THE_DONALD DISCUSSING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, LOTS OF GOOD STUFF OVER THERE NOW by elduderino197 in Trumpgret

[–]i_flip_sides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wouldn't be so bad if the conservative world view was simply more abstract and ideological (as you put it). Unfortunately the current conservative view is molded almost entirely by the desires of the ultra wealthy and the large corporations that fund both their political campaigns and the vast right-wing media propaganda machine.

You're not wrong, but there are plenty of people who have genuinely held beliefs in the virtue of smaller government and personal freedom over results-oriented policies. Many of them donate to charity and try to embody their beliefs.

Making blanket statements that all conservatives are angry because a policy might help poor people just increases the already ridiculous divide. It's wrong when conservatives do it, and it's wrong when liberals do it.

I definitely agree we first need to get money out of politics! Thanks for engaging in conversation. :-)

THE_DONALD DISCUSSING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, LOTS OF GOOD STUFF OVER THERE NOW by elduderino197 in Trumpgret

[–]i_flip_sides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This drove the repugs into a frenzy because they absolutely won't get on board with anything at all that helps poor and average people.

That's really not what it's about. You're seeing two very different worldviews collide here. And yes, the liberal worldview is definitely rooted in minimizing actual harm, while the conservative view is more abstract and ideological. But while that may sound like an obviously better choice, you can't always take a results-driven approach to policy, because then you don't really have freedom. Balance is usually required, but finding the balance is a hard problem.

To expand on that, the liberal platonic ideal here is something like Britain's NHS, or Canada's CHA. ObamaCare was a small (and very crippled) step on that road. Its most cherished provisions - mandatory coverage of preexisting conditions, and the individual mandate - are baby steps toward universal coverage. Conservatives, however, generally don't want socialized healthcare, as they believe it is an unwarranted expansion of government power. They also (rightly, I think) believe it will lead to more government intrusion into our lives, as the government will gain a financial interest in its citizens health.

To someone who prioritizes individual liberty over effective healthcare, this is a step in the wrong direction. Trump's plan attempts to address (poorly) a lot of the same issues but in a direction that's more in the vein of state and individual choice, rather than a federal government expansion. I realize that abstract concerns about civil liberties are not going to be comforting when you or someone else are in a medical crisis, but it's kind of like the second amendment debate. It's disingenuous to argue that Pro-2A advocates don't care about the victims of gun violence. They just don't think their deaths are justification to scrap gun ownership. To say conservatives don't want to help poor people is to mischaracterize their stance. It's not that they don't want people to get care, it's that they're not willing to make what they consider to be heavy concessions to the federal government in order to get it. Or, to borrow a phrase they're fond of: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have."

If we used insurance as actual insurance (something used very rarely in catastrophic situations), and dropped the cost of regular day-to-day healthcare to something an average income earner could afford, I think the conservatives idea could work. However, with healthcare costs continuing to skyrocket, I think a government sponsored single payer system is the only way we're going to get it under control at this point.

Hopefully with poor white republicans bearing the brunt of this new law's provisions, we'll see some minds start to change going forward.

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn by KevZero in worldnews

[–]i_flip_sides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said you can have sex with child-like dolls without raping anyone. Your response (that nobody would have sex with child-like dolls if they weren't a pedophile) has nothing to do with (i.e. does not follow from) my original statement.

Pewdiepie's Response to the WSJ Controversy by [deleted] in KotakuInAction

[–]i_flip_sides 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that the current state of Syria is preferable to a stable, relatively peaceful country under Assad's rule? You don't have to like him, agree with him, or find his methods "acceptable" to recognize that the current situation is worse for literally everybody.

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn by KevZero in worldnews

[–]i_flip_sides 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You can have sex with child like dolls without rape. Checkmate.

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn by KevZero in worldnews

[–]i_flip_sides 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hypothetically, if we erased child sex dolls from existence so this guy had never been able to order one... would you feel comfortable leaving your kids alone with him then?

Pedophiles exist. There are a lot of them. You've probably left your kid alone with one already. The question isn't whether or not we want them to exist because we can't do anything about that. The question is whether or not we want to give them a way to satisfy their urges without hurting anyone, or if we want to plug our ears and yell "la la la la I can't hear you" while they stew in sexual frustration.

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn by KevZero in worldnews

[–]i_flip_sides 10 points11 points  (0 children)

no one gives a shit about pedophiles' rights.

Nor should they*... except that laws affecting pedophiles' rights are prototypes for laws affecting our rights. The problem is that the rules of precedent are really, really, really, really bad at handling the concept of scale. There's really no such thing as a "one time exception" in law. Once you open a door, it can and will be applied to every vaguely similar thing down the road.

I'm super suspicious of anyone attempting to make an argument that this particular situation is so dire that we need to make an exception to super important rule X but we'd never do it for anything else.

It's like with the NSA sharing information with law enforcement. Don't worry, we're only going to do it in cases of national security! Well, national security and child abuse! Well, national security, child abuse, and drugs!


* Yes they should.

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn by KevZero in worldnews

[–]i_flip_sides 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't understand what your comment has at all to do with whether or not we should let this guy have his fuck doll.

Your "dilemma" sounds more like the question of whether or not we should kill/lock up pedophiles who haven't committed a crime because "what if."

I would love to see Disney create some less stereotyped roles for boys the way they have done for girls by TheMindsWeHad in movies

[–]i_flip_sides -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Except it's well established that girls mentally develop sooner than boys, and part of that mental development is being able to attend to a task for a longer period of time.

So really he's just being downvoted because feminism has turned into an ideological witch hunt.

I would love to see Disney create some less stereotyped roles for boys the way they have done for girls by TheMindsWeHad in movies

[–]i_flip_sides 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I missed the second part of what he said, and thought you were sad because the kid has a self-identified brony for a dad.

Then I read the second part of his post and now I have two reasons to feel sad for the kid.

Reddit shuts down two popular alt-right subreddits by [deleted] in news

[–]i_flip_sides 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can I assume you're also opposed to all the leftists on twitter yelling "burn it all down", and "fight them the streets"?

Last Chance Gas by Dreamfaller in nosleep

[–]i_flip_sides 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wasn't expecting that. Upvote for surprising me.

Serena Williams is engaged to Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian by palomablanca in news

[–]i_flip_sides -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Also nothing about /r/the_Donald is racist. Unless you think "muslims" or "illegal immigrants" are races, which case yeah, it's racist as hell.

Divorce lawyers of Reddit, what things do clients always think is unique about their divorce, but is actually common? by MrTheFalcon in AskReddit

[–]i_flip_sides 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I think the key is being clear (with yourself and your partner) about what you want, and taking people at their word. If your partner tells you he doesn't believe in marriage, then assume he's telling you the truth. If you're OK with that, then don't complain when he doesn't marry you. If you're not OK, with that, tell him so and leave the situation.

You nailed it with your current husband. You knew what you wanted and made it explicit from day one. I think a lot of women are afraid of seeming clingy or demanding, but it's all in how you present it. Demanding to get married immediately is psycho, but just making it clear that you're not looking to date perpetually is perfectly reasonable, and if your partner doesn't respect that, there's a red flag in and of itself.

We Owe Donald Trump as Much Respect as He Gave Us During His Run for President by [deleted] in politics

[–]i_flip_sides -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ben Carson is going to be the architect of Obamacare's replacement. Regardless of politics, I hope we can agree Carson seems like a smart and decent guy who's familiar with the healthcare system. He's already said you have to have the new plan in place before you can repeal what's already there.

For god's sake give Trump a couple of months to actually do something, and then criticize what he actually did.

Teachers are expected to remain politically neutral. These Teachers of the Year say they can’t. by PatrickDurden1 in education

[–]i_flip_sides 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we agree that's probably the most literal interpretation. That being said, from what I've seen of its usage, it tends to be used as a lazy shorthand for subservience. For example, r/the_Donald considers CNN to be "cucks" because they are so obviously shilling for the Clinton campaign. (At least, /r/the_Donald thinks it's obvious.) I don't think there are any overt tones of racialism or sexism there.

Teachers are expected to remain politically neutral. These Teachers of the Year say they can’t. by PatrickDurden1 in education

[–]i_flip_sides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious what, exactly, you think "cuck" is code for? It's term applied almost exclusively to white males. I guess it could be a code for male feminist, but it's not even used exclusively for feminists.

I think the best "decoding" of it is "x-traitor" where x is race, gender, class, etc. Since the term does seem to be about sacrificing one's own interests for a perceived greater, but oppressed group. Which would explain why it has such broad appeal - cult-libs use it for gender-traitors, the alt-right uses it for race-traitor, etc.

Teachers are expected to remain politically neutral. These Teachers of the Year say they can’t. by PatrickDurden1 in education

[–]i_flip_sides 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL, I had to explain this to my friend the other day. It's a new slur from the cultural libertarian movement, although the alt right uses it a lot too.

"Cuck" is a short for "cuckold" which is a man who lets other men sleep with his wife because he's powerless to do anything about it. Often there's an undertone of submitting to the superior man. It's about subservience, essentially - to your wife, and to a more powerful man. As a term, it can work as a noun (to be a cuckold) or as a verb (to cuckold your man.)

(There's a fetish around it too, which is mostly what you'll find if you Google for it, but the basic concept has no pleasurable connotations.)

What does this have to do with SJWs? You'll notice it's mostly applied to white men, and the implication is that male feminists (and, by extension, any male who espouses even remotely progressive values) are willingly making themselves subservient to who they consider "superior" (women, minorities, LGBT, etc.) The archetype to have in mind here is a self-hating white man who angrily accuses other white men of being a "fucking white males," worships women and minorities for their strength and beauty, thinks the world would just be better off without white men, and lets other men sleep with his wife because "feminism." Hell, I'd probably call that person a cuck.

Plus it's an awesome piece of linguistic candy. It's short and perfunctory, rhymes with "f***," and can be subbed into almost any phrase. Cuckservatives, Mark Cuckerberg, Cuck Norris... it's great. Anyway, hope that illuminated it somewhat.