• Announcements

    • Ludicrously Desist

      Logging in   05/10/2017

      If you had an account and can't log in as of 5/9/17, this may be because of a change in logins with new forum software. You can log in using your publicly displayed name (not your username) or your email address and the password you used before.   If you have problems with this, please ask any of the mods or admins. 
Blink of Terraxia

The Grand Spiderweb Poll, 2017 Edition: Demographics & Favorites

65 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Triumph said:

Really?! Perhaps you have an unfair view of some people if you think "trample minority rights" is a substantial part of what it means to be "socially conservative."

 

Thinking something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that one hates people who do it or wishes to trample on individual rights.

 

There is plenty of room between "should uphold" and "trample" (which is not language I used for any of the options).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, American centrist is international conservative. American liberal is international centrist. American conservative is international fascist. Our politics skew heavily more conservative than the rest of the developed world. Bernie Sanders simply proposes the standards of government the rest of the developed world actually uses to good effect, in reality, and is called an unrealistic crackpot like it could never in a million years work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, but making up definitions of terms is worse than employing standard definitions of standard terms. Even if you just lift definition out of Wikipedia or something, you'll still have something a little more plausible than something that you made up yourself. And it looks like these political definitions were basically just made up, rather than drawn from some outside source.

 

And I get that there is some value in maintaining continuity with past survey questions, but how great is that value when the questions themselves aren't very good? Do you want to keep asking a biased/unclear question over and over again for comparison's sake? If the question is invalid, the comparison is also likely to be invalid.

 

Also, just as a general reminder, italics, bold, and all-caps convey emphasis. If you fill up your post with these kinds of emphatic markers, you seem like you're shouting.

Triumph likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kel, I can't tell you what the original source for those definitions was -- it was five years ago and I don't remember.  My guess is they were paraphrased from Political Compass threads.

 

What I can tell you is that last time around, despite some hearty discussion and criticism of other questions on the survey, over multiple threads, no one gave any suggestions, criticism, or feedback about those questions (with one exception: Dantius suggested adding a fifth "moderate" or "liberal" option to the economic views question).  No one had any criticism for the labels used in them at all.  So, forgive me for being a little surprised by the complaints this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sylae said:

yeah because trans people and gay people dont exist outside of america

 

👌

 

The concepts and labels of various queer identities are different in different cultures. Think of the hijra of India, or the two-spirits of various Native American tribes. Are hijra trans women, or non-binary? It depends on the individual, when you introduce them to the Western identities. The concepts don't always map well. Or look at how labels and definitions have changed through time in the Western world. Do you separate sexual behavior from sexual identity/attraction? Sexuality from gender? Gender roles/performance from gender identity? Sex from gender? We do in Western cultures (sort of), but historically we didn't always, and some cultures have entirely different ways of looking at these identities. Heck, even the switch from "transsexual" to "transgender" and "trans" happened within a generation, and there are still people who identify as transsexual because that was the most common concept around at the time they were developing their gender identity.

 

Dikiyoba repeatedly misspelled generation as "genderation" while typing this post. Make of that what you will.

sylae and Blink of Terraxia like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dikiyoba said:

 

The concepts and labels of various queer identities are different in different cultures. Think of the hijra of India, or the two-spirits of various Native American tribes. Are hijra trans women, or non-binary? It depends on the individual, when you introduce them to the Western identities. The concepts don't always map well. Or look at how labels and definitions have changed through time in the Western world. Do you separate sexual behavior from sexual identity/attraction? Sexuality from gender? Gender roles/performance from gender identity? Sex from gender? We do in Western cultures (sort of), but historically we didn't always, and some cultures have entirely different ways of looking at these identities. Heck, even the switch from "transsexual" to "transgender" and "trans" happened within a generation, and there are still people who identify as transsexual because that was the most common concept around at the time they were developing their gender identity.

Yeah, I totally agree its a mess trying to reconcile everything. But, at the end of the day it's an argument about labels, and "cis" and "trans" does a pretty good job of generalizing everything down to a usable set of data. Certainly better than a dropdown with 8,000,000 options, which can be a problem when trying to look at demographics and such (especially with a small sample size).

 

Yeah, lumping some people in with "cis" and "trans" as the only option (which it wasn't, in this case, there were also "neither of those terms" and "?????" for options for transness, and the gender field was M/F/NB/Other, so I'm pretty sure our hijra forumgoers would be able to be at least somewhat-accurately represented) is a bad idea, but for the purposes of this survey, I think it's the best option? This isn't a national census, it's a fun poll for, like, 100 forumgoers.

 

But, my problem with the original commenter's remarks was not that the language was US-centric (which, yeah, it is, but like 90% of this forum is america, so sorry?) but more that the idea of even suggesting that GSM people exist (by way of giving them a couple radio buttons?) was a political issue. (if this is not the case, i apologize, but that was certainly the gist i got). gay people dont exist in chechnya. there is no war in ba sing se.

 

You can argue "hey why does this even need to be a thing" and I'd argue by comparison, why does this entire poll need to be a thing, then? Like, the entire purpose of this poll is to look at demographics of the forum population, right?. A thread just came up that suggested we have a disproportionate number of trans people here, so i dont thing anyone would be against a fun question in a fun poll to get some harder data on that than "i remember these people saying they were trans, which is a lot of people compared to the number of people that go into the forums".

 

this has been: a rant brought to you by sleppy sylae.

Edited by sylae
seriously this entire thread is just people complaining about semantics, even though the poll did a pretty good job of saying "hey this is the semantics we're using in this poll just fyi"?
Dikiyoba likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Triumph said:

Really?! Perhaps you have an unfair view of some people if you think "trample minority rights" is a substantial part of what it means to be "socially conservative."

 

Thinking something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that one hates people who do it or wishes to trample on individual rights.

Dude, the USA elected a president who was endorsed by the KKK and went out of his way to ban Muslims from entering the country. American conservatives are all about trampling minority rights. They've just deluded themselves into thinking that they aren't trampling minority rights, or rationalized said trampling as "justified."

 

Dikiyoba.

sylae and Bearfax62 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blink of Terraxia said:

So, forgive me for being a little surprised by the complaints this time around.

Come on, it wouldn't be Spiderweb if we weren't pointlessly arguing semantics about something:p

 

Question: Is there an option for displaying a public e-mail contact in one's profile information? Perhaps Dikiyoba is just being dumb, but Dikiyoba cannot find a way to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no diki, it's not trampling minority rights, it's protecting god-fearing Americans from the rapists and pedophiles and drug runners and Mexicans.

 

i've got 40% unemployment in my former-coal-town hovel in west virginia ever since the mine closed fifty years ago, but it's that damn obama's fault i can't get a job. better defund that libtard money-wasting TVA so i can give all my tax dollars to the rich and it'll trickle down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dikiyoba said:

Question: Is there an option for displaying a public e-mail contact in one's profile information? Perhaps Dikiyoba is just being dumb, but Dikiyoba cannot find a way to do that.

my jabber ident is publicly-listed, and it's startlingly-similar to my email. you could prolly put it in the "filler" fields though.

 

"Interests: being emailed at dikiyoba@diki.biz"

Edited by sylae
i'm sure there's a config option. barring that, a new profile field "Public Email" might do the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dikiyoba said:

Question: Is there an option for displaying a public e-mail contact in one's profile information? Perhaps Dikiyoba is just being dumb, but Dikiyoba cannot find a way to do that.

 

There is not.  This is probably for the best, given spambots and email address collectors.  I suppose you could just put it into one of the other contact info fields, though -- I don't think most of them check for particular entry formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Almighty Doer of Stuff said:

As I understand it, American centrist is international conservative. American liberal is international centrist. American conservative is international fascist. Our politics skew heavily more conservative than the rest of the developed world. Bernie Sanders simply proposes the standards of government the rest of the developed world actually uses to good effect, in reality, and is called an unrealistic crackpot like it could never in a million years work.

ADOS, you are conflating social and economic terms to a point that is frankly insulting.  An American with Libertarian, Classical Liberal or Free Market views on the economy is generally farther to the right than their European counterparts, but is in no way shape or form a fascist (a term which has a pretty significant negative connotation to all of us).

30 minutes ago, Dikiyoba said:

Dude, the USA elected a president who was endorsed by the KKK and went out of his way to ban Muslims from entering the country. American conservatives are all about trampling minority rights. They've just deluded themselves into thinking that they aren't trampling minority rights, or rationalized said trampling as "justified."

 

Dikiyoba.

Dikiyoba, I am in no way about trampling minority rights.  Nor are most American conservatives.  Some conservatives do not support an expansion of rights (sometimes without justification, sometimes with), but they generally do not go around attempting to curtail existing rights.  In general, the conservative side of American politics is too likely to oppose the creation of new rights and the "liberal" side of American politics is too likely to curtail existing rights sometimes in support of creating new rights.  Neither approach is very good, but as both parties have moved away from the center, both sides have gotten worse about rights, just in different ways.

 

As to the so called "Muslim Ban", the executive order effects around 13% of the world's Muslim population.  So calling it a Muslim ban is a pretty far stretch.  If its purpose is to prevent the movement of Muslims into and out of this country, it is completely ineffective.  If its purpose is to prevent the movement of nationals of the countries that supplied the 9/11 terrorists, it is also completely ineffective.  About the only thing that it does do is make it harder for nationals of six war torn countries that have a somewhat significant number of Daesh and Daesh affiliated groups from traveling to the US, plus of course Iran (because I guess Iran is Iran and I certainly have a lot of personal reasons to hate Iran and they do support terrorist groups, but Daesh is not among the terrorist groups that they support thanks to that whole Sunni vs Shia thing).  Of terrorist attacks in Europe in the last couple of years that were committed by people who claim that they are Muslim, the attackers were significantly more likely to either claim Daesh affiliation or be claimed by Daesh than by any of the traditional terrorist organization that claim they are Muslim (and are more prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, etc).  

 

The vast majority of the 13% of Muslims effected by the executive order are not terrorists.  The text implies that this measure will lead to enhanced screening of visitors into this country from those countries in order to prevent the movement of terrorists into this country.  If I wrote an opinion poll where the question was "Do you support screening of visitors to this country to prevent terrorism" I suspect that most of us would say yes, but of course the devil is in the details.  One of the problems with being the government is that as soon as something bad happens, the question is why didn't you prevent it, how could you let this happen.  That attitude from the public drives politicians to make bad policies (terrorism, natural disasters, finance, crime, etc, etc, etc).  

 

I am not saying that this executive order is a good policy, I am saying that its merits need to be debated based on what it actually is (a travel ban from seven countries) and not what the majority (who haven't actually read it) are saying it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Edgwyn said:

As to the so called "Muslim Ban", the executive order effects around 13% of the world's Muslim population.  So calling it a Muslim ban is a pretty far stretch.

 

Per Wikipedia, 'Critics have accused the order of being a "Muslim ban" because the order only targeted Muslim-majority countries [2] and because Trump's advisers called it a "Muslim ban" [3]'

 

It is obviously not a ban on all Muslims, but it affects mostly Muslims, and that is the language its progenitors use to describe it, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Edgwyn said:

Some conservatives do not support an expansion of rights (sometimes without justification, sometimes with), but they generally do not go around attempting to curtail existing rights

"hey please treat us like humans" "NO THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE NOW THE PEDOPHILES WILL BE MARRYING TOASTERS AND HAVING POLY RELATIONSHIPS WITH DOGS AND THINK OF THE CHILDREN*" is usually how this goes.

 

so, the whole "we're not taking rights away, we're just not granting them" argument doesnt hold a lot of water IMO, especially when these minority groups are asking for treatment they should already be getting as human people. saying "no we dont want to give you that" is fairly equal to "we are taking away your human rights".

Edited by sylae
but what do i know about discrimination, i only grew up in the us state with the most hate groups per capita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now