One of the notable takeaways about the brain scans is that researchers were able to predict the political affiliation of their subjects with 80-82% accuracy. I'm interested in this, because I was once a very conservative person, both socially and politically. Today I'm the opposite, and I'm curious about any neurological changes I may have undergone from roughly 2010-2014.
There's not a 0% chance, though, that re: pegs and holes, many conservatives experience fear/threat both first and strongest, and respond accordingly.
I was raised in a very conservative family. But we lived in a community where we were part of a religious minority. Out of my high school graduating class, there were just five of us who were not a part of the main faith group of the community. I think that is one reason why we were quite conservative. We had to hold on to our beliefs tightly.
But, once I left that community, I found my faith was quite open and affirming. In the wider world the beliefs that my parents instilled in me became a foundation to explore new concepts and ideas. Of course, having a liberal arts education in college was very helpful.
One thing that I would say makes me something different (peg v square) when it comes to liberalism (everyone can do his/her/their own thing as long as they harm no one) is the Jesus principle of restoration. Liberalism limits coercion by requiring only that people avoid harming others. Jesus calls for restorative love that heals, reconciles, and actively seeks the good of neighbor and enemy alike. One protects autonomy through minimal duty; the other transforms community through maximal, self‑giving responsibility.
I was raised by christian nomads. I remember attending six different churches as a child, adolescent, and teen. I think that experience taught me, among other things, to constantly assess, evaluate and/or critique, and to move on rather than settle-in. I don't know if they were pegs that refused to be reshaped beyond a certain point, or whether each place reshaped them enough that they needed a differently shaped hole to aspire to. Eventually Mom and Dad did come to rest in one church, and they remained there for a long time.
I grant that nearly all the responders on these boards are liberal. And, I would also grant many of Jesus principles and liberalism as we often think of it overlap. But I would also argue there are many areas where the principles of Jesus and liberalism diverge. Liberalism centers on the autonomous individual. Jesus calls for a self-giving person. Liberalism assumes moral neutrality; Jesus does not. See the Sermon on the Mount. Liberalism prioritizes consent. Jesus prioritizes covenant--there are obligations to God and neighbor. Liberalism treats harm as primarily material. Jesus treats harm as relational and spiritual. Liberalism is procedural; Jesus is transformational--restored relationships, healed communities, liberation for the oppressed.
I would argue instead of defining liberalism we should look at the self giving love of Jesus. I think this would impact how we understand rights, how we understand freedom, how we understand justice, and how we understand the good life
A lot of this is not how I understand at least a lot of liberal (US sense) political notions at all. Moral neutrality? No obligations to our neighbor? No relational harm? None of this sounds like the kind of liberalism I have encountered, though some versions of this can be liberal (particularly what I encountered in college in some contexts, decades ago). I would say that (for example) Martin Luther King would not see it all that way.
Liberalism is called “morally neutral” because it avoids endorsing any single comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical worldview. Instead of defining the good life for everyone, it creates a public framework where people with different beliefs can coexist. The state protects basic rights and fair procedures but does not declare which moral vision—Christian, secular, traditional, progressive—is true. This neutrality emerged after centuries of conflict, aiming to prevent governments from imposing one group’s values on all others. Liberalism is not value‑free; it simply limits the state to procedural justice rather than prescribing ultimate moral ends.
Martin Luther King Jr was not a classic liberal. He approached discrimination from a Christian perspective.
I think we’re talking about different meanings of the word “liberal.” What I’m referring to above is “liberal” in the sense of wanting environmental protections, welfare and government aid for the poor, universal healthcare, and so on, at least in the US.
@Gramps49 is talking about classical liberalism, you're talking about reform liberalism. See my earlier mentioned category of "Lloyd George Liberalism".
Yes, in my own experience in the US, only a small number of people refer to "classical liberalism" at all (the William F. Buckley end of the spectrum)--most of the time when the average person says "liberal," they mean "as opposed to 'conservative,'" i.e., welfare, environment, limits on big business, healthcare, etc. I think the average person in the US has never heard of Lloyd George (I recall the name mainly from an Al Stewart song, myself). When I say I am liberal, I mean in the US sense, though more broadly there is a kind of "liberal" in the sense of "liberal democracy" as well--free elections and such, regardless of whether social reform or unbridled capitalism (etc.) are involved.
One thing that I would say makes me something different (peg v square) when it comes to liberalism (everyone can do his/her/their own thing as long as they harm no one) is the Jesus principle of restoration. Liberalism limits coercion by requiring only that people avoid harming others. Jesus calls for restorative love that heals, reconciles, and actively seeks the good of neighbor and enemy alike. One protects autonomy through minimal duty; the other transforms community through maximal, self‑giving responsibility.
Though I would also distinguish between how governments should behave from how individuals/groups should behave. As Christians, I think we have a higher level of responsibility to that restorative love, but that's not the same as the government limiting coercion. I think the government should go beyond that (the US sense of liberalism, such as welfare, environmental stuff, universal healthcare (dear God please let us get that someday somehow), and so on), but I also believe in the separation of church and state.
One thing that I would say makes me something different (peg v square) when it comes to liberalism (everyone can do his/her/their own thing as long as they harm no one) is the Jesus principle of restoration. Liberalism limits coercion by requiring only that people avoid harming others. Jesus calls for restorative love that heals, reconciles, and actively seeks the good of neighbor and enemy alike. One protects autonomy through minimal duty; the other transforms community through maximal, self‑giving responsibility.
Though I would also distinguish between how governments should behave from how individuals/groups should behave. As Christians, I think we have a higher level of responsibility to that restorative love, but that's not the same as the government limiting coercion. I think the government should go beyond that (the US sense of liberalism, such as welfare, environmental stuff, universal healthcare (dear God please let us get that someday somehow), and so on), but I also believe in the separation of church and state.
As to the principle of separation between church and state, take a look at what the First Amendment actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the government shall not establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion. The barrier is against the government. It says nothing about the church or any religion speaking up concerning interpersonal or institutional problems. The church has always had a prophetic role of calling the rulers to justice, defending the poor and advocating for peace. I challenge the secularism that excludes religious voices from public discourse. No state can claim moral neutrality. To me, the church cannot retreat from public witness.
There is a distinction, but not a divorce between church and state. The state should not be religion free but must be religion con-coercive. That said, no religion should become nationalistic, but it has a moral voice. It cannot condone one party over another. It critiques policies based on the gospel’s concern for the neighbor, not on the church’s desire for power.
In truth, if I recall my world religions survey course. I would think there is general agreement about being concerned for the neighbor. We just have to respect the guardrails established by the Two Kingdom Theology promoted by Luther, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr. and O'Donovan to name a few.
One thing that I would say makes me something different (peg v square) when it comes to liberalism (everyone can do his/her/their own thing as long as they harm no one) is the Jesus principle of restoration. Liberalism limits coercion by requiring only that people avoid harming others. Jesus calls for restorative love that heals, reconciles, and actively seeks the good of neighbor and enemy alike. One protects autonomy through minimal duty; the other transforms community through maximal, self‑giving responsibility.
Though I would also distinguish between how governments should behave from how individuals/groups should behave. As Christians, I think we have a higher level of responsibility to that restorative love, but that's not the same as the government limiting coercion. I think the government should go beyond that (the US sense of liberalism, such as welfare, environmental stuff, universal healthcare (dear God please let us get that someday somehow), and so on), but I also believe in the separation of church and state.
As to the principle of separation between church and state, take a look at what the First Amendment actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the government shall not establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion. The barrier is against the government. It says nothing about the church or any religion speaking up concerning interpersonal or institutional problems. The church has always had a prophetic role of calling the rulers to justice, defending the poor and advocating for peace. I challenge the secularism that excludes religious voices from public discourse. No state can claim moral neutrality. To me, the church cannot retreat from public witness.
There is a distinction, but not a divorce between church and state. The state should not be religion free but must be religion con-coercive. That said, no religion should become nationalistic, but it has a moral voice. It cannot condone one party over another. It critiques policies based on the gospel’s concern for the neighbor, not on the church’s desire for power.
In truth, if I recall my world religions survey course. I would think there is general agreement about being concerned for the neighbor. We just have to respect the guardrails established by the Two Kingdom Theology promoted by Luther, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr. and O'Donovan to name a few.
I agree with you. If I sounded like I suggested otherwise, I definitely didn’t mean to. ❤️
Yes, in my own experience in the US, only a small number of people refer to "classical liberalism" at all (the William F. Buckley end of the spectrum)
That Buckley was happy adopting the majority of 'classical liberalism' (Lockean version), speaks to what I said in my earlier post.
That doesn’t generally have to be a completely bad thing – I think that people inheriting their deceased forebears’ property is appropriate. And while I would not agree with William F Buckley on all sorts of things, I think he would rightly have an aneurysm at Trump and MAGA. He was someone you could at least debate intellectually and find common ground with.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
Comparing tolerance or otherwise of a person who is merely presenting differently with tolerance of otherwise of someone doing real harm is, frankly, ridiculous.
The whole fecking point of my OP is that it's someone doing something that doesn't harm anyone else in any way and yet causes intolerance and hatred, simply because it's different.
Then it all comes down to the definition of "harm" as @Bullfrog has pointed out in his paradox of tolerance.
Your example in the OP may have caused intolerance and hatred because of the threat it posed.
Except it didn't pose a threat. That's the point.
It would have for social conservatives.
What would that threat be? No-one is making them wear a frock to their prom. It doesn't affect them in any way.
rewarding attention seeking behaviour.
Surely you "reward" by giving attention? If you ignore the guy's frock then the reward is gone. No point seeking attention if there is none to be had.
In theory yes you are quite right.
Alas, we are frail creatures. Especially if the opposing side is preening at its victory.
I have noticed in the Tour de France recently they are not giving air time to blockages for environmental activists. Smart.
But they'll probably get a hard time for not airing the views.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
No. The most you can actually conclude is that the lad could reasonably expect that he would get attention. There is absolutely no evidence he was seeking it - that it was his motivation for acting in this manner.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
Nice try, but this is the paradox of tolerance yet again.
The point is, the conservatives' hole here (if you want to put it that way) is one that negatively affects other people by attempting to restrict their freedom of action
By contrast, the lad in the OP's hole does not negatively affect other people in any way unless they choose to get their knickers in a twist about it.
There is an objective difference. Somebody else going against your ideology and not acting as you like to act is not "harm" in any meaningful sense of the world. Bullying someone because you don't like their actions which do not actually impinge on you in any way on the other hand absolutely is harm.
Does anyone else find it laughably ironic that the Right accuse the Left of being snowflakes?
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't?
Tolerated non-conformity to social norms leads inevitably to a change in what those social norms actually are, which can eventually mean the old social norms are no longer acceptable within society.
Think of the Overton Window in politics. It moving to the right doesn’t prevent those on the left from advocating the same policies they always have, so in that sense it doesn’t affect them, but it nevertheless makes it harder and harder for them to advocate for their conception of a good society and thus makes that good society less likely to ever exist. The window could even shift so far that their views are no longer considered an acceptable part of political discourse, effectively silencing them. That could be said to be - and is certainly perceived as - a harm to them.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't?
Tolerated non-conformity to social norms leads inevitably to a change in what those social norms actually are, which can eventually mean the old social norms are no longer acceptable within society.
Think of the Overton Window in politics. It moving to the right doesn’t prevent those on the left from advocating the same policies they always have, so in that sense it doesn’t affect them, but it nevertheless makes it harder and harder for them to advocate for their conception of a good society and thus makes that good society less likely to ever exist. The window could even shift so far that their views are no longer considered an acceptable part of political discourse, effectively silencing them. That could be said to be - and is certainly perceived as - a harm to them.
Can you honestly forsee that leaving the lad in the OP alone is going to lead to a situation where all boys have to wear dresses to their proms?
I think though, taking a step back, going too far into the minutiae of the incident that set me thinking is possibly obscuring the central thrust of my main point.
The main point, if we can ever get back there, is that presented with someone for whom the social norms apparently do not work, is our inclination to think that the person in question should either somehow change, or just suck it up and conform, or do we tend to think that we need to allow people to do what's authentic for them, even if it is somewhat unusual? My point was that that seems to be the dividing point between social conservatives and progressives.
The relevance of the incident in question is that as a progressive I was somewhat surprised and somewhat confused by the amount of hatred people were able to show to someone they'd never met simply by his non-conformity in a somewhat trivial matter than didn't impinge upon them at all. It set my thought processes going. And frankly, reminded me too much of the little turds who hound, mock and abuse the "weird" kids of all kinds at school.
I agree with that point (end of your second paragraph). I guess ultimately it comes down to whether one thinks social norms are a thing that should exist or not.
Or alternatively, which set of social norms one thinks should be enforced.
I agree with that point (end of your second paragraph). I guess ultimately it comes down to whether one thinks social norms are a thing that should exist or not.
Or alternatively, which set of social norms one thinks should be enforced.
It's more how we view people who fall outside those social norms - if we equate conforming with social norms or not as "good" and "bad", or whether we see them as statistical norms with no inherent moral dimension - and therefore whether they should be enforced or not.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't?
Tolerated non-conformity to social norms leads inevitably to a change in what those social norms actually are, which can eventually mean the old social norms are no longer acceptable within society.
Think of the Overton Window in politics. It moving to the right doesn’t prevent those on the left from advocating the same policies they always have, so in that sense it doesn’t affect them, but it nevertheless makes it harder and harder for them to advocate for their conception of a good society and thus makes that good society less likely to ever exist. The window could even shift so far that their views are no longer considered an acceptable part of political discourse, effectively silencing them. That could be said to be - and is certainly perceived as - a harm to them.
But then, any expression of a currently minority viewpoint could have the impact of shifting social norms, thus leading to the new thinking becoming dominant and adherents to the old thinking perceiving themselves as harmed. But that doesn't make it the state's business to suppress those minority viewpoints(*).
(*) State suppression of non-conformity being, I assume, what WhimsicalChristian is advocating. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see why he would bring up the alleged problem of non-conformity in a political discussion if he weren't advocating state intervention against it.
The trouble with accusing people of "might be threatening" is it creates an excuse to act threatened and start being threatening.
At that point, it becomes mandatory to shove people into narrows holes because [rhetorical] you're basically scared shitless of anyone who doesn't conform to your shape.
"There must be one kind of hole and one kind of peg! Anyone does not fit this hole is a threat, because people who stick pegs into holes in any other way are going to eventually expect all of us to start sticking pegs into the wrong holes!"
My experience as a leftish cis-straight guy with left wing queer folks is pretty extensive, and I've never once felt pressured to become one. I've occasionally been hit on by gay guys, and it was really easy to say "no, thanks, I'm flattered but it's not my thing."
I wish I could say the same for right wing straight folks trying to harass or bully people out of being queer. Y'all are embarrassing me. It's a shame and a deep disgrace, which is why I must make an embarrassing joke about pegs and holes.
That the shadow of Epiphanies is looming over this conversation is obvious to me, but I have no desire to drag this thread there.
Incidentally, a little story which might have a bearing on this or might not.
Long, long ago I was chatting to someone who happened to be a member of a hockey team. He was saying how he always drank Snakebite* when he was out with the team, because that's what everyone else in the team drank.
I was genuinely taken aback - it had never, and would never, occur to me to choose a drink in a pub because the people I was with drank it. It's not that I'd consciously rejected the idea - I'd literally never had it cross my mind.
I don't know how or if this plays into how I see these issues.
*half and half cider (usually cheap and nasty) and lager (ditto - you're not going to get Czech Budvar and farmhouse Somerset...)
I challenge the secularism that excludes religious voices from public discourse. No state can claim moral neutrality. To me, the church cannot retreat from public witness.
Are you suggesting that any state that excludes religious voices is operating from a position of or claiming a position of moral neutrality? Or that religious voices are the only source of public morality? Religious people are going to be a part of American governance, sure. I would suggest that public policies need to be grounded on secular justifications, though.
There is a distinction, but not a divorce between church and state. The state should not be religion free but must be religion con-coercive. That said, no religion should become nationalistic, but it has a moral voice. It cannot condone one party over another. It critiques policies based on the gospel’s concern for the neighbor, not on the church’s desire for power.
The state itself should absolutely be religion free. In fact, it must. That's the whole point of the distinction. Religion may have a moral voice, but it is not alone in that regard. Its contributions should not be considered any less or any more than any other. It is merely a voice. But it's hard to imagine how consistent, repeated critiques of policies put forward by a particular party don't represent at least a tacit endorsement of the other. That can be filed under the "C'mon, man." label for sure.
@KarlLB : Same. I was never a proper conservative, but by the standards of the left wing I was probably center-right growing up and have shifted to sitting on the border regions between center-left and far-left as an adult.
I just don't see the left threatening the right on social issues beyond "we'd like some public funding for our stuff," which is pretty much what any citizen of this godforsaken country (USA, where I reside) does when they want to do something that isn't cheap.
The other place where it can come up is "I want my kids to carry the same social prejudices I do, so I hate the idea that my kids are reading books that say it's ok to be socially transgressive." And so you get library bans and big public campaigns against any and all literature that might be seen as friendly to suspected social transgressives.
And I suspect we'll start seeing a cottage industry of thinly veiled hatred against said people pretty shortly as the new administration settles in. It was already showing up in the current occupant's campaign ads. He had one highlighting one such person and basically advertised her as a laughing-stock. "See the freak? That's what they're like! Vote for me!" I saw the ad at work once and - contrary to my usual habits - actually flipped off the TV because I know folks like that and they don't deserve the hate. Yep, that's personal. If any doth take offense at my taking of offense, that's an honest conversation.
I think the political right wing has always understood that there's more power in unity and cohesion, and they will tend to limit the number of available holes because that's what builds more power. That's why right wingers don't like for there to be too many holes. And they're not entirely wrong, as I watch endless left wing bickers between different ideological factions. The strife between center left and the far left on the internet is infamous.
Another side of that, to my eyes, is scarcity mentality. Making different-shaped holes costs a little money. The cognitive work involved in sorting out someone's pronouns adds a little bit to the cost of a conversation. Having signs in two languages costs resources, so does making your bathroom accessible to a modern wheelchair. How much are you willing to spend for that one person in your community who falls into this type? If there is one? Why are they wasting my taxpayer dollars on those other people? Wouldn't it be better if we were all the same? So much simpler! So much cheaper!
See? I do know conservatives! I grew up around these people! I grew up in this community, and these are real conversations! Because some communities are poor and so they have to see human issues as economic issues. In the USA it's called fiscal conservatism and if you're not careful it turns into racism, ableism, and a bunch of other ugly words that mean "more for the normies like me, less for you because we are already too broke for that." And then they whine about having to pay too much in taxes to a government that gives too much money to "somewhere else."
Should add...not all folks I grew up around are like that, but too many. And I've totally met city folks who have the same attitude. These are American regional stereotypes that I mess around with because - in a certain sense - they're mine. Brits, Aussies, et al, if you could be so kind, handle with care. I think there are common threads, but there are also variations.
I challenge the secularism that excludes religious voices from public discourse. No state can claim moral neutrality. To me, the church cannot retreat from public witness.
Are you suggesting that any state that excludes religious voices is operating from a position of or claiming a position of moral neutrality? Or that religious voices are the only source of public morality? Religious people are going to be a part of American governance, sure. I would suggest that public policies need to be grounded on secular justifications, though.
There is a distinction, but not a divorce between church and state. The state should not be religion free but must be religion con-coercive. That said, no religion should become nationalistic, but it has a moral voice. It cannot condone one party over another. It critiques policies based on the gospel’s concern for the neighbor, not on the church’s desire for power.
The state itself should absolutely be religion free. In fact, it must. That's the whole point of the distinction. Religion may have a moral voice, but it is not alone in that regard. Its contributions should not be considered any less or any more than any other. It is merely a voice. But it's hard to imagine how consistent, repeated critiques of policies put forward by a particular party don't represent at least a tacit endorsement of the other. That can be filed under the "C'mon, man." label for sure.
Maybe I did not phrase what I meant the right way.
I know of no government that can be religion free--France comes close, but what they say they are doing is avoiding privileging any religion.
Take a look at East Germany. They claimed to be atheist and drove the church underground, but the people flocked to the church precisely because it was underground. Eventually that underground movement toppled the government. Same with Poland.
No, I am not saying religion has exclusive claim to being the moral voice of a country. It is really an equal voice along other voices including pure humanist voices offering moral perspectives. Sometimes those voices can blend in harmoniously, but other times, they can be discordant.
An example where the voices are harmonious is the reaction to the ICE raids.
An opposite example is the care of the elderly. Some voices may say the elderly have a duty to die. There are voices that say we must ration healthcare that deprioritizes those with chronic health conditions, Yet, generally, Christians claim every human being including the frail, dependent, cognitively impaired or chronically ill bears the image of God and possesses inviolable dignity. We have to say vulnerability is not shameful. Dependence is not a failure. The elderly are not expendable. Life is not measured by productivity. (That sounds like Fascism!)
In short, we do have a voice in the public square, but we are not the only voice.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
The logic here would seem to be that preventing someone from enforcing social norms is just as illiberal as enforcing those social norms. And the harm done by forcing someone into a hole where they don't fit is no greater than the harm done by refusing to go into the hole where they don't fit.
So there are radical Islamist militants who want to impose a conservative theocratic state on the world. And there are many many liberals ofball religions or none or even authoritarian members of other religions who do not want to live under a theocratic state.
Now under your logic the people who do not want to live in a theocratic state are harming the militants by not confirming to the laws of such a state, and if you argue against such a state you are being just as intolerant as the advocates of a theocratic state.
Likewise, according to your logic China is authoritarian and repressive for repressing dissidents, and the West is equally authoritarian and repressive for interfering with China repressing critics of the Chinese government in the West.
I doubt you actually accept the logic in those cases, and therefore I think you're just spinning an argument.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
In fact it is even more stark if one considers other cultural practices. In New Zealand I saw some very impressive Maori face tattoos.
Are we really going to say that it is appropriate for a church to take a moral position on exactly which face tattoos are or are not acceptable? That if the old white ladies who are the majority in an imaginary small church in Auckland find them scary then no Maori should be allowed to attend services?
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't?
Tolerated non-conformity to social norms leads inevitably to a change in what those social norms actually are, which can eventually mean the old social norms are no longer acceptable within society.
Think of the Overton Window in politics. It moving to the right doesn’t prevent those on the left from advocating the same policies they always have, so in that sense it doesn’t affect them, but it nevertheless makes it harder and harder for them to advocate for their conception of a good society and thus makes that good society less likely to ever exist. The window could even shift so far that their views are no longer considered an acceptable part of political discourse, effectively silencing them. That could be said to be - and is certainly perceived as - a harm to them.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
No. The most you can actually conclude is that the lad could reasonably expect that he would get attention. There is absolutely no evidence he was seeking it - that it was his motivation for acting in this manner.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
Nice try, but this is the paradox of tolerance yet again.
The point is, the conservatives' hole here (if you want to put it that way) is one that negatively affects other people by attempting to restrict their freedom of action
By contrast, the lad in the OP's hole does not negatively affect other people in any way unless they choose to get their knickers in a twist about it.
There is an objective difference. Somebody else going against your ideology and not acting as you like to act is not "harm" in any meaningful sense of the world. Bullying someone because you don't like their actions which do not actually impinge on you in any way on the other hand absolutely is harm.
Does anyone else find it laughably ironic that the Right accuse the Left of being snowflakes?
You keep saying the example would not cause harm. But that's not true. It would just not cause harm on your ideology.
Again, you're repeating the unfounded "attention seeking behaviour" accusation.
Secondly, how does it harm people who conform to social norms if some other people don't? It doesn't. This reminds me of those carnivores who get upset that other people are vegans.
I think you're actually proving my thesis in the OP - conservatives think that pegs that don't fit in holes should change their shape rather than finding holes they fit in. The problem with that is that it can cause a lot of misery and unhappiness for those pegs who don't fit.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
No. The most you can actually conclude is that the lad could reasonably expect that he would get attention. There is absolutely no evidence he was seeking it - that it was his motivation for acting in this manner.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
Nice try, but this is the paradox of tolerance yet again.
The point is, the conservatives' hole here (if you want to put it that way) is one that negatively affects other people by attempting to restrict their freedom of action
By contrast, the lad in the OP's hole does not negatively affect other people in any way unless they choose to get their knickers in a twist about it.
There is an objective difference. Somebody else going against your ideology and not acting as you like to act is not "harm" in any meaningful sense of the world. Bullying someone because you don't like their actions which do not actually impinge on you in any way on the other hand absolutely is harm.
Does anyone else find it laughably ironic that the Right accuse the Left of being snowflakes?
You keep saying the example would not cause harm. But that's not true. It would just not cause harm on your ideology.
You have yet to identify the harm it causes. Again, "I don't like it" does not mean I've been harmed.
I suggest you refer to Dafyd's excellent post above.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Karl seems to be saying you're not allowed to say anything if you don't agree with something.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Kind of like the bathroom controversy here in the US. Conservative states are passing laws that say a person must use the bathroom of the sex at their birth. Yet less than 1% of the population identify as trans. Ya have to wonder, how are they going to enforce the law? Do people have to show their birth certificate to use the bathroom?
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Yep. Gender norms are socially constructed everywhere and what's normal in one culture looks really weird, amusing, or quaint in another.
Even in the same culture, go back a few centuries and you start looking at funny things like men wearing high heels and tights.
I practiced Aikido in undergraduate and, because it was traditional Japanese culture, once you got serious you trained wearing these complex garments called "hakama" that were conventional men's wear. The truth is that the white top and trousers you usually see martial artists train in were undergarments. You look like you're training in boxers and a tank top. So of course you'd want to train wearing pants.
But hakama are practically long, pleated skirts with a barely-visible split down the middle. And there was some pride in wearing them in context, but there was an absolutely ridiculous feeling wearing them anywhere else.
Cultural norms are fun, and college is a great place to learn about that fact.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Karl seems to be saying you're not allowed to say anything if you don't agree with something.
I don't know which jurisdiction you live in but unless it is Afghanistan under the Taliban, you are unlikely to be in a place where it is normal to protest about the clothing other people are wearing.
You probably could protest about the number of magpies and the price of soft cheese but I am not sure why you would want to. Equally I am unclear why you think it is a judicious use of time to exercise your 'freedom of speech' in protest of other people's satorial choices.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Karl seems to be saying you're not allowed to say anything if you don't agree with something.
I don't think he's saying any such thing. You are tilting at windmills.
Yes, we have to be vigilant to preserve freedom of speech but I don't see KarlLB advocating muzzling anyone.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I think that's a valid risk to be aware of, but I don't think we're over the line yet. And if we're going to look at clothing and social norms, it's a fact that different cultures approach clothing differently.
Good to be mindful, for sure. It is an occupational hazard of the conversation. I do hope - dare I say expect? - that we can keep things respectful.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I don't understand what you mean. It's simply a fact that more men around the world wear something that has more in common with a dress than a pair of jeans.
Myanmar might be a good example as many fellas there wear a kilt-like garment.
But I think we need to avoid becoming too 'literal' here. The thread is about the principle of enforcing or not enforcing conformity and uses a particular example to do so.
I'm sure @KarlLB could have used other examples to make the same point. We could get bogged down discussing the specifics of the particular instance he cites in the OP rather than the broader principles it raises.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I don't understand what you mean. It's simply a fact that more men around the world wear something that has more in common with a dress than a pair of jeans.
I don't really think that's necessarily true any more - and more to the point I don't really think it matters all that much to this discussion.
A letter from the Kansas Division of Vehicles dated 23 February is reportedly being sent to the homes of transgender Kansans informing them that they must surrender their driver's licenses and that their current credentials will be considered invalid upon the House Substitute for Senate Bill 244’s publication in the Kansas Register today (26 February).
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 was passed on 17 February after the Kansas House overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto. Because of this, Kansas-issued driver's licenses and identification cards must now reflect the credential holder's “sex at birth.”
The letter— as seen by Erin In The Morning— notes that the Legislature "did not include a grace period for updating credentials," and anyone operating a vehicle without a valid credential "may be subject to additional penalties." Those whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth are directed to surrender their current credential to the Division of Vehicles for reissuance.
The consequences for noncompliance could escalate quickly. Under Kansas law, driving without a valid license is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. A conviction triggers an automatic 90-day license suspension. If a person drives during that suspension, they face a charge of driving on a suspended license, which carries a mandatory minimum of five days in jail. Kansas requires county jails to house inmates by sex assigned at birth.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I don't understand what you mean. It's simply a fact that more men around the world wear something that has more in common with a dress than a pair of jeans.
I don't really think that's necessarily true any more - and more to the point I don't really think it matters all that much to this discussion.
I think it matters a lot to this discussion. What doesn't matter is whether there are a billion or 500,000,000 or almost any large number of men who don't wear trousers.
The point I'm making is that it's a big number so it is culturally incoherent to claim anything universal about the western concepts of gendered clothing.
The strange part of the latter part of this whole conversation for me is that gendered clothing is by definition culturally determined. Not only would other places have different gender norms, which might even look like a dress to western eyes, these styles of clothing would likely have been acceptable in our own culture in the past.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I don't understand what you mean. It's simply a fact that more men around the world wear something that has more in common with a dress than a pair of jeans.
I don't really think that's necessarily true any more - and more to the point I don't really think it matters all that much to this discussion.
I think it matters a lot to this discussion. What doesn't matter is whether there are a billion or 500,000,000 or almost any large number of men who don't wear trousers.
That's true, but that's not the same as your original claim which was based on majority for a particular type of clothing in a particular country. Which again, I don't think is true, based on travel there and what I've read and heard discussed ('western dress' is actually quite a live topic there because of how it interacts with notions of modernity vs tradition and so on).
I think there's always an inherent risk to discussing a culture that's not "mine." So if I start going on about Indian/Pakistani culture with a certain familiarity when I'm a white guy from America with only a tenuous contact with India or Pakistan, that can become rude because I'm not from India or from Pakistan.
I don't know if I'd want to speak for @chrisstiles here, but I think orientalism is an occupational hazard of talking across cultures when one is not a member of the cultures being discussed.
To me it's a case of "yeah, there's a line there, let's not cross it." I haven't seen anyone cross it yet but it's a line that I'm aware of and watching people cross it can be a painful experience.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
The funny thing is that "cultures can't coexist" is an inherently threatening statement to my entire neighborhood in which cultures happily coexist. To employ unfortunate regional stereotypes: Them's fighin' words.
Comments
I was raised in a very conservative family. But we lived in a community where we were part of a religious minority. Out of my high school graduating class, there were just five of us who were not a part of the main faith group of the community. I think that is one reason why we were quite conservative. We had to hold on to our beliefs tightly.
But, once I left that community, I found my faith was quite open and affirming. In the wider world the beliefs that my parents instilled in me became a foundation to explore new concepts and ideas. Of course, having a liberal arts education in college was very helpful.
One thing that I would say makes me something different (peg v square) when it comes to liberalism (everyone can do his/her/their own thing as long as they harm no one) is the Jesus principle of restoration. Liberalism limits coercion by requiring only that people avoid harming others. Jesus calls for restorative love that heals, reconciles, and actively seeks the good of neighbor and enemy alike. One protects autonomy through minimal duty; the other transforms community through maximal, self‑giving responsibility.
Yes, in my own experience in the US, only a small number of people refer to "classical liberalism" at all (the William F. Buckley end of the spectrum)--most of the time when the average person says "liberal," they mean "as opposed to 'conservative,'" i.e., welfare, environment, limits on big business, healthcare, etc. I think the average person in the US has never heard of Lloyd George (I recall the name mainly from an Al Stewart song, myself). When I say I am liberal, I mean in the US sense, though more broadly there is a kind of "liberal" in the sense of "liberal democracy" as well--free elections and such, regardless of whether social reform or unbridled capitalism (etc.) are involved.
Though I would also distinguish between how governments should behave from how individuals/groups should behave. As Christians, I think we have a higher level of responsibility to that restorative love, but that's not the same as the government limiting coercion. I think the government should go beyond that (the US sense of liberalism, such as welfare, environmental stuff, universal healthcare (dear God please let us get that someday somehow), and so on), but I also believe in the separation of church and state.
As to the principle of separation between church and state, take a look at what the First Amendment actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the government shall not establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion. The barrier is against the government. It says nothing about the church or any religion speaking up concerning interpersonal or institutional problems. The church has always had a prophetic role of calling the rulers to justice, defending the poor and advocating for peace. I challenge the secularism that excludes religious voices from public discourse. No state can claim moral neutrality. To me, the church cannot retreat from public witness.
There is a distinction, but not a divorce between church and state. The state should not be religion free but must be religion con-coercive. That said, no religion should become nationalistic, but it has a moral voice. It cannot condone one party over another. It critiques policies based on the gospel’s concern for the neighbor, not on the church’s desire for power.
In truth, if I recall my world religions survey course. I would think there is general agreement about being concerned for the neighbor. We just have to respect the guardrails established by the Two Kingdom Theology promoted by Luther, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr. and O'Donovan to name a few.
That Buckley was happy adopting the majority of 'classical liberalism' (Lockean version), speaks to what I said in my earlier post.
I agree with you. If I sounded like I suggested otherwise, I definitely didn’t mean to. ❤️
That doesn’t generally have to be a completely bad thing – I think that people inheriting their deceased forebears’ property is appropriate. And while I would not agree with William F Buckley on all sorts of things, I think he would rightly have an aneurysm at Trump and MAGA. He was someone you could at least debate intellectually and find common ground with.
The accusation is not unfounded. It's reasonable in the circumstances.
I explained above how it might harm those that conform to social norms. It goes against their ideology.
You could argue, as I've said before, you're a progressive trying to fit conservatives into holes that don't fit them by complaining of their response that is not to your liking. So you are guilty of the same crime.
In theory yes you are quite right.
Alas, we are frail creatures. Especially if the opposing side is preening at its victory.
I have noticed in the Tour de France recently they are not giving air time to blockages for environmental activists. Smart.
But they'll probably get a hard time for not airing the views.
See? Can't win.
No. The most you can actually conclude is that the lad could reasonably expect that he would get attention. There is absolutely no evidence he was seeking it - that it was his motivation for acting in this manner.
Nice try, but this is the paradox of tolerance yet again.
The point is, the conservatives' hole here (if you want to put it that way) is one that negatively affects other people by attempting to restrict their freedom of action
By contrast, the lad in the OP's hole does not negatively affect other people in any way unless they choose to get their knickers in a twist about it.
There is an objective difference. Somebody else going against your ideology and not acting as you like to act is not "harm" in any meaningful sense of the world. Bullying someone because you don't like their actions which do not actually impinge on you in any way on the other hand absolutely is harm.
Does anyone else find it laughably ironic that the Right accuse the Left of being snowflakes?
Back in the day when trinitarian Christianity was the widely held belief, Jehovahs Witnesses were upsetting social norms by knocking on people's doors to tell them that Jesus was not Jehovah and he died on an upright stake; the vast majority of even the saved will not go to Heaven; no one goes to Hell; Christmas and Easter are to be shunned as pagan; patriotic observances are idolatrous; and it's better to die than to get a blood transfusion. They also, I can directly attest, gave their propaganda to impressionable children, sometimes without parental permission.
Do you think they should have been banned from doing all this, because it upset the ideology of most people?
Tolerated non-conformity to social norms leads inevitably to a change in what those social norms actually are, which can eventually mean the old social norms are no longer acceptable within society.
Think of the Overton Window in politics. It moving to the right doesn’t prevent those on the left from advocating the same policies they always have, so in that sense it doesn’t affect them, but it nevertheless makes it harder and harder for them to advocate for their conception of a good society and thus makes that good society less likely to ever exist. The window could even shift so far that their views are no longer considered an acceptable part of political discourse, effectively silencing them. That could be said to be - and is certainly perceived as - a harm to them.
Can you honestly forsee that leaving the lad in the OP alone is going to lead to a situation where all boys have to wear dresses to their proms?
The main point, if we can ever get back there, is that presented with someone for whom the social norms apparently do not work, is our inclination to think that the person in question should either somehow change, or just suck it up and conform, or do we tend to think that we need to allow people to do what's authentic for them, even if it is somewhat unusual? My point was that that seems to be the dividing point between social conservatives and progressives.
The relevance of the incident in question is that as a progressive I was somewhat surprised and somewhat confused by the amount of hatred people were able to show to someone they'd never met simply by his non-conformity in a somewhat trivial matter than didn't impinge upon them at all. It set my thought processes going. And frankly, reminded me too much of the little turds who hound, mock and abuse the "weird" kids of all kinds at school.
Or alternatively, which set of social norms one thinks should be enforced.
It's more how we view people who fall outside those social norms - if we equate conforming with social norms or not as "good" and "bad", or whether we see them as statistical norms with no inherent moral dimension - and therefore whether they should be enforced or not.
But then, any expression of a currently minority viewpoint could have the impact of shifting social norms, thus leading to the new thinking becoming dominant and adherents to the old thinking perceiving themselves as harmed. But that doesn't make it the state's business to suppress those minority viewpoints(*).
(*) State suppression of non-conformity being, I assume, what WhimsicalChristian is advocating. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see why he would bring up the alleged problem of non-conformity in a political discussion if he weren't advocating state intervention against it.
At that point, it becomes mandatory to shove people into narrows holes because [rhetorical] you're basically scared shitless of anyone who doesn't conform to your shape.
"There must be one kind of hole and one kind of peg! Anyone does not fit this hole is a threat, because people who stick pegs into holes in any other way are going to eventually expect all of us to start sticking pegs into the wrong holes!"
My experience as a leftish cis-straight guy with left wing queer folks is pretty extensive, and I've never once felt pressured to become one. I've occasionally been hit on by gay guys, and it was really easy to say "no, thanks, I'm flattered but it's not my thing."
I wish I could say the same for right wing straight folks trying to harass or bully people out of being queer. Y'all are embarrassing me. It's a shame and a deep disgrace, which is why I must make an embarrassing joke about pegs and holes.
That the shadow of Epiphanies is looming over this conversation is obvious to me, but I have no desire to drag this thread there.
It needn't though.
Incidentally, a little story which might have a bearing on this or might not.
Long, long ago I was chatting to someone who happened to be a member of a hockey team. He was saying how he always drank Snakebite* when he was out with the team, because that's what everyone else in the team drank.
I was genuinely taken aback - it had never, and would never, occur to me to choose a drink in a pub because the people I was with drank it. It's not that I'd consciously rejected the idea - I'd literally never had it cross my mind.
I don't know how or if this plays into how I see these issues.
*half and half cider (usually cheap and nasty) and lager (ditto - you're not going to get Czech Budvar and farmhouse Somerset...)
The state itself should absolutely be religion free. In fact, it must. That's the whole point of the distinction. Religion may have a moral voice, but it is not alone in that regard. Its contributions should not be considered any less or any more than any other. It is merely a voice. But it's hard to imagine how consistent, repeated critiques of policies put forward by a particular party don't represent at least a tacit endorsement of the other. That can be filed under the "C'mon, man." label for sure.
I just don't see the left threatening the right on social issues beyond "we'd like some public funding for our stuff," which is pretty much what any citizen of this godforsaken country (USA, where I reside) does when they want to do something that isn't cheap.
The other place where it can come up is "I want my kids to carry the same social prejudices I do, so I hate the idea that my kids are reading books that say it's ok to be socially transgressive." And so you get library bans and big public campaigns against any and all literature that might be seen as friendly to suspected social transgressives.
And I suspect we'll start seeing a cottage industry of thinly veiled hatred against said people pretty shortly as the new administration settles in. It was already showing up in the current occupant's campaign ads. He had one highlighting one such person and basically advertised her as a laughing-stock. "See the freak? That's what they're like! Vote for me!" I saw the ad at work once and - contrary to my usual habits - actually flipped off the TV because I know folks like that and they don't deserve the hate. Yep, that's personal. If any doth take offense at my taking of offense, that's an honest conversation.
I think the political right wing has always understood that there's more power in unity and cohesion, and they will tend to limit the number of available holes because that's what builds more power. That's why right wingers don't like for there to be too many holes. And they're not entirely wrong, as I watch endless left wing bickers between different ideological factions. The strife between center left and the far left on the internet is infamous.
Another side of that, to my eyes, is scarcity mentality. Making different-shaped holes costs a little money. The cognitive work involved in sorting out someone's pronouns adds a little bit to the cost of a conversation. Having signs in two languages costs resources, so does making your bathroom accessible to a modern wheelchair. How much are you willing to spend for that one person in your community who falls into this type? If there is one? Why are they wasting my taxpayer dollars on those other people? Wouldn't it be better if we were all the same? So much simpler! So much cheaper!
See? I do know conservatives! I grew up around these people! I grew up in this community, and these are real conversations! Because some communities are poor and so they have to see human issues as economic issues. In the USA it's called fiscal conservatism and if you're not careful it turns into racism, ableism, and a bunch of other ugly words that mean "more for the normies like me, less for you because we are already too broke for that." And then they whine about having to pay too much in taxes to a government that gives too much money to "somewhere else."
Should add...not all folks I grew up around are like that, but too many. And I've totally met city folks who have the same attitude. These are American regional stereotypes that I mess around with because - in a certain sense - they're mine. Brits, Aussies, et al, if you could be so kind, handle with care. I think there are common threads, but there are also variations.
Maybe I did not phrase what I meant the right way.
I know of no government that can be religion free--France comes close, but what they say they are doing is avoiding privileging any religion.
Take a look at East Germany. They claimed to be atheist and drove the church underground, but the people flocked to the church precisely because it was underground. Eventually that underground movement toppled the government. Same with Poland.
No, I am not saying religion has exclusive claim to being the moral voice of a country. It is really an equal voice along other voices including pure humanist voices offering moral perspectives. Sometimes those voices can blend in harmoniously, but other times, they can be discordant.
An example where the voices are harmonious is the reaction to the ICE raids.
An opposite example is the care of the elderly. Some voices may say the elderly have a duty to die. There are voices that say we must ration healthcare that deprioritizes those with chronic health conditions, Yet, generally, Christians claim every human being including the frail, dependent, cognitively impaired or chronically ill bears the image of God and possesses inviolable dignity. We have to say vulnerability is not shameful. Dependence is not a failure. The elderly are not expendable. Life is not measured by productivity. (That sounds like Fascism!)
In short, we do have a voice in the public square, but we are not the only voice.
So there are radical Islamist militants who want to impose a conservative theocratic state on the world. And there are many many liberals ofball religions or none or even authoritarian members of other religions who do not want to live under a theocratic state.
Now under your logic the people who do not want to live in a theocratic state are harming the militants by not confirming to the laws of such a state, and if you argue against such a state you are being just as intolerant as the advocates of a theocratic state.
Likewise, according to your logic China is authoritarian and repressive for repressing dissidents, and the West is equally authoritarian and repressive for interfering with China repressing critics of the Chinese government in the West.
I doubt you actually accept the logic in those cases, and therefore I think you're just spinning an argument.
In India the majority of people, both men and women, are not wearing trousers.
We know this. So it cannot be an incontestable fact that a person wearing a dress is determined to cause a rumpus.
If someone was wearing a beautiful Islamic thobe is anyone really saying that they should be rejected from a church party because they look like a woman?
I apologise for bringing it back to clothing, but to me this is the most ridiculous part of the whole scenario.
Are we really going to say that it is appropriate for a church to take a moral position on exactly which face tattoos are or are not acceptable? That if the old white ladies who are the majority in an imaginary small church in Auckland find them scary then no Maori should be allowed to attend services?
Yes.
Yes.
You keep saying the example would not cause harm. But that's not true. It would just not cause harm on your ideology.
You have yet to identify the harm it causes. Again, "I don't like it" does not mean I've been harmed.
I suggest you refer to Dafyd's excellent post above.
Not at all. Liberal democracies believe in freedom of speech and religion. At least we used to. The left doesn't seem to anymore.
But you used to have the right to protest against things you disagree with.
Karl seems to be saying you're not allowed to say anything if you don't agree with something.
Do you have a source for most people in India not wearing trousers? This seems a little far-fetched - trousers are a traditional form of Indian clothing, eg salwar kameez or churidhar.
That, sir, is objectively false.
It's about forcing people to stay in your lane.
Does it really matter? It is an incontestable fact that large numbers of people around the world are not wearing trousers/pants.
Even in the same culture, go back a few centuries and you start looking at funny things like men wearing high heels and tights.
I practiced Aikido in undergraduate and, because it was traditional Japanese culture, once you got serious you trained wearing these complex garments called "hakama" that were conventional men's wear. The truth is that the white top and trousers you usually see martial artists train in were undergarments. You look like you're training in boxers and a tank top. So of course you'd want to train wearing pants.
But hakama are practically long, pleated skirts with a barely-visible split down the middle. And there was some pride in wearing them in context, but there was an absolutely ridiculous feeling wearing them anywhere else.
Cultural norms are fun, and college is a great place to learn about that fact.
I don't know which jurisdiction you live in but unless it is Afghanistan under the Taliban, you are unlikely to be in a place where it is normal to protest about the clothing other people are wearing.
You probably could protest about the number of magpies and the price of soft cheese but I am not sure why you would want to. Equally I am unclear why you think it is a judicious use of time to exercise your 'freedom of speech' in protest of other people's satorial choices.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
Not to this discussion necessarily, but there's a danger of Orientalising here.
I don't think he's saying any such thing. You are tilting at windmills.
Yes, we have to be vigilant to preserve freedom of speech but I don't see KarlLB advocating muzzling anyone.
Have I missed something?
I think that's a valid risk to be aware of, but I don't think we're over the line yet. And if we're going to look at clothing and social norms, it's a fact that different cultures approach clothing differently.
Good to be mindful, for sure. It is an occupational hazard of the conversation. I do hope - dare I say expect? - that we can keep things respectful.
I don't understand what you mean. It's simply a fact that more men around the world wear something that has more in common with a dress than a pair of jeans.
But I think we need to avoid becoming too 'literal' here. The thread is about the principle of enforcing or not enforcing conformity and uses a particular example to do so.
I'm sure @KarlLB could have used other examples to make the same point. We could get bogged down discussing the specifics of the particular instance he cites in the OP rather than the broader principles it raises.
I don't really think that's necessarily true any more - and more to the point I don't really think it matters all that much to this discussion.
A letter from the Kansas Division of Vehicles dated 23 February is reportedly being sent to the homes of transgender Kansans informing them that they must surrender their driver's licenses and that their current credentials will be considered invalid upon the House Substitute for Senate Bill 244’s publication in the Kansas Register today (26 February).
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 was passed on 17 February after the Kansas House overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto. Because of this, Kansas-issued driver's licenses and identification cards must now reflect the credential holder's “sex at birth.”
The letter— as seen by Erin In The Morning— notes that the Legislature "did not include a grace period for updating credentials," and anyone operating a vehicle without a valid credential "may be subject to additional penalties." Those whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth are directed to surrender their current credential to the Division of Vehicles for reissuance.
The consequences for noncompliance could escalate quickly. Under Kansas law, driving without a valid license is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. A conviction triggers an automatic 90-day license suspension. If a person drives during that suspension, they face a charge of driving on a suspended license, which carries a mandatory minimum of five days in jail. Kansas requires county jails to house inmates by sex assigned at birth.
This is from Pink News, an o
That's not an argument. It is easy for differing social norms to exist side-by-side. There are lots of existence proofs of this. You just need to accept that your social norms are not universal.
I think it matters a lot to this discussion. What doesn't matter is whether there are a billion or 500,000,000 or almost any large number of men who don't wear trousers.
The point I'm making is that it's a big number so it is culturally incoherent to claim anything universal about the western concepts of gendered clothing.
That's true, but that's not the same as your original claim which was based on majority for a particular type of clothing in a particular country. Which again, I don't think is true, based on travel there and what I've read and heard discussed ('western dress' is actually quite a live topic there because of how it interacts with notions of modernity vs tradition and so on).
If I may...
I think there's always an inherent risk to discussing a culture that's not "mine." So if I start going on about Indian/Pakistani culture with a certain familiarity when I'm a white guy from America with only a tenuous contact with India or Pakistan, that can become rude because I'm not from India or from Pakistan.
I don't know if I'd want to speak for @chrisstiles here, but I think orientalism is an occupational hazard of talking across cultures when one is not a member of the cultures being discussed.
To me it's a case of "yeah, there's a line there, let's not cross it." I haven't seen anyone cross it yet but it's a line that I'm aware of and watching people cross it can be a painful experience.
The funny thing is that "cultures can't coexist" is an inherently threatening statement to my entire neighborhood in which cultures happily coexist. To employ unfortunate regional stereotypes: Them's fighin' words.