The next big minority

[Zachowon]

There won't be a next minority, or at least not a new one. We can see it already. The democrat civil rights machine was built on civil rights, and was very powerful because of that. But they ran out of actual civil rights with Obergfell (discrimination in law) or Bostock (discrimination by companies), depending on your opinion on how rights work. And now we see the collapse as the Democrats are frantically looking for a new cause to call the Republicans evil, but they ran out. So now they are throwing everything at the wall in hopes something sticks. Riots, pedos, blacks, illegal immigrants, the 'coup', and I could go on. But it isn't working that well, and the hits aren't sticking.

The actual next minority? Probably gun owners. They are primed to start winning legal rights in states where they aren't popular through lawsuits, just like all the other ones did. They just had a huge surge in first time gun owners as well.

Regardless, welcome to the other side. Learn the tactics the Democrats used, and use them back at them. We already stole sanctuary cities, let's see what other ideas we can use.

When the government is against you, you are not the next Minority.
Plus there are more gun owners then there are all the other minorites mentioned.

 

[bintananth]

When the government is against you, you are not the next Minority.
Plus there are more gun owners then there are all the other minorites mentioned.

There are also more privately owned firearms in the US than there are people.

The gun debate is mostly bickering over what guns are allowed, who is allowed to have them, and what someone is allowed to do with one.

 

[LindyAF]

I think they are real, but not something like they are generally portrayed. More along the lines of the movie Voices with Ryan Reynolds. A sign of szicophrenia or insanity more then something that should be accepted

I wouldn’t take Hollywood movies as a model of anything. Or fiction in general. Schizophrenia (which can involve auditory hallucinations) is different from what was called MPD or DID. MPD or DID is the idea of a disorder where one person has two or more "personality states" which are reflected in their actions and behavior. In the most pure conception, this would be multiple "identities," each with distinct memories. However, at least from what I've read, it's a very controversial topic and there's a fairly prominent theory within psychiatry that the disorder is actually induced by certain therapeutic techniques or operates via the patients playing a role they believe appropriate for a person with DID.

On the marriage front I doubt "poly" is going to be allowed anytime soon. Allowing someone to have multiple spouses would turn into a contractual quagmire when the inevitable disagreements start. Much more so than sorting out a divorce or a bunch of squabbling heirs fighting over the terms of a will.

On the marriage front I suspect the next fight will be getting all the states on the same page in terms of how closely related the happy couple can be.

Right now I think 19 states allow 1st cousins to marry and 24 states prohibit those marriages with the remainder saying "only under certain circumstances". That's similar to how it was with gay marriage before SCOTUS stepped in.

I agree that it's not going to be over marriage in the near future. In addition to the potential contractual issues, leftists are going to want to avoid association with historical and still practiced polygamy (even though it'd basically result in this). But I don't really think "marriage" is the defining feature tying the family of issues were talking about together. After all, I'd say that the earlier "LGBT" issue was the legalization vs criminalization of sodomy, which isn't a marriage issue at all.

On incest, I don't really see first cousin incestuous marriage as having the same cultural hot point potential as sodomy marriage. It's something that existed in (and was if anything, more common) in the recent past, and there's not really any cultural heat over the issue at present, at least as far as I can tell, and the states that allow it don't really match up with party lines. I think it might be a good idea for the right to push for total delegalization for immigration patriotism reasons, but I don't really think the left would fight that all that hard.

Close-kin incest and incestuous marriage could be a cultural hot point, but I don't see any sort of widespread or common endorsement of that on the left. I do think that of examples in slippery slope arguments (pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.), if we reach that point, incest would be the first, as it can be argued along the "consenting adults" line, and I've seen it be an occasional subject for hot takes among the left along those lines.

Maybe centrists and those to the right. It is a growing ideal in the left. Hell, a law in Cali was iirc brought up about changing it or getting rid of it. One of the cities involving sex offenders or something Cant reemeber

The law you're thinking of that was changed wasn't explicitly and openly legalizing pedophilia. IIRC it was changing the law to reduce the least serious offense that a male pedophile who assaulted a boy could be charged with to the least serious offense that a male pedophile who assaulted a girl could be charged with.

I don't think pedophilia is on the horizon for the left. To reiterate, a rule of thumb, think about what you could or couldn't see people supporting on our evil mirror website.

 

[Zachowon]

I wouldn’t take Hollywood movies as a model of anything. Or fiction in general. Schizophrenia (which can involve auditory hallucinations) is different from what was called MPD or DID. MPD or DID is the idea of a disorder where one person has two or more "personality states" which are reflected in their actions and behavior. In the most pure conception, this would be multiple "identities," each with distinct memories. However, at least from what I've read, it's a very controversial topic and there's a fairly prominent theory within psychiatry that the disorder is actually induced by certain therapeutic techniques or operates via the patients playing a role they believe appropriate for a person with DID.



I agree that it's not going to be over marriage in the near future. In addition to the potential contractual issues, leftists are going to want to avoid association with historical and still practiced polygamy (even though it'd basically result in this). But I don't really think "marriage" is the defining feature tying the family of issues were talking about together. After all, I'd say that the earlier "LGBT" issue was the legalization vs criminalization of sodomy, which isn't a marriage issue at all.

On incest, I don't really see first cousin incestuous marriage as having the same cultural hot point potential as sodomy marriage. It's something that existed in (and was if anything, more common) in the recent past, and there's not really any cultural heat over the issue at present, at least as far as I can tell, and the states that allow it don't really match up with party lines. I think it might be a good idea for the right to push for total delegalization for immigration patriotism reasons, but I don't really think the left would fight that all that hard.

Close-kin incest and incestuous marriage could be a cultural hot point, but I don't see any sort of widespread or common endorsement of that on the left. I do think that of examples in slippery slope arguments (pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.), if we reach that point, incest would be the first, as it can be argued along the "consenting adults" line, and I've seen it be an occasional subject for hot takes among the left along those lines.



The law you're thinking of that was changed wasn't explicitly and openly legalizing pedophilia. IIRC it was changing the law to reduce the least serious offense that a male pedophile who assaulted a boy could be charged with to the least serious offense that a male pedophile who assaulted a girl could be charged with.

I don't think pedophilia is on the horizon for the left. To reiterate, a rule of thumb, think about what you could or couldn't see people supporting on our evil mirror website.

I was getting hearing voices to multiple personalities.
I am stupid.

I do feel like there is a larger growing group that is pushing more and more for pedophilia exceptions

 

[bintananth]

On incest, I don't really see first cousin incestuous marriage as having the same cultural hot point potential as sodomy marriage. It's something that existed in (and was if anything, more common) in the recent past, and there's not really any cultural heat over the issue at present, at least as far as I can tell, and the states that allow it don't really match up with party lines. I think it might be a good idea for the right to push for total delegalization for immigration patriotism reasons, but I don't really think the left would fight that all that hard.

Close-kin incest and incestuous marriage could be a cultural hot point, but I don't see any sort of widespread or common endorsement of that on the left. I do think that of examples in slippery slope arguments (pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.), if we reach that point, incest would be the first, as it can be argued along the "consenting adults" line, and I've seen it be an occasional subject for hot takes among the left along those lines.

Yeah. The 1st cousins marriage fight will be along the lines of "they got married in state A but state B isn't recognizing the marriage or trying to prosecute the couple". Such marriages used to be very common and in some places still are.

More closely related than 1st cousins would be decided by which of "consenting adults" or "that's just icky, NO!" emerges victorious.

 

[Clanner Moment]

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/plural-and-dissociative-identities-community-thread.63081/

This. It seems beautifully designed to both outrage the right and provoke sympathy in the left.

couldn’t get more perfect for that purpose of you tried, I almost feel like the whole thing is being astroturfed… manufactured to drive the outrage economy.

people who claim to believe that they have multiple people living in their head as head mates.

in truth, humans are not a cohesive whole,we just identify as such, we are many independent systems operating together. These people seem to think that makes them special, or try to personify their, say, hangry personality or treat their net persona as a separate person.

fucking weird.

That thread isn't visible to guests. Regardless. InSufficient Sensibility is that kind of website that'd enable such behavior instead of nipping it in the bud.

 

[LindyAF]

I am stupid.

Wasn't calling you stupid, just saying that you were talking about something different. Schizophrenia and DID/MPD are often conflated, particularly because "schizo" means "fractured." It's a common mistake.

 

[Zachowon]

Wasn't calling you stupid, just saying that you were talking about something different. Schizophrenia and DID/MPD are often conflated, particularly because "schizo" means "fractured." It's a common mistake.

I was calling myself that more then you calling me it

 

[Bassoe]

WTF are 'plurals'?

people who claim to believe that they have multiple people living in their head as head mates.

in truth, humans are not a cohesive whole,we just identify as such, we are many independent systems operating together. These people seem to think that makes them special, or try to personify their, say, hangry personality or treat their net persona as a separate person.

fucking weird.

Yeah, Peter Watts went with that.

"Well it's not like anyone talks about it now. People were fucking barbarians about multicores back then—called it a disorder, treated it like some kind of disease. And their idea of a cure was to keep one of the cores and murder all the others. Not that they called it murder, of course. They called it integration or some shit. That's what people did back then: created other people to suck up all the abuse and torture, then got rid of them when they weren't needed any more."

It hadn't been the tone most of us were looking for at an ice-breaking party. James had gently eased back into the driver's seat and the conversation had steered closer to community standards.

But I hadn't heard any of the Gang use alter to describe each other, then or since. It had seemed innocuous enough when Szpindel had said it. I wondered why they'd taken such offence—and now, floating alone in my tent with a few pre-op minutes to kill, there was no one to see my eyes glaze.

Alter carried baggage over a century old, ConSensus told me. Sascha was right; there'd been a time when MCC was MPD, a Disorder rather than a Complex, and it had never been induced deliberately. According to the experts of that time, multiple personalities arose spontaneously from unimaginable cauldrons of abuse—fragmentary personae offered up to suffer rapes and beatings while the child behind took to some unknowable sanctuary in the folds of the brain. It was both survival strategy and ritual self-sacrifice: powerless souls hacking themselves to pieces, offering up quivering chunks of self in the desperate hope that the vengeful gods called Mom or Dad might not be insatiable.

None of it had been real, as it turned out. Or at least, none of it had been confirmed. The experts of the day had been little more than witch doctors dancing through improvised rituals: meandering free-form interviews full of leading questions and nonverbal cues, scavenger hunts through regurgitated childhoods. Sometimes a shot of lithium or haloperidol when the beads and rattles didn't work. The technology to map minds was barely off the ground; the technology to edit them was years away. So the therapists and psychiatrists poked at their victims and invented names for things they didn't understand, and argued over the shrines of Freud and Klein and the old Astrologers. Doing their very best to sound like practitioners of Science.

Inevitably, it was Science that turned them all into road kill; MPD was a half-forgotten fad even before the advent of synaptic rewiring. But alter was a word from that time, and its resonance had persisted. Among those who remembered the tale, alter was codespeak for betrayal and human sacrifice. Alter meant cannon fodder.

Of course, being Peter Watts, he then proceeded to deconstruct the tawdry real motivations society's leadership had camouflaged as Equality™ and Liberation™ for why they manipulated societal norms to reclassify MPD as an identity rather than a disease. One astronaut with their brain divided into multiple independently sentient personalities, with each personality trained as a specialist in a different field had lower life-support requirements than an entire team of individual specialists would've.

I imagine modern equivalent motivations might be:

• Making the diploma mills even more expensive/profitable, now that one person with multiple personalities has to buy separate educations for each of them as a prerequisite for employment.
• Cheating the justice system. "Only one personality was guilty, you can't imprison all the others."
• Each personality gets their own vote. If they all happen to use them the same way on account of being the same person, that's their business.

 

[S'task]

Allowing someone to have multiple spouses would turn into a contractual quagmire when the inevitable disagreements start. Much more so than sorting out a divorce or a bunch of squabbling heirs fighting over the terms of a will.

That's not something that will keep it out of the far left, and would actually be considered a major plus for a major monied interest that is part of the left wing coalition: lawyers.

No, seriously, lawyers skew leftwards heavily, and they'd be all on board for the legal and civil complexities that polygamy would bring to the table, after all, more complicated divorces and contracts just means more money for them.

 

[The Phule]

One advantage of the left going with Polyamory/plural marriage of course is it would shake the GOP vote with Mormons in Utah.

I mean, Mormons SAY they don't support plural marriage anymore, and the central church is officially against it, but there's plenty of breakaway splinter groups in Utah that DO support plural marriage still. But I could easily see the GOP jumping the gun on it to solidify Utah as well.

Muslims also support plural marriage, and they have a closer political alignment with the left in the US of course.

Dunno. I'm really just not seeing the concentrated push in leftist media to represent poly-amorous relationships like I am seeing to represent 'plurals/DID' and, well... frankly I think the concept of plurals is more likely to offend and draw reaction and fire and throw up huge sparks and conflict than polyamory.

 

[LindyAF]

I don't think it starts with marriage. IMO many of the slippery slopes presented here focus overmuch on the "marriage" detail with the LGBT stuff. What lead into it wasn't marriage related, and the tranny stuff isn't about marriage either.

Lead up issues would be stuff like the left trying to ban discrimination against "poly" people, maybe stuff like medical visitation stuff, parenting rights stuff, maybe non-marriage "unions" to tie these issues together. Maybe following a push by left wing media, red states either try to put protections of discrimination against "poly" in place or do stuff like create legal difficulties or even outright bans on them adopting or fostering children, etc. Leftists then push back on this using lawfare, etc.

If the left does continue to advance, then by the time it gets to marriage, the lines in the sand are already drawn solidly enough that the history of polygamy isn't as significant to the left. And I know there's a bunch of splinter groups, but I think most standard mormons are against it, and the GOP doesn't really need to solidify Utah.

I'm seeing the reverse of what you are though. Looking up "poly" (a term with a lot of different meanings), and the second definition on M-W is "polyamorous," the fourth result on DuckDuckGo is "polysexual," and you can look up obvious terms for it by the left like "polyamorous" or "polycule" and get left wing media sites "explaining" the terms. "Open relationship" is another term this goes by on the left and there's plenty of that in the media. Pretty sure our evil mirror website has a tag for it and threads on it.

Compare that to "plural" and I can find like nothing. Wikipedia on DID mentions a "multiplicity right's" thing at the end and talks about people who want to use "we" and "our" pronouns to refer to just themselves, but I can't really find any mention of this elsewhere. I also can't really think of what immediate disagreements this issue would have associated with it that aren't a subset of larger disagreements on mental health. I can see this being something, but I think this is more likely to be one facet of the left wing push for normalizing and even demedicalizing mental illness and behavior disorders under the term "neurodiversity" or something like that.

If you do think this is the next push, I would advise getting into the habit of saying "someone with DID" or something like that though. No point conceding on terminology. For that matter I need to find better terms as well.

 

[S'task]

Honestly, I don't think Polyamory is going to be the next big fight, all told.

Mostly because the fight is already lost. When it comes to non-marriage aspects, there's not a significant social stigma on polygamous relationships and the concept of polygamy is not an alien concept to people in the same way that same-sex marriage was. That's also why I don't think the left will push it, it offers no new avenues of attack on traditional Judeo-Christian culture that same-sex marriage and transgenderism doesn't already offer.

That's the angle to look at I think the most, what will provide a new angle of attack against Christian morality. If you look back over the history since the 60s, each phase of the Sexual Revolution has been a rolling attack on Christian morality, starting with no-fault divorce, moving to abortion, abstinence until marriage, and same sex relations, then shifting to attacking marriage with same-sex marriage, the push for Atheism and reframing legislation from Christian morality as theocracy, and now attacking Christians ability to live their own lives in accord with their own morality via the "bake the cake" and "must use mah pronouns".

I think the next thing will need to open a new front on that angle, and I'm not seeing how either Polyamory or this other Poly thing do that.

 

[Captain X]

The horror...

 

[PsihoKekec]

The next big battle is already being fought, the battle for the rights of pedophiles. If 10 year old boy can consent to changing gender, then he can also consent to sexual intercourse with a 50 years old guy who identifies as 10 year old girl. And the state will be there to protect the loving couple from any bigots, like parents.

 

[Terthna]

The next big battle is already being fought, the battle for the rights of pedophiles. If 10 year old boy can consent to changing gender, then he can also consent to sexual intercourse with a 50 years old guy who identifies as 10 year old girl. And the state will be there to protect the loving couple from any bigots, like parents.

You know, I don't think that has anything to do with pedophilia. These people just want to protect those who want to abuse others, which includes the bastards who don't even have the balls to target someone who might actually be able to defend themselves. How do I know this? When was the last time you saw a regressive leftist giving a crap about any actual rapists, as opposed to people who just said the wrong thing to the wrong person?

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

The only poly relationship I barely support is one man with multiple women. One woman with multiple men is an abomination.

 

[The Phule]

I really don't think it will be pedophilia. They've made multiple attempts to become the next big minority, but for some reason noone wants to support them. As far as I can gather, both the left and the right hate pedophiles. And both sides accuse prominent members of the other side of being a pedophile.

It's honestly too useful as a political attack to start trying for acceptance. Where would the left be if they couldn't call major Republican figures (such as Trump) and minor ones (such as Gaetz) pedophiles? Where would the right be if they couldn't call major Democratic figures (Bill Clinton) and minor ones (Kevin Spacy) pedophiles?

No, I think that the automatic revulsion targeted on your opponent that is generated by saying someone wants to diddle children is generally too valuable for either party to ever consider officially legalizing it. Or even decriminalizing it.

Though I will admit that there's a number of lesser political organizations trying to push the acceptance of pedophilia, and they tried very heavily to infiltrate the GLBTQ movement. In the end, the movement's goals were successfully limited to not include legalization of pedophilia, and that was probably the best shot that pedophiles would have ever had.

 

[Bassoe]

One thing we're all missing is, the objective of normalizing pedophilia might be a top-down decision by the elites despite the total lack of public support on grounds of 'if the Epstein blackmail tapes ever leak, we want to be seen as 'discriminated-against trailblazers who had to keep our love secret because of institutional bigotry against us' rather than 'criminal scumbags'.