Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Novus America]

Also they are not homosexual by choice, forcing them into the closet does not make them magically into heterosexuals. Homosexuals exist in literal every society.
Banning homosexuality simply does not work. It just make for a superficial and fake society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatl ... le/305774/

I did not imply that was the case.

I think Diopolis' position is that they should marry heterosexually anyway and have children the "standard" way.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. And yes he wants to make a fake society like Saudi Arabia.

Another interesting fact, Iran has a lower birth rate than the US and France.

[Diopolis]

I did not imply that was the case.

I think Diopolis' position is that they should marry heterosexually anyway and have children the "standard" way.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. And yes he wants to make a fake society like Saudi Arabia.

Another interesting fact, Iran has a lower birth rate than the US and France.

State promotion of contraception and transgenderism probably has something to do with that.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

It's not like people in homosexual relationships can't have children, or raise them. They just can't have them with each other, but that hardly stops people, since you can find a surrogate mother, sperm donor or what have you. There's also the possibility of adoption, since plenty of children are unwanted or left behind by their actual parents.

Also they are not homosexual by choice, forcing them into the closet does not make them magically into heterosexuals. Homosexuals exist in literal every society.
Banning homosexuality simply does not work. It just make for a superficial and fake society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatl ... le/305774/

Leaving the question of whether or not it's socially acceptable aside for a moment, it's very debatable as to whether or not it's a wholly involuntary sexual orientation. There's many factors that go into determining one's sexuality, and it's dubious that these factors are completely out of an individual's control.

Least of all because Antiquity was a thing (and Ancient Greece in particular), so unless we begin with the assumption that most humans are closeted gays, I think it's safe to assume that homosexuality is at least partially a choice in most cases.

[Novus America]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. And yes he wants to make a fake society like Saudi Arabia.

Another interesting fact, Iran has a lower birth rate than the US and France.

State promotion of contraception and transgenderism probably has something to do with that.

There is no reason to believe state recognition of transgender persons lowers the birth rate.
Iran shut down state support of birth control in 2012 but the birth rate has continued to fall.

Admittedly banning birth control might increase the birth rate (but also the abortion rate, even if abortion is illegal) but would lead to all sorts of other problems.

And the Iran government is not happy about this low birth rate, but their attempts to reverse it have failed.

Banning homosexuality is a poor way to increase the birth rate. And for what? A gay kingdom in the closet like Saudi Arabia?

[Novus America]

Also they are not homosexual by choice, forcing them into the closet does not make them magically into heterosexuals. Homosexuals exist in literal every society.
Banning homosexuality simply does not work. It just make for a superficial and fake society.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatl ... le/305774/

Leaving the question of whether or not it's socially acceptable aside for a moment, it's very debatable as to whether or not it's a wholly involuntary sexual orientation. There's many factors that go into determining one's sexuality, and it's dubious that these factors are completely out of an individual's control.

Least of all because Antiquity was a thing (and Ancient Greece in particular), so unless we begin with the assumption that most humans are closeted gays, I think it's safe to assume that homosexuality is at least partially a choice in most cases.

Well there may be outside things that impact it, it is not largely within and individuals control and we have no reason to believe it is. It is true for example segregation of men and women increases homosexual behavior but gender segregation is the only known way to increase it.

But regardless Saudi Arabia shows banning homosexuality does not work.

[Nakena]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. And yes he wants to make a fake society like Saudi Arabia.

Another interesting fact, Iran has a lower birth rate than the US and France.

State promotion of contraception and transgenderism probably has something to do with that.

They had issues with overpopulation that could not be fed by the mountainous and desertlike country.

However I believe the effect of transgenderism on society (not just Iranian) is generally pictured out of proportion. In both effect and media attention.

[Diopolis]

State promotion of contraception and transgenderism probably has something to do with that.

They had issues with overpopulation that could not be fed by the mountainous and desertlike country.

However I believe the effect of transgenderism on society (not just Iranian) is generally pictured out of proportion. In both effect and media attention.

Considering there aren't very many of them and the media pays a huge amount of attention to them, that's rather inevitable.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Leaving the question of whether or not it's socially acceptable aside for a moment, it's very debatable as to whether or not it's a wholly involuntary sexual orientation. There's many factors that go into determining one's sexuality, and it's dubious that these factors are completely out of an individual's control.

Least of all because Antiquity was a thing (and Ancient Greece in particular), so unless we begin with the assumption that most humans are closeted gays, I think it's safe to assume that homosexuality is at least partially a choice in most cases.

Well there may be outside things that impact it, it is not largely within and individuals control and we have no reason to believe it is. It is true for example segregation of men and women increases homosexual behavior but gender segregation is the only known way to increase it.

But regardless Saudi Arabia banning homosexuality does not work.

Like anything, it's affected by genetics, culture, experience and habit; along with the usual handful of other factors. Only some of these are totally out of a person's control, and I'm doubtful as to the veracity of claims that it is entirely involuntary, especially given the habits of our ancestors.

Regardless, I don't disagree that Saudi Arabia has no idea what they're doing.

[Novus America]

They had issues with overpopulation that could not be fed by the mountainous and desertlike country.

However I believe the effect of transgenderism on society (not just Iranian) is generally pictured out of proportion. In both effect and media attention.

Considering there aren't very many of them and the media pays a huge amount of attention to them, that's rather inevitable.

But their small numbers still means their impact on birth rates is going to be negligible at best.
And maybe if adoption and surrogacy was not so outrageously difficult and absurdly expensive, they would raise more children.

[Novus America]

Well there may be outside things that impact it, it is not largely within and individuals control and we have no reason to believe it is. It is true for example segregation of men and women increases homosexual behavior but gender segregation is the only known way to increase it.

But regardless Saudi Arabia banning homosexuality does not work.

Like anything, it's affected by genetics, culture, experience and habit; along with the usual handful of other factors. Only some of these are totally out of a person's control, and I'm doubtful as to the veracity of claims that it is entirely involuntary, especially given the habits of our ancestors.

Regardless, I don't disagree that Saudi Arabia has no idea what they're doing.

Most of those are outside the individual’s control. Genetics, culture and usually experience are.
But yes the heavy handed Saudi approach is obviously stupid.

[Bienenhalde]

Ill be looking forward to it.
One thing I always wondered about conservative is how to bring stuff that is (supposedly) "degenerate" such as homosexuality and gender spectrum in accordance with those beliefs.

Homosexuality and gender spectrum can't be brought in line with conservative beliefs.

Well, the truth is, it depends on how one defines conservatism.

[Hanafuridake]

So you admit you think it is bad in the first place,

This has never been hidden by me. I've always been adamant that I believe the Security Treaty should be abrogated, from both a national sovereignty standpoint, and especially after '16 where America has a commander-in-chief who can't be trusted to maintain his word and openly fraternizes with dictators who are hostile to us. There's not really much to be surprised that a nationalist doesn't want a foreign army on their soil.

and a high profile crime is just a disingenuous appeal to emotion you are trying to pull.

The crimes are still red hot in the mind of Okinawans and put incredible strains on relations with the US. It's not an appeal to emotion to suggest we should have ended the agreement after the worst incident happened.

Expelling all Japanese from Okinawa and replacing them with American troops would actually reduce crime! And are you going to ban tourists too?

Ending the agreement between the two countries and sending troops home is not the same thing as banning them from visiting.

[Novus America]

So you admit you think it is bad in the first place,

This has never been hidden by me. I've always been adamant that I believe the Security Treaty should be abrogated, from both a national sovereignty standpoint, and especially after '16 where America has a commander-in-chief who can't be trusted to maintain his word and openly fraternizes with dictators who are hostile to us. There's not really much to be surprised that a nationalist doesn't want a foreign army on their soil.

and a high profile crime is just a disingenuous appeal to emotion you are trying to pull.

The crimes are still red hot in the mind of Okinawans and put incredible strains on relations with the US. It's not an appeal to emotion to suggest we should have ended the agreement after the worst incident happened.

Expelling all Japanese from Okinawa and replacing them with American troops would actually reduce crime! And are you going to ban tourists too?

Ending the agreement between the two countries and sending troops home is not the same thing as banning them from visiting.

Not the same thing, but the same (equally stupid) justification.
My problem is not you advocating the bases close, but your disingenuous BS to justify it.
There are legitimate arguments for (and obviously against) doing so, but the crime arguments is not one. Yes it is still an appeal to emotion (because they commit far fewer crimes than Japanese) even if it works.

Yes I realize your tactic had been successful in Okinawa, but it is still a disingenuous tactic that will not work on me.

[Diopolis]

This has never been hidden by me. I've always been adamant that I believe the Security Treaty should be abrogated, from both a national sovereignty standpoint, and especially after '16 where America has a commander-in-chief who can't be trusted to maintain his word and openly fraternizes with dictators who are hostile to us. There's not really much to be surprised that a nationalist doesn't want a foreign army on their soil.


The crimes are still red hot in the mind of Okinawans and put incredible strains on relations with the US. It's not an appeal to emotion to suggest we should have ended the agreement after the worst incident happened.


Ending the agreement between the two countries and sending troops home is not the same thing as banning them from visiting.

Not the same thing, but the same (equally stupid) justification.
My problem is not you advocating the bases close, but your disingenuous BS to justify it.
There are legitimate arguments for (and obviously against) doing so, but the crime arguments is not one. Yes it is still an appeal to emotion (because they commit far fewer crimes than Japanese) even if it works.

Yes I realize your tactic had been successful in Okinawa, but it is still a disingenuous tactic that will not work on me.

I mean, we should pull troops out of Japan. And everywhere else not part of US soil.

[Bienenhalde]

It is a blatantly bad faith argument. “American soldiers in Japan occasionally commit crimes (though are far more law abiding on average than Japanese) ergo they must be expelled to protect innocent Japanese”. Yes American soldiers are not perfect, but they are better behaved than the Japanese themselves and subject to Japanese courts.

Fielding foreign troops on your soil is a bad idea in the first place, the first instance where they commit a major crime should be the first indication to pack them off. The vast majority of American soldiers don't have to commit crimes for there to be several high ranking crimes committed on the island by their fellow soldiers, which many Okinawans have become tired of and decided that a military base on the island is not worth the trouble.

Why don't we just institute harsher punishments for the soldiers who are committing these crimes?

[Bienenhalde]

Homosexual relationships necessarily act so as to adjust social norms to undermine the normativity of natalism and gender roles.

Then why did earlier Japanese periods have stricter gender roles and a higher birthrate than today?

I thought it was because women were severely repressed and men cheated on their wives with younger men. Not exactly desirable conditions.

[Novus America]

Fielding foreign troops on your soil is a bad idea in the first place, the first instance where they commit a major crime should be the first indication to pack them off. The vast majority of American soldiers don't have to commit crimes for there to be several high ranking crimes committed on the island by their fellow soldiers, which many Okinawans have become tired of and decided that a military base on the island is not worth the trouble.

Why don't we just institute harsher punishments for the soldiers who are committing these crimes?

Or all persons committing those crimes as soldiers do it less and Japanese law applies to them on such matters.

I am okay with increasing court martial sentences as well. Japan can send them to prison for as long as they like, and then the US can court martial then as well.

I have no sympathy for murders and rapists.

But the thing is US soldiers commit fewer crimes than the locals.

[Hanafuridake]

Not the same thing, but the same (equally stupid) justification.

Not an argument and I'm not inclined to listen to someone who yesterday advocated invading Canada when it comes to what's stupid.

My problem is not you advocating the bases close, but your disingenuous BS to justify it.

We've been over this, the crimes are not my primary reason for withdrawing from the treaties, nor were they stated to be, but it's still a source of anger for me and other people when it comes to the American army.

Yes I realize your tactic had been successful in Okinawa, but it is still a disingenuous tactic that will not work on me.

“Tactic.” you think me or someone else is in Okinawa using crime to pull Ryukyuans on puppet strings to oppose the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement? Are we doing that in other countries which protest US bases? Stop being over-dramatic. If you're going to insinuate that I see the brutal rape of a little girl as nothing more than a tool against the US, then I have no interest in talking to you and we're done here.

[Novus America]

Not the same thing, but the same (equally stupid) justification.

Not an argument and I'm not inclined to listen to someone who yesterday advocated invading Canada when it comes to what's stupid.

My problem is not you advocating the bases close, but your disingenuous BS to justify it.

We've been over this, the crimes are not my primary reason for withdrawing from the treaties, nor were they stated to be, but it's still a source of anger for me and other people when it comes to the American army.

Yes I realize your tactic had been successful in Okinawa, but it is still a disingenuous tactic that will not work on me.

“Tactic.” you think me or someone else is in Okinawa using crime to pull Ryukyuans on puppet strings to oppose the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement? Are we doing that in other countries which protest US bases? Stop being over-dramatic.

Rightfully calling your justification out for the deceitful BS it is is valid.
Nice whataboutism BTW. Whataboutism is not an argument, it is an admission of guilt.

And I was not serious about invading Canada. I support them peacefully joining as states, not a military attack in the present day. Obvious when I use the evil smiley face I am not being fully serious.
Hence why I use it.

And yes you are using it to drum up support for your cause. You only do it for Japan because Japan is what you care about. Arguing you only selectively use a tactic is a silly way to claim you are not using a tactic.

[The South Falls]

I'll be publishing some kind of semi-manifesto/writing an essay post in RWDT over what I believe sometime in the next week or so if that's alright with everybody.

Sure, I'll take it. Be sure to sig it for easier recall.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'll be publishing some kind of semi-manifesto/writing an essay post in RWDT over what I believe sometime in the next week or so if that's alright with everybody.

Do it, I'm interested.

I'm literally probably the hardest Right Winger here, to the point some here question my sanity. Do you really think I care about international law?

Excuse me?

Okay, in context it makes sense.....

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm literally probably the hardest Right Winger here, to the point some here question my sanity. Do you really think I care about international law?

*reads evola once*

Oh boy, need to read some of my posts.

[Totally Not OEP]

I don't know, it's just weird because I just have no desire to annex Canada at all when most of the others in this thread do. I'd rather us expanding South into Latin America directly as well into Afro-Eurasia in the form of Colonies; I guess it's the Southerner in me, what with the Golden Circle and such.

But why do one when you can do both?
In the name of north south unity we should both help the other.

I've long had an idea for an Alternate History where the South wins the Civil War, and from there the CSA and USA both adapt to this with both making expansions in the aftermath.

[Totally Not OEP]

It’s way too early in the day for effort posts.

If I go to the pool now instead of defending traditionalism, would that make me decadent?

Just don't be making thirsty posts on Insta like 90% of White girls this Summer.

[Novus America]

But why do one when you can do both?
In the name of north south unity we should both help the other.

I've long had an idea for an Alternate History where the South wins the Civil War, and from there the CSA and USA both adapt to this with both making expansions in the aftermath.

Unless they reunite though it is a sad alternative history
Seriously though the North South conflict was the biggest brake on US expansionism.