Great write up, and agree 100% with just about everything (especially loved you dropping Kant's 'Metaphysics,' in there - he was arguably my biggest interest and point of research as an undergrad). I'd love to give a more proper response, and maybe I'll come back later when I'm more awake to give you a response that you deserve, but I think ultimately we're just going to... I guess agree on pretty much every level, but still fundamentally disagree on the notion that conservatism and being gay is, in and of itself, a contradiction, because I don't believe a person being gay is inherently not virtuous, or otherwise immoral. I agree that our constitution was 'not written with perverts, Satanists, and trans-activists in mind,' and I know too many gay people that are none of those. I also know major factions of people that this same logic would have been applied to centuries ago, and many would have said "___ and conservatism is a contradiction," then, but no conservative would think that way now. I know the response argument well (in regard to my consideration of someone being gay), and I even understand it, but I disagree with it ::shrug::
Honestly, I knew I wasn't going to get it for that reason, but it'd be nearly impossible to prove. I wanted it more to try and help fight back from within the system, especially since I'm in academia and public policy anyway, but wasn't ever expecting anything, and have since found a better job (which, funny enough, I initially didn't get for the same reason. At the time, 2 people had my job — both white males — and they needed to hire a 3rd. It went to... not a white male lol. Reason given = they had more experience. Turned out that was a lie, because a few months later, after one of the white males quit, I got a call back and was instantly hired [since now there was room for another cracker], and I learned really fast how much more experience and qualifications I had than the person hired before me who simply checked the correct demographic boxes on the application. I am, however, trying to figure out how to sue the school for another reason (as a former student), at the recommendation of James Lindsay after talking with him a bit (anyone not familiar w/ James needs to check him out), but idk, I just don't see ever being able to win a lawsuit against one of the U.S.'s oldest, most well-known/prestigious colleges, with one of the biggest billions-of-dollars-endowment and world-class lawyers lol.
With all due respect (wish I could say I were being reciprocal), no, I'm not confused, I just don't agree, and am comfortable in asserting I have a more than adequate grasp on matters pertaining to political ideologies (historical [and the historiography] and contemporary), civics, and all things grounded in political, legal, philosophical, and historical theory (admittedly, mostly Western-centric due to my research and background). Just actually understand political ideologies (not speaking parties) more than even I care for, and while I'll spare everyone my CV/resume, I've invested more time, energy, research, writing, publications, and a career into my field, that there's no way for me to not respond to a comment directed at me telling me I'm confusing something very basic that I understand perfectly well, with something else. I'll apologize in advance for anything that may come across as douch-tone, but anyone else would respond in kind to a similar response, with similar tone and implications, that pertained to something they can actually claim expertise in. It's cool, I get it — sometimes things aren't worded clearly, other times things get misinterpreted or simply lost in translation/manner of communication, and sometimes there's even more agreement than not, in what otherwise appears to be an argument/disagreement.
But I am simply stating, and reiterating, that, objectively speaking, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about being gay + conservative (conservative in the context of political ideology/theory and values). To hold this belief, one must account for, and care about, identity, and how one's identity relates to politics/ideology, in a way that is mutually exclusive from conservatism and aligns with the left. You even subconsciously undermine your own point by trying to claim my assertion aligns more with libertarianism, and then giving a description of libertarianism that is completely out of alignment with the ideological sentiment expressed in my first comment or the general point being made (in other words, something aligning with libertarianism isn't proof and doesn't suggest it can't align w/ any other political ideologies, just as your true statement that "conservatism promotes traditional values" does not dismantle my point: that one's sexual identity alone has no correlation to one's own subscription to conservatism, nor does it preclude them from beliefs, values and way of life. Maybe just your exclusion of them from your own consideration/acknowledgment of them as conservative [to which most would say "who cares?"]).
The argument of conservatism and sexuality comes more into play — and is a discussion worth having — if you want to bring up same-sex marriage, at which point both an ideological and policy-oriented argument could, and should, be made.
But otherwise, [any sexual preference]+conservatism simply cannot be — inherently and on its face — a contradiction; unless without more context (like examples stated in my first comment: being an LGBTQ activist who places their gay identity at the forefront of every thought, spoken word and action, etc., and uses that identity for victim-currency, political expediency, sympathy, etc). I realize perspective comes into play: some people are far more concerned with sexuality and other peoples' private business; so I can see how that perspective would lead to someone completely disagreeing here, but thankfully most just really don't give a shit or concentrate enough energy on that. Conservatism would simply not care about another's preferences and who they are attracted to, so long as that same person holds similar conservative beliefs (and that notion overlapping with another political ideology, like libertarianism, doesn't negate that. A lot of conservative, libertarian, and classically liberal values, all overlap); because in that case them being gay wouldn't be a consideration (or even publicly/well-known), something they hardly or never talk about, something most or no others even know about, etc., and certainly holds no correlation to their political ideology and policy stances. For instance, meet my brother, and you'd 1. Be stoked to meet arguably the most conservative person you've ever met (and a doctor no-less), and 2. wouldn't even question what his sexuality is (nor would he tell you, or otherwise make it known in any conscious or subconscious way, nor [most importantly] would it matter) — and it wouldn't be on either of your minds anyway if, in fact, both are conservative.
To state with such conviction that it's a contradiction for someone to be as by-the-book conservative in every way possible, to even opposing gay marriage, but also be [without anybody else knowing] gay, by basic logic and reason, is either intellectually dishonest, or grounded in an inherent ideological misunderstanding {or flawed logic). Following this to its conclusion, we're now — having abandoned the left's ideological fascination with identity, and the foundation of critical theory having unfortunately birthed us with post-modernist thought, 'Intersectionalism" and a general 'woke' cancel-culture infecting society like a festering wound leading to a fascination over other peoples' identities — just describing a conservative while not accounting for their sexuality... because it's irrelevant and no benefit-added by accounting for and/or acknowledging it. But for the pious, almighty, righteously indignant and self-proclaimed conservative that would never acknowledge anyone else as conservative if they share any disagreements... then sure, I could see how such a petty thing that has absolutely no correlation to political ideology could lead one to such a conclusion. Reality is, you have a different cultural (and likely religious) view, which can often be conflated with, or have an overemphasized correlation to a [strictly speaking] political ideology.
Ultimately, and most importantly: a person's sexuality alone, regardless of what it is, does not, and logically can not, preclude them from ideologically aligning with conservatism.
No. You could maybe argue being pro-gay marriage isn't traditionally conservative, but that's not what he said. He said he's gay, and a conservative, and that's not in any way at all a contradiction. Traditional conservative values means not playing identity politics, and certainly not caring about one's identity, race, and definitely one's sexuality. Scream about being gay and run around as an activist twink wearing nothing but a thong and covered in sparkles, and then we can talk. But simply being gay as well as conservative is absolutely not a contradiction, and if it were, there'd be hundreds of thousands of walking contradictions (my brother being one of them)
Lol. I applied for the same job at my school knowing I wouldn't get it. I met all the criteria, and was more qualified than every other applicant, but I had one thing that disqualified me: I "pass" white. Oh well lol. At least I know a gay white dude that just got the chief position for the new DEI office in the air force (smh)
You should do food reviews for a living.
Ha! I'd love that, and you aren't the first person to tell me that (I'm a writer already, and a huge foodie). Most common things I hear are: "you should do food reviews," (probably because I'm impossible to please and super picky with my food lol) and "you should start a political site/write about politics/start a podcast or youtube channel" — all sounds awesome, but it's tough making money/being successful. I guess I kind of "sold out" in a way — work for a larger organization now in content production (basically a project manager to get experts to actually complete their writings for education modules, and then edit all their work because experts and doctors aren't nearly as smart as most think lol), but at least it pays well and still incorporates something I enjoy and do well
edit - great, and now your comment just reminded me of an amazing taco/burrito truck back in my hometown, so now I'm craving both a (good) chicken sandwich, AND a poco loco burrito haha
Easy. Then don't make the claims about the 2020 election, but instead, about the "events leading up to the 2021 inauguration"
Yeah honestly I have no idea and that's really about all I've heard about it from him, but it made me seriously consider opening one as well, since I live in a fairly dense area (has the typical main road in town with all your walmarts and fast-food chains, etc) with no chik-fil-a for about 100+ miles, so it'd probably make a killing. But after seeing all this shit (and not really even liking their food to begin with) I think I'm all set lol
Certainly not arguing, because I never went through the process, but my friend opened one and had to pay a $10,000 franchise fee (which is really cheap/part of why he did it). He paid himself and has never met Dan ::shrug::
Honestly, it's super over-rated. It's not bad by any means, but for years all I heard was the chick-fil-a hype, and living in the north, never had access to one. Then, one opened in my hometown (hours away, so I didn't get to try), and now my facebook is blowing up w/ everyone all excited. My friends from back home won't shut up about it, etc etc. Then, I'm visiting home finally a few months after it opened, so obviously I had to try it with my wife (gf then). Line was still wrapped around the building, as it apparently had been every day since opening. We finally order, get our food, sit down, and I grab a waffle fry and am immediately let down by the soggy, flavorless, no-crisp fries. "Hmm.. Ok.. so their fries suck. That's alright, I can live with that..." So then I delve into the sandwich. My GF asks me what I think. I shrug and say "it's alright. About as good as a Wendy's #6/spicy chicken. The fries should be good, waffle fries are my favorite, but they're garbage."
Then one opened up here so I tried again, hoping it was just a bad day, or location thing. Nah, it's just not all it's hyped up to be. The service was great, I'll absolutely give them that, but the hype is unwarranted for what is an otherwise ordinary fast-food chicken sandwich that can be made palatable by dumping some high fructose sugar-sauce on it. KFC's sandwiches weren't as good (the chicken itself), but even that was better just from the Nashville hot sauce being decent. I guess it's gone now and they have a new sandwich to "compete w/ chick-fil-a." Ultimately, they're all the same, mediocre, processed chicken sandwich.
Not prepared for it? Boo fucking hoo. I wasn't prepared for it either, make about half of my state's average income, and I've been fine. In fact, ironically, I think I've done better financially in the last 12 months or so than any other 12 month span in my life. If even my dumb, broke-ass had the foresight to invest all I had after everything was shaved in half (or more) last March and make insane returns, than there's certainly no excuse for people making 7 figures
Not PC related, but since Taiwan was brought up, for the audio/hi-fi enthusiasts: Parasound makes incredible gear. All designed in the U.S., with their higher-end stuff designed by the legendary John Curl, and then built in Taiwan. I don't think you can find better quality gear for the price (I have a pre-amp and power amp from them and it's top-notch, audiophile stuff)
Olympics in Chicago? Man, this is going to make H.H. Holmes and the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago look quaint and peaceful
Perfect, so they violated the non-aggression principle, explicitly stated their aims (years ago) to attack and harm all of an entire group of people, which then arms (so to speak) that very group to take up arms in self-defense. Doing so, while it may lead to killing, isn't murder, because self-defense to protect from being-murdered can't be considered murder, but simply an act aligned with one's God-given right to self-preservation and self-defense
That's a LOT of "we" for a guy whose only role in that "we" was stabbing the other half of that "we" in the back. Fuck Pence. He's just a Mitt Romney that managed to keep his mouth shut for a few years
I'm about as white-pilled as they get. But in this instance? I just also happen to research and work in public policy, am a historian, live in NH, and am a pragmatist that aligns my expectations with reality and historical precedent ::shrug::
I'm glad this is happening. But overturn the election? Sorry, it's not "black-pilled" to say that's not happening. Just delusional to think it is happening
A lot of good that will do when things like this take 10+ years. So what, they'll just write in this history books "Biden didn't really win and was never really president. Technically Trump remained 45th POTUS until 2024, even though he held no political office during his second term, a term in which Biden, a false president, made all executive decisions (at the direction of his wife and Heels up Harris)" ??
Very true. But then again, I did say that only "straight white males" are held accountable, so an aside that democrats aren't held accountable seemed redundant at that point :D
I don't get it? Prosecuting any murderer won't bring back the person they murdered. Are we just not prosecuting murderers now, since justice under enforcement of the law won't "bring back" the victim?
Oh, wait, nvm, I get it. Rules for thee, not for me, and all laws out the window if prosecution could, in any way, result in more criminals rioting and burning down cities because it's raycissssss to hold anyone that's not a straight white male accountable. Am I close?
Never thought I'd say this, but I kinda agree with the left: the system is racist af. Just happens to be it's racist against all those carrying their white privilege card
One was called something something blah blah 'my father,' but that's about all I can remember. Wasn't his book deal also associated with his Netflix deal? So slimy
Ah yes that makes way more sense as to what the '1950' meant haha. I was just clarifying that it wasn't "1950 art" like the title implied
1914 art* (look in top-right corner. I think the "1950" might just be the print/magazine issue #)
That's insane! I work for a non-profit, health care oriented organization, where over 90% of those I work with are part of the top elite of our nation's doctors/MDs. They are as pro-vax as it gets, and even they were very open about how it's not for everyone, and held a seminar/Q&A for all employees, to speak with researchers, as well as people from Pfizer that had a hand in the vaccine, and there were plenty of conditions in which they expressed those people should not get the vax, or should further consult their own Dr., or that not enough research has been done and it may or may not be something worth getting for that individual. Long story short, not everyone should get it, and over 200 doctors, more scientists, and people directly with Pfizer, were openly admitting that. They specifically told me my wife — while she'd "probably be fine and have no side-effects" — should not get the vax since we are currently trying to conceive, so there's one instance right there (pregnant, trying to conceive, or currently breastfeeding a newborn)
edit - want to make clear that we aren't getting it regardless of what they said, and more just wanted to share this because this was directly from the most pro-vax people, as well as medical professionals, saying this. NO, not everyone should get the vaccine, and whoever is posting that may have even just opened themselves up to a lawsuit for stating that everyone should get it. 1. It could be argued that it creates a hostile work environment 2. It's medical advice (guess it depends on the employer here, but if this wasn't posted by an MD, it's giving unauthorized, and dangerous/harmful medical advice)
you can identify sex and race, and quite a few other traits, just by the skeleton
How could I have lived through 2020 and not become a communist?
Well, hunny, you answered it directly in the question you posed. I lived through 2020, and I'd like to keep it that way [looks over at the death toll of communist countries]