms.

>[political stuff]
As for me, I'm a moderate libertarian / classical liberal.  I support freedom of speech and freedom of thought.  I am happy to work with people with different political views, ethnicities, and religions.  I hate racism, DEI (which I consider a subset of racism), and the "disparate impact" doctrine.  I hate Trump, and I'm not fond of Biden either.    

>>13293
I have a hard time getting why anybody would buy consequentialism as a fully formed ethical system when it could boil down to a straightforward choice of "If killing 1/3 of the human beings on Earth meant the other 2/3rds lived in an ideal society without much suffering, then I'd pull the trigger".

It's also mystifying to me why classical liberals and libertarians in the U.S. seem to think that the greatest threats to personal freedom are American minorities, especially anybody who violates traditional conservative norms about sexuality such as drag queens, prostitutes, gay married couples, and so on.

Not to mention why American libertarians are so vehemently supportive of Trump as a group and so strongly tied to the Republican Party as a group.

Shouldn't being a libertarian mean that you don't expect your next door neighbor to dictate what clothes you wear, who you have sex with, how you spend your money, and so on? Also, isn't the idea of tying your belief system to ANY political party of ANY stripe a horrible idea if you're somebody with any ethical principles, whether libertarian or otherwise? Why force yourself to compromise on morality just because some party bosses feel like they want you to?

If Uncle Sam doesn't belong in my holster, abolishing my gun rights, then why should Uncle Sam be in my pocket controlling my wallet or in my underwear controlling my dick?

>>13292
>Like if you're at the line in an ice cream shop, do you ask the person behind the counter who they voted for
Of course not. Why on earth would I polute my daily interactions with something as divisive as politics?
Even leaving aside the general misfortune that conversation is liable to bring up, in this day and age, it's enough to get you practically ostracized from life should you disagree in the slightest of ways.
It's miserable all around.

>If the person happens to look or sound, in your opinion, like somebody who's probably Jewish or probably gay to you
I wouldn't give a flying fuck.

>>13294
>Shouldn't being a libertarian mean that you don't expect your next door neighbor to dictate what clothes you wear, who you have sex with, how you spend your money, and so on?
Sure.
Which is why they don't.
Not through force of state, anyhow.

Saying "wow that's gay" isn't the same as a state's boot.

>If Uncle Sam doesn't belong in my holster, abolishing my gun rights, then why should Uncle Sam be in my pocket controlling my wallet or in my underwear controlling my dick?
Libertarians wouldn't suggest that it should.

They would say the state shouldn't be pushing it in the schools we pay for through that stolen money.
And they'd say if someone didn't want to make your wedding cake, that's their choice.
But they wouldn't force you to do anything.

>>13294
>I have a hard time getting why anybody would buy consequentialism as a fully formed ethical system
It's not!  Consequentialism more of a framework with many details to be filled in.

>classical liberals and libertarians in the U.S. seem to think that the greatest threats to personal freedom are American minorities,
[citation needed]

> American libertarians are so vehemently supportive of Trump
[citation needed]
I think most libertarians don't support Trump in an absolute sense (as opposed to only relative to his Democratic competitor).

daily reminder that the reason trump is popular and biden is there is because of the two-party system and absence of ranked-choice voting. most ppl wouldnt vote for either if they had more choices. but the u.s. especially seems 2 like either-or thinking for now.

(this thread is also rly old.)

>>13335

I don't think we even agree 'woke' culture is even a singular thing and not just a euphamism for any non-conservative political opinions

>>13336
I would argue that woke is just a fill in the blank buzzword leftists use to make their points look like they have the moral high ground. I'm not even a conservative. Another interesting point is that being woke is getting harder and harder to actually become. What was the extremes of yesterday are the mundane of today.

>>13337

Lefist haven't been using 'woke' as word to describe themselves since republican politicians started using it as a floating signifiers for any culture war issue they need to use as a convenient distraction from all their other policy failures, especially economic policy failures. They use it as an excuse to not critically reexamine their own failures, especially electoral failures or failures to capture attention or votes of younger generations whose own issues are being denied are even real issues by Republicans. Could it be those issues are things people are really struggling with? 'No, it's not me, it's the woke mind virus'

Hell the whole premise of this thread is that schools are 'indoctrinating' kids with this woke mind virus. That's just pure hyperbole, it's a narrative that's been pushed for decades, pushed by McCarthyist and Bircher society types since the 1950s as a form of fearmongering and coping. When all it takes to plant seeds of doubt in students over the narratives conservatives have been using to justify their positions on a lot of cultural issues can be something as simple as, in my case, learning the scientific method and the justification for it in the fundamentally fallible judgement about the universe rooted in what little we experience in our very limited frames of refereence, and then applying that same humility to how one analyzes other's political positions. Or something like taking a course on writing in highschool and, in a section on persuasive writing, getting a few lessons on logical fallacies and how to spot them and avoid them in one's own writing.

That's all it took to plant seeds of doubt in conservatism in me, and this is a time in the 90s when conservative pundit like Rush Limbaugh were saying the same bullshit about public education becoming too 'politically correct' which was the 90s equivalent to 'wokeness'. I wasn't taught anything that would've even been close to 'politically correct' at any point in time during my primary education in the 90s. I wasn't taught a thing about progressivism, I was educated in Texas where local PTAs and the state education department pretty explicitly opposed teaching a lot of things about leftist movements anywhere in the world or in history. With the american civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s being the only exception.

What's happening now just seems like history repeating itself, conservatives labeling anyone who disagrees with them as being infected with some brain worm that must have been 'indoctrinated' with at a school somewhere when all it takes to inspire a hint of doubt about a conservative worldview is learning something like the value of intellectual humility in a science class.

I mean, shit, I went to a community college in the early 2000s and majored in psychology and that just further cemented how muchbI value humility when I learned about basic cognitive biases and the psychology behind how they happen, which really only explain why all those logical fallacies I learned about in a writing course in highschool are as effective as they are ... and further inspired doubt in conservative rhetoric, all without having to be taught anything about politics, because I recognized all the cognitive biases the rhetoric was exploiting.

All this narrative about 'woke culture' or 'woke indoctrination' comes of as hyperbole designed to aswage fragile egos of dogmatic conservatives, it's a massive cope

>>13338
The idea of woke culture being pushed into schools is a real issue. It might not necessarily be a systematic phenomena, but to suggest that it isn't happening at all is ridiculous in of itself. The word woke didn't even really get used until the 60's. The issue with the word is that it has over 60 years of use and change. You know how MAGA and the whole redpilled thing became interchangeable with far-right ideals?  That's what's happened with the word woke. It isn't about social issues. It's about pushing radical leftist ideals.

>>13339
Yes, being woke has been pushed in schools since around the times my parents have been born because U.S. laws and culture changed such that children of a different race, religion, ethnicity, disability status, et cetera were integrated using violent force.

And, also using violent force, children have been taught against the wills of parents that hating somebody due to their disability status, race, religion, et cetera is morally wrong.

I really do understand about parents who object to how blind children, children in wheelchairs, children with mental learning barriers, and other groups of what's labeled as inferior children given the problems of certain kids who supposedly contaminate the learning environments of their own children. Those parents act out of love. And it's laudable to a degree. They see the various outsider children protected by 'woke ideology' as threatening their own kids.

I've particularly been a part of more than enough discussions with parents of struggling children in which those kids who, say, stare at the wall because mentally they appear unable to ever be able to read and mumble when they talk, and those parents greatly mourn their choice of ever conceiving and giving birth in the first place. I get it. I really get it. The notion of producing defective offspring hurts a lot. I disagree in the strongest possible terms with these parents, but I feel for them.

What I'll say as a 'woke' person who supports 'woke' schooling is that I view a child, say, with mental retardation (if we must use that r-word) as having the exact same ethical worth in the eyes of God and America itself as any other young individual. And he/she/they deserves love. Inherently. Even if it means great expense and other sacrifices.

I accept the argument made by American parents that as a disabled person myself that my family and my local community would be better off If I was dead / if I never existed, but I still insist as a matter of fundamental moral ethics that every American citizen in America has core rights that shall never be destroyed (no matter what). I don't care in the slightest if a person is 'a retard' in the literal sense. I really don't.

>>13349
Okay this is just bizarre in my opinion..

Like when people talk about being woke and shit; they usually present one aspect of it more heavily than the others, (homophobia, transphobia, racism, islamphobia, ect, ect), but in this case (and in other cases where I assume it has been you posting) you seem to have a thing for people with actual disabilities.

I am not trying to be rude, but is that a discrimination that you've been subjected to? Do people hate people in wheelchairs or something? I can see it, but I don't think I've actually witnessed that kind of hatred before.

Discrimination against the mentally retarded or other mental related issues, sure, but I've never run into someone who actively thinks to their self "I hate blind people" or something like that.

>>13351

Discrimination doesn't always rooted in hate, it can also be rooted in apathy, egocentrism, lack of consideration and a lack of empathy and just plain greed. Like, opposition to disability accommodations can be rooted in devaluing disabled people as being a 'drain' on society (itself rooted in a narrow-minded evaluation of a person's value). The moral problem with that being that it's valuing people only instrumentally in terms of their 'usefulness' (again typically in a narrow-minded way) rather than intrinsically as part of part of humanity as a whole

>>13352
I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word. Greed can lead to discrimination of different classes; as can poverty.

>Like, opposition to disability accommodations can be rooted in devaluing disabled people as being a 'drain' on society (itself rooted in a narrow-minded evaluation of a person's value).
Are you suggesting that if someone owns an establishment and doesn't have disability accommodations that they have a discrimination against disabled people? I tend to disagree.

That said, as someone who is incredibly empathetic and compassionate; my heart does go out to the disabled and I think more places should be accommodating.

>>13353

My point is that the view that disabled people are a drain and thus shouldn't be accommodated for is not rooted in hatred as much as it is greed because accommodations cost money. Granted, it's not a very intelligent position but it appeals to the instinct towards loss prevention and a short-sightedness towards what income they can make long-term by accommodating the disabled.

>>13353
>>>13352 (You)
>I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word.


You're right, it is counterproductive, it's a narrow minded view.

Discrimination doesn't have to be tied to any specific emotions, it can be rooted in prejudice alone, in the sense of the etymology of the word, pre-judgement, judging without sufficient information, it doesn't have to involve any emotion what so ever, or even be concious.

Like if someone building a multi-level mall and not installing elevators alongside escalators because escalators alone is cheaper than elevators with escalators or even elevators alone. Effectively, that space discriminates against people who cannot physically use the escalators to access the shops on the second floor, probably one rooted in simple lack of consideration rather than flat out hatred of the disabled. This not only limits access to shopping, but potential employment too.

This tendency to think of discrimination as rooted in hatred is a huge barrier to people who are disabled and who advocate for their own needs to be met in order to more greatly participate in society as a whole when people whom they are advocating towards see the disabled's self-advocacy as accusation of hatred on their part and react predictably, when it's really an appeal for regard, attention and concern given how society as a whole is not generally built to accommodate minority needs.

I mean shit, most of America is built with an outright disdain for reliable public transportation, not out of hatred for disabled people who can't drive for any number of reasons, but because it raisee taxes (a miniscule amount but whatever) and isca threat to the automotive industry who go out of their way to opportunity public transportation. At no point does there need to be hatred of disabled people, but the effect is an environment that physically discriminates against the disabled and in turn limits things like access to employment if say, the disabled person cannot reliably get to work on time. Potential employers often will give the job to whomever is less likely to have such issues not out of hatred for the disabled but out of pragmatism.  If you need an employee to be on time reliably, you hire the one for whom the infrastructure of the city or town or whatever isn't a huge obstacle.

>>13354
Actually, I think I know exactly what is going on and why your message is muddled and confusing.

Here are two separate definition from Oxford:

[Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
"victims of racial discrimination"
Similar: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness
unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, chauvinism, partisanship, sexism, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, ableism, apartheid
Opposite: impartiality
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"]

You are combining the two completely separate definitions into one. You are correct. You don't have to have emotional attachments to discriminate, however when we're talking about groups of people it is almost impossible not to attach some sort of feeling towards it. The first definition is tied to avoidance, aggression, or revulsion/disgust. The only time I can really think of where you wouldn't is if you are simply stating facts. (This weapon type is superior because it's stats are superior.)

Another thing. I'm talking about groups of people; not individuals. I just want to make that clear. I think it's important not to judge a book by its cover, but remember what section of the library you're in, and read the back. People act like judgement and discrimination is the worst thing in the world, when in reality it's actually pretty natural and can be healthy; it can save you from getting into some sticky situations.

For example: If I see a homeless man walking towards me in the street, I am going to avoid him. Because chances are he is more violent, diseased, and dangerous than the average person. He's homeless for a reason, whether it be that he's crazy, violent, or has some kind of uncontrollable addiction; there's a reason he's on the street. Is that logical thinking for an individual? Does it follow the flow of debate? Hell no, but I'm probably fucking right because that's how it just is when it comes to the population of homeless people.

Another example: If I see a black man in a hoodie walking down the street, I am going to avoid him. Is he a dangerous and violent thief because he's black? No. But it's a safe guess to make depending on what he's wearing and his demeanor, as well as keeping in mind that black people commit more violent crimes in America than any other race out there. For all I know he could be a sweetheart, but I'm not about to take that risk and get played.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MQ1CZTSlA

>Effectively, that space discriminates against people who cannot physically use the escalators to access the shops on the second floor, probably one rooted in simple lack of consideration rather than flat out hatred of the disabled. This not only limits access to shopping, but potential employment too.
That doesn't mean the person who in in control of the construction is prejudice against handicapped people. Maybe they just don't want to spend the money on elevators.

>I mean shit, most of America is built with an outright disdain for reliable public transportation, not out of hatred for disabled people who can't drive for any number of reasons, but because it raisee taxes (a miniscule amount but whatever) and isca threat to the automotive industry who go out of their way to opportunity public transportation.
That's more of an example of how deeply rooted the automotive industry is in America. There's money in cars and other motorvehicles. It's a stretch to say that is discrimination to anyone who isn't wealthy enough to buy a car, much less those that are disabled. The fact of the matter is that life is just fucking hard for someone with a disability and most people aren't disabled so they don't think about it. It isn't there problem. That isn't discrimination through apathy; that's just called apathy.

Do I discriminate against starving children in India/Africa/China because I don't send donations out of my own pocket to aid them? No.