Conservative Territorial Pissings, and Other Thoughts
Hypewaders said:
I know it will sound arrogant, but the general "side" I find myself on (liberal, libertarian) is (in general) a more intellectual, educated, and worldly demographic. If this is true, then tightening up the standards of discourse with too much torque will most likely result in political discussions here that will be considerably more if not completely one-sided.
It's not a matter of sounding arrogant, at least as far as I see. Rather, though, I would propose that we are conditioned by experience at Sciforums to view the opposition as being, well, rather quite stupid.
This transition will not squeeze out conservative thought and expression,
per se. However, it will have a greater effect on the conservative end of the spectrum because it seems there is a higher concentration among them of members who write stupid posts.
Some of the people on my (or our, as such) side of the aisle have indulged more and more over the last year at least in low-effort posts and threads intended not so much to advance or debate any particular idea, but to swing at the opposition. And while I think the bases of these swings are at least a little more factually sound, I don't see how this sort of thing is productive outside stimulating a minor and fleeting ego rush.
To the other, I understand some part of their motivation. There really isn't a point to having a more complex discussion with the objects of their attention.
But I don't believe that our conservative trolls, bigots, delusionals, and paranoiacs describe the whole potential of political conservatism. There is a large, functional, and valuable territory in which conservatives can operate.
To use a banner issue as an example: health care. The American health care situation is obviously problematic. We've reached the point where people's lives are such a business consideration that the idea of insurance has become questionable at least if not outright useless. After all, what is the point of paying an insurance premium if you're going to be canceled as soon as you need to file an important claim? People lacking health insurance generally incur a tremendous societal expense. The long-term effects of reduced quality of health in people can seriously damage a society. These are all vital considerations the current situation puts before us. And the questions posed by potential solutions? They're very important, too. How do we reduce these effects? How do we increase health–and thus quality of life—in our society? How do we afford it? What are the limits of our capabilities? These are all issues conservatives could address, and by doing so have a positive impact on the discourse. As I've said before, I don't trust Congress to do this quickly; it would be helpful if it wasn't
just the Democrats participating in the functional argument.
But for various reasons, the conservative role in the dialogue is dominated by superstition, paranoia, and, yes, sublimated bigotry.
I don't think we can wholly eliminate these aspects in the discourse at Sciforums. There will always be someone to raise the points. But if those occasions are deviations from a more rational discussion, it will be harder to justify the increasingly harsh response. Think of it this way: If somebody lacks certain information, they might well post the extremist version of the question. When those points are answered, how does that person respond? Do they shift to the new concerns arising from the dialectic? Or do they just ignore the counterpoint and cling to a position largely invested in identity politics? Good faith doesn't preclude someone from fearing the health care reform effort. But there comes a point when the idea of death panels killing your grandma needs something more than blind reiteration. It's part of the difference between good faith and trolling.
We're approaching seventeen years since my first gay-rights ballot. Eighteen years since a bunch of Christian zealots asked me to be aware of gay rights. And after all that time, I'm still hearing the same talking points. Now, if these were rational, that might be one thing. But back then homosexuality was grouped with pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia, all of which constitute forms of rape. In all these years, that argument hasn't changed much. So I might wonder what eighteen years of Christians ignoring the idea of
sexual consent is supposed to mean. Well, fuck, am I supposed to keep my daughter away from Christians? Or is that a little paranoid? But after eighteen years, I really
do wonder how
consent fits into these people's vision of sexuality. The provision of comfort, for instance, has long been a wifely duty. It was nearly the twenty-first century before the British officially (as opposed to tacitly) dispensed with a man's ownership of his wife. Marital rape is still a problem around the world, including in Christian societies. Over and over again, another brick in the wall.
I probably wouldn't hold the homophobes and traditionalists in such contempt if, over that period, some
substantial argument had emerged. The problem for that wing is that their arguments hit a wall at the edge of reality. They're going to lose this battle. The only ways for them to win is radical revision of the U.S. Constitution or some disaster that sets back human knowledge and perspective to a considerable degree. Eighteen years I've been hearing this broken record. And I'm fucking sick of it.
On the far side of that, of course, is the notion that too much liberty is tyranny. If we venture forward into
Brave New World territory, I
don't think that society is healthy. I
don't think young children would benefit from prescribed mutual sex-play;
chapter three of Huxley's masterpiece is especially nightmarish.
Now, coming back a little toward reality, we have an occasional debate in the U.S. about birth control and STD protection being available through public schools. In the UK some are concerned that the government and social interest groups have the appearance of advocating oral sex among the youth. Psychology might recognize the need for intimacy, and medicine suggests quite clearly you can't get pregnant from swallowing a load, but beyond that it would be questionable if people were encouraging kids to oral sex for the sake of encouraging kids to oral sex. And, frankly, I can't tell fact from myth in the idea that you can talk a schoolgirl into anal sex so she won't get pregnant and can protect her virginity. I'm sure it happens, but ....
Reality demands a middle ground between the rhetorical extremes. I know few liberals who would explicitly advocate sexualizing children, but I'm also aware that some policy suggestions tread into this realm. To the other, there are conservatives who think STD and pregnancy prevention efforts are going to result in regular child orgies, or some such. And that hysterical tone isn't especially isolated. Indeed, it's to the point that people are hearing a wolf-cry. Maybe the ten-thousandth time someone hears it, the alarm will happen to be justified. But what will they think when they hear it? When it's the same person who insists that two adults consenting to have sex is the same as raping a child? What will others think? Will they say,
A-ha! This
time they're onto something! Or will they just mutter something about prudes and move on with their day?
I think our conservatives have much valuable territory to explore and defend. I just wish they would. And if, as you suggest—and I would not contest—these changes
will have a disparate effect as regards the general division between liberal and conservative, it may well be the result of disparate concentrations of extremism in each general campaign. I think you'll find the other side of the aisle more challenging, stimulating, and useful in that case.
At least, I hope that's how it would go.
