Bob, I think the principal driver of the saeculum are objective beliefs or theories of how things work, what I call the paradigm. You talk of conflicting values and values lock which appears to be a different since it implies morality. So I asked for examples because I have not seen where your concept is really different from mine. And you came back with Red-side theories (that’s what I think, I wanted to see where we differ). I responded by throwing in some Red-side values expressed in an emotional tone. And now you have brought in values. So now we something to work with. Stuff in () is added for clarity.
This is a value. As I see it, you believe the government needs to promote equality as part of the pursuit of happiness. So where does the values lock come in?
I have favored gay marriage since 1994. However, as was predicted by conservative pundits I read, as soon as this was achieved progressives would start pushing on the transgender front. And they have (as you say there are more battles to be fought). In recent times there has been an increase in the fraction of teenagers who identify as transgender. Should these teenagers be allowed to get the hormone treatment/surgical intervention they say they want. Such actions are not the same as boys wearing earrings or dying your hair blue (both things that are not permanent). I think the red side has a point in saying these kids can wait until they are adults before taking such steps. I understand the research to be supportive of this view. Another example of battles to be fought would be forcing religious organizations to not discriminate against gay or transgender people, even when their religious beliefs hold these people to be sinners. Red siders are incensed when Blue siders equate their views on gay marriage with racial views on marriage from half a century ago.
Finally Trump did not say Muslims should be expelled from the US. He called for a shutdown on Muslim immigration until we can figure what the hell is going on. Since then he has fleshed out his position. In short he wants to prevent Muslims who are “haters” (as you call them) from entering the US. Right now we would allow advocates of Sharia law (the Muslim equivalent of Christian Dominionists) into the US if they have no connection with terrorists organizations (the Muslim equivalent of groups like Christian Identity). (As with Christians only a tiny fraction of very orthodox Muslim adherents support terrorism). The reality is a much larger fraction of Muslims still hold with the old-time religion, whereas very few Christians still do. The funny thing is Blue folks decry the old-time remnants of Christianity, while seeming to be OK with their much more prevalent old-time Muslims. A lot more Muslims still are believers in their faith than Christians.
This is kind of a mess. You are contradicting yourself. In the first two statements you say you are opposed to prejudice, but don’t think we should require people to behave in a non-prejudiced manner. You then equate opposition to PC and affirmative action is close to prejudice. That is you see them as bad, but don’t think we should anything about them. But then in the final statement you say doing nothing is not an option. You seem to imply that prejudice should be handled on a private interpersonal level, yet you appear to support affirmative action (since opposing this is close to the prejudice that good men must oppose). So good men should support affirmative action? But isn’t this coercion of the prejudiced?
The sense I gather from this post is that the Red side are haters, and the sooner their values die the better. On the other hand the values you hold are the correct ones. Those that will win out in the future. What you call the arrow of progress.
Quote:I am not thrilled by affirmative action or political correctness. I'd much rather they not be necessary.….(but) it's one of the government's primary jobs to promote equality.
This is a value. As I see it, you believe the government needs to promote equality as part of the pursuit of happiness. So where does the values lock come in?
Quote:While it is not one of my favored issues, I am against prejudice. If people are being harassed or denied equal opportunity because of race, religion, gender, place of birth, etc... I see something as being wrong which should be addressed….The haters are slowly losing ground, sometimes not so slowly in the case of the recent gay marriage court decision. There are more battles to be fought, and they will be fought. Meanwhile, hatred can be used for political gain. Build a wall on the Mexican border. Expel people from the country based on their religious belief. Certain people will weave songs of hate for personal power…….
Quote:That's what's wrong with America.Are you saying that the values lock is haters gotta hate? Has it occurred to you that the Red side may not see themselves as haters? You give Trump’s wall as an example of hate. The wall is a symbol for a policy of aggressive restriction of immigration like what was done in 1924. Both it and an opposition to free trade call have similar economic characteristics. Both seek to restrict the use of American demand to support job creation for foreigners, either abroad or illegally inside the US. Both would probably have direct beneficial impact on low-wage American workers. Turchin thinks immigration restriction was key to the inequality reduction mid century. I disagree and plan to offer my capitalist crisis theory as an alternative, as soon as his book comes out so I can cite it. But that is an empirical question. What IS true, is both of the things Trump wants were in place before the New Deal, and may well have allowed it to work better than it might otherwise have. I just don’t know. Given this I cannot classify immigration restriction as hate.
I have favored gay marriage since 1994. However, as was predicted by conservative pundits I read, as soon as this was achieved progressives would start pushing on the transgender front. And they have (as you say there are more battles to be fought). In recent times there has been an increase in the fraction of teenagers who identify as transgender. Should these teenagers be allowed to get the hormone treatment/surgical intervention they say they want. Such actions are not the same as boys wearing earrings or dying your hair blue (both things that are not permanent). I think the red side has a point in saying these kids can wait until they are adults before taking such steps. I understand the research to be supportive of this view. Another example of battles to be fought would be forcing religious organizations to not discriminate against gay or transgender people, even when their religious beliefs hold these people to be sinners. Red siders are incensed when Blue siders equate their views on gay marriage with racial views on marriage from half a century ago.
Finally Trump did not say Muslims should be expelled from the US. He called for a shutdown on Muslim immigration until we can figure what the hell is going on. Since then he has fleshed out his position. In short he wants to prevent Muslims who are “haters” (as you call them) from entering the US. Right now we would allow advocates of Sharia law (the Muslim equivalent of Christian Dominionists) into the US if they have no connection with terrorists organizations (the Muslim equivalent of groups like Christian Identity). (As with Christians only a tiny fraction of very orthodox Muslim adherents support terrorism). The reality is a much larger fraction of Muslims still hold with the old-time religion, whereas very few Christians still do. The funny thing is Blue folks decry the old-time remnants of Christianity, while seeming to be OK with their much more prevalent old-time Muslims. A lot more Muslims still are believers in their faith than Christians.
Quote:I'm not out to coerce the prejudiced to behave in a certain way. I'm against prejudice though.… To say one opposes political correctness and affirmative action is not that far from saying one approves of bigotry and hatred, that bigotry and hate should be allowed to stand and thrive without challenge or question. I can dream of a time when government action to promote equality will be unnecessary, and I'd try to keep a line that when one is protecting a group from harassment one shouldn't harass the harassers unduly. Still, there is much yet to be done. Good men to doing nothing is not an option here.
This is kind of a mess. You are contradicting yourself. In the first two statements you say you are opposed to prejudice, but don’t think we should require people to behave in a non-prejudiced manner. You then equate opposition to PC and affirmative action is close to prejudice. That is you see them as bad, but don’t think we should anything about them. But then in the final statement you say doing nothing is not an option. You seem to imply that prejudice should be handled on a private interpersonal level, yet you appear to support affirmative action (since opposing this is close to the prejudice that good men must oppose). So good men should support affirmative action? But isn’t this coercion of the prejudiced?
The sense I gather from this post is that the Red side are haters, and the sooner their values die the better. On the other hand the values you hold are the correct ones. Those that will win out in the future. What you call the arrow of progress.