legacyzero
Banned
How did you deal with it? Cope with the confusion? The fear and consequences, and impact of the decision?
This is what's making this so hard for me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Times When You Have Changed Your Mind About a Big Issue
- Thread starter malingenie
- Start date
- Status
This is what's making this so hard for me.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
GAF opened my eyes in a lot of ways. A lot of race issues especially. As others have mentioned, I'm now for affirmative action. I now see how the word "thug" is a socially acceptable alternative to the N word. And I now see how cops are above the law and can literally get away with murder.
I was also always for vaccinations, of course, but now I see how dangerous it is for even vaccinated people to be around unvaccinated people.
I was also always for vaccinations, of course, but now I see how dangerous it is for even vaccinated people to be around unvaccinated people.
I've realized that the attitudes of most atheists are disgusting. I grew up Christian and it's totally not for me at all. But in my adult life I have consistently been really disgusted with atheist attitudes towards Christianity or religion in general. So many people are very cruel and patronizing to Christians. I respect Christians or anyone who is on a spiritual quest... arguing about the validity of the bible and Jesus is a futile task. Why can't a conversation be productive as opposed to being an opportunity to be bogarted by someone who jumps at the chance to argue and prove someone "wrong"... it's an appallingly immature way to treat people. My parents are still church goers and I go with them when I'm in town- not a big deal, fellow atheists! If someone wants to bless me, that's a fantastic thing, even if I don't believe the same way they do. Good vibes are good vibes.
I'm reminded of that quote from the Big Lebowsky, "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole"
I'm reminded of that quote from the Big Lebowsky, "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole"
I used to think we couldn't afford universal healthcare due to the costs associated with providing healthcare to all Americans. Then I actually looked at the average expenditures per capita of other countries that implement universal healthcare and it's a no brainer. We're paying for everybody regardless of whether or not they're insured so might elsewhere get everybody good preventive healthcare.
Marauder Shields
Member
I used to be a guy who always tried to be tolerant and sympathetic to minorities. Don't want to go into details but subsequent life experiences have kinda soured me on that front. I don't wish anyone harm I just don't really care anymore.
I can't think of a big issue where I've changed my mind, and never a time where it was just a complete 180, but I do have times where I think someone has made a valid point and I feel like I have to adjust my opinion to account for the argument they were making. For instance, we've had discussions about the use of rape jokes with comedians, and I started off with a more hard-line stance against it until it was pointed out that not all jokes are the same and that whether a particular joke is good or bad from the standpoint of encouraging societal myths (though not necessarily whether it can make people laugh) can depend on the construction of the actual joke. So, I felt like I had to make an adjustment in what I was arguing because of that.
In a more long-term sense, I used to believe in the idea of male brains and female brains and the idea that there was a firm spectrum of "most female to most male", which was definitely influenced by my interest in evidence for the biological basis for homosexuality. The same theory - brain organization theory - which puts forth this idea is also the theory that places homosexuality within this spectrum, where it involves people whose brains are sort of intermediate between women's and men's, which is then extended to personality traits and sexual interests. I've slowly lost respect for this view as I've learned more about the weaknesses, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in brain organization theory, so I no longer hold this view.
In a more long-term sense, I used to believe in the idea of male brains and female brains and the idea that there was a firm spectrum of "most female to most male", which was definitely influenced by my interest in evidence for the biological basis for homosexuality. The same theory - brain organization theory - which puts forth this idea is also the theory that places homosexuality within this spectrum, where it involves people whose brains are sort of intermediate between women's and men's, which is then extended to personality traits and sexual interests. I've slowly lost respect for this view as I've learned more about the weaknesses, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in brain organization theory, so I no longer hold this view.
I was hoping for a sarcastic cap to that bombshell.
Professor Beef
Banned
Using the word "gay" as a negative descriptor. Someone explained to me in a calm manner how hurtful it was, and to imagine how gay people felt (and it hit home too since at the time I had a few gay friends in high school).
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Religion and gay marriage, pretty self explanatory.
ErasureAcer
Banned
What if I'm a member of the KKK? Would you still hug me? If so, then why the hell wouldn't you sell me a cake? You'll get a hug, a thank you and some money when you stop the discriminatory practices of whom you'll sell cake to.
PhantomHound
Banned
So you'd sell a cake to an open member of the KKK?
You are more tolerant than I am. You win.
ShooterMcGavin
Member
I've changed my mind regarding gay marriage and abortion countless times. I'm pretty confident at this point however, as I'm now pro-gay rights and pro-life.
inb4 someone quotes my avatar.
inb4 someone quotes my avatar.
PhantomHound
Banned
You're just a natural pro, bro.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the internet and the access to all these different viewpoints, I probably wouldn't be alive today. Or at least, I think I wouldn't.
I don't think I've ever changed my mind so to speak as much as I grew. Like I would catch myself saying certain things to friends and family that I never would have before. It felt more like a natural progression of things. Pretty much what everyone else is saying, capitalist to socialist, moderate to liberal, etc.
What saved my life were my changing views on homosexuality. I couldn't believe people were born gay, says the gay boy. But eventually, I kind of just accepted it. There was no real aha! moment.
I don't think I've ever changed my mind so to speak as much as I grew. Like I would catch myself saying certain things to friends and family that I never would have before. It felt more like a natural progression of things. Pretty much what everyone else is saying, capitalist to socialist, moderate to liberal, etc.
What saved my life were my changing views on homosexuality. I couldn't believe people were born gay, says the gay boy. But eventually, I kind of just accepted it. There was no real aha! moment.
ShooterMcGavin
Member
Someone has to stand up to those sorry "Anti-" lovers!
depths20XX
Member
Was raised religious and thought there was something wrong with gay people up until around 18. I'm no longer religious nor do I think there is anything wrong with gay people. I shake my head about a lot of the things I used to think but luckily I've learned how wrong I was.
You are equating the economic standing of a person to their relationship status?
Would you possibly deny service to a once divorced? twice divorced person? an Adulterer? Why would an adulterer get service but not a gay person?
(Depending on your state) I'm pretty sure if you are a publicly accessible company you cannot refuse service to a person because of their political ideologies or group membership. (Creed)
(Depending on your state)You would be able to kick someone out for causing a disturbance in your company (maybe if someone was wearing a white hood). You would have that right, but not to deny service on group membership? You would be sued. And I as a black man would support that law suit.
Edit: I would love to have some sort of moderated back and forth discussion (kind of like intelligence squared just in a shorter format) with some other internet posters? I think it would be super interesting.
I used to be very ignorant about transgendered issues and deny that the concept could even exist in any meaningful capacity. Then, I met the brother of my roommate's ex-girlfriend and though I never had a conversation with him, simply meeting someone who was going through it made me realize how uneducated I was on the matter. Talking with the ex-girlfriend, reading lots of research and threads about the topic and I still feel pretty ignorant about it but I'm a wholehearted supporter.
Do you live with your parents?
Goldenroad
Member
I used to think abortion was wrong. I now feel like I (or any other man) should not have a say in whether it's right or wrong, since it is only an issue that effects women. Men should not be allowed to vote on or have any say on the issue. That's about as far as my stance has changed, but I feel like it's a fair compromise.
For personal "big issues"....I make that pretty big life decision every time I get out of bed and choose to go to work.
For personal "big issues"....I make that pretty big life decision every time I get out of bed and choose to go to work.
Punchy4486
Banned
Used to make lame stereotypical Mexican jokes to my one Mexican friend in college because "he knows I'm not racist" and "I'm making fun of racists by making these lame jokes". I now realize that, no matter the context, racist jokes just distance you further and further from the people you're stereotyping.
LostCaress
Member
Many many many years ago I was kinda undecided about gays adopting.
lifa-cobex
Member
I used to follow the strongest/ largest group on certain matters as I found it hard to believe the greater amount could be wrong. Basically accepting things at face value. (essential be narrow minded).
Now I ask questions and follow my own belief even if it's the minority.
Now I ask questions and follow my own belief even if it's the minority.
Deified Data
Banned
Liberal isn't the opposite of libertarian, that would be authoritarian.
A sane political philosophy tends to exist somewhere in the middle to varying degrees.
So many of my 'big' positions in my life have changed over time
-My belief in god (now an atheist, was a very religious child)
-My stance on abortion
-My stance on war
-My stance on socialism
-My stance on gay rights (only a bit, I was fairly progressive starting out)
-My stance on trans rights
-My opinions about race and culture
It's rarely one argument that does it. It's the weight of arguments over time.
What's funny is that after changing all of those positions, if I'm challenged by someone who is now on the other side from me but refuse to change my position on the spot in the face of their argument then I'm 'close-minded'. That drives me mad.
Note that there are other positions that I haven't changed and might never change. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you constantly reassess your own beliefs and the reasons for them.
-My belief in god (now an atheist, was a very religious child)
-My stance on abortion
-My stance on war
-My stance on socialism
-My stance on gay rights (only a bit, I was fairly progressive starting out)
-My stance on trans rights
-My opinions about race and culture
It's rarely one argument that does it. It's the weight of arguments over time.
What's funny is that after changing all of those positions, if I'm challenged by someone who is now on the other side from me but refuse to change my position on the spot in the face of their argument then I'm 'close-minded'. That drives me mad.
Note that there are other positions that I haven't changed and might never change. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you constantly reassess your own beliefs and the reasons for them.
malingenie
Member
If anything this thread gives me hope about change. Also cool to see some of these changes were spurred from conversations right here in off topic.
I can share my experience as someone who became atheist recently (At the start of this decade).
At first, it is quite liberating. Free of wasted hours at church (And additional ones on the street as a Jehovah's Witness or preparing for worship). Sexual liberation presents itself, as does the ability to think rationally (Not that all religious people are incapable of this).
It still is liberating, however there are certain consequences that haunt me. My father is very secular, but my mother is the highly devout JW. As such, this has created tension in my house. As a part of doctrine, if I leave the church, my mother is required not to speak to me again beyond the most dire of needs. As are my two sisters who, to my knowledge, have not expressed doubts in their faith. I find myself to be the only atheist of all my relatives. I was never deeply a believer, which is why the reality of having no perceptible higher meaning in life is not as crushing as it may be. I still at times become a touch worried over the fact that my life will most likely end sometime in the 2070s, yet not so much. Surprisingly I am less confused than I am now, considering before I would question such things as why my friends are not the same religion as I, or what was the importance of worshiping an all powerful god.
In summary there are few fears, and depending on your status in life and beliefs, you may even have few consequences. Yet I constantly live with a sense of confliction as I have not informed my mother of my changed beliefs and shall not do so until I live a stable adult life where her decisions cannot directly harm me. My only advice comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance: "Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string"
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I used to be pretty libertarian and conservative in a bootstrap-y way until I grew up and saw the reality for a lot of people. As many have already said, those beliefs are easy to have when you're young and without the actual life experience to realize how selfish and destructive those ideas are to many people. You can always make up an excuse for why someone else isn't getting what they want because you don't have the personal investment and experience necessary to see why those excuses you made up are bullshit.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
At first I thought it wouldn't take off, but then I changed my mind.
That will not work for every type of wing design.
I guess the only thing I have changed internally on was women. I guess when I was younger the empathy portion of my brain wasn't formed yet and I was listening to the typical baby boomer generation talk so i was a little misogynistic sociopath.
Carnby
Member
Confirmed: supernatural detectives are Conservative.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Such as?
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Was a Republican. Then left the party once the Tea Party and the nutcases took control. i was a big "respect for the Presidential office" kind of person during the Bush years.. turns out i was like the only one.
Was an independent until that traitorous letter came out.. now ill probably vote for whichever party has the chance to beat the Republican ticket for the rest of my life.
While not being a gun person at all i used to be pro-gun but after Sandy Hook and the absolute insanity coming from the Right and the "responsible gun owners" im for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
i was for the Iraq War until i realized that i was lied to and now, in part because of my support, parts of the world are a huge clusterfuck.
i used to be very pro-corporation/pro-business/pro-Wall Street until the Great Recession happened and the worst criminals this country has known in a century got away scott-free when they should have hanged.
i also used to think that violence never accomplished anything but after the failure of the Occupy protests violence is likely the only method that will work.
Was an independent until that traitorous letter came out.. now ill probably vote for whichever party has the chance to beat the Republican ticket for the rest of my life.
While not being a gun person at all i used to be pro-gun but after Sandy Hook and the absolute insanity coming from the Right and the "responsible gun owners" im for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
i was for the Iraq War until i realized that i was lied to and now, in part because of my support, parts of the world are a huge clusterfuck.
i used to be very pro-corporation/pro-business/pro-Wall Street until the Great Recession happened and the worst criminals this country has known in a century got away scott-free when they should have hanged.
i also used to think that violence never accomplished anything but after the failure of the Occupy protests violence is likely the only method that will work.
M0nochromatic
Member
I used to feel more empathy for those who would hurt others with their views. (homophobia, transphobia, anti abortion, climate change deniers, etc) I thought those viewpoints would die off when confronted with logical and ethical arguements(something about people naturally desiring truth and goodness). Now, though, I just see people dig in their heels and develop a victim complex.
When it got to the point where the intolerant were asking for people to accept and allow their hatred, I kind of stopped caring about their feelings.
When it got to the point where the intolerant were asking for people to accept and allow their hatred, I kind of stopped caring about their feelings.
hydrophilic attack
Member
In Sweden there has long been a debate about nuclear power. Whether we should a) expand our nuclear power capacity immediately, b) wait until we have closed our current (ageing) plants before building new ones, c) not build new ones when the ones we have now eventually close down or d) close the ones we have immediately.
Most kids are for option D) because nuclear power sounds scary. After reading more about it in high-school, I became a hardcore proponent of option A), but then as I grew older, and the energy situation change, I slowly started to change my viewpoint to option C) (along with most people who pay attention to the issue and don't just follow party lines)
My reasons for supporting nuclear power were the need for a carbon free renewable alternative to prevent global warming, its reliability in steadily delivering high power all year round, its cost competitiveness and the relatively high safety compared to what can be found in other countries, because Swedish nuclear power is world class. Everyone worrying about safety and long-term storage of spent fuel is a hippie stuck in the seventies that knows nothing about economics or technology.
However, upon closer scrutiny over the years, I realized that most of this is bullshit.
It is true that nuclear power is good from a global warming perspective, but that doesn't make it renewable, as is sometimes wrongly claimed, as the reservoirs of suitable uranium are not endless. Also, the extraction and upgrading of fuel is often far from clean, often leading to severe pollution.
Regarding reliability, it is true that it is usually more reliable than the main alternatives (solar and wind) but the reliability has dropped as lot in recent years in Sweden, we have frequently had considerable downtime due to maintenance and upgrading that have needed more time than forecasted. In fact, according to an IAEA report, in 2009, Swedish nuclear reactors had the lowest availability in all of Europe, operating at 63 % of capacity. In comparison, the corresponding number in Finland, which was the best in Europe in 2009, was 95 %.
Source, in Swedish. The propaganda played on Swedes' tendency to think we are the best at everything to push the narrative that Swedish nuclear power is world class, while in reality, our old and tired reactors are among the worst in the World.
But, you might say, that is only an argument for retiring our old reactors, it doesn't rule out that we should be building new, highly modern, world-class reactors. But here another important issue, which is profitability, comes into play. It may be true that for companies operating nuclear power plants, it's a highly lucrative affair. But that is just because the companies which operate the plants didn't have to pay for building them. Nuclear power is profitable if you already have a plant, but if you have to take into account the costs of building the plant, the situation rapidly changes. The up-front investment for building the plant is so huge that even with a depreciation time as high as 50 years, it is not economically feasible to build it, and no capitalist worth their salt would throw away their money on such a bad investment. The only way it would make sense would be with huge subsidies from the government in that they would pay most of the money for building the plant, they would limit the liability of the operator of the plant in the event of an accident (otherwise insurance costs for the operator would be enormous) and in how the amount of money the operators pay for future storage of spent fuel (for which the proposed technology still has not been conclusively proven) is likely lower than what the actual costs would be.
But why take my word for it? Let's just look at how the two countries that are betting the most on building new nuclear power plants are doing: UK and Finland.
The project approved by the British government is turning out to be a very expensive deal for the British tax payer. The British government is guaranteeing the operators of the plant a minimum electricity price, which in today's money, is twice as high as the current market price (and also allowed to increase with ininflation). The European Commission is investigating whether this corresponds to illegal subsidies by EU law.
Finland, on the other hand, did get a much better initial deal, but in hindsight it turns out that their plans for building the reactor was a pipedream. Initially planned to start operating in 2009, the start of operation has been delayed numerous times, and the current estimated date for start-up is 2018, nearly a decade behind schedule, and these delays have naturally brought with them a large increase in cost compared to plans. The parties involved are blaming each other for the delays, and are trying to claim billions of Euros in compensation. To summarize, it's a clusterfuck.
Meanwhile, let's look at the alternatives, solar and wind:
Back when I was a supporter of nuclear power it was "common knowledge" that wind and solar power were expensive and that they could never be competitive with nuclear power. But this is how investment costs for wind power has evolved in reality (source IEA) :
Wind power is now becoming competitive with much dirtier energy sources. (An increase in price up to about $2000 USD/MWh took place after the cut-off of that graph, due to various factors, but this increase has peaked, and prices are now going down again.)
The development has been even more impressive for solar power, which long was considered a pipedream by self-professed experts:
Rapid technology improvements have led to amazing drops in costs, and there is no end in sight for this trend.
Now, there are even still a few arguments that can be made for nuclear power. One is that, while environmentally friendly, wind and solar power are unreliable, with huge fluctuations depending on time of day and weather forecast, and that this is not suitable for parts of the electricity-hungry Swedish industry (read aluminium production). And this may be true. This is why I am not in favour of option d) of the options I laid out in the first paragraph. Considerable research will be needed to develop smart-grid solutions with reliable methods for energy storage and conversion during peak electricity generation hours (for use when electricity generation from wind and solar are low) and technology to monitor and control these energy conversions. The nuclear power we have provides us with a much-needed time buffer to solve these issues. Also, look at how badly Germany is doing, with a high reliance on Russian gas, after prematurely closing down nuclear capacity.
Some people argue that it may be worth it for the government to subsidize expensive new nuclear power plants, if it helps the Swedish industry survive. And while there may be a point to that, my reply would be two-fold: first consider the possibility that the European Union would not allow these subsidies. Second, if you are willing to give such large subsidies for nuclear power, wouldn't this money be better spent on research for better energy sources or subsidies for struggling biofuels?
In the end, it's a shame that there is so much misinformation floating around. This is one issue where many people still feel entitled to their own facts. I think if more people took the time to learn all the facts, more people would start changing their minds on this issue.
Most kids are for option D) because nuclear power sounds scary. After reading more about it in high-school, I became a hardcore proponent of option A), but then as I grew older, and the energy situation change, I slowly started to change my viewpoint to option C) (along with most people who pay attention to the issue and don't just follow party lines)
My reasons for supporting nuclear power were the need for a carbon free renewable alternative to prevent global warming, its reliability in steadily delivering high power all year round, its cost competitiveness and the relatively high safety compared to what can be found in other countries, because Swedish nuclear power is world class. Everyone worrying about safety and long-term storage of spent fuel is a hippie stuck in the seventies that knows nothing about economics or technology.
However, upon closer scrutiny over the years, I realized that most of this is bullshit.
It is true that nuclear power is good from a global warming perspective, but that doesn't make it renewable, as is sometimes wrongly claimed, as the reservoirs of suitable uranium are not endless. Also, the extraction and upgrading of fuel is often far from clean, often leading to severe pollution.
Regarding reliability, it is true that it is usually more reliable than the main alternatives (solar and wind) but the reliability has dropped as lot in recent years in Sweden, we have frequently had considerable downtime due to maintenance and upgrading that have needed more time than forecasted. In fact, according to an IAEA report, in 2009, Swedish nuclear reactors had the lowest availability in all of Europe, operating at 63 % of capacity. In comparison, the corresponding number in Finland, which was the best in Europe in 2009, was 95 %.
Source, in Swedish. The propaganda played on Swedes' tendency to think we are the best at everything to push the narrative that Swedish nuclear power is world class, while in reality, our old and tired reactors are among the worst in the World.
But, you might say, that is only an argument for retiring our old reactors, it doesn't rule out that we should be building new, highly modern, world-class reactors. But here another important issue, which is profitability, comes into play. It may be true that for companies operating nuclear power plants, it's a highly lucrative affair. But that is just because the companies which operate the plants didn't have to pay for building them. Nuclear power is profitable if you already have a plant, but if you have to take into account the costs of building the plant, the situation rapidly changes. The up-front investment for building the plant is so huge that even with a depreciation time as high as 50 years, it is not economically feasible to build it, and no capitalist worth their salt would throw away their money on such a bad investment. The only way it would make sense would be with huge subsidies from the government in that they would pay most of the money for building the plant, they would limit the liability of the operator of the plant in the event of an accident (otherwise insurance costs for the operator would be enormous) and in how the amount of money the operators pay for future storage of spent fuel (for which the proposed technology still has not been conclusively proven) is likely lower than what the actual costs would be.
But why take my word for it? Let's just look at how the two countries that are betting the most on building new nuclear power plants are doing: UK and Finland.
The project approved by the British government is turning out to be a very expensive deal for the British tax payer. The British government is guaranteeing the operators of the plant a minimum electricity price, which in today's money, is twice as high as the current market price (and also allowed to increase with ininflation). The European Commission is investigating whether this corresponds to illegal subsidies by EU law.
Finland, on the other hand, did get a much better initial deal, but in hindsight it turns out that their plans for building the reactor was a pipedream. Initially planned to start operating in 2009, the start of operation has been delayed numerous times, and the current estimated date for start-up is 2018, nearly a decade behind schedule, and these delays have naturally brought with them a large increase in cost compared to plans. The parties involved are blaming each other for the delays, and are trying to claim billions of Euros in compensation. To summarize, it's a clusterfuck.
Meanwhile, let's look at the alternatives, solar and wind:
Back when I was a supporter of nuclear power it was "common knowledge" that wind and solar power were expensive and that they could never be competitive with nuclear power. But this is how investment costs for wind power has evolved in reality (source IEA) :
Wind power is now becoming competitive with much dirtier energy sources. (An increase in price up to about $2000 USD/MWh took place after the cut-off of that graph, due to various factors, but this increase has peaked, and prices are now going down again.)
The development has been even more impressive for solar power, which long was considered a pipedream by self-professed experts:
Rapid technology improvements have led to amazing drops in costs, and there is no end in sight for this trend.
Now, there are even still a few arguments that can be made for nuclear power. One is that, while environmentally friendly, wind and solar power are unreliable, with huge fluctuations depending on time of day and weather forecast, and that this is not suitable for parts of the electricity-hungry Swedish industry (read aluminium production). And this may be true. This is why I am not in favour of option d) of the options I laid out in the first paragraph. Considerable research will be needed to develop smart-grid solutions with reliable methods for energy storage and conversion during peak electricity generation hours (for use when electricity generation from wind and solar are low) and technology to monitor and control these energy conversions. The nuclear power we have provides us with a much-needed time buffer to solve these issues. Also, look at how badly Germany is doing, with a high reliance on Russian gas, after prematurely closing down nuclear capacity.
Some people argue that it may be worth it for the government to subsidize expensive new nuclear power plants, if it helps the Swedish industry survive. And while there may be a point to that, my reply would be two-fold: first consider the possibility that the European Union would not allow these subsidies. Second, if you are willing to give such large subsidies for nuclear power, wouldn't this money be better spent on research for better energy sources or subsidies for struggling biofuels?
In the end, it's a shame that there is so much misinformation floating around. This is one issue where many people still feel entitled to their own facts. I think if more people took the time to learn all the facts, more people would start changing their minds on this issue.
hydrophilic, that's a great post. It made me think about how I still can't believe the Swedish built a nuclear power plant right across from Denmark's capital city. That's literally the most dangerous thing you could do. If you've seen Riget, you know what I mean. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBcJZ3-cJKc
legacyzero
Banned
Thanks for this. It's been a tough year. Most of this I've kept internal, and I think that's what's causing me the most trouble.
No. I'm 32 with a Wife and Daughter.
Deified Data
Banned
I don't necessarily share your view but I understand where you're coming from.
Echo chambers like GAF almost make me feel conservative sometimes, when merely not jumping to whatever conclusion supports your worldview is viewed as a conservative stance by some people.
I don't feel any of the most commonly discussed social justice topics discussed on this forum are "petty" but a lot of them have serious tone issues that are exacerbated by posters with toxic attitudes and the mods that enable them.
Anyway, I'm willing to bet that if you were polled on several prominent topics you'd still be somewhat progressive. If they were genuinely held beliefs they're not going to be changed by the occasional nasty argument.
Same. I'm absolutely certain I've changed my mind about other things over time, but this one in particular stands out to me because I was so adamantly against affirmative action only a couple of years ago.
Pyroclastic
Banned
abortion. sort of weird as it's not really a big moral issue at where I'm from and i'm not religious. I've gone from being rabidly pro choice to thinking that I would feel incredibly uneasy if someone close to me decided to have one.
I'm not suggesting I would want a ban; ultimately it's up to the woman of course and should stay that way. I just hope i'm never in a position where I have to deal with his personally.
I'm not suggesting I would want a ban; ultimately it's up to the woman of course and should stay that way. I just hope i'm never in a position where I have to deal with his personally.
Carnby
Member
Well said, friend.
- Status