Emerald

I feel the same way about drugs and euthanasia as I do about abortion... for the same reasons pertaining to bodily sovereignty. I don't believe the government should have jurisdiction over what people do with their own body as long as it doesn't encroach upon the sovereignty and boundaries of others. But when it comes to public nudity, that's beyond the jurisdiction of personal bodily sovereignty... and is more about a public space where there are certain collective rules and procedures that make existing in that space. And the government can and should have jurisdiction over the rules of access to public spaces... as can the private owners of a space that's open to the public. And you can be naked all you want, as long as you are in your own private space. And committing crimes is also a matter that the government should have jurisdiction over... because it impacts the public in some way and is beyond the realm of bodily sovereignty. People should be the sole goverenors of their own bodies and matters that pertain to their own body. But the government should have jurisdiction over the laws of public engagement within a society.

Couldn't help yourself, eh?

100%

That's fair. I just didn't agree with Leo's assertion that freedom and equality are ALWAYS a trade off. From my perspective, I'm always advocating for equality because my top values are freedom and sovereignty. I don't want my sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces... and I don't want others' sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces. But the conversation with Leo, made me realize that, from the perspective of power... there is an inverse relationship between freedom and equality. And someone belongs to only dominant groups, they may take for granted that this trade-off between freedom and equality is the same for everyone. For example, if you are a dictator... then allowing your constituents equality under the law to you would be a trade off of your own freedom. But if you are the constituent of the dictatorship, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. Or if you're a slave owner... then your slaves gaining equality under the law is a concession of your own freedom. But if you're the slave, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. And I think this is why, from Leo's perspective equality and freedom seem like a trade-off... because he is male and belongs only to "powerful side of the stick" groups. So, he doesn't see the inherent fight for freedom, sovereignty, and liberation that is the core foundation of leftwing social justice movements. Instead, he sees ideologues who want him to give up his freedom so that more of equality (as an idealistic abstract ideological value) can happen. But from my perspective equality and freedom might as well be the same thing... because I am female. I recognize that without equality under the law, I would have no sovereignty or rights... and that my life would be fully governed by my husband and I wouldn't even have the right to vote. He never has had to think about that or even consider a hypothetical scenario where a lack of equality would impede his freedom. So, he feels it's always a trade-off... and assumes that's true for everyone. But it only is true for white heterosexual wealthy men living in America. Nothing wrong with being that. It's just a limited perspective where you can't necessarily appreciate how interrelated equality and freedom actually are... because any equality granted to the masses will be a concession of your own freedom.

That's fine. You don't have to debate with me. You can if you choose to though.

If you were making good points, I'd also give you your kudos. I have done so before. But you went off into some weird territory about letting the world burn because of your commitment to truth... which just wasn't very well thought out. And then you compared that to the monk who died because of his commitment to truth like your willingness to allow the world to burn so that you can stay committed to truth is even remotely similar.

You sure do argue a lot for someone not trying to win arguments.

Let's keep it above the belt. I didn't call you a dumb asshole or a sycophantic jerk or anything like that. So, let's keep things on equal ground.

What kinds of freedoms need to be given up in order to have equality? Keep in mind that I am female. The only reason I have any freedom at all is because of equality. Perhaps it's a trade-off for you as a man because equality requires you to give up some power you have over others so that they too may have freedom. But from the perspective of a woman, they only ever come together. Equality means to the freedom to make my own choices and to live my life as I see fit. Without equality, I would have no freedom.

I only accuse you of things that I'm observing you doing. You do move the goal posts often. I've debated you enough times to notice that it's a pattern where you cherry pick what you consider to be the weak point of the argument and reframe and change the opposition's arguments as though the weak point of the argument is what the opposition is actually arguing. For example, my argument is that your pattern of nitpicking the left about trans issues is rhetorically weak because it concedes power to the right wing frame. And I have posed to you wiser ways of dealing with this rhetoric that doesn't fragment the movement towards a populist economic vision and doesn't concede power and credibility to the right wing trans panic stuff. The, you've tried to rope me into side arguments about the merits of socialism, the merits of random bathroom laws in Canada, the nebulous meaning of the word freedom, and several other arguments that are meant to tempt me to stop arguing my point about effective and ineffective rhetorical strategy... and instead argue with you about the merits of this that or the other random leftwing position. I've noticed that whenever you feel you can't win the argument, you'll try to shift the argument to an argument you think you can win more easily. And most people probably take the bait... so it probably works for you more often than not. But it's a bad faith argument strategy. I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you're unconscious to it... and it isn't deliberate. But you do it... and often enough to notice the pattern. But freedom and equality can only ever exist together. If you trade freedom for equality, you will not have the power to fight for equality. If you trade equality for freedom, authoritarians will take and inordinate share of the freedom and take your freedom from you.

Who need right wing propaganda when you can just get normies, liberals, and leftists to spread their own anti-left pro-right wing propaganda?

There's a difference between earned and unearned kudos.

Nazi camps are an exercise in freedom for Nazis... but a squelching of freedom for everyone else. That's why I said there must be equality under the law for there to be true freedom, where one person's freedom ends where the other person's freedom begins. Otherwise, if you don't have equality under the law, you'll get the dominant group claiming the "freedom to oppress" and the oppressed group getting stuck with little to no freedom. Hence why freedom and equality can ONLY exist together. If you lack equality, you lack freedom.

You're once again trying to move the goal posts to a different argument to try to get me on weaker footing... because you know you've already lost the argument we're actually having. If you were actually honest, you'd recognize that your approach of nitpicking the left about accepting trans people will do NOTHING to achieve the economic vision you'd like see. Instead, if you want to achieve that economic vision, then we have to stop conceding to the right wing framing on social issues and personal freedom... as it weakens us and strengthens them. But you've already conceded that the right wing is the direction you want to go for freedom... the freedom to conform to conservative social norms or be prosecuted or thrown into some concentration camp. There's no greater incarceration than the right wing conceptualization of freedom.

A razor sharp way of speaking does not a truth-teller make. But I was just being funny because seeing Leo as having a genuine allegiance to truth here is just because you like Leo... and you're not recognizing the glaring flaws of his "No bs" approach.

You're moving the goal posts. I said nothing about Socialism. I was talking about winning and losing rhetoric and how your rhetorical strategy is a loser, when it comes to advocating for a progressive economic Populist vision.

Fixed it for you.

That's laughably untrue.... and that should be obvious. First off, there is no freedom without equality under the law. You may not realize this yet because you are a rich white man... and you don't understand what it is to have your personal rights and freedoms on the chopping block. And you don't understand what freedom is or the value of freedom is because you've never actually had your liberty threatened in any kind of meaningful way. Secondly, the right wing is HYPER authoritarian and wants to ban and eradicate all people and expressions that deviate from its sense of what's normal. This is observable.. even if you're not personally affected by it

Leo the ego is human... and is not operating from God consciousness... nor can Leo ever operate from God consciousness. If your ego dissolved, you would recognize the wisdom of embracing death as well as life... and mercy as well as suffering... and truth as well as illusion. And you would have no such polarization towards truth and away from illusion... as you would recognize that you were the creator of both of those poles in the dichotomy. And you would recognize your existence as Truth in a way that transcends and includes your notions of both truth and illusion from the finite perspective. All these dichotomies that Leo currently polarizes along as an ego would collapse... and you would recognize the intelligence of the holistic picture as the "video game designer". And the wisdom of that is to recognize the existence of Bowser is necessary to make the Mario games complete. And the Mario games are only GOOD because Bowser is in them. But Leo is and will forever be just an avatar. And because Leo the avatar has confused himself into thinking he's operating from the paradigm of the video game coder... he forgets that he must defeat Bowser to win the game. And he is a Mario that allows the Koopas to run amok.... thinking himself wiser for losing the game.

Once again, we're talking about what is rhetorically effective.... and why your strategy of nitpicking the left isn't effective and my framing is. And you can only be rhetorically effective if you have simple concepts and slogans that the average person understands and resonates with. You can't get super wonky or in the weeds about things. But when you frame yourself as pro-freedom and pro-acceptance... you can clarify a bit that it means freedom over personal decisions that don't impede upon others' freedom. And that acceptance means acceptance of all the different folkways we have. It's not hard to communicate that... especially if you say it as a rebuttal when a right-winger or foolish left-winger who has fallen into the traps set by the right wing propaganda machine (like you) starts to press you on accepting trans people. Then, you answer... "Yes, I accept people because I am pro freedom. And I mind my own business because whatever trans people are doing isn't effecting my life. Do you believe that the government should be controlling people's personal life and squelching our freedoms?"

100% His whole argument is lacking in real heart wisdom. And if he was being honest with himself, I hope he would see that he doesn't even agree with himself when the rubber meets the road. His identity is just too wrapped up in the notion of truth being the highest good and him being the type of person that always sticks to the truth, even if the entire world burns. But it's all just ego... and defending his own ideological leanings under the guise of defending truth.

So holding to a principled stance on acceptance and freedom are corrupt to you? It's clear to me that you care more about nitpicking the left to death when they deviate from your ideology than you do about harm prevention, truth, and justice.... and stopping the forces of corruption from proliferating.

It's not about following a leftist ideology to win elections. In fact, if you're too ideological and wonky, you'll lose people. It's about strategically framing acceptance and freedom as the normal "duh" positions. And the cost of not doing that is TONS of human suffering... and the forces of corruption proliferating because there is no force keeping it in check. You can chalk a lot of the current sufferings up to the fact that the left neurotically tosses away power and the right neurotically hoards it. In the tree of life, there are two polarities that roughly translate to "mercy" and "severity". And if you polarize into severity, the forces of severity proliferate. But if you polarize into mercy and integrate no severity, the forces of severity also proliferate because there is nothing keeping the forces of severity in check. And it's precisely because people on the left are too high and mighty and smelling their own farts about "being good" to wield something as gauche as power, that there is nothing to check the forces of corruption.

So, you will be the person that sticks to the truth and tells the Nazis "There are Jews hiding in the basement." It tells me a lot about you.

I only want to fight, bitch, and defend people who will get hurt if no one speaks up for them. It's corruption to do anything less.