fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2924 ]

[ SECRET POST #2924 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2924 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #418.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm stuck on the part where we're becoming morally bankrupt but also worrying too much about catering to sensitive people. Just seems like a weird combination to my peace and love hippie brain since even if you think changing your language to please a few people is misguided, it still sounds like it's well-intentioned at least.

Yeah, you gotta keep in mind how these people think. Caring about others is morally bankrupt, ESPECIALLY if they're black/gay/trans/whatever.

I have a hard time telling conservatism from sociopathy sometimes.

A bit off topic but the way I had it explained to me by (what I consider to be) a reasonable man who describes himself conservative is that they don't see anything wrong with being gay/trans, etc. But they promote traditional values for, what they see, as the benefit of society.

For example, he said that there was nothing wrong with gay people, that they should be allowed to love and have the same rights as straight couples, but that straight couples should be promoted because they'll produce the children needed to support the continuation of society.

Or there's sexual morality. He says that people (especially women) shouldn't be shamed or called sluts for wanting to have sex or anything. And that people should be taught about birth control/condoms. But he also thinks that chastity and fidelity should be promoted as values because they decrease the spread of STDs and the risk of children born out of wedlock and promote the formation of stable family units, which is good for kids.

Personally, I think some of his values can be contradictory (for instance, I think that it's almost inevitable that you'll get slut-shaming when you promote chastity as a central moral value) but he doesn't look down on anyone who has sex out wedlock. Or anyone who doesn't "conform."

In terms of economics, he's quite conservative largely because he's been burned pretty badly by the VA (Veteran's Affairs) and doesn't really trust the government to handle much large scale action. He also says that the average American would be terrified if they knew the true extent of government power.

straight couples should be promoted because they'll produce the children needed to support the continuation of society.

But... that doesn't make any sense. Queer people have kids all the time--in previous relationships before coming out, because they're bi, because one of them is trans, because they adopt...

Also, there are six billion of us on this planet. I really don't think we're in danger of going extinct and collapsing society any time soon. And our foster care adoption system is massively overloaded!

I get that. His logic is that there's nothing wrong with queer families, but they still aren't producing kids generally. It'll be a previous relationship or an adoption.

For his part, he says he's in favor of gay adoptions and the like, but he still thinks it's best when kids are raised stable and loving biological parents, if only because of medical history and shared genetic predispositions.

In regards to population -- he points out that developed countries (especially in Europe or Japan) are increasingly seeing population shrinkage and that we're going to have major issues later on if we don't have enough new people to help support an aging population.

I think his logic is faulty in some places, but I don't really find his positions to be borne of cruelty or a desire to oppress people different than him. He also doesn't oppose granting rights to others. Just, he more thinks that traditional systems are optimal systems. Where I disagree with him is that by classifying something as optimal, I think it's inevitable that discrimination will ensue.

But I don't' think he's a bad person at heart.

Enh, doesn't work for me, but that's because I've had a lot of people really fuck me up out of ignorance, rather than malice.

I kind of wonder where he thinks oppression comes from, if not people valuing one type over another, but I think the answer would just make me angry and I should step back and cool off.

While I am sure this person is quite reasonable and decent, I don't think his views are really coherent unless you do get to the point of considering those things immoral in one way or another.

(I know you're not promoting his views but for the sake of argument:)

the thing is, you can't promote heteronormativity without homophobia, they're two concepts that are in tandem with one another– there's no way to encourage or promote heterosexuality (which itself is a pretty stupid concept since with the exception of bisexuals, no one is "choosing" one or the other and needs to be "encouraged" into het relationships in the first place), without making gay relationships marginalized and queer people feel less worthy of meaningful relationships. a gay kid who grows up within a society that "promotes" nothing but positive heterosexual imagery and male/female relationship models will undergo much of the same harm and self-hatred as a gay kid who grows up around outright homophobia. it just can't be done.

and again, I can't fathom how someone like that thinks they can "promote" heterosexuality in the first place– #1 because society is very clearly ALREADY doing more than enough to cement heteronormativity, and #2, because sexuality is pretty set, and even he seems to acknowledge that to some degree– some people are just gay. no amount of promotion of heterosexuality is going to turn a gay man straight, as we've seen from those re-education camps.

I was raised in a very devout sort of Christian environment, around people who had their biases (and I had plenty of my own) but tried to be "Christlike." I thought they were "conservative."

As an adult, I got to know "conservatives" who seemed to favor a sort of learned sociopathy. Sentiment was to be despised. Creepy bunch of people.

It makes sense (at least internally ) if you assume that the things that we're catering to sensitive people about are morally wrong in themselves. If we're abandoning some kind of moral precept to cater to political correctness then even if it's well-intentioned on some level it's still wrong.

Of course just to be clear I think that's completely wrong and awful especially in this context. But that is probably where they're coming from.

That's true. Most of the letter got me expecting one kind of conservative with all the "sorry but that's just the facts", so by the time they started talking about the degradation of society I forgot to remind myself how the moral guardians tend to think.

Yeah that's true the letter definitely kind of switches it up in there. A jack of all trades awful person I guess.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2924 ]

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor

Re: god dammit i need to quit reading letters to the editor