Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Sol]

Antonio's idea of a "genderless world" is pretty flatly unappealing to me, to be perfectly honest, and I'm saying this as someone who thinks the vast majority of the styles and habits that pass for gender roles in our actually-existing society are complete balderdash. I'm broadly in agreement with the point that Cody and others have made that this sort of framing eventually horseshoes around into something similar to homophobia (my friend Meredith and I refer to it as the "Being Bi Is Woker" mindset) and that discourses of "fluidity" or "just being open to what you're open to" eventually start to acquire just as much unpalatable normative content as rigidly categorizing every possible sexual or romantic impulse people can have. What if a lesbian does conceive of her lack of attraction to men as psychologically, politically, or (perish the thought) even spiritually important? What if a gay man conceives of his lack of attraction to women that way? It isn't at all obvious to me that this is inherently the kind of ~repression~ that certain posters seem convinced it is.

For what it's worth, I largely agree--there's certainly no moral value imo attached to being bisexual, and I think a genderless world is both undesirable and also probably impossible. I think our area of disagreement lies around a slightly different issue--in my view, making sexual orientation a tentpole of one's personal identity is a bit of a complex proposition, regardless of whether one is straight, gay, bi, etc. Human sexuality is so complex and fluctuating, one risks on missing out if one defines oneself too strictly.

(FWIW I'd argue this would apply to people identifying as bisexuals too potentially--I'm not super up on this side of queer discourse but compulsory heterosexuality seems to be a thing.)

This isn't some sort of normative thing, but I personally find taking my identity categories lightly to be so much more freeing than taking them so seriously, and patrolling their boundaries rigidly. It makes me feel more connected to a sense of common humanity with people who are different than me.

Obviously I understand people have their reasons for doing this (ones often rooted in discrimination, which I get) and I don't care that much provided that others don't try to police me, but personally I prefer to live in shades of grey.

I'm also saying this as someone whose sexual orientation is fairly important to me both politically and (whatever the agnostic equivalent of) spiritually is, in a way which is hard to articulate without sounding like a gay male version of that one Kyrsten Sinema quote. But I don't think that's mutually exclusive with leaving the door open to other possibilities.

Apologies if this post comes off as douchy or holier than thou, just trying to express my perspective.

[President Johnson]

Women shouldn't be judged negatively in any way for being sex workers.

.

Is this even an unpopular opinion? Every job and profession is entitled of some basic decency and respect.

On the matter itsself, I personally think prostitution should be legal and properly regulated. That also means a vigorous crackdown of human trafficking and public programs that help sex workers to leave their job and find another way to afford a living.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Straight men are more likely to be annoying.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Is this even an unpopular opinion? Every job and profession is entitled of some basic decency and respect.

In the US it's quite unpopular, unfortunately.

[Aurelius]

Dealing heroin laced with fentanyl should be considered attempted murder by the legal system.

[Conservatopia]

You're awesome.

Yes, you.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Human overpopulation is a serious problem and any real ecological policy needs to address it.

Certain nonhuman animals, such as primates and cetaceans, should be granted legal personhood.

Carbon taxes are good. Degrowth is good.

Single-district representation, 50-state federalism, and bicameralism have hurt American democracy rather than helped it.

Nuclear weapons are still a top existential danger for life on earth.

The New Cold War is a reckless, stupid policy. We need to work with China on global issues such as climate, COVID, and future pandemics.

Transgender youth should be able to start hormone replacement therapy — not just puberty blockers — as youths.

Israel has a right to exist (unpopular on my side of the left). Israel is, however, an apartheid state (becoming less unpopular, but still taboo with the mainstream).

[Torie]

The government selling lottery tickets is far more evil than the government running houses of prostitution to raise revenue. Each and every time I see the impoverished waiting in line to buy lottery tickets, I wish there really were a hell for those lawmakers that made it happen. And oh yes, all gambling casinos would be shut down too. If you want to go to one, leave the country.

[John Dule]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

[Torie]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

You think zoning laws are a bad thing? How much do economic externalities factor into your thinking? As time goes by, I have found that that economic theory more often than not swamps just unleashing the market, for the common good. It often is not, even in the most narrow of economic terms. And that is where libertarian ideas run into a brick wall more often than that. It is an ideology of healthy young males out to conquer the world who think transfer payments are the subsidization of weakness and character flaws and grifters.

[John Dule]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

You think zoning laws are a bad thing? How much do economic externalities factor into your thinking? As time goes by, I have found that that economic theory more often than not swamps just unleashing the market, for the common good. It often is not, even in the most narrow of economic terms. And that is where libertarian ideas run into a brick wall more often than that. It is an ideology of healthy young males out to conquer the world who think transfer payments are the subsidization of weakness and character flaws and grifters.

Obviously externalities should be reflected in costs, and the way to do that is through lawsuits. However, I would argue that our litigious society has created an environment that is incapable of achieving the "common good" that you seem to want. In places like San Francisco, constant red tape, NIMBY complaints about "gentrification" and the "neighborhood character," height limits, noise complaints, and various silly externalities have made it impossible for developers to build housing at a low cost-- which is why housing is so expensive there. If you genuinely want to work towards the common good, the way to do that is to let the market do what it does best: increase supply to meet demand.

[Aurelius]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

You think zoning laws are a bad thing? How much do economic externalities factor into your thinking? As time goes by, I have found that that economic theory more often than not swamps just unleashing the market, for the common good. It often is not, even in the most narrow of economic terms. And that is where libertarian ideas run into a brick wall more often than that. It is an ideology of healthy young males out to conquer the world who think transfer payments are the subsidization of weakness and character flaws and grifters.

Obviously externalities should be reflected in costs, and the way to do that is through lawsuits. However, I would argue that our litigious society has created an environment that is incapable of achieving the "common good" that you seem to want. In places like San Francisco, constant red tape, NIMBY complaints about "gentrification" and the "neighborhood character," height limits, noise complaints, and various silly externalities have made it impossible for developers to build housing at a low cost-- which is why housing is so expensive there. If you genuinely want to work towards the common good, the way to do that is to let the market do what it does best: increase supply to meet demand.

For places like San Francisco I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think I should have the right to buy a quarter acre lot in a residential neighborhood in some town of 5,000 and put a casino or a 10 story apartment tower on it. The question that I don't have a clear answer for is where to draw that line.

[Mr. Smith]

olawakandi is not life, t_host is.

[MATTROSE94]

Pretty much my pro Iran, pro Hamas, and anti Israel positions regarding Middle Eastern politics. I think that Iran and the Hamas led government of Palestine are the only governing entities in the world with a legitimate right to conquer other nations.

[John Dule]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

You think zoning laws are a bad thing? How much do economic externalities factor into your thinking? As time goes by, I have found that that economic theory more often than not swamps just unleashing the market, for the common good. It often is not, even in the most narrow of economic terms. And that is where libertarian ideas run into a brick wall more often than that. It is an ideology of healthy young males out to conquer the world who think transfer payments are the subsidization of weakness and character flaws and grifters.

Obviously externalities should be reflected in costs, and the way to do that is through lawsuits. However, I would argue that our litigious society has created an environment that is incapable of achieving the "common good" that you seem to want. In places like San Francisco, constant red tape, NIMBY complaints about "gentrification" and the "neighborhood character," height limits, noise complaints, and various silly externalities have made it impossible for developers to build housing at a low cost-- which is why housing is so expensive there. If you genuinely want to work towards the common good, the way to do that is to let the market do what it does best: increase supply to meet demand.

For places like San Francisco I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think I should have the right to buy a quarter acre lot in a residential neighborhood in some town of 5,000 and put a casino or a 10 story apartment tower on it. The question that I don't have a clear answer for is where to draw that line.

I suppose it all comes down to the type of relief afforded. There have been situations in which industrial companies build enormous manufacturing plants near peaceful towns, spew pollutants all over the suburbs, and the residents failed to get injunctions against the polluters because their investment was "too valuable" to scrap. This is kind of an extreme case-- more extreme, in fact, than your casino example-- but it happens.

What I would like to see is an expedited process that calculates damages quickly and efficiently, with injunctions only issued as an absolute last resort. I would actually consider an injunction in the above case to be fair, but certainly not in your apartment complex example. The casino is kind of a grey area, but since building a casino in such a location would likely be unprofitable anyway I don't feel bad about not considering it.

[Dr. MB]

Using this thread as another opportunity to plug this quiz I made a couple years back using responses from a similar thread as the metrics:

How Far Outside The Overton Window Are You?

[John Dule]

Using this thread as another opportunity to plug this quiz I made a couple years back using responses from a similar thread as the metrics:

How Far Outside The Overton Window Are You?

I'm 85% normie. Radical Centrist John Dule?

[TheReckoning]

We already have a thread for this:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=319391.0

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Using this thread as another opportunity to plug this quiz I made a couple years back using responses from a similar thread as the metrics:

How Far Outside The Overton Window Are You?

[Ferguson97]

Felons, including those still serving their sentences, should be allowed to vote.

The gender identities of trans individuals should be accepted, and the law should reflect that -  including allowing minors to use puberty blockers and, if they're above 15, HRT; and allowing trans women to compete in women's sports.

You should not need a car to participate in society. Our cities and towns should be more walkable, and mass transit should be expanded.

There should be no limits on when someone can get an abortion.

Term-limits for members of Congress would lead to worse outcomes.

[Aurelius]

A person shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and months of training to get an occupational license to cut hair. The government shouldn't subsidize industries that waste water in drought-prone states. Using the Commerce Clause to tell a farmer he can't grow food for his own consumption is unconstitutional. Municipalities shouldn't organize their entire infrastructures around the whims of the automotive industry. You should be able to build what you choose on your own land without being subjected to constant permit fees and nuisance lawsuits from your neighbors. People earning under $20,000 a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. The working class shouldn't subsidize college education for the children of the middle class. You can't keep the Social Security age limit the same indefinitely while the average lifespan continues to increase. If you sign a contract for the rental of land, you should not be able to unilaterally cancel your side of that contract while the state forces the other person to uphold their end of it.

i know that these are insane and radical ideas. im just crazy like that

You think zoning laws are a bad thing? How much do economic externalities factor into your thinking? As time goes by, I have found that that economic theory more often than not swamps just unleashing the market, for the common good. It often is not, even in the most narrow of economic terms. And that is where libertarian ideas run into a brick wall more often than that. It is an ideology of healthy young males out to conquer the world who think transfer payments are the subsidization of weakness and character flaws and grifters.

Obviously externalities should be reflected in costs, and the way to do that is through lawsuits. However, I would argue that our litigious society has created an environment that is incapable of achieving the "common good" that you seem to want. In places like San Francisco, constant red tape, NIMBY complaints about "gentrification" and the "neighborhood character," height limits, noise complaints, and various silly externalities have made it impossible for developers to build housing at a low cost-- which is why housing is so expensive there. If you genuinely want to work towards the common good, the way to do that is to let the market do what it does best: increase supply to meet demand.

For places like San Francisco I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think I should have the right to buy a quarter acre lot in a residential neighborhood in some town of 5,000 and put a casino or a 10 story apartment tower on it. The question that I don't have a clear answer for is where to draw that line.

I suppose it all comes down to the type of relief afforded. There have been situations in which industrial companies build enormous manufacturing plants near peaceful towns, spew pollutants all over the suburbs, and the residents failed to get injunctions against the polluters because their investment was "too valuable" to scrap. This is kind of an extreme case-- more extreme, in fact, than your casino example-- but it happens.

What I would like to see is an expedited process that calculates damages quickly and efficiently, with injunctions only issued as an absolute last resort. I would actually consider an injunction in the above case to be fair, but certainly not in your apartment complex example. The casino is kind of a grey area, but since building a casino in such a location would likely be unprofitable anyway I don't feel bad about not considering it.

My view is that in general the right to do as one wishes with their own property and the right of a community to shape its character and control its own destiny are two conflicting rights for which the boundary depends on local and regional circumstances. Since I'm not a libertarian, I don't believe in absolute unchecked property rights, but I do believe that HOAs are ridiculous and such.

I'm not a fan of the approach of in which property owners can do whatever and if it goes against some compelling community interest then they can continue to do it anyway so long as they cut a big check. I view community sovereignty as a compelling interest in itself that at the base level should be an important consideration, albeit one that can and should be overridden in cases (like the Bay Area housing crisis) where there is another, more critical, interest at play. I prefer an approach where these interests are weighed against each other and a decision is made, rather than one where individuals do whatever they want and then cut big checks as restitution.

In places like San Francisco, there's a critical social interest (cost of housing) that, in my view, necessitates action to reduce it. Cost of living is skyrocketing, and when most renters in such a high demand location are paying half or more of their income on rent, I think that overrides the community's democratic right to shape its own nature by doing things like designating historic laundromats to block redevelopment or voting to ban new apartment construction like Aspen did or doing what Pasadena is trying to do and designating the whole city as historic districts to do an end run around SB 9. In that case the need for cheaper, more plentiful housing supply is a public good, and the profit motive for both landowners and developers to increase that supply should be allowed to go on untrammeled by public interference.

In a small town of 5,000 people there is (usually - places like Aspen are the exception, not the norm) not the same massive strain on the housing supply that you see in a big crowded city like SF. In that case I think the democratic right of the people to shape the nature of their own community and way of life ought to win out. If the residents value the town specifically for its low density and desire to maintain that feature, they should be able to channel their sovereignty into ballot measures or zoning codes that maintain it as such. In that case, I don't think the will of the property owner automatically outweighs the desires of the other 5,000 people affected.

Regarding the casino, you'd be surprised. Laws around gambling are such a patchwork between jurisdictions that casinos aren't necessarily placed where they would be most profitable, rather wherever someone can legally maneuver to build one that is relatively close to a major population center. So casinos tend to get put in seemingly random places that were chosen because they're on a state or county border, along a river, on a reservation, or on a plot where the local tribe was able to present documentation that there was a burial ground there 200 years ago or somesuch and thus gain back from the county or the BLM or whoever. But yes that was a throwaway example that doesn't necessarily generalize.

As for your example of the polluting factory, I'd think that if such a facility is truly so valuable that it makes absolutely no sense to get rid of it, then the operator could afford to cut very large checks to all affected residents, large enough to either compensate for their massively reduced property values and quality of life if they choose to stay, or for them to cut their losses and move on if they choose to go - or just to relocate the neighborhood some distance away if the neighborhood voted for that instead.

These are all general principles that aren't easy (or even ideal) to codify a uniform law out of. More to say that if I was governor of California, and I had a majority in the legislature, I'd direct them to pass something like SB9 but stronger for the urban areas with major housing crises, something along the lines of SB9 for smaller metros with minor housing crises, and nothing at all for rural areas and smaller towns and cities detached from such areas.

I'm usually not a fan of Law and Economics, but this could be somewhere that it's useful.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gas stations should be able to sell machine guns and cocaine without asking for ID.

Bring back smoking in bars.

Child rape warrants capital punishment.

Overturn Wickard v Filburn.

Panhandling is free speech.

Destroying old war memorials is moronic and is akin to grave desecration.

Divorce shouldnt be easy to obtain.

The Department of Agriculture shouldnt exist.

Christianity is correct.

Hate crimes laws are stupid.

[T'Chenka]

I view sex work negatively morally from my own PERSONAL perspective. I can understand why some need to do it and I fully support legalizing it, protecting sex workers, all of that stuff. Politically, I am pro sex worker, but I personally don't find it to be "okay". Not telling others how to think.

[Aurelius]

Using this thread as another opportunity to plug this quiz I made a couple years back using responses from a similar thread as the metrics:

How Far Outside The Overton Window Are You?

79% normie. Took it again in the mindset of me as an edgy, somewhat deranged college student 3 years ago (aka my posts on my old MT2030 account) and got 55% normie, with both 84% rightist radical and 35% leftist radical. LOL.

[SnowLabrador]

Paragliding isn't scary.