I'm maybe somewhere in the middle of Alexander, faceh, and you. I think the left has the progressive and center factions, and the right has the evangelical and libertarian/populist factions. Right now the populists are winning so hard you barely even hear the evangelical faction any more, but that doesn't mean the evangelicals have stopped existing. They're a minority, but they absolutely would push for a federal ban if they thought they would succeed. The moral framework of pro-life demands it, because if the neighboring state legalized murder the median person would be outraged by the decision and wouldn't care if someone else tried arguing about state's rights. That's why you have things like Texas outlawing traveling to another state to get an abortion. And if they succeeded in it, I doubt the pro-choice right would defect because of it.
Tiber727
6d ago
But instead, you seem to want some specific predictions of specific mechanisms that are headline-style events.
Headline-style events are probably the most effective way to shift public consensus, and were in the slavery example we keep going back to, but not a requirement. In the case of:
It just so happens to be that we don't see a world where the lack of slavery is causing all sorts of real world problems for individuals and societies.
Society doesn't seem to be paying attention to the claimed harms, and/or aren't attributing the problems in society to single parenthood. At least not to any statistically relevant degree. What would make them start now? That's why I mentioned "A point at which society realizes the status quo is unsustainable and agrees to a specific fix?"
FC's argument is actually a good example of what I was asking for, just missing which politician or group would have the interest and influence to push for something like surgeon general's warnings on porn. If Trump pushed for it he'd have a decent shot of passing legislation, but he doesn't strike me as interested in the least. And there seems to be a huge popularity gap between Trump and, well, just about anyone in the Republican Party.
I don't deny that there's some amount of vibes, but looking at stats always is biased by what you want to see. We have data spanning the better part of the century showing lower religious beliefs, consistently high rates of premarital sex, and even among the groups for whom opposition to premarital sex should be highest, the issue is unpopular. If someone wanted to make a rhetorical case why they believe abstinence won't gain significant popularity in the next 50 years, I don't know that it gets more solid than that.
What would be the rhetorical claims as to how the trends might reverse? Is there a hypothetical event that might change a large number of opinions? An up-and-coming charismatic politician or political commentator? A point at which society realizes the status quo is unsustainable and agrees to a specific fix? An argument that the trends observed aren't trends at all and the statistics are being misread?
If I wanted to argue that America could become communist, maybe I predict that AOC will finally wrest control of the rudderless Democratic Party. Maybe Trump does a business deal so corrupt that the U.S. decides to burn the system down. Maybe a new strain of covid emerges and the disproportionately vaccinated liberal arts majors inherit the earth. As obviously silly as all of these are, they are relatively defined theories that one can discuss. They propose scenarios and how they might lead to a shift.
Or in the slavery metaphor, a person on some date might make predictions based on whether abolitionists are becoming more popular, the untenable legal conflicts of north vs. south, public outcry over legal cases, etc. Again, the argument is - could they make a rhetorical case for their prediction that a change will happen, were they so inclined.
(Edit to add, because it was late) As to whether someone should need to bring this evidence, I don't know if we have polling on slavery in the 1800s. If 5% of society was abolitionist, a person suggesting abolition will happen would be outside the norm. The average person probably couldn't see a way it might become popular. If 45% was abolitionist, the listener can probably figure out on their own that this is a hot button issue and society's position is shifting based on hearing about events like Dred Scott or Bleeding Kansas.
I kept popping up to say that "Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view?" is missing a major caveat. I wouldn't consider it an argument against the minority view on a 45/55 split issue. I would on a 5/95 split issue. The degree of unpopularity is the issue here. At a certain point it is fair to tell the tankie that the Communist Revolution of America isn't happening in his lifetime.
In say 1860 someone would have plenty of evidence to predict the end of slavery. The election of Lincoln, Bleeding Kansas, etc. In 1864 there was an entire war going on over it.
My point is not claiming with certainty that premarital sex and single parenting due to divorce is going to exist forever. But at least in my lifetime I'd say I think it's unlikely that any group that opposes this will acquire control of the mechanisms to ever find out what they could do with them. Given that slavery lasted for millennia, the people who said slavery wasn't going anywhere were probably right in all the ways that mattered.
Sex outside of marriage was frequent even when said groups did control those mechanisms. And the advent of birth control means people at least believe they can have sex with no consequences. A quick search suggests only 5% of people want to make birth control harder to get, and only 28% want abortions to be harder to get. About 95% of Americans have had sex outside of marriage, often with someone they did not eventually marry. Only about 35% of Americans say sex outside of marriage is wrong. Only 32% of Christians say it is never acceptable to have sex outside of marriage.
I'm saying that this viewpoint is in a very deep hole and it would take a very dramatic shift for it to happen. Gaining control of those mechanisms to convince people to stop having sex outside of marriage is a chicken and egg problem. Even Republicans don't seem interested. It sounds about as likely as me hypothesizing how many people I could sway to become pro-immigration if I could get a speaking role at the Republican National Convention. Maybe some of the attendees will switch to Democrats at some point in their life, but that's not a reason to pursue that line of thought.
Tiber727
9d ago
Right. This is perhaps not the perfect example, but it would be something like "Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to own grenades or fighter jets?" Originalism would try to focus on whether the founders would consider it one had it existed in said time (though it can be manipulated to cherry pick the founder you agree with). Textualism is "Death of the Author" and would say that if they meant for it to mean X they should have written it into the law. Living Constitution would say that the founders are dead and would choose the interpretation they believe is most beneficial in modern day.
Tiber727
10d ago
This sort of demand is basically trying to set up an impossible task, as no one here is going to be able to just apply magic to accomplish intermediate steps, and any proposed intermediate steps will be responded to with, "...then why haven't you already done that?"
No one is asking you to divine the future or mind control the public. To give an example, the Democratic party knows they are deeply unpopular right now. They are putting a bunch of money into trying to figure out what they can do to win the public back. No one has any future knowledge whether they will take any lessons to heart or that it will work, but if the discussion were about whether the Democrats can make a comeback, it's a discussion point to argue how they might. They aren't just sitting around and hoping the public randomly becomes receptive to the same message.
Is there any group out there doing that for abstinence/marriage?
But yeah, "genies" have "gone back into bottles" before (what a shitty, loaded metaphor). I made a long list in my last comment and everything.
You cherry picked historical examples of cultural shifts to prove the possibility. The theoretical possibility was never in doubt, the question was over whether the odds are high enough to be worth discussing. It's theoretically possible that in the future society decriminalizes murder, but I'm not about to make a writeup exploring the possibility.
True enough. It just so happens to be that we don't see a world where the lack of slavery is causing all sorts of real world problems for individuals and societies. Plus all the good moral arguments and everything.
That is an example of how the abolitionists succeeded in forming such a winning message that you don't see a counterargument. People did argue that slavery was a societal good (if only because no one wants to be the villain). They argued that back in Africa black tribesman were either lazy or fighting each other, and over here they are productive and safe (so long as they don't provoke the master of course). If you could bring a southern man from the past here he'd probably look at urban black culture and tell you they were better off slaves.
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's an issue that will shift, won't shift, will stay perpetually divisive (e.g. abortion), or whatever.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell" is a way to frame the discussion to throw out the need to discuss. It's similar to consensus-gathering but for an argument. I can articulate the reasons why no-fault divorce became popular:
-
It appeals to the modern liberal belief system of associating or not associating with whomever you want.
-
People are hard-wired to like sex and believe that contraceptives and abortion allow them to have that consequence-free.
-
When parents stick together despite hating each other it creates a toxic environment that leads to mental health problems for children.
-
It leads to needing to prove abuse in order to escape abusive environments.
-
Arguments for marriage are often rooted in Christianity which is on the decline.
If you want people to marry and abstain from sex the biggest hurdle is going to be primarily those top two arguments. From where I'm standing it looks like those arguments resonate greatly.
Tiber727
10d ago
The hypocrisy is not thinking that spending on X is frivolous. The hypocrisy is the later lack of concern shown over the number going up after previously claiming that the priority is to not make the number go up.
Tiber727
11d ago
As long as you admit that, that's honest at least. Admittedly I do get tired of those whom share your views ("I don't want to") but always hide behind the motte of cost, until conveniently not caring about cost on their pet projects. So long as you don't make the claim of cost, it would be unreasonable to hold you to account for the hypocrisy of the median Republican.
Tiber727
11d ago
Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view?
If the minority view has been presented for a long time and gotten no traction, and the one proposing it again doesn't seem to have any actionable ideas to make it more palatable this time, then I absolutely would. Particularly when we're talking about trying to get the public to wait to have sex. Prostitution is called "the oldest profession" for a reason. Even when shaming pre-marital sex was ascendant - the vast majority of history - it was very frequently not followed. Now that contraception and abortion methods have advanced I don't see how you plan to get the genie back into the bottle. Pre-marital sex has a very easy product to sell and you have a very difficult product to sell. Yes, views rise and fall with the era but not all are equal. If someone wanted to bring slavery back they are going to have a very uphill battle.
Tiber727
11d ago
Well, the argument seems to be that we should try pushing abstinence (though social pressure and/or government policy) programs. The first hurdle is convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it. Evangelical Christians have tried promoting abstinence since more or less forever, but over time they've largely lost relevance socially and politically. Their failure to gain support is some amount of evidence that that abstinence is truly the unfavored social position.
Abstinence has historically been promoted through shame. And as progressives seem to be currently finding out, the minority can't effectively shame the majority.
Tiber727
11d ago
Oh, I'm sure you don't want to. I was more making snark about the fact that the most common refrain I hear is that everything needs to be cut because America is broke. Notably Ukraine, which is still going on, by the way.
Tiber727
11d ago
Again, this makes it sound like this is a thing that is actively being pursued. That's sort of the opposite of reality.
It has been actively pursued for decades by a small subset of people (Evangelical Christians) who genuinely believe in it. They were ignored because they were a minority who were unsuccessful in convincing others. Which is rather the point here.
Tiber727
11d ago
You're not? Cool. As a lefty, can I have your support on having a robust social safety net? Because I guess the budget doesn't matter now.
Tiber727
14d ago
I've heard it called "Locus of control." This is a spectrum from internal to external based on how much you think society rewards people based on merit or effort. 100% internal means that an individual doing the right actions will lead to the expected outcome 100% of the time. 100% external means that success is effectively random or determined at birth.
Tiber727
26d ago
Meanwhile there is no such thing as transtok telling girls that being queer is simply self expression oh and binding makes the icky male gaze go away and if you think girls are prettier then maybe youre actually not a straight girl blablabla.
They would simply claim that this is a strawman, and that transtokkers exist but if you find their arguments compelling you must have really been trans else it would not have resonated with you and you would have left.
It's similar to the usual old dichotomy of "If you believe my arguments it's because of the power of the truth. If you believe the opponent, you have fallen for propaganda."
Tiber727
1mo ago
That's actually a fair point - a poorly written law would affect retirees and I don't necessarily want that.
I freely admit I don't know exactly how it could be fine-tuned. But the idea at least is I personally don't want to tax the possession of money as a wealth tax would. I think so long as income tax is something everyone else pays, I think it's fair that if you're actively earning money and living off it (as an asset borrowed against), the amount used for living expenses are being benefited from and not "unrealized."
Tiber727
1mo ago
I'm hardly an expert on how to write laws that can't be exploited, but an idea I toyed with was that if you meet some threshold of money borrowed vs assets and/or income (high enough that the average person wouldn't meet it), the amount you borrowed to maintain your lifestyle counts as your income and is taxed as such.
Tiber727
2mo ago
I took that as an attempt to stop the tactic the rich use where they keep all their money in assets, take out loans using said assets as collateral and report no income because they're technically living off loans, then the loans are repaid by the estate at a different tax rate.
I make no claims that that specific proposal was good, but I would be interested in some method of making the above tax scheme not viable.
Tiber727
2mo ago
It can also be a way to try to avoid accusations that Amazon itself is raising prices and using tariffs as an excuse. When people get mad at the CEO's poor decisions, it's tech support that has to hear people complain.
Tiber727
2mo ago
Exactly what due process do people think was missed? The guy had multiple days in court, and had a standing deportation order, no?
And the result of his days in court was the right to not be sent to El Salvador. He was sent to El Salvador, specifically a prison in El Salvador. So I'd say "The part where the government complies with the order (or goes through the process of reversing it)" was missed.
If the government managed to bring him back, sticks him before an immigration judge who says "Your asylum claims are no longer valid due to changed facts on the ground, assuming they ever were, it's fine to execute the deportation order to El Salvador", then is everyone who is upset about this going to nod sagaciously and be satisfied that due process was followed?
Whether the millions of people hearing about this will all be happy, well that's statistically impossible. But you've described one of the legal routes, alongside finding a different country to send him to.
Back to Garcia, what "options" remain after the government of El Salvador has declined to release him? Do the courts expect special forces to exfiltrate a foreign national from a foreign prison?
An actual attempt at diplomacy? Not giving them money to fund said prison? The expectation here is only for the Administration to behave in a manner as if they were reasonably attempting to get him back, which it's blatantly obvious they are doing everything they think they can to try to defy the order.
How much due process in general needs to be given to each of the 10-30 million illegal immigrants?
As much as the law says. If that's too much, change the laws. The government does not get to ignore laws and court orders because they feel like it. And no, I don't care about those times that you subjectively feel that Democrats got away with it. Right here and right now Trump is trying to do so and the court is trying to stop him from doing so.
Does it actually feel, inside, like standing on principle and not just grasping at any procedural trick at hand?
Yes, actually. A unanimous opinion from a conservative Supreme Court appears to agree on this.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Is it materially important? No.
it is a signifier that the whole "Sex is not the same as gender!" argument is attempt to dismantle the opposing argument rather than a genuinely held belief, because it should be rather uncontroversial to simply state that you are choosing whether the character's sex is male or female.
I don't think a woman looking good is necessarily about attracting the opposite sex, I think it's convergent evolution.
Let's say imagine a hypothetical man and a hypothetical woman are both separately asked to dress their best to attend an event containing only members of the same sex. How different would their attire be compared to an event containing the opposite sex? Maybe in the woman's case some more skin might be showing if the opposite sex were attending, but overall I think what makes someone look in the mirror and say, "Yeah I look good" is the same as what the opposite sex would find attractive even if they aren't necessarily trying to attract the opposite sex. And I think it holds at least somewhat true for men as well.
More options
Context Copy link