Literal unpopular opinions

[liv]

So jack recently made a post listing taboos in our social circle. I don't think the things he's talking about are taboos (and indeed, this was the consensus after a long, wide-ranging discussion); I think they are opinions that are likely to get you shouted at, but it's perfectly possible to express those opinions and everybody can think of someone who does in fact hold any one of the listed positions. A real taboo is something you simply can't say, maybe can't even think.

One of the things I really appreciate about jack's crowd is that, however much they (we) love shouting at wrong-headed people, they genuinely are pretty accepting of people with a range of different opinions, even about contentious topics like religion, politics and operating systems. This may make the social context unwelcoming to a) people who are very one-true-way about their opinions and uncomfortable with diversity, and b) perhaps more seriously, people who aren't resilient to being shouted at when they express a minority view.

Actual taboos: I feel like we as a group are fairly bad at talking directly about race. We have a general consensus that racism is bad, fine, but I think there are some conversations around actual specifics that would be difficult to initiate. Conversely I think we're generally better at addressing homophobia and related prejudices against gender and sexual minorities than many other circles I move in. Which doesn't mean everybody agrees about everything, far from it, but it's actually possible to have the discussion about, for example, what sort of language is acceptable, what will be the implications of a particular policy or law on different groups within the Queer umbrella, issues of intra-group prejudice etc. I would also say that implicit homophobia is much more heavily frowned on that implicit racism, partly because the group contains a high proportion of people with GSM identities and a small proportion of people who aren't white.

I have other social circles as well as the one that overlaps with jack's; I think most people do, which definitely contributes to the generally broad-minded outlook. I did like the exercise of thinking of where my views differ from the consensus among people I spend time with, though. I've deliberately phrased these to be as controversial as possible, such as stating that something is the case rather than that I think or believe it, for example. I don't necessarily hold all these opinions very strongly, some of them are just the take on an issue that comes most naturally to me, I'm quite capable of seeing other viewpoints. And some would be mainstream in some groups I'm part of, generally in the same direction but perhaps more extreme than most in others, and at very least surprising if not completely outrageous in others. Of course, "people who regularly read my DW" is yet another social group; I deliberately try to connect to people from a range of backgrounds and with a range of opinions, but I expect there probably is some sort of group norm operating here too.

In no particular order:

• Israel is a legitimate state, both politically and in the specific sense of existing as a constitutionally Jewish and Zionist state.
• Islam is an excellent religion and one of the crowning achievements of human civilization.
• There should be fewer abortions.
• It's often better to vote Conservative than Labour.
• Alternative medicine is a good thing if it makes people feel better, even if its claimed mechanism of action goes against the current scientific consensus.
• We should actively encourage immigration into this country, and possibly remove immigration restrictions altogether.
• It's sometimes acceptable for parents to smack their children as a punishment.
• Religious groups can legitimately decide whether same-sex marriage, ministers who are not straight men and similar are theologically valid.
• The UK should be more closely integrated with Europe, both politically and financially.

So there you go; I think at least some people may think I'm a monster for at least some of these views, but hopefully you know enough other good things about me to balance that. More likely people will just think I'm wrongity wrong wrong wrong; feel free to try to argue me towards your position or to just carry on not letting our differing views impinge on our lives very much, whichever is your preference.

Comments

[emperor]

I'd be interested in your thinking on points 4 and 5. In the former case, perhaps I'm just too much of a leftie!

[liv]

I think that's the thing, a lot of the people I know are tribally "leftie", and therefore automatically prefer Labour over Conservative. But I don't think Labour is meaningfully a party of the left, hasn't been since at least the late 90s. I tend to be somewhat right-wing economically, but I would be prepared to vote for a party that wanted to raise taxes and nationalize industries if I thought they were actually going to do some good for the people at the bottom of society. Labour seems to have abandoned any pretence of a commitment to the welfare state, so you get the aspects of a leftwing government that I find least palatable, such as statism and authoritarian attitudes, without the benefits of a strong social safety net. I'm also angry with the Labour party over the Iraq war and particularly the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie, the introduction of university tuition fees, selling NHS property to PFI companies, and several incidents of pure personal corruption in the recent government. Right now I'm pretty pissed off with the Conservative party too, mind you, but I'd sort of mildly rather have an evil, but mostly competent and centre-right party than an evil party that is also venal and incoherent and as far as they profess to have an economic policy it's one I disagree with.

Alternative medicine: the more I think about this, the more I'm becoming really pragmatic. I love evidence-based medicine and the scientific method. Right now, though, there's an awful lot of conditions that conventional medicine simply can't treat, certainly can't reliably treat. For people with, say, chronic pain or mood disorders that don't respond to drugs or don't have a known aetiology or known effective scientific treatment, I would rather they see a quack who takes them seriously and makes them feel valued, and after that experience they end up feeling better. Whether that's the placebo effect or something working by a different mechanism from the woo one proposed or whatever. The alternative is all too often that people are just being turned away because nothing can be done for them, or getting stuck with conventional treatments which have bad side-effects and don't work for them as individuals even if they do statistically work better on populations than placebos. It's certainly possible within conventional medicine to treat people holistically and give them time to talk about their concerns and support their emotional wellbeing as well as fixing their physical symptoms, but in practice that standard very often isn't reached.

And I put a lot of emphasis on what people actually feel, because in the end people's actual feelings about whether they're comfortable and happy are what matters, I don't think someone can be wrong about the fact that they personally feel better. The evidence may say that a particular treatment doesn't have statistically significant effects, but that doesn't make the person wrong about their own feelings.

[jack]

I think you know roughly what I think about all of them, I'm not sure whether to try to lay it out again here.

There should be fewer abortions.

I think my viewpoint here has slowly shifted. I still don't want to deny people abortions, but I've been exposed to more reasons why legalising abortion isn't the end of the problem, but the problem also needs more available contraception, more education, less stigmatisation of sex and pregnancy and single parents, and less acceptance that having a family means winning the "can't have a career" lottery for at least one partner.

Religious groups can legitimately decide whether same-sex marriage, ministers who are not straight men and similar are theologically valid.

Hm. I don't think the state should impose all the currently fashionable values on all communities, if only because it's probably impossible. But conversely, I'm reluctant to accept discrimination just because it's traditional, especially if many of the congregation wouldn't agree, but don't want to spend 80 years becoming pope in order to change the official stance.

[liv]

Thank you for inspiring me to think about where my views go against the general consensus. It's definitely been an interesting exercise!

The abortion thing, I think I mostly find common ground with the pro-choice crowd. I was deliberately phrasing my view to be as controversial as possible, whereas in fact most people I know agree that there should be full access to contraception, less stigma against pregnancy and better social support for parents. I certainly don't want abortion to be illegal. I do have some moral qualms about elective abortion and abortion with the aim of preventing the birth of children with congenital "defects". I absolutely agree with pro-choice people that it's extremely morally wrong to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term, but I do sort of wish that the generally socially expected choices were, you know, more in line with my values.

With regard to religious communities being non-egalitarian, it's interesting that both you and forestofglory have jumped straight to the state imposing things on religious groups. That wasn't really what I was thinking of at all, I was just thinking about my own personal morality. Personally, my own theology is almost completely gender-egalitarian and obviously I think this is the best way to do things. But I also think it's possible for a religion to have different views on gender when it comes to ministry or marriage or other questions that have mainly theological import, without necessarily being discriminatory. I agree, one shouldn't accept discrimination just because it's traditional, but I think there are other alternatives than exactly matching the gender politics of secular society, and discrimination per se.

The UK should be more closely integrated with Europe, both politically and financially.

[jack]

I generally agree, with the caveat you mentioned before that some things should be more localised. And also that I have a feeling that if "more financial integration" includes a common currency, it depends on northern europe being willing to invest a lot in southern europe, which it currently seems understandably but disastrously reluctant to do.

[liv]

I do agree that the Euro is going to fall apart if the north continues to be indifferent to the problems of the south. I still think we should be in it! Partly cos the UK isn't going to be magically unaffected by economic problems in southern Europe just because we have a separate currency. We're as rich as Germany or nearly, we should be having an equal political influence on the Eurozone, rather than trying to be isolationist.

[siderea]

It's often better to vote Conservative than Labour.

Like when? (Just curious, and I understand this is a derail of your point -- I'll totally understand if you screen this comment to deter this line of discussion.)

ETA: Nevermind, saw your subsequent discussion of the point upstream.

[liv]

No, not a derail, if I list controversial things I believe I'm happy to defend them.

I think it's better to vote Conservative than Labour when ratbags like Tony Blair are in charge of the Labour party. Admittedly this is not likely to be a recurring issue, and I dislike the current leadership considerably less! I also think it's better to vote Conservative when the national Labour party throws your constituency to the fucking wolves because they know they can get away with it in a Labour safe seat. (Me, bitter?)

[rmc28]

With respect to 7, I used to agree with you.

Then I was convinced by a friend to have a personal no-smacking rule. The only time I have hit my child was when I was utterly furious. Having a no-smacking rule has helped me stop and remove myself from the situation a lot more times when I really did want to hit the little sod(s). When I'm not furious, I find my other strategies adequate enough.

It makes me less of a hypocrite when attempting to enforce a no-hitting-your-peers rule on the children; at least I know I'm not modelling hitting people as a way to resolve disagreements.

From this experience, and given how much of parenthood involves being short of sleep, and the effect of sleep-deprivation on emotional control, I personally think that parents should be encouraged not to smack. I wouldn't ban smacking though; I'd encourage the provision of good information/courses on anger management and conflict resolution to all parents.

[liv]

I am really impressed you've managed to make a no smacking resolution and stick to it. I've always kind of had the impression that your kids are fundamentally much nicer than I was at that age, but of course I don't see them when they're being little sod(s).

My impression is that the alternative strategies for discipline are really hard to carry out effectively; I am not sure it's reasonable to expect other parents to have the level of skills and compassion that you and T have. I would be very much in favour of providing training in anger management and conflict resolution for all parents, but I don't know if that is enough.

[forestofglory]

I don't know any who thinks the current number of abortions is exceptable. My pro-choice friends think that everyone should have access to good sex ed, contraception and social programs that support parents. Come to think of it most of my pro-life friends think that too. So think that your statement is not very controversial. I mean if you said person-hood begins at X. (X being any time before birth.) That would be controversial though not taboo most circles.

The thing about religious groups choosing how inclusive to be sounds like a religious conservative straw man to me. At least in the US no one is saying that people have to preform same-sex marriages. (Just like today were Rabbi's can chose not to preform inter-faith marriages, and Catholic priests can preform marriages only for people who say they are going to raise their children Catholic.) However in debates about same sex marriage or other rights, it a point that is sometimes made to oppose advances. (Having grown up in the US I'm strongly in favor of separation of church and state, and I see your option as basic tenet of that.)

[liv]

That's interesting, I thought the mainstream pro-choice thing was that one must never ever question the frequency of abortions because it's an attack on women's freedom. But yes, I do very much agree with pro-choice (and non-batshit pro-life) people about contraception and support for parents. My moral doubts about abortion don't depend on thinking that a pre-born foetus is a "person", but I think they are still creatures which shouldn't be harmed if it's at all avoidable, a foetus is not just an object in my schema.

When I made the controversial point about religions choosing not to perform same-sex marriages, I wasn't really thinking of the role of the state at all. I agree that there's no real likelihood of state coercion of religions to perform marriages that would go against their beliefs. I was thinking more on a personal morality level. I think it's morally ok for religions to have their own definitions of what counts as a marriage, even if those don't match up to the gender egalitarian ideals of secular society.

I'm completely in favour of separation of church and state, absolutely, I am really not convinced we need state recognition of religious marriages at all, most other civilized countries seem to get by without. And I admire the example of Norway where the (Protestant) Church in Norway refused to perform same-sex marriages, so they disestablished the church because it is not acceptable for a state institution to discriminate on grounds of gender or sexual orientation. It's hard to imagine that happening to the Church of England here, but I would probably be politically in favour if it did!

[vatine]

Religious groups can legitimately decide whether same-sex marriage, ministers who are not straight men and similar are theologically valid.

Theologically valid, I don't have a problem with as such.

But as long as the religious group can perform valid legal marriages, they should perform all legal marriages and if they have a problem marrying same-sex couples, they should stop performing legal marriages period (I don't have a problem with them continuing to perform religious-only marriages, as long as they are not legally binding, though).

Yes, I take a hard line on "separation of state and church", was it that obvious?

It's often better to vote Conservative than Labour.

Eh, Labour is an essentially-Conservative party, I fail to see how this statement is even borderline contentious

[siderea]

But as long as the religious group can perform valid legal marriages, they should perform all legal marriages and if they have a problem marrying same-sex couples, they should stop performing legal marriages period (I don't have a problem with them continuing to perform religious-only marriages, as long as they are not legally binding, though).

Yes, I take a hard line on "separation of state and church", was it that obvious?

No, it's not obvious at all. In fact, I think everything you just wrote is a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state.

I am, to position myself in this debate, an American and an atheist, and pretty militant about the separation of church and state. I think sexist, homophobic, hierarchical religions are disgusting and a threat to civil society.

If you want to argue that clergy should not have the right to conduct legally binding ceremonies on the basis of their being clergy, I am right there with you. But when you argue that the state should pick and choose which religious prohibitions clergy may submit to, OH HELL NO. That's a hop, a skip and a jump from Established Religion, where the state has a de facto approved version of religion (and it will always be a flavor of Protestant Christianity).

It's been tried. It's been tried right here where I live, and it was a terrible idea that proved a back door to establishing a state-approved Protestantism and we are not going back to that.

[daharyn]

Fascinating. No one seems to want to take on your first point, and it certainly is a perspective that many here in the NYC area share. I am pretty tired of hearing people endorse fascism and deny Palestinians human rights, so I'm just going to avoid that one.

Likewise, subjecting a child to physical violence denies them their human rights (as defined in the UN charter on the topic), and is not cool.

I will say that a lot of your list seems grounded in the idea that religion is good--that seems to be a genuine belief here. And that, to me, requires that you choose to ignore pretty much all of recorded history. Religion is a tool of power and oppression, of patriarchy, a means of grabbing land, making money, and starting wars, and probably the most consistent significant cause of bloodshed on this planet.

I do think that religion had purpose at one point as part of human evolution, but I don't think we should hang on to it now that it no longer serves any productive purpose on the collective level. I'm sure plenty of people personally get something from deluding themselves about the existence of a higher power, but I don't see why we should privilege their perspective or accord them special rights, such as self-segregated governments or (in the US) massive tax breaks. Have your church, but get it out of my society, please.

[liv]

I am probably on balance in favour of religion in the abstract, yes. Whereas many of my friends are like you committedly anti-clerical as well as being atheists. I don't think religion in general is either "good" or "bad", it's just a way people organize themselves. Personally, I'm much more interested in specifics, and certainly it can't be a surprise to you that I think my particular flavour of religion is good.

I mean, sure, religion is patriarchal and oppressive and causes wars and bloodshed, but the same is true of nation states, the same is true of capitalism, and all sorts of things. *shrug* As for getting religions out of society, I am pretty secularist, I have to tell you. I do agree that religions should have minimal influence in the lives of people who do not choose to belong to a particular religion, and I don't believe religions should have access to the machinery of the state to be able to run things their way.

I will respect your decision to avoid talking about Middle East politics.

Regarding smacking, I think most of my set would likely take a view very similar to yours; that's exactly why I think my opinion on that issue is controversial. But it's pretty academic anyway, since I don't have children and I never intend to have children, and I am certainly not planning to smack anyone else's children, that definitely would be wrong for a number of reasons.

[ptc24]

Trying to disentangle my own views here, and to give my view of what I feel SGOish consensus the SGOish centre ground to be - this may not be representative of the readership here, of course.

1) I can sense this is an issue in tension. I *think* the centre point in our circles is "Israel is a fact on the ground and what's done is done" (and hardly unique in that regard) but I can't be sure. I suspect a lot of people, if pressed, would endorse this for most states currently in existence.
2) I thing the default is "no worse than any other religion". Furthermore I suspect there would be a long argument about what Islam is, or if the question is even meaningful, although that might just be me.
3) This is quite a mild statement; many people would nod sagely and say, "yes, this would be a welcome side effect of better contraception".
4) I think you'd be regarded as distinctly odd for that one, especially if the option of voting Lib Dem/Green/spoiled ballot is on the table.
5) I think you might have trouble with that one, especially if you said "homeopathy" by name. It's interesting that you say "alternative" rather than "complementary"; this makes it more contentious.
6) Actually I'm feeling that not only is there a lot of pro-immigration sentiment, there's a willingness to leap on anti-immigration sentiment, to the extent that trying to justify anti-immigration-positions-that-I-disagree-with as being valid opinions is close to taboo.
7) I can feel this as being controversial. Of course, it depends what you mean by "acceptable". (Personal thought: not smacking children is a good norm to have, even if some instances of smacking children might be better than not)
8) I suspect the default position is that religious groups can do what they like here, so long as they stay within their (rather small) legitimate sphere of influence.
9) Again, this is one where I feel the feeling is sufficiently pro-Europe to make Euroscepticism hard to express. However, I think that "things are OK as they are, aren't we glad we didn't join the Euro" might not get leapt on.

[liv]

This is an interesting analysis, thank you. I was deliberately conflating things that are potentially controversial among the Camgeeks and things that are potentially controversial among other social groups I belong to, because this isn't meant to be a post about how I'm totally not like all those SGOish people!

1) Not sure; I tend to avoid arguments about this! There are definitely some people I otherwise feel culturally connected to who think Israel shouldn't exist because it was founded on stolen land, or because it gives Jews automatic citizenship.

2) My perception of the consensus on Islam is that we kind of have to tolerate it because of cultural relativism but it's basically awful and sexist and violent and anti-democratic. Also I have the impression that the subset of my friends who strongly identify as atheist or skeptic think Islam is much worse than other religions (apart from maybe the most extreme politicized forms of US Christian fundamentalism), but maybe that's just Dawkins, Harris and a few loud people who agree with them. Also, one of my main social circles is the Jewish community which does have a worrying tendency to Islamophobia.

3) Here I was thinking of controversial mainly among internet social justicey types; I remember Hilary Clinton being absolutely vilified because she said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" and people were up in arms about her implicit criticism of any women who had abortions for any reasons. And yes, everybody apart from the most extreme extremists thinks there should be better contraception. Perhaps I should have poked the hornets' nest a bit more by saying that the current presumption in the UK medical system is too far in favour of abortion as a default in circumstances where I'm not sure it should be...

4) Politically, I think most of the people I hang out with are fairly negative about both the main parties. But there seems to be a consensus of: only evil bigots would ever consider voting Tory, but sometimes there are pragmatic reasons to hold your nose and vote Labour.

5) Viscerally, I find it extremely difficult to find anything positive to say about homoeopathy specifically. But I think my reasoning applies to that as well as to other things I'm more comfortable with such as acupuncture. And yes, I was being deliberately controversial by saying "alternative"; mostly I use the NHS jargon "complementary and alternative medicine".

6) Immigration: I would have guessed that the consensus was, obviously we have to restrict immigration a bit, because otherwise the country would be overrun by teeming hordes, but we should apply the restrictions in a less racist and less obnoxious way. I'm sort of comforted that my intensely pro-immigration stance is closer to the mainstream than I was thinking!

7) I think the pro-smacking is probably the most controversial thing I believe among my liberal geek friends, which is why I put it in, but it's actually something I don't really have very strong views about at all, I can pretty much see arguments on both sides.

8) I had the impression that people are pretty angry about religious groups being allowed to do things perceived as discriminatory. And if I take the view that theological issues don't have to follow the social consensus, people accuse me of giving a pass for evil discriminatory beliefs just because some groups claim to be believe in a sky-fairy. But again, perhaps I'm less far from the consensus than I think, I'm just noticing a bunch of particularly loud pro-gay-rights skeptics.

9) Pro-Europe is more of a minority view in groups outside Cambridge, for sure. A lot of my FB has annoying recycled memes about how Brussels legislation forces grocers to sell straight bananas and that kind of business. I think I'm more enthusiastically pro-Europe than many of my mildly pro-Europe friends; I'm kind of secretly a federalist, tbh.

[ceb]

I may or may not find time to write about the others, but as far as Europe is concerned I will make the flags so we can go marching round the streets shouting "JOIN EUROPE ALREADY".

[ceb]

Although since no-one has bitten on the alternative medicine thing yet...

I used to think this. Certainly from the POV of an educated person with some random illness for whom conventional medicine isn't working, why not try whatever wacky thing you want? It's not hurting anyone else if you get some consolation out of a method that might not actually be doing you any good.

However, I believe alternative medicine does two major harms.

First, to individuals. You may be capable of making an informed decision on whether to try a drug, but many people are not. Whilst some of the people selling alternative medicines are fluffy do-gooders, many are just out to make money. They do so by targeting vulnerable people who are not at the top of their mental faculties, either through lack of education, or confusion of age, or stress of illness. As a society we ought to be protecting these people, not leaving them prey to mercenary individuals who will happily sell them unregulated, potentially dangerous pills, and are prepared to put a lot of effort into persuading them to avoid real medicines which might actually heal them.

Secondly to society in general. It is an uphill struggle to get people to understand health-related decisions, probability, risk, etc. etc. They are generally very bad at it! This is not just an "isn't this so frustrating" issue; muddying the waters with quack medicine has all kinds of knock-on effects, from whether effective drugs are available in some countries at all, to how much money is available for research and for national health systems, right down to what GPs recommend to their patients and whether it's possible to have a proper, informed conversation with a patient about what's best for them.

[merrythebard]

Oh, this is interesting!

I agree strongly with a lot of your points (2, 5 and 6 especially), and have qualified agreement with some (3 particularly).

7 is the one I disagree with most strongly, partly because I was (and, annoyingly, remain) genuinely traumatised from having been smacked as a child. I experienced it not merely as a physical and emotional trauma, but as a sexual trauma, and although CBT and prayer and meditation and other things have helped, I still get occasional flashbacks. A lot of this is context: clearly the effect on me was greatly worsened by the terrifying rages my Mum would enter into when smacking me, other elements of her behaviour towards me that were borderline sexual, the emotional abuse and alternating suffocation and neglect that I received from both parents. And I'm aware that many people are smacked as children and it doesn't cause them any trauma at all! Generally people whose parents did not smack them when angry, apologised if they were unreasonable, and were generally warm, supportive, nurturing and fair. So, it would not be quite true to say that I believe that smacking is always abusive. It clearly isn't. But I believe that it can and frequently *is* a form of abuse, and physical and even sexual abuse at that. And that one determining factor for that is the rest of the parent/guardian's behaviour towards the child, and another is the vulnerability/sensitivity of the child hirself, which may not always be clear to the parent or guardian at the time. So, I regard it as, at least, a very high risk behaviour to engage in. And I am always warmed and cheered and healed when I witness friends engaging in nonviolent parenting, especially when they do so under trying circumstances!

Having said all that: I totally don't think you're a monster for disagreeing with me! I'm not particularly trying to persuade you of my opinion, more speaking my truth, because it's important to me to say it. I shan't hate you for continuing to think as you do. :-)

[mirrorshard]

This is interesting!

Israel is a legitimate state, both politically and in the specific sense of existing as a constitutionally Jewish and Zionist state.

I approve of Israel's existence, but not of some of its behaviour, and I think it should give equal rights to all citizens regardless of their Jewishness. I'm not sure to what extent this matches up to your view, though.

Islam is an excellent religion and one of the crowning achievements of human civilization.

This seems pretty uncontroversial to me, except amongst the sadly numerous people who know very little about Islam.

There should be fewer abortions.

I agree, if I'm permitted to rephrase it as "less need for abortions" - utopianly, nobody would become pregnant except with their and their partner's (if any) enthusiastic intention.

It's often better to vote Conservative than Labour.

Disagree strongly. The recent governments by both parties were appalling, but I see many more sensible and humane MPs on the Labour side than the Conservative one, and their demographic makeup is overall more demotic than the Conservatives. I would be much closer to agreeing if it were "no worse to vote Conservative than Labour". In addition, I would struggle to find any aspect of this current government that I would describe as more than minimally competent.

Alternative medicine is a good thing if it makes people feel better, even if its claimed mechanism of action goes against the current scientific consensus.

Agree. Alternative medicine is only bad if it's either a) actively harmful, b) expensive, or c) likely to encourage people not to consult a doctor or specialist.

We should actively encourage immigration into this country, and possibly remove immigration restrictions altogether.

Agree, always have done.

It's sometimes acceptable for parents to smack their children as a punishment.

Disagree. I'm not personally aware of any uses of violence in this context which worked even as well as I've seen nonviolent methods in similar contexts work, let alone better.

Religious groups can legitimately decide whether same-sex marriage, ministers who are not straight men and similar are theologically valid.

Agree, but only in the same sense that they can legitimately decide whether dancing on Sunday, Eastenders, and cheese are theologically valid.

The UK should be more closely integrated with Europe, both politically and financially.

Yes yes yes yes.

[rmc28]

utopianly, nobody would become pregnant except with their and their partner's (if any) enthusiastic intention.

And what if after getting pregnant with mutual and enthusiastic intention, something changes?

This is not a theoretical question for me. I did not have an abortion, but I was very aware of all the ways in which I received support, the absence of which might have led me to a different decision.

[andrewducker]

1) I'm against states that have limitations on who they accept as citizens, and who value some citizens more than others. I mostly view states as bureaucratic methods for individuals to organise themselves. Therefore I'm against Israel being definitely Jewish, on the grounds that it lessens their non-Jewish citizens.

2) I'd love to know more about this. (I don't view Islam as definitely any better or worse than most religions, largely due to ignorance.)

3) Yes - but they don't particularly bother me. I'm in favour of more education and access to contraception, which causes less abortion in the long run.

4) I'd rather not vote either, and in an election where they were the only two choices I had would pick a sensible Conservative over a statist, controlling Labour type.

5) I'm against Doctors lying to their patients. If we can give people placebos without lying to them (including deliberately misleading them by hiding the truth) then I'm fine with it.

6) Yes, absolutely.

7) I'm torn on this one. I was never smacked, and I believe that it's possible to raise children perfectly well without doing so. On the other hand, I'm not militant about it.

8) Churches are totally allowed to decide what is theologically valid, and perform whatever religious ceremonies they so wish. It is up to their members to judge/change them.

9) Yes - with the caveat that the Euro is currently not a tenable currency - it needs either more integration or less. And I actually think that a mega-currency is bad for many parts of it. I'm fairly sure that Scotland having its own currency would be better for it.

[onyxlynx]

I have no difficulty with religious groups making those decisions for themselves; what I resent is attempts to foist those decisions on non-members or even those members who disagree, and I would prefer that everyone have a chance to rethink these things every so often. (I'm an American, as if that doesn't show.) I also have no standing quarrel with Islam, but I think a lot of people are misinterpreting its tenets (I think that about socialism, too, so).

Unfortunately, conservatism of either the economic or social kind has pretty much rendered itself poisoned by its practitioners, and I understand that your parties do not map onto US political parties, which may be a blessing.

For example, our "conservatives" are opposed to abortions and the policies that would reduce the number thereof. I tend to think there's an underlying plan there, and that it is ugly. (Years ago, I knew an anti-abortion feminist who was totally adamant about better birth control and education. Dismantling the rape culture would also help.) Right now, though I don't like it--and I understand ethical and religious objections--it needs to be an option of last resort. And frankly the sooner the cultures get over the idea that overt birth prevention is unspontaneous or unsexy, the better.

I am...rather waffly on alternative medicine. Some of it works, and some of it is that Wakefield guy lying.

I'm in favor of comprehensive training for parenthood, which will never happen. Also immigration. Israel and the Euro Zone are complicated.

I've subscribed to you--finally.

[gerald_duck]

Hmm. Whereas on jack's posting, people appeared to operate depth-first, starting a cascade of comments about one particular issue, here things seem to be rather more breadth-first, people commenting across the board.

In that spirit… (-8

• What is your stance on the territories Israel has seized since its creation?
  
• Agreed, but…
  
• As Jack pointed out, "fewer people should need to have an abortion" might be a more acceptable phrasing. Something I feel strongly, which I don't often see said: if someone is going to have an abortion, better sooner rather than later. Nobody should be rushed into a difficult and important decision, of course, but equally it helps nobody to hide information away from those who need it or cause delay through undue discouragement.
  
• I guess. I've never voted for either.
  
• Placebo is arguably the most effective medical treatment available. This causes immense ethical problems, especially now so many people research their symptoms, diagnosis and treatment online, especially since expensive placebos are more effective than cheap ones (as are nasty-tasting ones, injected ones, brand-name ones, ones a suitable colour, ones given after a more detailed consultation…)
  
• So you don't think we should restrict immigration only to Christians? This seems at odds with your first item!
  
• What do you mean by "acceptable"? I'm not in favour of it happening, but I'm also not in favour of it being illegal. (Furthermore, I'm not in favour of my having children unless and until I have far clearer personal answers to a lot of questions surrounding the legitimacy of projecting one's own values onto them!)
  
• Religious groups in general, yes. Provided religious marriage is completely decoupled from social and legal marriage. And provided the Church of England specifically behaves more reasonably and responsibly, in view of its Established status and privileges.
  
• Well, I disagree completely. But what I find interesting is that in Jack's posting I listed my diametrically opposite view as likely to be contentious!

[azurelunatic]

I am pretty jolly well pissed off at some of the things I have heard, from sources I don't inherently distrust, that Israel the state is doing.

Of course, I also think that the UN ought to have election-monitoring troops in the US right about now.

[naath]

*Israel clearly is currently a state, I guess that is better than many alternatives. I dislike theocracies in general, but I think it would be unfair to say "you can't have a Jewish state" when there are lots of explicitly Christian and Muslim states (with varying levels of enforcement of their religion on their citizenry), including of course the UK. I object strongly to the actions of the Israeli state in relation to the Palestinians, but I don't intend by that statement to object to the existence of the Israeli state. I think it's entirely unfair that the Palestinians don't get to have a proper state.

*Islam doesn't seem to me any better or any worse than the Catholicism I was brought up with.

*I think there should be fewer abortions due to less need for abortions. Alas I think it unlikely that we can thereby arrive at zero abortions because sometimes things go wrong during wanted pregnancies.

*I don't know about "often", but it sure can be. Personally I would prefer to vote for neither and have had the choice to meaningfully do so in most of the elections I have voted in.

*I think alt. med. people often *are* better at all the stuff like "listen" and "say calming things" than the NHS; and some alt. med. stuff is *nice* even if it doesn't *work* (like, say, aromatherapy - which I think is total bull as medicine but it smells nice so I buy smelly candles and stuff anyway). I think the main risk is to people who are so convinced by alt. med. stuff that they don't even consider what conventional medicine has to offer them; and more worryingly *has to offer their children* (I'm all for considering and rejecting conventional medicine because, say, the side effects are just too awful).

*woo, yay, immigration!

*I still don't. For that matter I don't think "hitting your dog" is an acceptable method of dog-training either. I've never tried to train either a child or a dog, the fact that I'd probably get really angry and hit them is one reason I should probably not try. Then again I do get confused when some people are saying "child is two, child can not be expected to behave like adult" and other people are saying "child of two should totally be allowed into pub because child is person"; I think one or the other really...

*I don't care what religious groups do so long as they don't tell non-members what to do, don't seriously harm anyone, and let members leave if they don't like it. My main issues with just giving groups free reign over all their doings is what happens to children brought up within the group.

*yay! the EU! I love the EU!

[rmc28]

I do get confused when some people are saying "child is two, child can not be expected to behave like adult" and other people are saying "child of two should totally be allowed into pub because child is person"

I totally agree that children are people, and do not have the same capacities as adults. I also prefer pubs that allow all people in and not just those over 18. But that doesn't mean I don't think 18+ only pubs shouldn't be allowed. I do prefer it when there is clear signage and/or policies to be found on websites.

For example, the policy on children on the Pembury website is clear and helpful, and ensures that we never make the mistake of taking the children there with their current (lack of) ability to be seen and not heard. Another example is that Wetherspoons have a blanket policy of "children allowed until 8pm" which effectively gives them two markets depending on time of day.

(late response is late, this tab has been sitting waiting for me to get to it for weeks, sorry)

[the_alchemist.livejournal.com]

None of those things seem very controversial to me. In particular, I would be shocked if one of my friends or acquaintances believed that the state of Israel shouldn't exist or that it wouldn't be a good idea to reduce to number of unwanted pregnancies.

As far as I'm concerned (and probably very predictably), the controversial things you've said are mostly contained within this entry about the Effective Altruist (EA) movement (liv.dreamwidth.org/373295.html). Specifically:

1) That effective altruism is "fashionable" among your friends. Firstly, that is a very belittling word to use for something that is so important to some of us, and has been over a long period of time. Secondly, it doesn't (alas) seem to me to be factually correct - either in the sense of lots of us liking it, or in the sense of it being passing fad - unless of course you have a lot of EA friends I don't know (in which case please introduce us!)

2) Secondly "cancer research is the Big Bad in the minds of the efficient giving people". I admit to having said some untactful things about cancer research, although I'm a bit more grown-up about it now, and I don't thing I ever said anything along the lines of it being a big bad - it's more like a medium-sized good! And I only know of one other EA person who uses it as an example of an over-valued cause - someone I'm pretty sure you don't know.

Indirectly, there are at least two ways in which the EA movement supports cancer research. One is lobbying animal rights groups to turn their interests away from animal testing to things the have [more] net positive impact (factory farming and wild animal suffering, mostly).

The other is fighting infections diseases such as AIDS and Schistosomiasis, which are significant causes of cancer in the developing world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe about 30-40% of cancers in Africa are caused by the infectious diseases we are seeking to treat or prevent, including in researchy ways.

On the other hand, if we *do* have a big bad, it's probably Homeopaths Without Borders (http://homeopathswithoutborders-na.org/), which may go against your point 5; or Pizza for IDF (http://pizzaidf.org/), which may go against your point 1. I've seen these, or fictional charities based on them (Doughnuts for Policemen!) used to demonstrate that what a charity actually does is way more important than how much it spends on admin.

But by and large, we don't have a big bad, since it would be a waste of time to work out which charities are most ineffective.

The other parts of the entry are interesting. I mostly disagree with them, but not unambiguously so, and I plan to respond at some point after I've read more Thomas Pogge (who as I understand it is an effective altruist and explicitly non-utilitarian philosopher.)

I certainly don't disagree with your career choice though. It's a very understandable mistake to think we want everyone to earn to give in a "city finance job", because the media seems fascinated by the idea and repeatedly misrepresents us as saying that. In fact we think earning to give (in the city or elsewhere) is just one factor of many that should be considered when choosing a career.

(Um ... when responding to this, you may (or may not) wish to consider that I'm one of those people who isn't "resilient to being shouted at when they express a minority view", although I am good at feigning resiliance and responding in a calm and mature way so long as it's online, and don't express my minority views except when I'm prepared to be challenged, including in robust ways.)

[kerrypolka]

I know quite a few of our friends who don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state - mind you I'm not sure whether I do or not, but there's definitely many people who think it's racist etc.

I didn't know that about cancers in the developing world!

Israel is a legitimate state

[jack]

Israel is a legitimate state, both politically and in the specific sense of existing as a constitutionally Jewish and Zionist state

You've pointed out to me how much some (often leftie) people have converted a legitimate outrage with what Israel has done in Gaza and Palestine into a really awful hatred of Israel as a whole, although I don't know how much that's entrenched in my social group.

I'm not even sure what "legitimate" means -- whether or not it was right to create Israel, I don't think we should or could erase it now.

I'm not sure what "jewish state" actually suggests. You've pointed out the bad things that come from enshrining a particular denomination of over-orthodox judaism in Israel, and I don't agree with that. I'm very happy with Israel enshrining the right-to-return. But I also don't like the idea that it means non-jews don't have rights. Or does it mean something less controversial?

What does "as a zionist state" mean, other than "israel should exist"?

[shreena]

I'd be interested in hearing more on why you'd like more integration with the EU.

I feel, conversely, like it's considered to be reactionary/sign of poor education/ignorance to be Euro sceptic to any degree. I am, for various reasons, in favour of definitely no further integration but, ideally, a bit of rolling back. Could talk about it all day but my main reasons are:

that EU citizens - on the whole - do not feel a sense of unity/need to support each other, e.g. the German populace don't feel like they 'should' support the Greeks, etc, and forcing closer union when the people do not want it does not seem to me like a recipe for success;

that it is incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable - the Commission has failed completely to keep its financial house in order (how many years have they not been signed off for at this point? over a decade, I believe) but there appears to be nothing that individual countries or individual voters can do about that. Also, every time that people vote against further union in a referendum, there are just more referenda until the 'right' result is achieved - democracy in action.. or not.

that integration has been handled so badly so far that I see no advantages to getting further into it - e.g. the single currency should never have been extended so far into countries with such different practices, it should have been rolled out more gently with more strict criteria for joining (like the ones they had to start with and then ignored)

And, finally, I've never quite figured out what the actual advantages of further integration are supposed to be

[naath]

The advantages of further integration are the usual economies of scale. Cheaper (for instance, not that it's current on the cards) to have a few European aircraft carriers than for ever country to have one each. Better labour-market efficiency if people, jobs, etc. can move around with fewer barriers.

On a more personal level I think it's good to expand our idea of "us". To stop thinking "we are BRITISH and will keep our British riches for British people" and start thinking "we are EUROPEAN, let us share our European riches amongst all European people" is progress towards "we are HUMAN let us share our riches with all other humans people".

The current situation all seems rather a mess to me, and I'm certainly in favour of *sorting the mess out*. For instance making the EU parliament be more meaningfully in charge of things rather than the Commission. I don't think that sorting the mess out needs to mean "having less EU"; indeed I think we could have a great deal more EU much more democratically if only we actually set ourselves (collectively) on such a goal.

[damerell]

In no particular order, then:
* clearly, but many of the things it does are terrible.
* well, it's no worse than the Catholic Church, I suppose, but that's faint praise.
* less need for same, anyway - but any objection to them before significant foetal brain activity is fundamentally religious and should be dismissed.
* a gentleman never votes Tory. More seriously, really, we don't need to wonder about this now, just as Bush showed us yes, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're worse; they've always been worse.
* what CEB wrote.
* certainly the current farce is far too restrictive.
* yes.
* yes, if (as above) unestablished, but don't blame me if they look silly.
* Yes, on balance.

[andrewducker]

An interesting thing I just bumped into about spanking and crime rates:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/07/spanking-and-crime-rates?fsrc=scn/gp/wl/bl/spankingandcrimerates

[elemy.livejournal.com]

"Religious groups can legitimately decide whether same-sex marriage, ministers who are not straight men and similar are theologically valid"

By "can", do you mean "should be allowed to", or "are able to"?

Because I would agree in principle with the first, but sadly the CoE seems to have shown that the second is not always true.