What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
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?
-
It makes me uncomfortable to state my personal pronouns. Years of growing up as a woman on the internet makes me not want to reveal my gender, even when it's obvious (like in person).
-
DNA based proofs are pretty undeniable unless you have a twin.
-
I don't think that's quite right. It's more like referring to him by another title such as "a friend of mine" or "a person I met" etc.
-
Is it your political creed commonly against immigration?
-
I have met one person (in real life) who uses she/he pronouns. I asked if I can call her they and she said no. I don't know what to make of this, personally, as I'm unable to understand it, but I do try to abide by her request. I suspect she is an outlier though.
-
It's not necessarily true. I mean you could be framed with your DNA. I'm not arguing that it's plausible, just not absolutely undeniable. For instance, I would bet dollars to donuts that somebody has tried to frame someone else using their DNA.
-
I've been thinking of starting some sort of group to help with that goal-- would you be interested? I'm not sure what we could do, but I want to do something, you know? I figure the best impact I can have is to convince other people that I mostly agree with to adopt this approach, which is what I envision the group could help with.