Gosh no, if it were up to me, we wouldn’t have any bans on same-sex marriage. I’m not religious so I don’t personally care how marriage is defined. To be honest I even disagree with the theological arguments that marriage is one man and one woman.
If it were entirely up to me, we would have something like civil unions for everyone and the concept of “marriage” would be purged from government entirely, to avoid religious baggage. (I recognize that is a radical, not conservative position. I have stated it here before.)
My position has always been that legal analysis is totally independent of moral analysis; bad laws lead to bad things, which is why it is important to have good laws in the first place.
But you aren’t proposing civil unions for everybody at the same time, are you? It’s going to be civil unions for gays, then…“Well, I guess throwing marriage out the window just isn’t possible. Who knew? shrug?”
The fundamental disingenuousness of your position is being pointed out, since the whole point of the “civil union” concept was to give homosexual couples a separate, inferior version of marriage. It was imply a fallback position of the Right, attempting to create another “separate but equal” segregation regime that would have written their bigotry into law.
Whatever the fundamental disingenuousness is, I don’t see it. How far do you want me to go into this, in ATMB? Do you even care what I think about laws that don’t exist?
Max, on the subject of this thread, I think what you need to do is first convince us that a problem exists which should or must be addressed. So far, you haven’t done that.
So my original point was that, “You can’t, in a civil discussion with members of a group, characterize that group as motivated by malice and hurtful intent.” Because that would be insulting a participant in the discussion.
I say Der_Trihs characterized “conservatives” as being motivated by malice, in a discussion with members of that group (namely me). Thus making the discussion uncivil. I say this is a problem because discussions in Great Debates are supposed to be civil.
Do you agree that happened, and do you agree that it is a problem?
ETA: Of the responses so far, my read has generally been (apologies if I misconstrue anyone’s position):
Didn’t happen because you (Max_S) are not really a conservative (raised by eg: Aspenglow)
My response: for the purposes of that discussion, I’m well within the conservative group
Not a problem because some debates shouldn’t be civil (eg: Der_Trihs)
My response: then those debates should be banned from GD
Not a problem because not hate speech / not insulting a protected group (eg: What_Exit)
Only because “civil” is consistently used to mean “lying in favor of the powerful”. Speaking honestly about the Right is never going to be “civil”, only lies in their favor are “civil”.
If I couldn’t speak honestly about a group without accusing it of malicious intent, then I think the rules prohibit me from speaking honestly about that group in Great Debates. I’d be compelled to make the remark in the Pit or not at all, since my understanding - prior to this thread - was that one is not allowed to accuse members of lying or otherwise acting in bad faith outside the Pit, because that is, in my opinion, an insult.
See, I just don’t see how that’s even uncivil, much less that being uncivil is a problem.
On the first point, I would say that being part of a group defined by its adherence to hateful beliefs is actually what is uncivil, and that in “civil” society we need not dance around that. Similar to how you can resolve the apparent paradox of tolerance by recognizing that being anti-intolerance is actually pro-tolerance, and therefore there is no paradox in tolerant people denying a platform to or otherwise refusing to tolerate those espousing intolerant ideologies or dogma.
On the second point, even if I were to grant it’s uncivil, I personally feel that civility is overrated, particularly as I tend to share @Der_Trihs’ view that “civility” is just code for norms that people in power want to impose on others, whether or not it promotes greater public welfare.
So you still haven’t even convinced me (or, I think, anyone) that there is a problem, much less that it must or should be addressed.
And the way you don’t dance around it, is by not treating that group with civility. Because a group that doesn’t come to the table in good faith does not deserve civility in return. So you resolve the paradox by not engaging with them in civil discussion; when you do engage, it is not via civil discussion. For example you tell them to their face that they are malicious and acting in bad faith.
Which is an insult. And not civil.
Which is, in my opinion, prohibited by the rules in GD.
This is where I disagree with you. I don’t think telling someone they are being malicious is an insult. The person might not like to hear it, but that’s not the same thing as insulting them.
How do you square that view with, ‘attack the post but not the poster’?
Accusations of malice, and of bad faith - of making “excuses” “to justify and enable fundamental bigotry and malice”, are very clearly attacking the poster in my view.
Don’t you think it’s an insult if someone called you a woman-hater? What’s the difference from your point of view, if there is any?
“You are free to criticize a post as racist provided you refrain from insults. Direct your comments at the post, not the poster. “This post is racist” is not objectionable. “You are a racist” is an insult and may result in a warning or other mod action. Do not attempt to skirt this rule with remarks such as “only a racist would say such a thing” or other game-playing.”
Wouldn’t this rule apply in the situation of, “This post is hurtful” versus “you are malicious” or “people who say such things are malicious”?
Max: props for starting this thread. I strongly disagree with the OP. Economists (and David French if you want a conservative proponent) believe in the theory of revealed preference: to discover what people really believe, ignore their words and observe their actions. This applies doubly so when a group is shown to reject long stated beliefs virtually overnight, as conservatives did in 2016. (Ref: Stuart Stevens).
In such a context ignoring motives enhances ignorance.
Obvious logical mistake: empirical generalizations about groups rarely apply without exceptions. Your conclusion doesn’t follow at all.
Max. This only becomes a problem for the tribally inclined. If I suggest that poster X is arguing in bad faith - well that doesn’t seem particularly pitworthy to me to be honest. Because bad faith is sometimes defined as lying to oneself, and to some extent the accusation should be treated as a caution, not an insult. But when we get to Der Trihs levels, yeah I agree that would be pitworthy if directed at an individual. But he doesn’t do that: Der posts broadsides in GD against conservatives as a group.
If 90% of liberals share a certain vice that I do not, I can either stop identifying as a liberal, or simply draw some distinctions between me and them. In your case, you might want to distinguish between maga-conservatives and I dunno abortion conservatives. Or empirical libertarian conservatives. Or any slicing and dicing that insulates you from the sorts of appeals that conservative political candidates make today. In other words pose as a free-thinker. Then enjoy the resulting pit thread.
In 2017 I noticed that there was a broad intellectual coalition stretching from Milton Friedman to Paul Samuelson to Paul Krugman that would reject Trumpism. On twitter neoliberals argued for such a position. But there were few conservatives takes, and the group ended up just calling themselves New Liberals years later. Never Trumpism turned out to be electorally minuscule.
To be fair, in scientific contexts it is considered very poor form to accuse proponents of an opposing theory of bad faith. If you have a problem with an opposing theory, attack the theory not its proponents. But again, that doesn’t apply to sociological groups or historical political movements. At all.
SDMB’s rules implicitly do not consider pejorative comments directed at groups identified by political affiliation to be prohibited:
Hate speech. Do not post hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or other group identity (except for political affiliation or leaning) in any forum.
Likewise:
Now, if you want to argue that it should be prohibited, then I’m still waiting for you to convince me that there is a problem, much less that it needs to or should be solved.
As noted upthread, hate speech is a different rule than the rule against insults. In fact, it is specifically noted that calling someone a racist is never hate speech but is considered an insult, while calling a post racist is not an insult.