I agree with Miguelito it's time to walk away from the entire "trans" issue. There is nothing more to say. You have made your case clearly already about women's "spaces" and the discussion is going in circles. The self-inflicted backlash article made all your points and there really is nothing more to add (I certainly have nothing mor…
I agree with Miguelito it's time to walk away from the entire "trans" issue. There is nothing more to say. You have made your case clearly already about women's "spaces" and the discussion is going in circles. The self-inflicted backlash article made all your points and there really is nothing more to add (I certainly have nothing more to add either, and I am glad to not be working in an office where some twit turns every discussion to "my gender identity").
On the one side there are the bigots who are not going to give any ground because their bigotry is the foundation of identity; on the other side you have a bunch of fanatic liars whose lives are dedicated to growing the ranks of a bunch of elective freaks who only care about being the center of attention.
For me the end of the argument can be very plainly stated; the great majority opting into the "trans" fad are not gender dysphporic. And a core tenet of the gender ideology movement is that dysphoria is not prerequisite for being "trans."
This is like someone with no African ancestry claiming to be black. It is, plainly and simply, not true. To hell with them. To hell with non-binary, to hell with "trans" ideology, to hell with "they." It's a stupid fad and it will die out.
The real ones? The 5000 or so who really are dysphoric? Full support. The other 99.9% with their rage and their absurd claims can go to hell.
Yeah, believe me, I'm no more interested in endlessly writing about the question of whether a male can transubstantiate into a woman than you are in reading it.
The only reason I bother to speak about this ideology at all is that young, predominantly gay kids are being medicalised by it and vulnerable women, especially in prisons, are being traumatised by it. And most people, many of whom I believe are genuinely good, are too afraid to say anything because they've been convinced that criticising gender ideology is equivalent to hating trans people.
But yes, basically, I agree with you. The argument can be very simply stated. And already has been. The reason I repeat the point is that a great number of people still don't see this issue as clearly as you do and repetition is needed to make some people understand a point.
Also, as Dave points out below, this conversation, while ostensibly about trans issues, was really a way for me to talk about the guilt by association that plagues our discourse (another reason why I think many people can't think clearly about these issues). We need more liberal voices talking about this. Because otherwise it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point.
The only reason I think you should continue towrite about this is because you do have a substantial readership on Medoim, where the "trans" activists have complete dominance over the site, and you somehow have a knack for writing without getting kicked off by frivolous accusations of "transphobia."
What I meant was that to the relatively small readership you have on substack, the issue is exhausted. Mind you I am not complaining.
If I may suggest, I think that taking the trouble to separate the authentically transphobic from the fad-riders is a productive approach. I think their claim that gender dysphoria is not prerequisite to claiming "trans" is a critical weakness of their ideology since that establishes beyond doubt that most of them are just in it for attention.
My perspective on this forum may be unique in that I have known a number of genuine transsexuals before the "trans" fad; this doesn't protect me from their tiresome accusation but it does enable me to lean on the 99:1 difference between the fakes and the genuine.
I do think the activists have gone too far, their ideology is nuttier than MAGA and the "definition of woman" thing and Lia Thomas' unfair advantage are turning people away from the extremity of "woke."
Your choice. But I would lean hard on the position that dysphoria is optional because that means the other 99% are only in it for special attention. And I think the "claiming to be black with no African ancestry" is a powerful point.
I just received a hate speech suspension email from Roger he/him over a non-hateful disagreement with the premise of a story. They win. No more trans comments or stories for me.
I responded to this on my phone but for some reason my response appears as a separate article, above.
I was kicked off again too, no email though, and I had not been on there for weeks. Mostly I responded to drivelous software articles and got tons of claps.
I didn't get kicked off the platform. A couple of comments were "suspended" and I was told my distribution limited (shadow ban) and account suspension next up.
He sent the policies on hate speech and in my opinion none of them applied to my comments.
The best thing for me would be to add trans articles to my don't read this crap list. Honest communication with trans people is as rare as it is with "dear white people" and "patriarchy" authors. Best to avoid them like dog shit on the sidewalk.
I wrote long ago that "a trans woman is biologically male," and this was called hate speech. That was several bannings ago. Bigotry is not prerequisite; all it takes is some rage case yelling "transphobia."
It will not be easy getting out of the "trans" recommendations. They will keep coming. Medium seems to have completely crossed over into two topic of discussion:
1) "trans" activists expressing their rage
2) junior software developers who think they have everything figured out
"it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point."
This is something I struggle with daily. This is the solitary right wing position with which I identify, but the more I see of "trans" the greater becomes my loathing of it. Not only of the attention freaks incessantly making themselves the topic of conversation but the absurdity their beliefs, and the strident suppression of any and all debate by the activists.
Take puberty blockers. There is no question but that they do harm, yet even well-educated people who work with and prescribe them insist that they are as harmless as pausing song playback on an iPod. Research into the harm of transitioning is vehemently suppressed and researchers who don't come to activist-approved conclusions have their careers ruined and receive death threats.
What few longitudinal studies have been done on the transitioned show very high suicide rates 7-10 years later, but all we hear about is suicide among non-transitioned teens who were, incidentally, unhappy and miserable people before they even thought about "trans."
As much as with COVID, I don't think we have even begun to see the long term harm this is doing.
At risk of sounding like the "everything is caused by X" crowd, I think that the struggle is properly the avoidance of viewing individuals as a part of a monolith with a "not all of them" is the question, "What percentage of them?"
Last week I went to Texas for an uncle's 90th birthday. A huge reunion (for me) of extended family. Nobody ruined the Thanksgiving turkey dinner or the birthday Texas barbeque with political talk, but I did have some one-on-one conversations. Mostly steadfastly conservative, with one exception, nothing like the twitter talking point crowd. Their main commonality is economic with the Regonesque thought, "Are you doing better under this or that administration?" You could add, crime and catch and release policies of Democratic administrations. They have a point, but those are probably not the right-wing positions you are thinking of.
The right-wing things that keep me out of their club relate to the none of my business religious stuff. Abortion, same sex marriage, non-heterosexuality, religious government (Christian Nationalism), etc. I don't object to anyone's religion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", but don't demand that others conform.
As you likely know about me, I have no allegiance to any one tribe though my views lean heavily against those of conservatives. But there are some areas e.g. personal responsibility where I lean more their way (what they say, I mean, not how they fail to carry it out).
But the better-off thing is so simpleminded, as though who is currently president is the only factor affecting quality of life.
Crime? Declining more or less steadily since the Civil War, but listen to the right and we are in a hellscape worsening every day, but hey let's not do anything about guns.
Illegal immigration? Who allowed/created the conditions that are driving them out? The cartels that make northern Mexico so dangerous buy all their guns in Texas.
Try telling a conservative any of this.
As for religion, I am about fed up with this and as I see how much more it inspires hate than inspires charity, I see it more and more as humanity's childhood toy that needs to go back in the toybox, or on a shelf like the Steiff tigers I have had all my life and want to be buried with me.
People desire simplicity. We know that correlation need not be an indication of causation, but it does indicate an area that needs to be examined thoughtfully.
Crime is rising rapidly in my neighborhood, including violent crime. Currently on my citizen ap, person assaulted .7 mi away. I see reports of assault, strong arm robbery, and burglaries on it every day. If things keep going the way that they are going I might decide to arm myself when going out. I don't relish the idea of going to a Quik-Trip for gas to feel like going thru the wire on a combat patrol.
For most of America's existence, migrant workers went back and forth across the border freely benefiting all. Tightening the border caused people to not want to risk it every year so they brought their families and stayed. A high percentage of my neighbors are Spanish speaking Mexicans. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the mass border crossings including fentanyl smugglers, one of the causes of crime in my neighborhood. We need better work permit procedures for migrant workers.
We disagree on guns. There are so many in America that attempts to remove them will only affect the law abiding. A practical view, rather than a wish. One of my right leaning views is that unilateral disarmament is unwise. The fact that guns have been a part of my life since childhood probably biases things.
Your views on religion are understood, I just can't bring myself to trash family and friend relationships over disagreement about religion or politics. I just don't agree and if there is chance for real discussion I'll take it, but I won't force it.
I won't comment on the fentanyl, but the great majority of drug smuggling is marijuana. Plenty of people are ODing on fentanyl they get in the USA and my impression is that this is just another Republican bogeyman, but I don't have the figures.
You know full well that conservative Americans are not going to agree to any migrant worker program any more than they are going to take jobs picking fruit. That ship has sailed. It used to work but then Republicans turned immigration into one of their many fuels for hate. They go into rage if they hear a foreign language.
If violent crime is increasing, what do you think the reason is? Every time they turn on the TV they are stoked into resentment and rage, and guns are a step away from vending machines.
You've seen the graphs and the maps and you know as well as I that the states with the most lax gun laws have the most gun death. You know how many thousands have been shot just in the last few months. You know how much different it is in countries that don't have that psychotic Second Amendment. And I know you are smarter than you are sounding here with that tired "only outlaws will have guns" stuff.
If things keep going on this way, everyone will have to go armed all the time, everywhere, even if they hate guns. And the deaths will keep rising as conditions get worse (we are not far away from droughts raising the price of food above the rent/mortgage; when people are really hungry, not just "ready for supper," things are going to get a lot worse).
Yes there is a gun cult and yes there are many who would take on the cops rather than give up their arsenals. I can't bring myself to shed too many tears for people like that.
The gun culture and the proliferation of people with enough guns to mount an invasion is something we are going to have to deal with sometime, and by letting it get as far as it has with nutjobs like Gov. Abbott we have let all the better options expire. As with AGW, the longer we wait the worse and the more inhumane the solutions are going to be.
I do understand what you're saying; you've been in combat, I haven't; you grew up with guns, I didn't; you don't ever want to find yourself helpless in the face of an armed intruder, I don't entertain scenarios like that. I respect your opinions on a lot of issues and I in no way regard you as a gun kook.
But America has millions of gun kooks and we need to take their guns away, and that cannot be done as long a the damned things are freely available.
Religion will dwindle. Fundamentalists are too much its face and in a lot of Europe religion affiliation is on life support. I do know a few people who are moved to goodness by it, but we both know that they are outnumbered by the religious bigots and psychos like Amy Barrett.
With increasing marijuana legalization and the fact that meth and fentanyl can return higher dollar amounts on much less bulk I suspect that marijuana is no longer the top drug coming across. This year in the Phoenix PD's biggest drug bust it was one million fentanyl pills worth orders of magnitude more money than the same volume of pot. The thing is marijuana isn't a direct cause of death. I don't dismiss it as a political talking point. Both parties have talking points that are a mixture of truth, hyperbole and BS.
Migrant workers. I guess I could ask which conservatives and what percentage? Not a monolith. Some Republican conservatives think that the Democrats favor open borders under the assumption that they will vote for democrats. They might change their mind as the number of "minority" yellow dog Democrats continues to decrease. More a matter of partisan politics rearing its ugly head than racial bigotry? I don't know the ratio.
Guns. In some/many ways I agree with you, implementation is the turd in the punchbowl. I don't have a solution. The current method for identifying kooks is arrest records which are sealed for the minors who shoot up their school. Legal gun purchase is stricter than at any time in my life. At one time I could order a gun from Shotgun News and have it shipped to a kitchen table FFL friend. Those days are long gone. Stolen firearms are a commodity.
Most "gun deaths" are suicides and most of them are men. Women typically choose intentional overdosing on pills. Would the disappearance of firearms reduce the suicide rate? I don't know but I doubt it would make a big difference.
Religion is fading. I don't know the ratio of goodness vs. bigotry. Before I retired, I sat in a lunch table group comprised of a Catholic who was far more open minded than the stereotype, a protestant fundamentalist, a bisexual wink and a nod pagan and me, a marginal Buddhist. Sounds like the start of a joke without the rabbi. We were able to have civil discussion about all things. No racists, the fundamentalist was strongly anti-abortion, and a marriage is between one man and one-woman guy. My none of my business who you love and want to spend your life with didn't sour our friendship. Given the heterosexual divorce rate I don't see how same sex marriage is going to do any damage. His reference came from his religion. The pagan was in the closet about his sexuality although he had confided in me. I'm safe to confide in.
The point of that paragraph is that while my personal experience is not a viable statistic, my circle includes more conservatives than you or most in this group of people which probably gives me a more charitable view of them than you although I can understand since you have most likely faced more bigotry than me.
Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides and firearm suicide is 90% effective; other forms, 10%. Cut your wrists you are likelier to cripple your hands than die.
About 41% (last I checked) of Americans own guns, yet there are 3-400 million of them in private possession, which means a lot of people own arsenals, in no way defensible as self-protection. Some people went out and bought five new guns every time Obama got something through Congress. People like that are sick, sick, sick.
I never said it was be easy, not with the intensity of fanaticism around them, even having one's children murdered doesn't shake RKBA devotion much. What I did say is that we have to start now, and I don't mean performative crap like raising the assault rifle age to 21, I mean a great restriction on ownership. At the time you could mail order them we didn't have tens of millions of clinically insane people one trigger away from turning kindergartners into hamburger.
OK so you have known some fundamentalists who were not crazy. So have I. But we both know better than to be on the next one we meet being sane and reasonable.
The abortion thing: this is garbage. Same people who say aborting an eight-cell blastula is murder will stridently oppose a nickel of tax on Elon the Mess to keep the born baby fed for a week. This is just own-the-libs/conservative-membership stuff, like Trump Won.
Of the successful suicides in my world, one was a firearm, the others; single vehicle "accident" (left room for doubt for his family), poison, pills (overdose), and one hanging. Where there is a will, there is a way.
With regard to arsenals. Many gun owners own more than one gun. Hunters will typically own a .22 rimfire for small game and inexpensive plinking, a shotgun (birds and other game), a high-powered bolt action rifle for large game, a pistol for protection, a semiautomatic sporter rifle for many utility occasions (hunters are moving away from bolt actions). That's five and a common number for hunters. Some people collect more like guitar players collect guitars. You might call that an arsenal, but I wouldn't.
An obstacle that I see for gun control is the obsession with "assault weapons." You are more likely to be killed by fist, feet or other personal weapons than any rifle, let alone a so-called assault rifle. When I was on active duty there was nothing with that designation in the military, it is a political phrase. For some people it is cosmetics. Black, looks military, has a detachable magazine, etc. where the restrictions are absurd. The real desire is to ban semiautomatic firearms in general, but probably something like 90% of the firearms sold today are semiautomatic. Will the taxpayers reimburse gun owners for the banned 400 million banned guns, or will the government just steal them?
I agree with you that some people shouldn't have them. How do we identify them? There are many people designated as prohibited possessors, felons etc. They buy stolen ones on the street or have their girlfriend carry it for them. Implementation is largely a failure.
The devil is in the details.
The anti-abortion crowd has a very powerful tool, ultrasound and pictures of the legally aborted that undeniably look like little humans. Cute as puppies and kittens. I see that more as vicious emotional punishment of women who had abortions for good reason than a preventative. Ending abortions is as vain a goal as getting rid of lethal weapons. They have both been with us for all of recorded history and will continue to be so.
I must admit, I've grown a bit weary of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴, but Steve has an enormous following which I neither have nor seek, so I leave it to his consideration and motivation. My comments are generally about the idea presented in the commentary than the words written in the exchange when it comes to 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 since I have nothing to add to that which has not already been said.
The real topic of this commentary is "Is this person on my side" which is an idea worth discussion.
I agree with Miguelito it's time to walk away from the entire "trans" issue. There is nothing more to say. You have made your case clearly already about women's "spaces" and the discussion is going in circles. The self-inflicted backlash article made all your points and there really is nothing more to add (I certainly have nothing more to add either, and I am glad to not be working in an office where some twit turns every discussion to "my gender identity").
On the one side there are the bigots who are not going to give any ground because their bigotry is the foundation of identity; on the other side you have a bunch of fanatic liars whose lives are dedicated to growing the ranks of a bunch of elective freaks who only care about being the center of attention.
For me the end of the argument can be very plainly stated; the great majority opting into the "trans" fad are not gender dysphporic. And a core tenet of the gender ideology movement is that dysphoria is not prerequisite for being "trans."
This is like someone with no African ancestry claiming to be black. It is, plainly and simply, not true. To hell with them. To hell with non-binary, to hell with "trans" ideology, to hell with "they." It's a stupid fad and it will die out.
The real ones? The 5000 or so who really are dysphoric? Full support. The other 99.9% with their rage and their absurd claims can go to hell.
Why waste any more time on it?
"Why waste any more time on it?"
Yeah, believe me, I'm no more interested in endlessly writing about the question of whether a male can transubstantiate into a woman than you are in reading it.
The only reason I bother to speak about this ideology at all is that young, predominantly gay kids are being medicalised by it and vulnerable women, especially in prisons, are being traumatised by it. And most people, many of whom I believe are genuinely good, are too afraid to say anything because they've been convinced that criticising gender ideology is equivalent to hating trans people.
But yes, basically, I agree with you. The argument can be very simply stated. And already has been. The reason I repeat the point is that a great number of people still don't see this issue as clearly as you do and repetition is needed to make some people understand a point.
Also, as Dave points out below, this conversation, while ostensibly about trans issues, was really a way for me to talk about the guilt by association that plagues our discourse (another reason why I think many people can't think clearly about these issues). We need more liberal voices talking about this. Because otherwise it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point.
The only reason I think you should continue towrite about this is because you do have a substantial readership on Medoim, where the "trans" activists have complete dominance over the site, and you somehow have a knack for writing without getting kicked off by frivolous accusations of "transphobia."
What I meant was that to the relatively small readership you have on substack, the issue is exhausted. Mind you I am not complaining.
If I may suggest, I think that taking the trouble to separate the authentically transphobic from the fad-riders is a productive approach. I think their claim that gender dysphoria is not prerequisite to claiming "trans" is a critical weakness of their ideology since that establishes beyond doubt that most of them are just in it for attention.
My perspective on this forum may be unique in that I have known a number of genuine transsexuals before the "trans" fad; this doesn't protect me from their tiresome accusation but it does enable me to lean on the 99:1 difference between the fakes and the genuine.
I do think the activists have gone too far, their ideology is nuttier than MAGA and the "definition of woman" thing and Lia Thomas' unfair advantage are turning people away from the extremity of "woke."
Your choice. But I would lean hard on the position that dysphoria is optional because that means the other 99% are only in it for special attention. And I think the "claiming to be black with no African ancestry" is a powerful point.
I just received a hate speech suspension email from Roger he/him over a non-hateful disagreement with the premise of a story. They win. No more trans comments or stories for me.
I responded to this on my phone but for some reason my response appears as a separate article, above.
I was kicked off again too, no email though, and I had not been on there for weeks. Mostly I responded to drivelous software articles and got tons of claps.
I didn't get kicked off the platform. A couple of comments were "suspended" and I was told my distribution limited (shadow ban) and account suspension next up.
He sent the policies on hate speech and in my opinion none of them applied to my comments.
The best thing for me would be to add trans articles to my don't read this crap list. Honest communication with trans people is as rare as it is with "dear white people" and "patriarchy" authors. Best to avoid them like dog shit on the sidewalk.
I wrote long ago that "a trans woman is biologically male," and this was called hate speech. That was several bannings ago. Bigotry is not prerequisite; all it takes is some rage case yelling "transphobia."
It will not be easy getting out of the "trans" recommendations. They will keep coming. Medium seems to have completely crossed over into two topic of discussion:
1) "trans" activists expressing their rage
2) junior software developers who think they have everything figured out
"it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point."
This is something I struggle with daily. This is the solitary right wing position with which I identify, but the more I see of "trans" the greater becomes my loathing of it. Not only of the attention freaks incessantly making themselves the topic of conversation but the absurdity their beliefs, and the strident suppression of any and all debate by the activists.
Take puberty blockers. There is no question but that they do harm, yet even well-educated people who work with and prescribe them insist that they are as harmless as pausing song playback on an iPod. Research into the harm of transitioning is vehemently suppressed and researchers who don't come to activist-approved conclusions have their careers ruined and receive death threats.
What few longitudinal studies have been done on the transitioned show very high suicide rates 7-10 years later, but all we hear about is suicide among non-transitioned teens who were, incidentally, unhappy and miserable people before they even thought about "trans."
As much as with COVID, I don't think we have even begun to see the long term harm this is doing.
"𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺."
At risk of sounding like the "everything is caused by X" crowd, I think that the struggle is properly the avoidance of viewing individuals as a part of a monolith with a "not all of them" is the question, "What percentage of them?"
Last week I went to Texas for an uncle's 90th birthday. A huge reunion (for me) of extended family. Nobody ruined the Thanksgiving turkey dinner or the birthday Texas barbeque with political talk, but I did have some one-on-one conversations. Mostly steadfastly conservative, with one exception, nothing like the twitter talking point crowd. Their main commonality is economic with the Regonesque thought, "Are you doing better under this or that administration?" You could add, crime and catch and release policies of Democratic administrations. They have a point, but those are probably not the right-wing positions you are thinking of.
The right-wing things that keep me out of their club relate to the none of my business religious stuff. Abortion, same sex marriage, non-heterosexuality, religious government (Christian Nationalism), etc. I don't object to anyone's religion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", but don't demand that others conform.
As you likely know about me, I have no allegiance to any one tribe though my views lean heavily against those of conservatives. But there are some areas e.g. personal responsibility where I lean more their way (what they say, I mean, not how they fail to carry it out).
But the better-off thing is so simpleminded, as though who is currently president is the only factor affecting quality of life.
Crime? Declining more or less steadily since the Civil War, but listen to the right and we are in a hellscape worsening every day, but hey let's not do anything about guns.
Illegal immigration? Who allowed/created the conditions that are driving them out? The cartels that make northern Mexico so dangerous buy all their guns in Texas.
Try telling a conservative any of this.
As for religion, I am about fed up with this and as I see how much more it inspires hate than inspires charity, I see it more and more as humanity's childhood toy that needs to go back in the toybox, or on a shelf like the Steiff tigers I have had all my life and want to be buried with me.
People desire simplicity. We know that correlation need not be an indication of causation, but it does indicate an area that needs to be examined thoughtfully.
Crime is rising rapidly in my neighborhood, including violent crime. Currently on my citizen ap, person assaulted .7 mi away. I see reports of assault, strong arm robbery, and burglaries on it every day. If things keep going the way that they are going I might decide to arm myself when going out. I don't relish the idea of going to a Quik-Trip for gas to feel like going thru the wire on a combat patrol.
For most of America's existence, migrant workers went back and forth across the border freely benefiting all. Tightening the border caused people to not want to risk it every year so they brought their families and stayed. A high percentage of my neighbors are Spanish speaking Mexicans. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the mass border crossings including fentanyl smugglers, one of the causes of crime in my neighborhood. We need better work permit procedures for migrant workers.
We disagree on guns. There are so many in America that attempts to remove them will only affect the law abiding. A practical view, rather than a wish. One of my right leaning views is that unilateral disarmament is unwise. The fact that guns have been a part of my life since childhood probably biases things.
Your views on religion are understood, I just can't bring myself to trash family and friend relationships over disagreement about religion or politics. I just don't agree and if there is chance for real discussion I'll take it, but I won't force it.
I won't comment on the fentanyl, but the great majority of drug smuggling is marijuana. Plenty of people are ODing on fentanyl they get in the USA and my impression is that this is just another Republican bogeyman, but I don't have the figures.
You know full well that conservative Americans are not going to agree to any migrant worker program any more than they are going to take jobs picking fruit. That ship has sailed. It used to work but then Republicans turned immigration into one of their many fuels for hate. They go into rage if they hear a foreign language.
If violent crime is increasing, what do you think the reason is? Every time they turn on the TV they are stoked into resentment and rage, and guns are a step away from vending machines.
You've seen the graphs and the maps and you know as well as I that the states with the most lax gun laws have the most gun death. You know how many thousands have been shot just in the last few months. You know how much different it is in countries that don't have that psychotic Second Amendment. And I know you are smarter than you are sounding here with that tired "only outlaws will have guns" stuff.
If things keep going on this way, everyone will have to go armed all the time, everywhere, even if they hate guns. And the deaths will keep rising as conditions get worse (we are not far away from droughts raising the price of food above the rent/mortgage; when people are really hungry, not just "ready for supper," things are going to get a lot worse).
Yes there is a gun cult and yes there are many who would take on the cops rather than give up their arsenals. I can't bring myself to shed too many tears for people like that.
The gun culture and the proliferation of people with enough guns to mount an invasion is something we are going to have to deal with sometime, and by letting it get as far as it has with nutjobs like Gov. Abbott we have let all the better options expire. As with AGW, the longer we wait the worse and the more inhumane the solutions are going to be.
I do understand what you're saying; you've been in combat, I haven't; you grew up with guns, I didn't; you don't ever want to find yourself helpless in the face of an armed intruder, I don't entertain scenarios like that. I respect your opinions on a lot of issues and I in no way regard you as a gun kook.
But America has millions of gun kooks and we need to take their guns away, and that cannot be done as long a the damned things are freely available.
Religion will dwindle. Fundamentalists are too much its face and in a lot of Europe religion affiliation is on life support. I do know a few people who are moved to goodness by it, but we both know that they are outnumbered by the religious bigots and psychos like Amy Barrett.
With increasing marijuana legalization and the fact that meth and fentanyl can return higher dollar amounts on much less bulk I suspect that marijuana is no longer the top drug coming across. This year in the Phoenix PD's biggest drug bust it was one million fentanyl pills worth orders of magnitude more money than the same volume of pot. The thing is marijuana isn't a direct cause of death. I don't dismiss it as a political talking point. Both parties have talking points that are a mixture of truth, hyperbole and BS.
Migrant workers. I guess I could ask which conservatives and what percentage? Not a monolith. Some Republican conservatives think that the Democrats favor open borders under the assumption that they will vote for democrats. They might change their mind as the number of "minority" yellow dog Democrats continues to decrease. More a matter of partisan politics rearing its ugly head than racial bigotry? I don't know the ratio.
Guns. In some/many ways I agree with you, implementation is the turd in the punchbowl. I don't have a solution. The current method for identifying kooks is arrest records which are sealed for the minors who shoot up their school. Legal gun purchase is stricter than at any time in my life. At one time I could order a gun from Shotgun News and have it shipped to a kitchen table FFL friend. Those days are long gone. Stolen firearms are a commodity.
Most "gun deaths" are suicides and most of them are men. Women typically choose intentional overdosing on pills. Would the disappearance of firearms reduce the suicide rate? I don't know but I doubt it would make a big difference.
Religion is fading. I don't know the ratio of goodness vs. bigotry. Before I retired, I sat in a lunch table group comprised of a Catholic who was far more open minded than the stereotype, a protestant fundamentalist, a bisexual wink and a nod pagan and me, a marginal Buddhist. Sounds like the start of a joke without the rabbi. We were able to have civil discussion about all things. No racists, the fundamentalist was strongly anti-abortion, and a marriage is between one man and one-woman guy. My none of my business who you love and want to spend your life with didn't sour our friendship. Given the heterosexual divorce rate I don't see how same sex marriage is going to do any damage. His reference came from his religion. The pagan was in the closet about his sexuality although he had confided in me. I'm safe to confide in.
The point of that paragraph is that while my personal experience is not a viable statistic, my circle includes more conservatives than you or most in this group of people which probably gives me a more charitable view of them than you although I can understand since you have most likely faced more bigotry than me.
Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides and firearm suicide is 90% effective; other forms, 10%. Cut your wrists you are likelier to cripple your hands than die.
About 41% (last I checked) of Americans own guns, yet there are 3-400 million of them in private possession, which means a lot of people own arsenals, in no way defensible as self-protection. Some people went out and bought five new guns every time Obama got something through Congress. People like that are sick, sick, sick.
I never said it was be easy, not with the intensity of fanaticism around them, even having one's children murdered doesn't shake RKBA devotion much. What I did say is that we have to start now, and I don't mean performative crap like raising the assault rifle age to 21, I mean a great restriction on ownership. At the time you could mail order them we didn't have tens of millions of clinically insane people one trigger away from turning kindergartners into hamburger.
OK so you have known some fundamentalists who were not crazy. So have I. But we both know better than to be on the next one we meet being sane and reasonable.
The abortion thing: this is garbage. Same people who say aborting an eight-cell blastula is murder will stridently oppose a nickel of tax on Elon the Mess to keep the born baby fed for a week. This is just own-the-libs/conservative-membership stuff, like Trump Won.
Of the successful suicides in my world, one was a firearm, the others; single vehicle "accident" (left room for doubt for his family), poison, pills (overdose), and one hanging. Where there is a will, there is a way.
With regard to arsenals. Many gun owners own more than one gun. Hunters will typically own a .22 rimfire for small game and inexpensive plinking, a shotgun (birds and other game), a high-powered bolt action rifle for large game, a pistol for protection, a semiautomatic sporter rifle for many utility occasions (hunters are moving away from bolt actions). That's five and a common number for hunters. Some people collect more like guitar players collect guitars. You might call that an arsenal, but I wouldn't.
An obstacle that I see for gun control is the obsession with "assault weapons." You are more likely to be killed by fist, feet or other personal weapons than any rifle, let alone a so-called assault rifle. When I was on active duty there was nothing with that designation in the military, it is a political phrase. For some people it is cosmetics. Black, looks military, has a detachable magazine, etc. where the restrictions are absurd. The real desire is to ban semiautomatic firearms in general, but probably something like 90% of the firearms sold today are semiautomatic. Will the taxpayers reimburse gun owners for the banned 400 million banned guns, or will the government just steal them?
I agree with you that some people shouldn't have them. How do we identify them? There are many people designated as prohibited possessors, felons etc. They buy stolen ones on the street or have their girlfriend carry it for them. Implementation is largely a failure.
The devil is in the details.
The anti-abortion crowd has a very powerful tool, ultrasound and pictures of the legally aborted that undeniably look like little humans. Cute as puppies and kittens. I see that more as vicious emotional punishment of women who had abortions for good reason than a preventative. Ending abortions is as vain a goal as getting rid of lethal weapons. They have both been with us for all of recorded history and will continue to be so.
I must admit, I've grown a bit weary of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴, but Steve has an enormous following which I neither have nor seek, so I leave it to his consideration and motivation. My comments are generally about the idea presented in the commentary than the words written in the exchange when it comes to 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 since I have nothing to add to that which has not already been said.
The real topic of this commentary is "Is this person on my side" which is an idea worth discussion.