Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Nea Byzantia]

Given your serious, no-nonsense, temperament, that would probably suit you well.

Once people hear me talk and realize I don't have a german accent, I usually get mistaken for former military. I suspect being into guns and having good posture just tends to have that effect, whether you have an overly serious temperament or not.

Lol...How long does it take them to realize you're not a Jerry?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of national service for women

Oh, well I am. For men too.

society ought to encourage women to be true to their natures.

I agree, except I think people ought to be true to the nature of themselves as an individual (except for the harmful or toxic aspects of their nature), rather than true to the average tendencies of their sex or gender.

I'm opposed to universal suffrage.

Yes, but are you opposed to women voting, but supportive of men voting? Or are you opposed to the general population voting? If the latter, it's not really a threat to legal gender equality.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Wow, I'm really glad sexism is back in style. Here I thought maybe that we had moved past seeing women as incubators and servants.

Suggesting we as a collective ever did move past that view.

We must be living in entirely different collectives, then, because sexism is dying out. Beliefs that were commonplace in even relatively egalitarian civilized nations 200 years ago are seen as backward and wrong today.

[Diopolis]

Men and women are different. Thus they have different rights and ought to have different privileges and social roles. Attempting to erase their differences is foolish and counterproductive; a civilized and sane society encourages its children to become manly men and womanly women.

If you believe that people have certain natural roles and places within your social order, then having to enforce that social order proves that it is in fact (to at least some degree, anyway) an artificial construct. Otherwise, given freedom to choose, people will gravitate towards those tasks on their own, and there is no need to enforce it. (This is different from other forms of law enforcement because most other crimes, such as murder and theft, are crimes because they are unquestionably harmful in virtually every circumstance. Taking advantage of your economic freedoms to find the most efficient place in the economy isn't a crime in most countries, and the ones where it is a crime aren't known for having happy populations or productive economies.)
Forcing a woman to become a caregiver when her skills and interests lean more towards construction, and then forcing a man into the construction job she would have filled when his skills and interests lean more towards childcare, isn't just deeply unfair, it's also very inefficient, since neither of them will perform their assigned tasks as well as the other would have.

Ah, but one of the effects of the current model of capitalism is that the banksters and CEO's don't give a shit and built an economic system which forces women and men out of their natural roles(albeit particularly women). Moreover, I've actually worked construction. I don't recall any women there, unless they were an architect or designer or something. To a certain degree, people follow their natural inclinations anyways, even while a crooked economic system attempts to force them out of it.

[Diopolis]

Once people hear me talk and realize I don't have a german accent, I usually get mistaken for former military. I suspect being into guns and having good posture just tends to have that effect, whether you have an overly serious temperament or not.

Lol...How long does it take them to realize you're not a Jerry?

I have a very strong Texas accent, so usually not that long.
I now have a mental image of Hitler going "Howdy y'all".

[Conserative Morality]

By "Civilized" do you mean Progressive?

No, I mean civilized. I have an evangelical mother and plenty of rural family who vote Republican religiously. But because they aren't savages, they aren't sexists.

[North German Realm]

Suggesting we as a collective ever did move past that view.

We must be living in entirely different collectives, then, because sexism is dying out. Beliefs that were commonplace in even relatively egalitarian civilized nations 200 years ago are seen as backward and wrong today.

"As a Collective", Georgia literally passed a law that's akin to the description of a novel about a dystopian Christian theocracy, and half a doxen states nearby showed their support by pushing through similar laws. Entire regions in the world have honor killing and arranged marriages (often to ages as low as 8 and 11). Sexism hasn't gone anywhere, we -the actually civilized folk- just made echo chambers and pretended what we wish is true and we're the majority view.

In civilized sections of society, yes.

By "Civilized" do you mean Progressive?

But you repeat yourself.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

In civilized sections of society, yes.

By "Civilized" do you mean Progressive?

The two tend to go hand in hand, but for the purposes of this debate, I'm considering a "civilized" nation to be one on the list of advanced economies.

[Nea Byzantia]

Lol...How long does it take them to realize you're not a Jerry?

I have a very strong Texas accent, so usually not that long.
I now have a mental image of Hitler going "Howdy y'all".

I mean Hitler was a fan of Westerns and had a proclivity for cocaine, so...

[Diopolis]

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of national service for women

Oh, well I am. For men too.

society ought to encourage women to be true to their natures.

I agree, except I think people ought to be true to the nature of themselves as an individual (except for the harmful or toxic aspects of their nature), rather than true to the average tendencies of their sex or gender.

The differences between us in both of these two points are pretty simple- I am a collectivist, you are an individualist.

I'm opposed to universal suffrage.

Yes, but are you opposed to women voting, but supportive of men voting? Or are you opposed to the general population voting? If the latter, it's not really a threat to legal gender equality.

I am opposed to women's suffrage on general principle, except perhaps in limited circumstances for widows. As for men's suffrage, I'm not a pro-universal suffrage sort, but I'm not universally against suffrage. Maybe some combination of household voting and a requirement for national service?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If you believe that people have certain natural roles and places within your social order, then having to enforce that social order proves that it is in fact (to at least some degree, anyway) an artificial construct. Otherwise, given freedom to choose, people will gravitate towards those tasks on their own, and there is no need to enforce it. (This is different from other forms of law enforcement because most other crimes, such as murder and theft, are crimes because they are unquestionably harmful in virtually every circumstance. Taking advantage of your economic freedoms to find the most efficient place in the economy isn't a crime in most countries, and the ones where it is a crime aren't known for having happy populations or productive economies.)
Forcing a woman to become a caregiver when her skills and interests lean more towards construction, and then forcing a man into the construction job she would have filled when his skills and interests lean more towards childcare, isn't just deeply unfair, it's also very inefficient, since neither of them will perform their assigned tasks as well as the other would have.

Ah, but one of the effects of the current model of capitalism is that the banksters and CEO's don't give a shit and built an economic system which forces women and men out of their natural roles(albeit particularly women). Moreover, I've actually worked construction. I don't recall any women there, unless they were an architect or designer or something. To a certain degree, people follow their natural inclinations anyways, even while a crooked economic system attempts to force them out of it.

So do you or do you not believe that your system needs enforcement for it to function? I kind of need to know before I can continue with this debate.

[Nea Byzantia]

I'm not a pro-universal suffrage sort, but I'm not universally against suffrage. Maybe some combination of household voting and a requirement for national service?

That's pretty reasonable. I lean more towards Autocracy and Monarchy, personally, but if I was to favour suffrage, it would be under the conditions you mentioned above.

[Hanafuridake]

Did it ever go out of style?

In civilized sections of society, yes.

You give society too much credit.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I have a very strong Texas accent, so usually not that long.
I now have a mental image of Hitler going "Howdy y'all".

I mean Hitler was a fan of Westerns and had a proclivity for cocaine, so...

I'll have you know that in Texas, we use meth, not cocaine.

[Nea Byzantia]

In civilized sections of society, yes.

You give society too much credit.

One can expect nothing less from a Jacobin.

[Diopolis]

I'm not a pro-universal suffrage sort, but I'm not universally against suffrage. Maybe some combination of household voting and a requirement for national service?

That's pretty reasonable. I lean more towards Autocracy and Monarchy, personally, but if I was to favour suffrage, it would be under the conditions you mentioned above.

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You give society too much credit.

One can expect nothing less from a Jacobin.

...Did I just see someone unironically use "jacobin" as an insult?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The differences between us in both of these two points are pretty simple- I am a collectivist, you are an individualist.

No doubt. Though I think it's more efficient if people are allowed to find their own role in society, rather than having it be determined by their sex. If women are predisposed towards nurturing roles, and men are predisposed towards more dangerous, assertive, competitive roles, then in a egalitarian society, they will naturally gravitate towards those roles. No social engineering necessary.

I am opposed to women's suffrage on general principle, except perhaps in limited circumstances for widows. As for men's suffrage, I'm not a pro-universal suffrage sort, but I'm not universally against suffrage. Maybe some combination of household voting and a requirement for national service?

I don't quite understand. Which men do you think should be able to vote, if any? And which women do you think should be able to vote, if any?

[Nea Byzantia]

That's pretty reasonable. I lean more towards Autocracy and Monarchy, personally, but if I was to favour suffrage, it would be under the conditions you mentioned above.

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

Interesting. So a Monarchy which allows suffrage to "stake-holders" (ie. those who have served in the Military, etc.)?

[Old Tyrannia]

That's pretty reasonable. I lean more towards Autocracy and Monarchy, personally, but if I was to favour suffrage, it would be under the conditions you mentioned above.

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

[Nea Byzantia]

One can expect nothing less from a Jacobin.

...Did I just see someone unironically use "jacobin" as an insult?

You did.

[North German Realm]

One can expect nothing less from a Jacobin.

...Did I just see someone unironically use "jacobin" as an insult?

You're new here, it appears.


In all seriousness though, anything less than absolute, equal, and universal franchise for males and females (and "others", as they my appear) is unacceptable in a civilized society.

[Diopolis]

The differences between us in both of these two points are pretty simple- I am a collectivist, you are an individualist.

No doubt. Though I think it's more efficient if people are allowed to find their own role in society, rather than having it be determined by their sex. If women are predisposed towards nurturing roles, and men are predisposed towards more dangerous, assertive, competitive roles, then in a egalitarian society, they will naturally gravitate towards those roles. No social engineering necessary.

I am opposed to women's suffrage on general principle, except perhaps in limited circumstances for widows. As for men's suffrage, I'm not a pro-universal suffrage sort, but I'm not universally against suffrage. Maybe some combination of household voting and a requirement for national service?

I don't quite understand. Which men do you think should be able to vote, if any? And which women do you think should be able to vote, if any?

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

Interesting. So a Monarchy which allows suffrage to "stake-holders" (ie. those who have served in the Military, etc.)?

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

My politics are in a bit of flux, so I haven't quite fleshed out exactly what I think on the question. But I definitely prefer some kind of partial male suffrage.

[Conserative Morality]

You're new here, it appears.


In all seriousness though, anything less than absolute, equal, and universal franchise for males and females (and "others", as they my appear) is unacceptable in a civilized society.

I would never support such restrictions, but I would regard restrictions that are not along lines of sex or race to not be inherently savage, just inherently undemocratic.

[North German Realm]

You're new here, it appears.


In all seriousness though, anything less than absolute, equal, and universal franchise for males and females (and "others", as they my appear) is unacceptable in a civilized society.

I would never support such restrictions, but I would regard restrictions that are not along lines of sex or race to not be inherently savage, just inherently undemocratic.

Eh. I might be neutral-positive about weighted franchise based only on education, but even then I realize that not giving everyone the equal voice in the process of decisionmaking should be unacceptable in a civilized society. (Didn't say if the activities themselves were savage. I mean, most -though not all- limitations on franchise are savagery, but exceptions apply)