I'm glad you're satisfied, but the question was addressed to Brandon, and those like him who identify as conservative and find themselves uncomfortable or embarrassed by actual, existing self-identified conservatives whose votes they need to get whatever it is they want. Presumably, there is some set of principles or policies they think they adhere to that separates them from their vulgar fellow travelers. and I'd like to know what they say they are.
When all is said and done, it may be that there's no there there, and it's just a matter of people having certain psychological traits naturally leaning toward whatever codes as "conservative" in the current year. I had a similar thought when I was in high school, but connecting that to whatever conservatism "really" is, if anything, is tricky and I'd like to hear what the conservatives who want to separate themselves from the great unwashed have to say.
Strange place you live in. I don't have a dog in this notional fight, so no answer is "more convenient" for me. I'm happy to listen to anyone who is willing to say some definite thing and make an articulate, understandable argument for it.
Much overlooked is why it was struck down. It was struck down on the theory that NYC's Department of Health couldn't do it by regulation. If the City Council had legislated on the matter, that would have been very different, and might well have been upheld.
No, the complaint is, apparently, that English cops will get on a boat, cross the Atlantic, and bust people who don't use someone's preferred pronouns. Or at least that's my best guess. But you never know.
Then what is it defined by? Certainly not a coherent and historically consistent set of principles or policies. Perhaps it's a collection of different psychological states: the Russian peasant who fears all change, even if it appears to be in their interest, because of the fear that things will get worse, the leather chair and port Burkean who is OK with things more or less as they are and not averse to a little change as long as everybody is quiet about it and they get to keep their leather chairs and port. Or is it, simply, defined by what the people who call themselves that are?
It's projection all the way down. They can't imagine a non-culture-war reason for using a person's preferred pronouns, which allows them to treat somebody's using them and somebody else's getting his panties into a twist over someone else's using them as morally equivalent.
Would a conservative be comfortable with a law making it illegal to address a trans person by anything other than their preferred pronoun?
Would anybody? Probably not. As far as I know, there's no law against calling someone a n****r and, for all practical purposes, nobody is proposing one. You can get into trouble for mistreating co-workers or employees or students, and calling them n****rs could be a part of that, but that's a different issue.
I'm not suggesting that you, personally, have problems with your underwear. I didn't read Chip as accusing you of that either, but I could be wrong. He can address that. There certainly are lots of other people that fit the description he set out.
So let's all stand down. Giggle at the pronouns, if that floats your boat, because it's small-bore stuff and, from a larger point of view, rather silly. But then don't get your undies in a twist about it and make it a big issue. Eyeroll the HR stuff (I just finished my mandatory annual EEO training. I do employment litigation and eat and drink it every working day. As for the sexual harassment training, as my former office-mate used to say, "You already know how to do that.") if that suits you. But don't pretend it's any worse than the other petty exactions we swallow from our corporate overlords. Deal?
The post-war consensus just means that there were fewer Wrong Opinions that people might express than there are now, but there were plenty even then. Just different ones, many of which used to be Right Opinions back in the day.
As for the 1850's, I used to get my grand-nieces and nephews by telling them that when I was in school they didn't teach history because there hadn't been enough yet.
This is obtuse even for you. I'm perfectly well aware of most of the common meanings of the term, and have even seen formal definitions. That doesn't answer the question of which YOU mean. But if you are adopting the definition you quote, then you can use it to answer my questions. There were four of them.
You used it. If you don't want to say what you meant when you used it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't advance conversation, but maybe that's a feature, not a bug.
On “Why a Trump Loss is Best for Conservatives”
I agree entirely, but probably for different reasons.
"
I'm glad you're satisfied, but the question was addressed to Brandon, and those like him who identify as conservative and find themselves uncomfortable or embarrassed by actual, existing self-identified conservatives whose votes they need to get whatever it is they want. Presumably, there is some set of principles or policies they think they adhere to that separates them from their vulgar fellow travelers. and I'd like to know what they say they are.
When all is said and done, it may be that there's no there there, and it's just a matter of people having certain psychological traits naturally leaning toward whatever codes as "conservative" in the current year. I had a similar thought when I was in high school, but connecting that to whatever conservatism "really" is, if anything, is tricky and I'd like to hear what the conservatives who want to separate themselves from the great unwashed have to say.
"
I’m happy to listen to anyone who is willing to say some definite thing and make an articulate, understandable argument for it.
"
Me too.
"
Strange place you live in. I don't have a dog in this notional fight, so no answer is "more convenient" for me. I'm happy to listen to anyone who is willing to say some definite thing and make an articulate, understandable argument for it.
"
Where I come from, that's normal behavior, and, therefore, unworthy of comment.
"
Much overlooked is why it was struck down. It was struck down on the theory that NYC's Department of Health couldn't do it by regulation. If the City Council had legislated on the matter, that would have been very different, and might well have been upheld.
"
No.
"
OK, so that's you. Anyone else out there have anything?
"
No, the complaint is, apparently, that English cops will get on a boat, cross the Atlantic, and bust people who don't use someone's preferred pronouns. Or at least that's my best guess. But you never know.
"
Then what is it defined by? Certainly not a coherent and historically consistent set of principles or policies. Perhaps it's a collection of different psychological states: the Russian peasant who fears all change, even if it appears to be in their interest, because of the fear that things will get worse, the leather chair and port Burkean who is OK with things more or less as they are and not averse to a little change as long as everybody is quiet about it and they get to keep their leather chairs and port. Or is it, simply, defined by what the people who call themselves that are?
"
It's projection all the way down. They can't imagine a non-culture-war reason for using a person's preferred pronouns, which allows them to treat somebody's using them and somebody else's getting his panties into a twist over someone else's using them as morally equivalent.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/23/2024”
I did meet someone who had had sex with Bill Clinton.
"
I didn't have sex with Diddy either. And he was never on my One Celebrity list.
On “Why a Trump Loss is Best for Conservatives”
Would a conservative be comfortable with a law making it illegal to address a trans person by anything other than their preferred pronoun?
Would anybody? Probably not. As far as I know, there's no law against calling someone a n****r and, for all practical purposes, nobody is proposing one. You can get into trouble for mistreating co-workers or employees or students, and calling them n****rs could be a part of that, but that's a different issue.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/23/2024”
I'm not suggesting that you, personally, have problems with your underwear. I didn't read Chip as accusing you of that either, but I could be wrong. He can address that. There certainly are lots of other people that fit the description he set out.
"
So let's all stand down. Giggle at the pronouns, if that floats your boat, because it's small-bore stuff and, from a larger point of view, rather silly. But then don't get your undies in a twist about it and make it a big issue. Eyeroll the HR stuff (I just finished my mandatory annual EEO training. I do employment litigation and eat and drink it every working day. As for the sexual harassment training, as my former office-mate used to say, "You already know how to do that.") if that suits you. But don't pretend it's any worse than the other petty exactions we swallow from our corporate overlords. Deal?
"
There's a good chance this is true, which leaves the politicians screaming about crime with, well, what?
On “History Will Be Made: Harris VS Trump”
The post-war consensus just means that there were fewer Wrong Opinions that people might express than there are now, but there were plenty even then. Just different ones, many of which used to be Right Opinions back in the day.
As for the 1850's, I used to get my grand-nieces and nephews by telling them that when I was in school they didn't teach history because there hadn't been enough yet.
"
And this is different from when?
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/16/2024”
Not everyone was let off the hook:
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/dr-jay-varma-sex-parties-during-covid-pandemic/
"
That wasn't so hard, was it? As for what you can assume, you know the old saying.
"
This is obtuse even for you. I'm perfectly well aware of most of the common meanings of the term, and have even seen formal definitions. That doesn't answer the question of which YOU mean. But if you are adopting the definition you quote, then you can use it to answer my questions. There were four of them.
"
You used it. If you don't want to say what you meant when you used it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't advance conversation, but maybe that's a feature, not a bug.
"
You first. Or second, since I answered your questions.
Or are you saying you don't know what you meant?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.