This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Bud light is a beer, not a religion or political party. I think that's my point, that people who are aligned along political, religious, or politico-religious lines try to establish non-political and non-religious entities like a beer brand as off limits to their political or religious opponents.
The comparison between making one commercial for bud light with a trans woman celebrity and putting a statue of George Bush on the largest mosque in Portland is kind of silly to me. They're not similar.
Corporate brands aren't anyone's territory other than their boards' or shareholders'.
I think it looks like a triumphalist blue flag to you because you experience trans and gay inclusion as a loss. This situation reminds gay and trans people that their existence, without accounting political speech, is experienced as political speech, whereas the opposite is not true. A conservative man can go to a pride parade, just like in the blog post you linked, and not be threatened. To experience hostility and attention, he needs to do something political, like wear a police uniform, or hold a TERFy sign.
You can say both sides are doing the same thing, retiring conformance in certain spaces, but the degree to which the conformance required invades someone's identity is different. That's what's being demonstrated. We have all seen conservative speakers accosted on college campuses or shoved at pride events, but these people were trying to be as deliberately offensive as possible. This is the other side, where conservatives are literally shooting cases of beer in effigy because a trans woman took a bubble bath with a bud light.
To you it looks like a sly tactic in a culture war. To me it's a reminder that people like you might see my existence as a tactic first and a personality second. There's a degree to which you think a republican drinking bud light in a garage is more authentic than a trans woman drinking one in a bubble bath.
Would you define identity please? Is identity not your personal conceptualisation of who you are, what kind of person you are?
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the distinction between beliefs and identity is a lot more arbitrary than you are trying to say. Is there any objective way of saying any particular thing is one or the other, aside from motivated reasoning?
If you "identify as trans", then that means you were born as a normal biological man or woman, and at some point, you decided you would feel better if you were the opposite sex. So maybe you decide to dress and adopt the style and mannerisms of the sex you believe you should be. Maybe you decide to do some more drastic things such as take hormone treatments or get surgical alterations. Maybe you decide to change your name and get people to call you the new name and pronouns. Maybe you decide to try to live life as your desired gender, including such otherwise ordinary things as using bathrooms and playing sports. Exactly what makes any of those choices/decisions an "identity", and anything a red tribe / conservative decides to do to express themselves a "belief"?
It also sounds disingenuous to me to blame all violence against conservative speakers and activists on college campuses on them "trying to be as deliberately offensive as possible". College is ostensibly a place for exploring many different possible belief types, yet on many occasions it seems the mere existence of any conservative who doesn't care to spend 3/4 of their time apologizing for supposed wrongs that they haven't actually done is considered "offensive".
And since when is wearing a police uniform a political act? The police are ostensibly there to preserve law and order. Blue Team desires to see them as the bad guys due to cherry-picking a relatively modest number of bad acts that they think were not punished decisively enough. In what other contexts is it legitimate to tar a large group of people and an entire profession due to accused bad acts of a small percentage of them?
Let's discuss the difference between a personal identity and a political belief then. A personal identity is about how you try to relate to other people. A political belief is about how you think the state should use it's claim to legitimate violence in order to enforce its law. So if you're just being trans, you're existing a personal identity. If you're saying trans people shouldn't be allowed to use women's bathrooms according to the law, you're engaging in a political belief.
All trans people have a similar identity, but they can have a very wide range of political beliefs.
Conservatives do not share any particular identity, but possibly they might share some political beliefs. Honestly, they don't really seem to share any political beliefs, but that's a different discussion. Regardless, conservatives are conservative because of one or more political beliefs they hold, not their identities.
I don't feel the need to respond to your other questions because they address claims I didn't make and opinions I did not state.
I think the conservative position on the bathroom thing is more accurately stated as "I (as a biological woman, or husband of one, or father of a young daughter) do not feel comfortable having biological males in womens' bathrooms with (me, my wife, my daughter)". There definitely are some people claiming trans identities that abuse bathroom rules to harass and assault women and children, though the extent to which this happens and is a significant concern versus being an overblown fear are of course debatable. Which makes it kind of strange that this has become a primarily conservative position, while feminists who align with Blue Team are typically the first argue about the risk of sexual assault from having men in female spaces, but this gets us into the whole TERF debate.
So shouldn't not wanting yourself or your daughters to be subject to sexual assault be a personal issue? That's the core motivation here IMO.
As kind of an aside, does the law even really regulate who's allowed to use which restroom prior to trans issues entering mainstream politics? As an ordinary straight cis biological male, if I was to enter a womens' restroom somewhere in public, I expect I would be asked to leave, perhaps rudely, by any women there who saw me or possibly management of the place I happened to be in. The police wouldn't really get involved unless I made a big scene about it and stayed around long enough for them to come, assuming there didn't happen to be any police there already. I might be trespassed or arrested for something to the effect of disturbing the peace or resisting arrest if I continued to hang around and make a scene about it long enough for police to get there. I don't think there even was a way to be charged with using the incorrect bathroom.
You don't have to discuss the other points if you don't care to, but you did write in the very post I responded to "but these people were trying to be as deliberately offensive as possible" and "do something political, like wear a police uniform".
You answered your own question regarding the bathroom. Good job. It's a personal identity if you just leave the restroom until the trans person is gone. It's a political one of you try to pass a law or meet the trans person subject to the law via the series of escalations you described.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
hi. i guess i have a niche here of pointing out obvious things everyone else ignores. i'm over this whole debate, nothing's going to change, hopefully a lot of people will be a lot happier, a lot of people are going to kill themselves, or their parents and then themselves, or others and then get killed by cops. nobody's going to learn anything and in 40 years when people can hop in a chrysalis and pop out looking however they want we'll collectively pretend this period of superficial dynamism never happened. but man, i will never tolerate rhetorical duplicity.
i don't think you're lying to me, so i'll say you seem to misunderstand/not understand politicization, or how it is used in modern discourse.
"identity" (as diluted a term there has ever been) is what certain groups of people use to refer to certain aspects of themselves they argue inherently merit political considerations (rights). identity can thus very easily be and often is highly or maximally political.
"[nouns] exist, their existence isn't political" could hypothetically be a nonpolitical statement, but 99.9% of use cases in contemporary discussions are referring to the trans-identifying, and in that regard there is literally nothing you can say more political than "trans people exist, their existence isn't political."
i'm annoyed nobody pointed this out because i think you probably have a decent response, but everybody's accepted your framing so they're conceding 75% of the debate just like that. how fucking boring. i won't, that's my thing here apparently. their "existence" is not settled. in 40 years it won't be settled either, sorta, but it won't matter, it's just right now it matters. so right now, no. their identity is not given, it is political. their presence anywhere beyond private confines is political. the demand for "representation" is political, workplace and otherwise public accommodations tailored for them are political. a trans-identifying person being used to promote a beer is generally political, one being used to promote a beer of the deep red dominion is the most politicized speech it is possible to make. if there were any room to doubt intent we would have seen AB limit their selection for promoters from the many trans-identifying in this country who pass, who even strong ideologically opposed men would admit are congruent with traditional female beauty standards (or would if fairly tricked by blind samples). they did not. the selection of a person the majority of people would consider on their best day unattractive is an expression of an integral part of the structure of this political thought and settles this as deliberate political action.
you can argue this is a good thing. that yes, they are political, but this is all a vital part of the cause and is justified. just don't lie about it, or for you, don't unknowingly perpetuate rhetoric that was designed to be duplicitous.
Sure, everything is political, because everything can be framed in terms of power. But some things are more political, because they exert more power, and some things are less. Dylan Mulvaney making a beer ad is less political than the reaction to it, which is more political. It's not "the most politicized speech it is possibly to make". It's a man, or a woman, in a dress, or a bubble bath, drinking a Bud Light. There are many many things far more political. The essence of politics is the control of the state and its exclusive claim to legitimate violence in the enforcement of the law and its sovereignty. Miss Mulvaney's bubble bath is not near to any of those things.
I'm kind of surprised at people who think Bud Light is some sort of exclusively Republican domain. It's Bud Light, not the NRA.
I think you're failing to recognize Bud Light as a class marker, which is part of the discussion here. You may want to re-read Scott's writings about the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe.
Bud Light is a beer, not a class marker. I certainly don't want to read, let alone re-read, anything that discusses the "Red Tribe" and the "Blue Tribe".
As a practical matter, if you are going to participate in discussion in what is still essentially the free-floating descendant of the comments section of Scott Alexander's blog, it is probably worth being familiar with the classics just to be up to speed with what people are talking about. But in this particular context, (a) I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup is a fun read, and (b) it talks about exactly the sort of way in which what beer you drink can be a class or "tribe" marker.
I don't read the Christian Bible just to "get up to speed with what people are talking about". I'm not going to read the biblical writings of this place either.
I'm happy to be impractically ignorant of The Motte's jargon.
It's evident from context what people are talking about. I don't need a milquetoast unfunny blog to explain it.
Well, suit yourself, but the point that a beer absolutely can be a class marker still stands. The relevant part of the SSC post:
Wow, I never could have guessed this obvious and simplistic summation of American politics from the context. Wait, no, what I mean is: this obvious and simplistic summation of American politics is incredibly evident from context and I learned nothing from this quotation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are of course not obligated to read anything to participate here. Overlooking the snark about "Biblical writings," though, if you started attacking Christians while having no idea of who this Jesus guy they keep mentioning is, you'd look rather ignorant and certainly not be very persuasive. Though I suppose you'd feel the same sense of smug superiority you are displaying now at being so self-evidently right that you don't even need to understand the terms people are using to look down on them.
There's other places to learn basic sociology than a blog no one's heard of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Uh... I strongly disagree with this analysis. Go to your next pride parade in a MAGA hat and see what happens.
You're continuing to demonstrate my point. A conservative has to display specific political speech in liberal spaces to have his presence politicized. However, gay and trans people just need to display their personal identities to have their presence politicized.
They're not equivalent. Conservatives engage in hatred based on identity, and liberals engage in hatred based on beliefs.
This ad campaign is just a reminder that conservatives still view being trans or gay as a political choice first, and a personal characteristic second.
I would say that's a pretty bold statement to make about two very broad groups of people. I've personally observed both groups hate people for both reasons.
Putting aside the excessive generality, I would say that I object to this rather glib slogan on the grounds that beliefs are quite often an integral part of a persons identity and that in fact the lines between identity and belief are often so blurred as to make the distinction meaningless.
If I, a member of the Hawkmanii tribe, attack and murder a member of the Boarmanii tribe from the next valley over based solely on him being a filthy Boarmanii (who had it coming because you can't trust these "people"), would I have killed him based on his identity or his beliefs? By modern standards we would be considered to be members of the same ethnic group, distinguished only by our styles of dress or perhaps how we choose to wear our beards. Yet both of us would become murderously violent towards anyone implying that there is anything even remotely similar about us, I was born a Hawkmanii, I will die a Hawkmanii.
So these hypothetical conservatives consider gays/transgender types to be repugnant because they perceive them as making an incorrect political choice, not because they perceive it to be an immutable characteristic? This seems to undermine the argument you made in the very line above.
The difference is not meaningless. If you would murder someone from another tribe regardless of their personal beliefs, then you're murdering based on identity. If you would murder someone from your own tribe based on their beliefs, you're murdering based on belief. The existence of green doesnt mean blue and yellow aren't different.
The trend is obvious. Liberals will frequently eat their own based on failures of belief regardless of identity, like with Al Franken. Conservatives will frequently support their own based on identity and regardless of belief, like Donald Trump and his history of cheating on his wife with a porn star.
Liberals will support someone like the current Pope, intrinsically conservative in identity, for expressing more liberal beliefs on gay people than previous Popes. Conservatives will shoot a case of their favorite beer, or applaud such a shooting, because they made one commercial with a trans woman. The trans woman doesn't express political views in the commercial, in fact, she actually says "whatever team you love, I love too" but conservatives hate her based on her identity.
Regarding this:
Conservatives would like to pretend they are hating people for their beliefs, rather than their immutable characteristics, so they recast immutable characteristics as political beliefs so they can justify their identity based hatred.
This is evident in one of the other replies to me that claims that blue collar hostility towards gay men is justified because gay men are intrinsically likely to sexually harass straight men. The poster linked an identity, being gay, with an inevitanle political action, sexual harassment, to justify the hatred of gay men.
They're smart enough to pretend that it's just harmful beliefs and actions from gay and trans people that they object to, like drag shows for children, surgery for children, and men in women's sports.
This commercial cleverly displays that this is just a facade designed to persuade moderate liberals such as myself that they are looking for any compelling reason to attack gay and trans people because their hatred is based on identity.
This whole website is based on the idea that it's better to object on ideological rather than tribal lines, even if tribalism is powerful. Conservatives are clearly the side of power through tribalism, and liberals are clearly the side of power through persuasive ideology.
The other two posters here are arguing with me. Because they think I'm gay and they think that is deviancy, or morally inferior. Maybe you are too. I'm arguing with them because I disagree with their comments. I don't hate them based on perceived identity.
Do you believe that identities can be disputed at all? Can someone wrongly identify as something?
It's not about right and wrong. It's about social perception. Social identities are based on the fact that people have persistent perceptions of each other and their group affiliations.
To address the Marsey in the room, if you want to say Dylan Mulvaney is wrongly identifying as a woman, that is going to depend on the social context. I don't think he's a woman, but apparently millions of people do. Womanhood means different things to different people, which is why i don't like compulsory pronoun usage. You can refer to yourself however your like, and you can try to persuade people to refer to you a certain way, but I don't like being forced to pretend to believe something I don't believe. However, at the same time I don't feel the need to tell other people they're not allowed to believe trans women are women.
Isn't is reasonable then that the conservative response to transgenderism is to deny the existence of the identity rather than oppose its constituents out of hatred? Or put differently, how could you tell the difference?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But when you say you are transgender, you at least believe in the theory that gender and sex are not the same thing, right? Certainly, if you claim you are a unicorn, you believe unicorns do exist? Do you think that the hatred toward a cisgender white man claiming he believes in this theory would be any different from the hatred toward a transgender man?
I'm not transgender, and I never said I was.
Sorry, I meant when someone says is transgender, surely he believes that gender and sex are different things and that transgender people really exist. So what you call his identity is itself a belief, isn't it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But their beliefs are their identity, it's the only way in which they are different (from a modern first world perspective). Identity is a question of what individuals believe to be important, both in themselves and in others. You can take a Hutu baby and a Tutsi baby from their respective homelands, raise them in a black american ghetto without any information about where they came from and they would not identify or be identified as Hutu and Tutsi, they're just black. Yet raise these same babies in Rwanda and one may very well end up dismembering the other with farming implements in a wide ranging genocide based solely on their identity.
To give another example that you keep banging on about, being gay. There are plenty of examples of cultures throughout history that do not share the modern concept of "being gay". I'm massively over-generalising here, but for ancient greeks, having sex with men was something that you did, not something that defined you. If you showed up to ancient Athens and insisted that having sex with or being attracted to men was this incredibly important, immutable part of who you were, they'd probably consider you to be strange and childish.
In both the cases above, the cultural context informs the identity of the individuals involved far more than their genetics.
How exactly does Justin "Minstrel Show" Trudeau fit into this? And what intrinsic genetic traits does Donald Trump share with his fellow american conservatives that is shielding him from harm? As far as I can tell, there is no genetic link between conservatives (if there was then by your logic it would be haram for liberals to oppose them based on their conservative genetics anyway).
It is strange to me that you consider sexual harassment to be a political act. I would say it's pretty reasonable to assume that gay men are more likely to sexually harass straight men than a straight man is. Ergo, if you're afraid of being sexually harassed or assaulted by a man, you would be wise to focus your defenses towards gay men. From the perspective of our hypothetical blue collar worker, the problem is not the immutable characteristic (attraction to men), the problem is the increased risk of the bad things he doesn't want happening to him.
I wouldn't blame a woman for being more frightened of being sexually harassed or assaulted by a straight man, why would I fault this hypothetical blue collar worker for drawing the same conclusions?
Ideological lines are tribal lines. The very next sentence you accuse the enemy tribe of being the bad mean people who are ignorant (perhaps they are also smelly?), whereas your tribe are the good virtuous ones who seek to rise above such petty nonsense. You would have to be willfully ignorant to end up on a site like the motte and not have been presented with an abundance of examples of those from the liberal tribe acting solely out of opposition to the conservative tribe.
I honestly can't tell if you're trying to rile people up here or if you're just that arrogant and close minded. I would say that you started from a fundamentally flawed understanding of identity and have developed a self-serving explanation of why your team are the goodies and the other team are the baddies from there. How does your mental model account for the existence of gay conservatives for example? Trump is probably the most pro-gay president ever, he was publicly pro gay marriage while Biden and Obama were still saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Identity is the perceived membership of particular in-groups and out-groups. It's a factor of human psycho-social dynamics, not biology. As we have seen here, conservatives seem to view their political alignment as an identity. They also seem to be eager to ascribe other people's political alignments as an identity, as you and the other two people replying to me have all eventually accused me of being on the side of liberals and making assumptions about my political affiliation. Liberals engage in that to a lesser degree, which is why there are so many different liberal factions that spend almost as much time fighting each other as they do conservatives. They couldn't even successfully elect Hillary Clinton because of ideological differences, which is an extreme weakness of the liberal movement.
Justin Trudeau wore brownface once as a high schooler. It is well within the ability of most liberals to understand the idea of doing something stupid and ignorant when in high school. Conservatives try to use that to weaken his political influence, and liberal don't let it work. It's too weak of a transgression, and he's too strong of a political force for liberalism otherwise.
There are obviously going to be counterexamples of these tendencies on both sides, but I'm talking about general trends and the behavior of the plurality, if not the majority. In a democratic system like ours, the tendencies of the plurality determine who is elected to political power.
This isn't about good or bad, or mean and virtuous, and I didn't use any of those words. Those are value statements you read into my opinions because apparently that's where you center your discourse. I might say the liberal tendency to eat their own is very bad, because it resulted in failing to elect Hillary Clinton. I might say the conservative ability to support each other in an identity based way is good because it enabled them to achieve political goals liberals thought were impossible, like repealing Roe v. Wade. Liberals frequently use ideological purity tests to be cruel to each other, and that probably leads to higher levels of anxiety in liberals. Conservatives will extend each other a great deal of kindness and community, which can lead to more prosocial behavior in conservative circles.
Generally though, I'd rather be a conservative at a pride parade than a trans woman in a men's locker room. Liberals are generally more tolerant of dissent and while a few might become aggressive, you have a distinct possibility of others defending the conservative's right to free speech. If one man in a locker room decides to be aggressive towards another for being gay or trans, the other men will not intervene, even if they disagree, because they will immediately be targeted as well.
Straight men absolutely do harass each other far more than any gay man harasses straight me. Straight men say crude and sexually demeaning things to each other all the time, especially in male only contexts. It is not reasonable to assume gay men are more likely to sexually harass straight men than that straight men are likely to sexually harass each other. I actually think the real disruption that gay men create in straight male dynamics is that straight men cannot safely sexually harass them, or just generally engage aggressively with them, the same way they feel safe engaging with other straight men. The same sexual jokes they can make with other straight men suddenly are recontextualized, and that makes them uncomfortable and uneasy. Gay men don't have a lot of choice but to learn to live with straight men to at least some degree, but many straight men, however, have trouble with the threat that a gay man can pose to the social dynamics of a straight male dominated context. If a straight man is too nice to the gay man, will the other men call him gay? If he's too mean, will the other men call him gay? If he imagines the gay man having sex with other men, does that mean he's gay? Straight men who exist in cultures with hostility towards gay men aren't worried about being harassed by gay men, and the idea that they are is laughable. They are worried about being harassed by other straight men regarding the way they choose to interact with the gay men. They don't know the rules.
You can see this right now with Bud Light. According to them, a gay man, Dylan Mulvaney, is drinking Bud Light, and has entered their social context. No one is worried about Dylan Mulvaney's harassment or reaction to them choosing to continue drinking Bud Light or not. All of these conservative men are performing for each other, lest they be harassed themselves for an improper reaction to this gay male encroachment on their beer. Some feel the need to make a video shooting bud light. Some make videos of themselves throwing away bud light. I'd bet a lot of conservative men don't care about it, but are worried about buying bud light in front of their friends in case their friends use that to harass them.
Straight men are not afraid of gay men, they are afraid of other straight men.
This strikes me as prima facie so implausible that I am genuinely curious what your basis is for believing it. You are claiming that men who are not sexually attracted to other men are more likely to give them unwanted sexual attention than men who are sexually attracted to other men? Perhaps you meant on a raw numbers level, there are more male-on-male sexual assaults committed by straight men than gay men, which is plausible given how many more straight than gay men there are. But as a proportion relative to population, why on earth would we expect men who are sexually interested in X to be less likely to aggressively angle for sexual contact with X than men who are not sexually interested in X? It would be like expecting gay men to be more likely than straight men to sexually assault women.
Are you unfamiliar with the common problems of hazing in fraternities and sports teams? If you are, I would suggest you google the phrase "sexual hazing" without quotes:
"Male hazing most common type of sexual assault, expert reveals":
https://www.army.mil/article/166188/male_hazing_most_common_type_of_sexual_assault_expert_reveals
"The brutal secret of school sport initiations":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46282988
"How Hazing Escalates To Sexual Assault":
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa53mm/st-mikes-college-school-how-hazing-escalates-to-sexual-assault-
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Three times that we know of, once while he was teaching highschool -- and it was pretty black, although "brown" would have been more appropriate for an Aladdin costume.
Trudeau himself is on the record as "not remembering" how many times he wore blackface -- so there may have been more instances that weren't recorded in a publicly accessibly way.
He has not been noticeably "eaten" from the left -- although the normie centre is starting to be upset at his apparent links to Chinese money and general air of corruption.
You're right, I misread my sources.
I would say, Justin Trudeau isn't in the American political context. I don't think an American Democrat politician could wear that much black face and not get eaten by the left. Trudeau also apologized, called himself racist, and what he did didn't directly harm anyone. It was also politically and culturally insensitive, but not malicious, so it's not like a huge stretch to believe he was more stupid than maliciously racist. He's also very good looking, and as Prime Minister, not directly elected, so the vote that puts him in power is not as much a personal referendum on him. I don't know a lot about Canadian politics, but I'm guessing it's not as polarized and identity based as US politics because it's parliamentary. The American political structure has given it a particular propensity to in-group out-group dynamics and emotional affiliation with one's party.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Putting aside that you consider "wearing a police uniform" a political statement, what do you propose as a clear way for a conservative to self-identify at a pride parade to see whether or not he'd be threatened?
Could we raise some money and get Ben Shapiro to attend a pride parade, just attend, with no political statement of any kind? I'd be willing to wager money people would get up in his grill, if not literally attack him.
This website is named for the motte and bailey fallacy, right? I believe that's relevant to this discussion, where you started by expressing anger that a beer company picked a trans woman for one commercial and expressing glee at the violent and angry responses from conservatives, and now are asking me to find a way for a political pundit to express gay and trans hatred at a pride parade to prove... something.
My original point stands. The bud light ad with Dylan Mulvaney and the response to it demonstrate to gay and trans people that conservatives require to be allowed to exclude them, with violence if possible. It's a smart way to demonstrate that conservatives don't care about women and children as much as they just hate gender nonconforming men and women. They have gone from seeking out gay and trans people to victimize, to creating silos in which they feel justified in victimizing any gay or trans people who dare to enter, but the urge to react to gay and trans people with violence is unchanged.
Conservatives were making headway with their concern for trans children and women's sports, but they took the bait and started shooting cases of beer because a trans woman drank a bud light.
....? They're not buying beer. One guy shot a case of Bud Light and posted it on social media. It was not a case with Mulvaney on it, just a blue box.
Your core argument is that your side is morally superior because conservatives are welcome in gay spaces if they're not "political", but gay people are not welcome in conservative spaces, regardless. This is not some pedantic nit I'm picking. Please demonstrate that a legible conservative can enter a gay pride space and not get a hostile reception. I've tried to demonstrate it's possible for legibly gay people to enter a conservative space in the same way.
No, this is not my core argument. My core argument is that this advertisement is a smart unifying tactic for liberals because it demonstrates how much conservatives hate gay and trans people during a time when conservatives have been making political headway by pretending their anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric is really about protecting women and children.
You don't actually know which "side" I'm on. You seem to be making assumptions about it. I feel no need to argue about which side is morally superior, because that's reductive, personal, and, as far as I can tell, directly not what this site is for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link