Here for the classically liberal hot takes. Formerly on Capitol Hill, now doing think tank policy comms. MA native in VA. Previously in DC/NY/TX. Boy mom. ✡️🗽
With KOSA and NO FAKES still seemingly alive as potential currency in a deal for a federal AI regulatory framework, a reminder that both bills compromise free speech online and should be non-starters. https://t.co/u6BnFRZyG7
"Why is a flat-screen TV affordable and a college education not? Why is a smartphone affordable and a hospital stay not? The answer is not a coincidence, and it is not because flat-screen TVs are easier to make than college degrees. It is because Congress has spent 60 years trying to make college affordable and has spent zero years trying to make TVs affordable."
By @CliffordAsness, Aaron Brown, and Michael Mendelson. https://t.co/N7aPhp7n7Q
Yeah, I hear that. And I agree, that progress flag is terrible looking. Just absolutely awful aesthetically. I think it’s actually an accurate visual representation of where the movement has gone wrong in its shift from making a more classically liberal argument in favor of equal rights to the in-your-face activism and obsession with a seemingly infinite amount of micro-identities that is prominent today. The rainbow flag is simple and pretty, just like the original gay rights message was.
If they weren’t forced to wear the hats, it does soften my opinion on it. My initial impression is that they were expected to. I had seen something about one of the players not wearing it, and I noticed he was getting attacked by the type of annoying authoritarians Payton’s talking about here. It’s good if they weren’t forced. But I do feel like there are toxic social dynamics at play in general with how Pride has become overly corporate and is sometimes even treated like a state religion of sorts. I think that tends to harm support for equal rights, and I think it’s important for people to tread carefully rather than running roughshod over others as a general matter.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. I consider myself a realist. I’ve been around enough social conservatives to know how to win a public policy argument that secures equal rights for gay people under the law, which I know you know only happened very recently in the course of American history. None of this is about my personal opinion. I’m an atheist. I truly could not care less about people’s personal choices and believe everyone deserves equality. But I fully recognize that not everyone agrees with that. So with that in mind, the question is how can we organize a society in which people’s rights are protected but we also acknowledge that others may disagree—as wrong as they might be. Someone is allowed to have bad opinions, but what they shouldn’t be allowed to do is take away the rights of others. If you want to avoid backsliding on that front, leave people be. You’re never going to convince everyone to agree. I think the attempt is a fool’s errand.
@EricMGarcia This is true, but I don’t find it odd in the slightest. Those black rural Democrats tend to be culturally conservative. It doesn’t surprise me that the white conservatives have things in common with them but are distrustful of city Democrats, many of whom tend to be more radical.
Huh? Doesn’t the Bible verse in question say something about how God created rainbows? And you’re comparing that to advocating for slavery? I’m not really sure what to say at this point. The broader issue remains the same: people are going to have differing opinions. If you want to advocate for killing them over it, do you, I guess? But I think it’s unwise to compare a stance of “I’ll tolerate a sexual orientation I disagree with but don’t want to actively advocate for it” to “I support enslaving people and fully depriving them of their rights.”
I don’t know the ins and outs of MLB contracts. But I agree with Payton’s original point about how the authoritarian desire to crush dissent, which has been pretty present in left-wing movements, is troubling and not helping the causes they claim to care about. (I’ll also both-sides this a bit and say the right very much has an authoritarianism problem as well, I think these cultural phenomenons tend to rise together.) All that to say, Payton’s original point about the need to return to freedom of religion/association as a core value would be beneficial for the culture.
I care because corporate choices like this can have an impact on people’s public policy preferences. Like I said, I believe the winning argument behind gay rights was “it doesn’t affect you.” When it morphs into forced celebration of something many people (even if wrongly) disagree with, it has downstream cultural impacts. As I said in an earlier reply to Payton, I think it’s inadvisable for a social movement to morph from a classically liberal message of toleration to a more authoritarian approach in which support is compelled. I truly believe it doesn’t help, and I think recent backsliding in support for this cause in part reflects this.
What’s your point, exactly? People with bad opinions do have the freedom to hold them. I doubt forcing a person with terrible opinions about Jews to, say, participate in an Israel Day Parade will change that person’s mind. Compelled compliance doesn’t work to change minds. That takes actual work. And as for the matter at hand, I just don’t see the upside in forced celebration. Everybody knows that there are people who feel that homosexuality doesn’t align with their values. The winning argument behind gay rights was ultimately, well, that shouldn’t matter, gay people still deserve legal protection and equality. Live and let live is the winning argument. Compelled celebration just makes people who aren’t comfortable feel attacked, and what good does that actually do in terms of achieving equality under the law?
Maybe I don’t know the details, but I saw people attacking some Giants player (not one who wrote anything on his hat but opted out entirely) as a bigot. That is SUPER unhelpful and I believe leads to a decrease in support for gay rights (which, idk if you can even call the movement “gay rights” anymore, but that’s a longer discussion I’m not getting into rn).
The issue I have is with making Pride a mandatory celebration, period. I’m not particularly interested in the details of the specific case here, more so dismayed by the idea that this is even a thing at all. The whole point of gay rights was “we’re just like you, we want to live a normal life, please give us legal equality.” And there’s nothing wrong with Pride celebrations existing, of course. But the corporatized, force participation is bad for maintaining societal support. You have to remember the WHOLE of “live and let live.”
NBC News: "Iran has fired multiple drones toward commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz since the U.S. and Iran agreed to a memorandum of understanding Sunday...The IRGC has fired multiple drones each night since the MOU was digitally signed Sunday, the official said."
https://t.co/THFjRxe4ig
I’m furious at the authoritarians who wear the hard won successes of the gay rights movement like a skin suit. They are doing immense harm. I spent a lot of time arguing for marriage equality in Republican spaces, even in places like Texas. People really did start to accept the live and let live arguments. But the past decade or so has been a difficult lesson in what happens when you trade a classically liberal argument for a hard leftist one. It’s truly infuriating, I get really heated when I think about all the goodwill that’s being squandered by a bunch of petty brats who couldn’t argue their way out of a paper bag. Logic matters. Aesthetics matter. Important social movements should never be hijacked by people who’d be content to watch the world burn. But here we are.