What Do You Call a Fiscal Progressive and a Social Conservative?

[Violet]

@inquiring mind: Why equate the historic struggles of blacks and latinos with that of autistic people? That is a real stretch. I don't remember any sheriffs named "Bull" sending savage dogs and cops to terrorize autistic people when they were asking for a fair society. When Temple Grandin achieved her PhD I don't recall any lynch mobs burning crosses on her lawn.

You honestly don't think that autistic people are abused in this life? http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/06/1...ed-friend/ If you're into that whole intersectional feminism thing, then I'd say autistic people are somewhere near the very top of the oppression and suffering pyramid.

Especially in view of Current Year: what does being black affect in your life today that isn't black-culturally related?

---

Deserve, I think they all do deserve.
But why are you using your white male dominant bias to label and group other people?

What basis does his being born a filthy white male have on his asking questions, and observing inconsistencies?

Deserve, again... if both individuals perform equally well, they deserve equal compensation for their work.
In practice, do those two "groups" perform equally well?

That would be my personal understanding of economics, as I am not bound by socialism in my answer. This man is economically liberal, the question doesn't apply in the Oppression Olympics.

In terms of the Oppression Olympics, it doesn't matter what an individual's personal ability is within their groups, as all that matters is how much a person's 'group' is viewed to suffer. In this way, OP's question involves an internal inconsistency within intersecional feminism that has been turning him more 'right wing'/'traditionalist'.

Care to show us some figures as to how many veterans are housed and taken care for, versus how many refugees are housed and taken care of?
Also, why are there so many homeless veterans to begin with? Perhaps that's a more worthwhile research path that will help fix that internal problem.

If you're a refugee taken in by a Western country: you are housed. That is, all of them. If you're an illegal immigrant who has made their way through 6 different 'safe havens' so that you could get to your ideal country of choice and set up a life there... you're not a refugee: you're an illegal economic migrant, and you are owed nothing.

Because homeless vets are often nonfunctional and/or fucked up and/or had shitty home lives that won't help them get on their feet and/or are very poor because the military isn't a particularly lucrative career... but that isn't the real question here that is being asked.

This is about about the culture of the left, which celebrates refugees and spits on veterans, which is an inconsistency within the oppression Olympics, and hence the unsettled strangeness OP finds themselves within.

Because race is mostly objective and good looks are a bit subjective?
Either way, it's a false dichotomy, what you're using here... you know that, right?

I don't know about you... but I'd prefer to work with someone who's pleasant to look at, provided the alternative offered as much promise in terms of actually getting the work done.

If you have two different people, from two different races, but showing equal promise of getting the work done, how do you, as an HR guy, decide who to hire?

No, both applying in any manner whatsoever is a subjective distinction, not an objective one. Were there a race of humans that had 6 arms and they were far more physically capable in every conceivable way, it would still be a subjective decision involving value metrics of the hiring employer as to whether to hire a limp noodle white male or Kali.

That just makes you willing to approve over one human more than another for something that neither human could control and was decided by birth... which while I consider that fine, me being a classical liberal, is beside the point of the OP, a person who is involved in a review of the inconsistencies his progressive friends ignore.

When you're talking about oppressed people... why are ugly people not on the list? Who is going to protect ugly people from the pay disparity between the uglies and the beauts?

Who said it was OK to pay shorter people less?
Just because statistics show it to be the case, doesn't mean that, for the same job, they get paid less.
The problem is you're probably using crappy statistics.
Do short people get into high paying jobs? Maybe, on average, there's much less of such people in these jobs, thus elevating the average pay for taller people?
And why?
I'd wager that higher paying jobs (in this present capitalist society) are in the hands of confident people and it is well known that taller people feel more confident and, hence, get those jobs, while short people, lacking in confidence, are not hired, some don't even go out to get them... remaining in low paying jobs.

I don't see anyone out there campaigning for the rights of short people as they apply to pay equity.

One could say the same thing about women vs men's supposed pay disparity... but then, I'm not a liberal, so I really don't have to defend those terrible statistics. However, what I will do is suppose that they are true for the purposes of providing a proper review of what the original poster believes.

People tend to respect tall people more than short people, right out the gate. It's a shared problem with hiring women vs hiring men: employers innately respect men more. How can it be right to defend the pay equity for women, and likewise to ignore the pay and opportunity disparity between short people and tall people? Shouldn't every average person be paid similarly to the tremendous economic boons afforded to the advantageous tall?

 "Social Justice" is applied so inconsistently that it makes no sense to me.  

Maybe you should get your head out of your hole-in-the-ground, stop whining and look at the big picture!
Avoid false dichotomies, false comparisons, search for the real reasons for things... and try to make them better.

I don't believe the OP has his head in any hole... the reason for the questions is due to introspection and confusion that have come from observing the world outside his peer group, and the overall result is that a hyper-progressive to the point of wealth-redistribution and poverty-virtuism has steadily become more 'traditionalist' or 'conservative' in his eyes (even though he is is anything but with many of his views, just not nearly so rabid a progressivist).

There've been no false dichotomies, there have been no bad comparisons, and the point of the post is a search for reality and perhaps even a sense of belonging (hence not knowing what to call himself).

---

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I think that transgenderism should be considered a disorder, not a variation of "normal."  If you have a Y chromosome and male genitals, but you believe you are actually female, then I believe that you should be treated respectfully and with sympathy as someone who has a psychological disorder and is in need of treatment, not as a hero in a grand civil rights battle to overthrow the oppressive "patriarchy."

As a transgendered woman, I would agree with you. I despise transtrenders with all of their bullshit genders. They're an absolute mockery of a pretty severe mental illness, and they have caused the slowly supportive right wing to hit a near-full revert to the point where our very real disease amounts to children playing fantasy and perverts abusing privileges otherwise afforded us.

I'm glad you've got the patriarchy in quotes, man That's the only place in the West (unlike say, Saudi Arabia, where the women very much contribute to its continuance) that it deserves to be

I support most gun control measures and abortion freedom (freedom, not "rights.")  I also support the male abortion, the freedom for a man to sign away all rights and responsibilities to an unborn child, just as a woman has the freedom to abort it.

Ain't with ya on the gun control myself

That would be a lovely clause to see added in, a good way to rectify the dissolution of the nuclear family on a cultural level, and the associating absurd rates of women roping men into paying for their decision to satisfy their natural biological inclination. It's as easy as going off your birth control meds for a little while... No court should allow these shits to abuse their, heh, fellow man.

A social conservative and a fiscal conservative is called a conservative.  A social progressive and a fiscal progressive is called a progressive.  A social progressive and a fiscal conservative is called a libertarian.  What would you call me?

You're not a social conservative... spending time with some social conservatives would probably find you disturbed with just how intense it can get over on the other side of the aisle (real nazis are terrifying btw).

I'd call you friend if you'll have me, Liberal