?

Log in

Apr. 15th, 2009 @ 08:04 am Random pondering and queries
I'm going to speak in broad terms and generalizations and I don't mean offense, but I'll likely cause some.



Seriously, this boggles my mind. Especially since I was once in their number a few years ago. A conservative fiscally, socially, yet I would go home and jack off to gender fucked porn. Then turn around and rail against 'special rights' for the very thing I was attracted to at times. Exactly how does this work? It didn't work for me and eventually my mind had a segfault and I reformatted my politics. How exactly does the logic stream work I wonder?

Conservatism fiscally with this is easy, no problem, money is money. However, the social conservatism seems to be such a paradox I can't really figure it out. The way I explained it when I was in this group was to not explain it, or get pissed off and storm off. I mean, even Clarence Fucking Thomas is OK hate crimes laws.

Incidentally, my personal view is that hate crimes should be a separate charge, something akin to a terrorist act. If you assault/kill someone because you hate a particular class of people, you are not just attacking a random person, you are attacking a particular segment of the population in an effort to incite terror and express your qualification of that segment as nonhuman. Particularly as they tend to be violent. There, to me, is a difference between a random stabbing that leaves someone dead and a random stabbing that involves gutting the victim, cutting off their genitals and stuffing them in the victim's mouth (Seems to be a trend in some trans-killings, that)

Yet these people are completely against all these protections, and God forbid they be in favor of job discrimination protection. The only job any non-normal gendered person is adapted to is sex-work after all, gotta get out those inner desires somehow I guess by forcing their fantasy on others by making sure all opportunities in life are complete stifled.

How do they reconcile their view, with the fact that I've been denied employment, insurance, medical aid, abused by people, physically, sexually, then had the cops LAUGH at me over the incident then threaten to arrest *ME* for prostitution to get me to shut the fuck up.

Seriously, how the hell do you reconcile a lack of protections for minorities when these very real examples happen, every day with impunity and no recourse?
About this Entry
Pathiaicon
[User Picture Icon]
From:jeffxandra
Date:April 15th, 2009 03:35 pm (UTC)

Not an authoritative opinion, but it's mine

(Permanent Link)
Like you, I'm trading in generalities which is always a bad thing, but as long as we're aware...

I think (those) social conservatives (who look at that sort of thing) aren't really into the act itself as much as they are into the forbidden nature of viewing it. The simple fact that social morality has become more relaxed means finding those forbideen thrills is, in some ways, more difficult. Anyone can find a boob on the internet, where is the thrill in finding something you, for lack of a better phrase, "shouldn't be seeing," when it's too easy to find?

I would argue that (most) social liberals are seeking the content in and of itself. Certainly some are into (what would generally be considered) more extreme content, and a few of them probably are seeking what is generally considered "forbidden," for just that nature.

But, for social conservatives, there's something rebellious in finding something you try and deny yourself culturally.

Social liberals (in general) don't deny themselves culturally, as much as they do aesthetically. They're just not that into it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jeffxandra
Date:April 15th, 2009 03:41 pm (UTC)

Re: Not an authoritative opinion, but it's mine

(Permanent Link)
Another thing to remember is the argument that porn, in and of itself, is objectification of people (regardless of content). i.e. psychologically (very roughly at that), what you see in porn isn't considered to be people doing anything. They are just objects that happen to look like people.

If you buy this idea, then it's not surprising that social conservatives don't consider the porn they view as having any impact on their views concerning what people should or should not do.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:paka
Date:April 15th, 2009 03:44 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
This is more personal than political in context, but I know that it's possible for someone to accept being fiscally and socially conservative while holding on to the weird gender stuff, for years and years - possibly a lifetime. This isn't the sort of thing I really have any business prying into, but I'm still curious about what thoughts or incidents happened that broke you out of just accepting it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 15th, 2009 03:52 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The incident in the next to last paragraph did it mostly. I was just completely flabbergasted by the situation and it started a fire.

I had this neat little idea, that all that never actually happened. That incidents in the past were hyped up by the ACLU to look as bad as possible for the police. That if person X had just followed the cop Y's instructions, Z wouldn't have happened etc. That cops would do their jobs, because a crime was a crime, no matter who it was against.

What changed it? That all those beliefs are lies in reality. It just doesn't work that way. I mean, I've literally discussed that incident with a furry cop and he was like "Fuck, I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know what you could have done".

When there's no way to complain, or no hate crime law, trying to beat and rape a transsexual is the same as having a bar scuffle, ie: not worth their time in paperwork.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:murrday
Date:April 15th, 2009 03:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Earth and Sky, amiga, I did not know what you have been through. I'm so sorry! No wonder you
are counting incidents in the news.

I'm a survivor of abuse myself, different circumstances, but it leaves me with an understanding
of that similar quality of pain.

And I gently urge again - go to Alexandra Billings' LJ - http://abillings.livejournal.com/
She is as you are, and she has been for much longer. She's good people, easy to talk with.
She can help you with some of your questions from knowing exactly what it's like, herself.

And remember that your wellbeing matters to me.
*Hugs* Peg
[User Picture Icon]
From:hydra_velsen
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:00 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Same thing applies to avatars. You can get fired for wearing a nonhuman AV with some companies.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:04 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Fursecution!

Actually that is pretty screwy though, never heard of it!

Edit: Does that include like mecha. Say, is it OK to be a anime fan, but not a furry with such a company?

Edited at 2009-04-15 04:04 pm (UTC)
[User Picture Icon]
From:shatterstripes
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Man, if I was looking for work in SL I wouldn't even begin to talk to places like that. All my avatars are somewhat inhuman.
[User Picture Icon]
From:dv_girl
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:17 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
There are multiple ways it works.

Social conservatism is the default. If you have liberal parents, you're probably going to be fairly liberal yourself, whereas, if you have conservative parents, you're at least going to start off being conservative and then only move out of it by your own experiences. And social conservatism is almost always 'everyone but me'. I volunteered doing abortion clinic defense when I lived in Oklahoma and I swear to you that no less than 1/4th of the people who came to the clinic said variants of "Abortion is wrong and you're going to burn in Hell but (We can't afford to have another baby right now/I'm not going to let my daughter make the same mistake I made) You know. Abortion is wrong for other people. Those evil feminists who do it just for fun, apparently.


Another strong possible impulse is taboo. Some people find it very hot to be 'naughty'. Orgasm deprivation, bdsm games, scat, watersports, stuff like that. Pushing those buttons about insecurity, inferiority, dirty, and depraved really hits some people's buttons. So why not hermaphrodites? I mean, they're GREAT for the latent homo hiding in a conservative because they don't exist in the real world and for the most part, they're a woman so you can say "Mmm! Tits! Pussy!" but it's also got a penis and you can... You know... Forget a little... Cause it's still a chick, right? Or, if you're into that social dominance thing (which a lot of guys are) It's just male enough you can feel like you dominate it by ignoring its penis and just reaming out its holes. Oh, and don't forget, playing a hermaphrodite lets you pretend to get it on with lesbians, but since a lot of guys can't figure out what we do in bed, they can then rely on trusty Mr. Thrusty, who is all they were wanting to satisfy anyhow. Herms can be pure power fantasy. I'm really unsurprised they appeal to social conservatives.
[User Picture Icon]
From:miriafox
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:36 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I think you've kinda hit it on the hammer with this one, least from my perceptions.
[User Picture Icon]
From:starblade_enkai
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:54 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Except I saw born with liberal parents and turned out pretty much libertarian and a student of Objectivism. Though I did start off being liberal, so you've got a point.
[User Picture Icon]
From:ff00ff
Date:April 15th, 2009 09:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Don't you talk about Trusty Mr. Thrusty that way! He's just misunderstood!
[User Picture Icon]
From:starblade_enkai
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:27 pm (UTC)

The conservative conundrum.

(Permanent Link)
As a libertarian (One who even flirts with Objectivist philosophy at times!) who comes across similar paradoxes about myself, I think it's a matter of disgust for the way politicians treat our problems: IE as a ticket to Washington. Not only that but there's the principle that you wouldn't FORCE your sexuality to be acceptable to others, just as it's wrong for other people to FORCE who they are - say, they are religious fundamentalists - onto you.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:31 pm (UTC)

Re: The conservative conundrum.

(Permanent Link)
Me using the women's restroom is considered FORCE.
[User Picture Icon]
From:starblade_enkai
Date:April 15th, 2009 04:33 pm (UTC)

Addendum:

(Permanent Link)
I realize that this doesn't apply to your problem with the cops. That is definitely a case where the Federal Government should step in and fire those cops, and bring the National Guard to make sure they don't try to come in to work next day. If force is going to be monopolized, it must be held in check by objective principles, and a population willing to support and live by objective principles.
[User Picture Icon]
From:wolffit
Date:April 15th, 2009 05:16 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You know where I stand on hate crimes. :-)

If I brutally rape and murder a person...

Is that a hate crime?

Is that a crime against all transsexuals?

Or is it simply a brutal rape / assault / murder?

If that person happened to be gay, does that change the nature of the crime? Was it a crime against all gay people?
If that person happened to be transsexual, does that change the nature of the crime? Was it a crime against all transsexuals?
If that person was a straight white male, and I committed the crime because I hate straight white males, does that change the nature of the crime? Was it a crime against all straight white males?


The criminal charge should be irrelevant of the details of the motive (but the presence or absence of motive and premeditation may be a factor in determining the charge.)

The range of possible penalties should be irrelevant of the details of the motive.

The actual penalty given (e.g. life, vs. death penalty, vs. 25-life, vs. 8-10, etc.) should be based on the motive and all the other details of the crime.

I'm gay, and I oppose "hate crime" legislation.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 15th, 2009 05:21 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
What about when the accused defiantly stands in court, stating it was God's will and that he would do it over and over and over again, no matter how long it takes?

Compare that to a mugger, who accidentally killed someone in the robbery attempt who is sorrowful over his actions.

The problem is, trans-murderers get LESS sentencing because they have 'gone crazy'. I've known six people to be murdered for being trans. The cops didn't even bother to investigate five of them much, the one that got jail time did about five years, for a brutal disgusting disfiguring mutilation killing.

Your statement is in an ideal world. The real world is that people get off with lighter sentences when they kill someone who's GLBT, because of 'gay/trans panic'
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:murrday
Date:April 15th, 2009 05:20 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I am sitting here hurting about what happened to you. While I will do nothing violent to another person, (because I am not on the scene, and also because it wouldn't help,) what I *want* to do is
find that cop, get right in his face and scream at him, "What the hell do you think you're doing to my friend?"

And I am not someone typically known for getting in face and screaming. But about now, I really really want to.

And I will not discuss the person who attacked you, except to say that I have very strong
un-Buddhist feelings toward them. I don't have a woodpile, so I think I will go out with a hammer and break open some geodes, to provide a physical venting for the anger. That's something that it's useful for me to break.

I know this is different from what you're discussing in this thread, but it is what I am feeling
about it.

You do not deserve abuse. You deserve to be the beautiful woman you've discovered in yourself, and to live freely and safely. Sorrowfully, we've got a lot of work left to do on this world to make that become possible.


[User Picture Icon]
From:aliasisudonomo
Date:April 15th, 2009 10:23 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Hm. In the US, at least, one thing to consider is there is no major conservative political party at the moment. Oh, yes, the Republicans and hangers-on claim the name, but they're exactly as radicalized and wingnut as some of the anarcho-syndicalists of my experience in relation to the 'mainstream' of the US.

It took eight years of so-called "Neo-conservatives" for traditionally-Republican voters to see past the team name - such is the power of brands. We may be in for another flip as has happened where the Democrats become the 'conservative' party in real terms (as opposed to the weird way they're used in the US).

The "Oh, damn those queers" chain of thought is losing ground and there's a certain segment of people who HATE this, having a traditional scapegoat they could blame all their troubles on taken away and having to treat them like REAL people. (These are exactly the words I've heard when some ignorant ass has been ranting against gay marriage.) California is a surprisingly socially-backwards state outside of the liberal bastions, full of people who wish it was still the 1950s. Iowa, on the other hand, is as heartland as they come... yet the grumblings for a Prop 8 there are quieter (and Iowa has a much harder to alter constitution in any case). Now, that's just gay marriage, not a more complex issue like transgender folks, but I'd like to think it's a general barometer of acceptance.

So... as a better response to your question... you were socially "conservative" yourself. I suspect you already know the answer.
[User Picture Icon]
From:azraile
Date:April 19th, 2009 05:53 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
yah that don't make any sence
[User Picture Icon]
From:centauress
Date:April 24th, 2009 08:47 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The reason hate-crime is a rider and not a separate act is precisely because there's a difference in stabbing someone for money, stabbing someone accidentally, and taking their entrails out and stomping on them. Each is 'battery', but with a different rider. The difference between manslaughter and murder-one. Crimes are based upon the ends, riders are based upon the means.

But while I have a simple explanation for that... I don't understand the herm conservatives, either. Except unless it's some sort of fucked up thought process by which the female gender is idolized to the point of being one without giving up that which sexually marks them as part of the overclass.
From:llyanthyr
Date:June 17th, 2009 12:58 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I do not envy you your burden, I do hope that you can find some resolution with it. I agree, that you should not be persecuted, nor discriminated against, just as much as I agree that there should be no advantages to any such condition. Your right is to simply be allowed to be, to help yourself as you are able, and to find your peace in a too-often hostile world.

Too many have the perception that they know what should be, or should not be, and the truth is far muddier. I do not know why so many condemn others, perhaps it's what they don't understand, or for blind reasons of their own are unwilling to accept.

I am saddened often by the blindness of both 'sides' of the debate. Fear and hostility breeds within itself, to the point that the real point is lost.

Legislating a belief, for whatever reason, is wrong. Attacking others for their beliefs is wrong, and only opens your own to attack.

I do not envy you your journey, I can only wish you the best on it, and pray that you find peace in this weary, fallen world.