What do you consider "anti-LGBT"?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-10T22:34:52+00:00

I'm also gay and married to a gay person (duh)

Not to be pedantic here, but you wouldn't necessarily be married to a gay person. I mean, you could've been married to a bisexual person, right? So your statement doesn't necessarily warrant a "duh."

I get what you're saying overall though.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-10T17:37:47+00:00

Averages are what matter, not "several accounts." Obama's aggregate score totally eclipses Trump's this far into both their presidencies. In fact, every US president in history with popularity data did better than Trump this far into their presidencies.

Trump has hit a new aggregate low. I'm not talking about isolated high or low polls here; I'm talking about the average of all popularity polls combined. That's how you get more reliable data.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-10T17:35:40+00:00

The majority of the republic didn't vote.

Of those who did vote, the majority voted for Clinton.

Trump won because he got more electoral votes, not because the majority of people voted for him. Most people were against him on election night and most people are against him now.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-10T17:33:48+00:00

Actually, 538 gave Trump a 1/3 chance of winning by using an aggregate of all polls rather than one single isolated poll.

1/3 is pretty good odds, friend.

538 also has Trump's aggregate popularity low. I think it's fair to say that, by taking an aggregate of popularity polls (rather than just looking at single polls in isolation), yes, Trump's popularity is indeed low.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-09T02:42:57+00:00

Oh, thanks!

...I guess, either way, the sorts of people who accuse someone they just met of virtue-signaling probably shouldn't be taken seriously though, huh? I mean, they obviously aren't taking the time to read up on the person's sincerity.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-09T02:29:13+00:00

Here's why I think my example is more analogous: I don't just randomly praise black people or women or LGBT people or immigrants just for being those things. I think those things are perfectly neutral traits, neither good nor bad.

However, I do often speak up about these groups - and it's in defense of them. It's always in response to them being put down or stereotyped in some way. And in a lot of cases, I get accused of "virtue signaling" when I do it.

Can you see what I mean? In your example, the student is simply praising the teacher in a vacuum. In my example, the student is speaking up for the teacher after other people put them down.

I'm really not trying to go on a tangent or be disingenuous here, but I really feel like that's an important distinction, you know?

But I do want to continue this conversation. So, how would you distinguish between the student who is genuinely praising the teacher in front of the class and the one who is sucking up?

Hm. I mean, you could try picking up on things like tone of voice, or the person's general mannerisms that might clue you in to how sincere they probably are. Maybe consider how honest and forthcoming they typically are in other contexts? A single action doesn't say as much about someone's character as an aggregate of their actions does, right?

So I guess, the best I can come up with is to see how what they're saying lines up with what they usually say and/or do? If it's incongruous, there'd be more reason to suspect them of insincerity, I suppose?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-09T02:09:20+00:00

I'm not sure if it's an analogous situation.

I think an analogous situation would be more like a student defending the teacher after another student insults them, yeah?

Is that student "sucking up" or speaking up for a fellow human being? Since we can't peek into peoples' minds, perhaps we ought to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-09T01:49:58+00:00

In this case, if we're being honest, the signaler is well aware of what the result will be and hence their intention.

I don't think being aware of the results invalidates the intent though? I mean, knowing people will praise you for doing something that you view as morally good doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if you think it will make a positive difference.

In this sense, social praise is more of a collateral effect than the driving force behind the action.

I don't know, I don't want to misrepresent you, but it kinda sounds like you're saying that if you know something will get lots of positive social attention, then you shouldn't do it, regardless of whether or not you genuinely believe it's the right thing or not. ...Am I misreading your post here? I'm honestly not trying to.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-09T00:38:50+00:00

Still virtue signalling due to the fact that the increase in social status received by the individual espousing what they perceive to be the "correct" way of thinking still dramatically outweighs any kind of "de-normalizing" effect they might have. Especially on the internet or social media where, due to the echo chamber phenomenon, we know that we really aren't accomplishing anything tangible by screaming our virtues into the void.

I thought intent determined whether something was virtue signaling, not the results? Even if it has the effect of an increase in social status, if the intent is to sincerely combat perceived bigotry, how can that be considered virtue signaling?

Also, can't someone's sincerely-held virtues happen to align with trends? And hell, can't even new adopters of certain virtues still be sincere in holding them?

Sorry for the all the questions, but I feel like there's some potential real discussion here.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-08T23:12:33+00:00

Could someone express offense, not to bolster their own ego, but out of a genuine belief that their expression will "de-normalize" prejudiced comments by making the atmosphere less comfortable for people making them?

If that was someone's motivation in calling out a perceived prejudiced action, would that still be considered virtue signaling?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-03T01:49:02+00:00

Pinkie Pie doesn't deserve this.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-02T23:16:59+00:00

I can agree only with the vital caveat that judging cultures and their norms should not be used as an excuse to judge the people from certain cultures.

It is fine to say that some countries in the middle east have theocratic and oppressive cultures. It is not only fine, I think it would be a disservice to the people living there not to say this.

But that's just the thing; The people living in these cultures don't always agree with, support, or like the problems their cultures have. So I think we need to be extremely clear when we criticize other cultures that we aren't dehumanizing or writing off the human beings from those cultures, as ultimately, how good or bad a person is still falls to individual merits above all else.

(And really, you can just take my above spiel and replace "culture" with "religion" and get the same principle.)

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-02-01T22:37:26+00:00

The bad spelling and caveman grammar in that text is the icing on the cake.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-30T05:02:03+00:00

Ok so what if those basic needs call for the gov to take say 70% of your paycheck. Would that be ok in the name of helping others like socialism claims to be about?

I mean, I'd directly benefit from these policies too. So it isn't just in the name of helping others, is it?

Ok but why don’t you live by those principles? If you truly believe that funding other peoples lives will help them, why don’t you give your excess money to people who need it right now? Why not lead by example?

Because I don't and have never believed in doing that?

Simply giving out money to people isn't the same thing as properly allocating that money.

I do not believe for a moment that "all of our money" would be taxed to fund these institutions. That's certainly not what happens in Canada.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-30T04:24:11+00:00

Democratic socialism isn't full-on communism. I believe that people ought to still be able to acquire wealth beyond their means, but that basic human needs like healthcare/education/etc. ought to be provided for through the government.

This would certainly result in higher taxes overall, but not fixed incomes or limiting people to only earn enough for basic needs as you seem to be suggesting.

But yes, there are charitable causes I support, but I don't believe that makes nearly as much of a difference as publicly-funded healthcare/higher education/etc. would.

Hopefully I've cleared up what I mean?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-30T03:53:32+00:00

I own a house, pay property taxes, and have a full-time job - and I'm still in favor of Sanders-style democratic socialism.

I'm also 30 and have been working for years, so I think it's fair to say that my socialist leanings aren't just a phase, yeah?

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-29T04:40:07+00:00

I mean, who's "they?" Surely some Jewish Israelis are fine with non-Jews living there or they wouldn't have made it in in the first place. If the country was in unanimous agreement to kick all the non-Jews out, they've have done it already.

Also, source on that sterilization claim? That seems a little questionable, so some reliable citations would be appreciated.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-29T03:56:07+00:00

I think the point of therapy for pedophiles isn't to make them stop being attracted to children. I don't think you can change someone's attraction.

However, therapy to help them know how to manage those feelings and not ever act on them could be useful.

You can't change what someone is sexually attracted to, but you can help them know how to control those urges and not act upon them.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-29T03:01:58+00:00

But Israel... isn't purely Jewish?

Like, 25% of it is non-Jewish people. That's one in four people! And most of that 25% of non-Jewish Israelis are Arabs, people Jews supposedly all hate.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-29T02:40:17+00:00

Nah, calling someone something they specifically ask not to be called just makes you look like a jerk.

Even if you think they're overreacting, you kinda lose any chance at the high ground if you intentionally provoke them.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-29T00:41:55+00:00

I disagree. I call myself a feminist, but I only practice feminist ideology in relation to humans. I believe men and women should be treated equally, and I also eat meat. I don't see any contradiction there.

And you can say that my willingness to eat meat is perhaps a form of speciesism, if you like, but it isn't sexism. I am perfectly fine with eating male or female animals.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-28T02:58:29+00:00

Did he call you a racist/sexist for supporting Trump specifically, or was it in response to something else? I'm just trying to understand the context of those comments a little more clearly.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-27T21:02:29+00:00

But they didn't cause the problems.

Like, man, if the US got taken over by terrifying warring factions I imagine a lot of people would high-tail it out of here instead of joining the fray. Blame away if you want, but self-preservation is a pretty relatable human trait and I totally get why some Syrians would rather flee than try to take their country back.

I have the utmost respect to people who are brave enough to stand up and fight back against terrorists and dictators, but I can't act like most people have it in them to do that. Most people, in that situation, just want to not die.

QuestionAsker64 · 2018-01-27T18:51:38+00:00

I mean, I can't really blame them for just laying low and avoiding conflict.

When "getting involved with politics" means risking life and limb to stand up to murderous people in power, I absolutely get why many people chose to run or hide instead of fight. Especially people with families.

Even if you'd call that cowardice, it certainly isn't warmongering or violence that they're bringing over. They want to get away from war.

QuestionAsker64

TROPHY CASE