In so many threads over the years, I see the same pattern of people dogmatically sticking to their positions. Citations are given, and then brushed aside. Hundreds or even thousands of comments are made in a thread. But it seems people dig in their heels and stick with their beliefs.
I started this thread to give people the opportunity to share what they have changed their mind about in their adult lives. Either as a result of the conversations on this board, or elsewhere.
For me, as a Progressive, it was the subject of Islam. There are many on the left who seem to be hypersensitive about criticizing this particular religion, and equate any criticism of this particular set of ideas as “bigotry.” I’m with Sam Harris on this subject, over Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck.
As an adult, polygamy. I used to lean against allowing legal polygamy because of the potential destructive social effects*. However, at some point I realized that those effects don’t actually* require* marriage; they just require large amounts of women to decide to form polygynous relationships. Something they can do just as well without a legal contract. Since nothing is gained by opposing polygamy, then, I no longer do so.
*Examples seen IRL would be a few men taking large numbers of women as wives leaving many or most men no chance to find a partner, and the mistreatment or worse of “excess” boys.
I used to believe that pregnant teenagers who had their babies should be required to place them for adoption. While it should be done much more frequently than it is, by women of all childbearing ages, I don’t believe that any more.
I endorse efforts made by schools to keep them (and, in many cases, the fathers too) in school; the centers used by high school (and, unfortunately, junior high) student parents at no cost to them in my city are sponsored by different organizations. One is staffed and funded by the YWCA; all the school does is provide the space. Another does not have on-site child care, but a church down the street does run a preschool and day care, and students can also use it at no cost to them. In both cases, staff members also get to use it but they have to pay for it, which is only fair. They are not allowed to just dump their babies off at the center and skip school, either, which has been a problem at some places.
Most of the women nowadays who place their babies for adoption are women in their 20s, 30s, and even 40s.
It wasn’t based on debates from here, but the purpose of college. In college I thought the purpose was to get trained for a job. So study what gets you qualified to get a job that pays the bills. I viewed it like an apprenticeship.
When I got into the real world I realize that even though I’ve worked in companies that are related to what I studied, I’ve never used 95% of the stuff I learned that is related to my field (the 50 credit hours of stuff related to what I do). I never used 99% of the other science and humanities I studied at work.
Looking back, college turned me into a more rounded individual who was a better writer, better debater, better communicator, more informed voter, someone who could get along with a wide group of personalities and all around better citizen. That is the goal of liberal arts programs, to create better citizens and human beings. I went into college thinking ‘I have to get my bachelors of science so I can get a job in field X’. But looking back, that was a terrible attitude. All employers care about is if you have the piece of paper, virtually none of what I learned has come up at work. At work people more care about things like can you learn to perform a task, do you have a baseline of knowledge to pick up new skills, are you reliable and efficient, are you an easy coworker to get along with, etc.
The most informative classes I took in college that gave me the most life skills were electives I had to take, not classes related to my major. Sociology, psychology, criminal justice, gender studies, etc. Entry level science courses (especially biology) were great, but beyond that I don’t use what I studied.
If I could do it again, among other things, I would double major. I’d do the B.S. in my scientific field, but I’d also do a B.A. in a humanities field.
Ok, but I still don’t see any reason to socially sanction it. I think social opprobrium has SOMETHING to do with the relative lack of polygamy in this country (exempting those Fundamentalist Mormon sects, of course). If you can show me a single example of a healthy, happy, society that has polygamy as a regular practice, I’d be willing to reconsider.
Around a year ago, I argued at length (not here, elsewhere) in defense of prohibiting transgender individuals from using restrooms for their preferred gender. These days I defend their right to do so. To be honest, there’s still a bit about the transgender/gender-fluid sphere that doesn’t “sit right” with me or I have trouble fully getting my mind around but I’ve since decided that I can ignore my gut reactions for people who aren’t hurting anything and just want to live.
My beliefs on same sex marriage have shifted from the 90s (no) to 2000s (they can have civil unions) to today (yay, the SCotUS rules to allow it). So I roll my eyes when people snark about politicians evolving their positions over the years. In the 90’s there was an overwhelming majority against SSM, today a clear majority support it – a lot of people have “evolved their positions” in the past couple decades.
I used to be strongly anti-religious, to the degree of burning hatred. I once tried to chop down a cross on a hilltop. (Doubly stupid, because it wasn’t public property; it was private property. I was a jerk.)
A very nice minister, on a forum much like this one, took the time to work with me, and helped me past my anti-religious anger. Now I’m just strongly non-religious.
I went through a similar phase-change regarding gun control. I used to be much more anti-gun than I am now; my views moderated and softened, and, again, it was debate forums like this that did the trick.
I used to favor some sort of prenatal abrogation of paternal rights and responsibilities, aka “male abortion”. It seemed only fair that a man have the ability to opt out of parenthood similar to that of a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
I have since changed my mind, due to discussion on these boards. First, because life ain’t fair, sweetcheeks; biology made it not fair, same as she gave people with uteruses periods and people with penises embarrassing erections in algebra class.
But second and more importantly, I’ve moved a bit on my rationale behind abortion rights. I’m still solidly pro-choice, but where once I was pro-choice because I didn’t believe anyone should have to be a parent against their will, now I’m pro-choice because I believe in the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person, and their right not to be pregnant. I don’t believe that a fetus should have greater rights - greater rights than any born person - to the use of a person’s organs against their will.
Coming from a very fundamentalist upbringing, I was extremely pro-life and not much LGBT friendly. In my twenties, my stance changed on abortion when I began to learn more about feminism. Meeting more gay people and discovering they weren’t what the preachers claimed, plus beginning to believe that the biology was something beyond their control (mostly encountered online), I turned my thinking around soon after the other.
Those are the two biggest. I’m sure there are more.
I was anti-legalization of marijuana, but now think it should be available for adults who have chronic pain conditions (and any other problems it could help). I can’t rationalize how tobacco and alcohol are legal, but marijuana still is not. It should be, and all states could collect tax revenue from it.
I also used to believe that the US was a democracy, and there was a real 2-party system. I now realize that there is only one party, which gives the US voter the illusion of a choice. But both R’s and D’s are elected and beholden to the same corporations and special interest groups (like, big oil, big pharma, and AIPAC). Off topic, but this is why Trump has interested me. I thought he was doing it for some publicity, never thinking he would win the primary. Now, I think he has a real shot. If he’s truly not beholden to anyone, perhaps real change could come to Washington.
He is beholden to the bank of China dor $650,000,000. To the Russian by an undisclosed, but possibly larger, amount. He also owes tens, hundreds of millions to Goldman Sachs.
Not as profound, but I used to be a firm believer in the 3000 Mile oil change regardless of what type of oil. But I have now(actually probably 10 years ago at least) seen enough evidence from sources I trust to accept with the 5000-7500 range. Still not ready for the 10000-15000 schedule though
Not here, but I’ve changed my mind about the best approach to resolving social justice issues. I think the current mainstream approach is strategically unsound at best, alienating and destructive at worst. I’m far-left and have a lot of far-left friends and they alienate the hell out of me lately. They don’t want to hear any POV but their own, tribally sanctioned, conflict-driven narrative. I’m a woman and I’ve been accused of tone policing in dialogs about feminist issues, which is utterly fucking ridiculous. Either the oppressed have a right to say something about their own personal experience or they don’t. I’m not playing this game of more-oppressed-than-thou, whoever is more bitter gets the final word.
I haven’t figured out an alternative solution yet. I’ve just identified what seems to me to be very ineffective - namely, soapbox lectures, smug memes, resistance to open dialog, and open hostility of the sort that eventually drove me off Facebook.
I can remember posting on (other) discussion boards on the anti-‘pit bull’ side of that debate. It was not vehemently or cultlishly like some of people (the ‘dogsbite.org’ types) on the web, just seemed some people were going overboard on personal choice and freedom v public safety.
However when my (grown) daughter urged me to adopt a dog from a local shelter (which in our locality pretty much means ‘pit bull’) I did research and realized the premise of the anti ‘pit bull’ side is false: there just isn’t any scientific evidence dogs of a particular breed, let alone dogs which just look a certain way (the great majority of dogs called ‘pit bulls’ are mixed breed) are more likely to be aggressive to humans, independently of how they are managed by humans.
Then we adopted the dog and she’s the nicest dog I’ve ever known. That doesn’t prove anything, just as one nasty dog doesn’t either. But ignorance of the bigger picture was my problem in my original feeling about ‘pit bulls’ in general.
There have been a number of factual positions I took that were thoroughly undermined by counter-citations here. To pick one example, I remember reading a news site that ran a story about a non-union electrical crew that was turned away when they offered assistance in the wake of Hurricane Sandy; their non-union status supposedly trumped the local electrical outages’ urgency. That fit nicely with my preferred view of dysfunctional union activity and inasmuch as it ran on a local TV news site I accepted the story at face value. The story was not accurate, however.
But I sense you’re asking more about policy shifts.
For me, the biggest was same-sex marriage. I had always supported civil unions and opposed same-sex marriage, but debate here convinced me that this was an untenable position. So I changed my mind.
