Responding To A Religious Conserative's Revised Demonization Of Progressive Values.

A's Philosophy13 hours ago
said: 

"Turns out (some) secularist/Leftists will kill you, or at least approve of you being killed, for thinking that men cannot become women or that gender is rooted in biology and not social constructs. That should pretty much put to bed the argument that the world will finally realize perfect peace and harmony if people stop believing in God. "
---- In reply, I offer these observations: First, that's not why he was murdered.

Nor is that why anyone has ever been murdered. Now that we've "put that to bed", let's move forward. If every human in the world were a "secularist", humanity would still be very divided and chaotic.

But let's set clear delineators for these issues. "Secular" just means: Thinking independently of any religious narrative. The thinking any human engages in ... is born from a combination of biology and life experience. Human biology is very problematic. Common biological factors manifest as common biological drivers for perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Diversity in biological factors manifests in divergence of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Over hundreds of thousands of years, factors of both common and divergent biologies have been the underlying catalysts for human perceptions and behaviors. Common perceptions generate common attitudes and behaviors. Divergent perceptions generate divergent attitudes and behaviors. Human behaviors affect other humans. Social effects are socially contagious. Widespread social effects perpetually shape culture. Culture alters biology. Altered biology further alters culture. It's cyclical. And it's messy. Our very nature prevents the forms of ubiquity necessary for world peace. There is no philosophy or worldview that can overcome all differences of perception and values. If unguided evolution is responsible for that, then at least there isn't a Super-Someone at fault. If there is a Super-Someone at fault, then they should be faulted. But so far, all the evidence for a Super-Somone is ... speculative; at best. In any case, "secular" does not mean "leftist". For example, ... Trump is secular. Pinecreek (aka "Doug") is also secular. "Leftist" is something else. The Christian apologist Randal Rauser is moderately left. The Christian "Reverend Ed Tevors" is very "leftist". Another way of saying "left" is "progressive" as defined by the principles of humanism. Being progressive is not really a political ideology. It's simply the embrace of human virtues guided by compassion, social equality, and personal accountability. It posits: 1. The rights of any human must "end at" the equal boundaries of everyone else's rights. 2. It's every human's civic and ethical duty to make every reasonable effort to avoid causing harm to others, while ... 3. working within personal limits to help all other humans grow and flourish. Many "leftists" define "man" and "woman" the same way you do. However, they refrain from trying to invalidate or bully people who hold to trans identity. They are content to live and let live. They also realize that dictionaries are "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive". Dictionaries describe how people ARE using words. They don't take sides on how words ought to be used. You do you. Let everyone else have their own language map and related psychosexual paradigms. I understand that you think trans-identity is counterfactual and irrational. But you are not your brother's keeper. Besides, nobody owes it to you to abide within the limits of what you regard as factual and rational, except in matters where there is a factually identifiable causal-link chain between a.) the thinking in question vs b.) how it actually makes you (or anyone else) less safe. Trans-identity is not dangerous. But how you're responding to it is. Besides, Christians all walk around with a fantasy-themed framing of their own personal identity. - Authorized Deputies of an imaginary Cosmic Sheriff.
Thus, it would be hypocritical for any such religious person to object to trans-identity based on the claim that "it isn't true". -Especially when your religious identity actually is a catalyst for harming others, while trans-identity is not. As for the idea that **the rights of any human must "end at" the equal boundaries of everyone else's rights**, I'd like to elaborate on that a bit more. My right to swing my arm wildly in the air "ends at" the perimeter of your exactly-equal personal space. Likewise, ... My rights to be un-vaccinated "ends at" the perimeters of all other humans' right to not be exposed to whichever dangerous pathogens I might choose to live *in danger of*. Anyone who can't abide by this ethic ... should remove themselves from society, so that they don't ruin or end the lives of vulnerable other humans. Living in society DOES come with civic duties, simply because it must; to protect that system, along with the individual humans within it. Likewise, ... Anyone's right to be bigoted "ends at" (must not trespass into) any other human's right to be safe in the very same world we all must share. So then a person harboring dangerous prejudice must either a.) keep it to themselves or b.) share it only with someone equipped to disarm that prejudice, if the prejudiced person is willing to be disarmed. Special K did not abide by these limits. The same as Russia's Golden Boy, Agent K was also a "sochastic terrorist".

Just as importantly, Shirly Quark (or whatever her name was) was actively recruiting for a political cult and their Rules Of Acquisition that have (all along) been harming humans by the BILLIONS with direct physical actions undertaken under the guise of "politics". He made a career built on harming as many vulnerable and non-consenting others as he could, and to recruit/radicalize as many co-terrorists as he could, by spreading false facts, misrepresented facts, and faulty reasoning. He was a violent fanatic who harmed a lot of innocent people. Sadly, there really isn't a social or legal mechanism in place for preventing that form of legally loopholed terrorism. Public debates are certainly not adequate. Why not? Because facts don't sway people who are seeking to indulge dark fantasies. Proven-effective psychological manipulations win debates. Just as importantly, as this CHRISTIAN points out,...

...

Political Conservatives are not advocates of Free Speech. They posture on the pretense of free speech, while actively fighting against that very principle. What about democratic voting? Is that a safeguard or a remedy? Nope. It's neither a safeguard nor a remedy. -Not in any system where a majority of voters have been systemically misled regarding the facts they're voting on. For most people, corporate, religious, political, and social-influencer types of media ... "manufacture consent". Those thought-control systems do not provide a foundation of informed consent. Misinformed consent does not count as true consent. Thus, neither the American government nor churches operate by consent. Some few Conservative voters have given true consent to Conservative politics. Some few Conservative "Christians" have also given true **consent** to the power structures they've aligned themselves to. Which people gave true consent to those systems? Sociopaths. All of their non-sociopathic members have been tricked. Meanwhile, ... Exactly zero actual leftists have been ok with sending Charlie to Candy Mountain.

American political Conservatism is innately and extremely violent. -As are Conservative religious faiths and cultures. The further "left", the less violence the ideals, attitudes, and behaviors of humans. However, no amount of good intentions and noble ideals ... can fully suppress humanity's baser instincts. Nor can any cultural or ideological paradigm prevent the physical and psychological **degradation** (things that impede rational or ethical responses) due to prolonged and extremely unhealthy situations; unhealthy elements of our world ... which are *mostly* caused by Conservative politics and Conservative religiosity. Social, psychological, and economic violence ARE forms of violence. Conservative sociopolitical and religious camps are the primary drivers of societal unwellness. [Oh yes. Please DO ask me for examples of this] We are talking about factors of extreme damage that drive a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of left-siders to madness. As it turns out, the madhatter who shot Kirk was from a rival Conservative faction ("Groypers"). But every once in a VERY rare while, ... you guys also manage to push a left-sider into madness. When that happens, the broken person must abandon progressive principles in order to commit the violence they were irrationally driven to. Progressives work hard to mitigate and heal the damage your camps cause. But there is a limit to what humans can do. When your Orwellian, authoritarian cults crash a left-sider's mind off the rails, it's a rare event. But when it happens, Conservative sheeple have been programmed to fault the people who tried and failed to protect that mind ... from them.