What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Sure, but I do feel that by the time you've picked a niche label, you've filtered out where you disagree.
-
Why are you centrist? To clarify, if you make your political decisions yourself but almost always happen to align with one of the parties, I would consider you in that party rather than a centrist.
-
LVs would have their own problems-- if I do work for someone else, can they just create LVs to give to me? Do they get to create however many they want?
-
I don't think so. Labels only have so much resolving power. They represent people who are broadly aligned in values, but not necessarily on every specific issue.
For instance, I think most libertarians have individual dissent from their norm on various topics. It should be easy to find examples in the case of libertarianism, but I believe this applies to other political ideologies too.
-
The answer is no in both instances, hence why labor vouchers are only sensible in a centralized and publicly owned and planned economy that has gotten rid of the necessity for small commodity producers.
-
because that helps reduce “othering” a group
Which is, ironically, what the pronoun-stating thing was supposed to avoid. Personally I agree that it's not really necessary, and that it actually is a form of compelled speech.
-
"Libertarian" is far more broad than, say, Marxist-Leninist or Anarcho-Communist. When you go from "Marxist" as an umbrella to "Marxist-Leninist" as a category within Marxism, you are generally conforming to that specification's tendencies. At that point of specificity, there are more "solved" questions than unsolved.
-
That's a false equivalence. A name is a unique identifier while pronouns serve only a mechanical linguistic purpose.
-
It's arguably ignoring their preferences, but how is it misgendering? they/them is gender neutral-- it implies nothing about their gender at all.
-
It's dependent on a caretaker, but not necessarily on its own mother. Neural development also does take a big step starting at birth because the baby is now receiving stimuli.
If someone has no mind – such as a brain-dead patient – then they aren’t really a person.
This is gonna be a fun thread
-
I think downvoting serves to make an opinion less visible, so you should remember that when you are downvoting someone you disagree with, it is serving to make their opinion less visible. Downvoting hostile or dangerous or low-quality comments is good, but downvoting dissenting opinions in general leads to polarization.
I would rather spend time in a community with many different perspectives than just one perspective, which is why I don't downvote people simply because I disagree with them.
-
being correct isn’t enough
A very valuable lesson, and it's very fitting who said it
-
I feel like one obvious answer is "stop being so eager to alienate cis straight white men"
-
Agreed 100%. I'm glad we're collectively starting to realize this. It's a bit late, but hopefully it'll still do good.
-
I appreciate you keeping it real. It sucks that this community's response to dissenting views is so often hostility. I haven't looked at your comment history so maybe you really are a fascist, I don't know; if so, this doesn't apply. But if not -- I do wish people would think about how to bring people around to their point of view instead of rejecting them.
-
Well, I posted about this in this topic because I think it's not a perspective that's gained traction. Please help spread the good word..!
-
I think this advice is not very actionable as is, and needs more digesting into more specific strategies.
Like, for instance: let's avoid making people feel rejected by the left for having privilege, and instead focus on guiding privileged people so that they can use their privilege to help the cause.
-
Perhaps "not a person" isn't the right way to put it. More like "already passed away." I was being a bit provocative, sorry.
Regarding stimuli -- fair enough, that is a good argument actually. But to me that indicates a "kink" in the graph of their moral worth; it ought to resemble a point where they start gaining moral worth, but not a point where they immediately have it.
Of course, this is all very speculative, vibes-based and handwavey. I don't know how to define someone's moral worth -- which is precisely why I don't see why birth is special to one's moral worth.
-
Oh yeah sure. More solved questions than unsolved seems like a good way to put it. But there are still points of dissent though.
-
I do find topics like natalism and deathism quite fascinating. I'm not certain you're correct, but I do think what you're saying is very plausible. I lean more utilitarian, so I find it hard to justify the notion of debt to a specific entity -- after all, if you can do right by the entity you create, shouldn't it be equally good to do right by another entity?
