posted on February 21, 2021 07:29 PM by
u/queerbees
20
u/200fifty28 pointsat 1613936391.000000
fwiw, I interpreted that quote in the article more as that kind of
libertarian “I just don’t see why this should be an issue, let’s not let
The State regulate bedrooms” thing, with the ‘vague annoyance’ being the
feeling of “this shouldn’t be an issue, everyone should agree to let gay
people do what they want.” (I believe the exact phrasing was ‘vague
annoyance that the question of gay rights comes up,’ which is
ambiguous in a very rationalist-y way)
Obviously that’s not the best position ever to have on gay rights
(strong “I would rather not have to think about it” vibes) but I think
it was just supposed to be an edgy way of framing “doing the bare
minimum to not be homophobic”, written such that, when people get
confused about what it means, they can go “aha! you took my words out of
context, how dare you interpret me in bad faith”
From my experiences with social-conservative libertarians, it's both opposition to the state in the bedroom *and* a unspoken wish for gays to go back to the closet, or at least to 'keep it away from me.' These aren't mutually exclusive. A good amount of libertarianism is freedom for others in exchange for freedom from others.
Oh, for sure. And I think the other stuff linked in this thread makes it clear that Scott's support for gay people is not quite as unconditional as he may present (that aids thing... jesus.) But I think *he thinks* that as a libertarian he supports gay rights 'by default', which is why I'm assuming the quote refers to libertarian acceptance of gay people rather than being an out-and-out admission of homophobia.
Also notable: when reactionaries ask him to consider historical context, he will. But this is the only time I can recall him changing a general theory based on specific historical examples. (Normally it’s “parable parable analogy racism.”)
*(That being said, there are definitely wrong ways to come to
“correct views.”)
**I guess I am saying that I don’t think he’s actually “good” on this
topic, just maybe (perhaps) more circumspect with how he writes and
maybe has some sympathies with trans people in a way that he doesn’t
with gay people. But I don’t know! Scott likes to obfuscate what he
really believes.
Hey, he turned people around with that topic, that is pretty good. (I had a rant about the transphobia inherent to rationalism shown specifically in that topic, but it convinced people. So the post might be good/not as bad, as it does convince some Rationalists that trans people are ok).
E: ~~so if anybody sees that rant, give me a shout so I can edit in a link to that.~~ fixed ti.
That's the SSC post I have seen referenced most often by seemingly decent people, which confuses me because in order to get to "stop trying to science away the existence of trans people" he goes through "European powers carving up Africa wasn't a morally bad thing but actually necessary" and paradoxically "transphobes aren't actually hateful and their ideas are just as valid as the negation of those ideas, but they are overly concerned about language games." My guess is that people ignore his entire argument and read his thesis as "if your scientific theory doesn't allow for the existence of trans people then your theory is wrong" which he never says and isn't even really consistent with his argument.
It actually kind of makes me sad that for some people this seems to be the best pro-transgender argument they've ever read: it shows how much work the LGBT+ community has to do in outreach and education.
fwiw, I interpreted that quote in the article more as that kind of libertarian “I just don’t see why this should be an issue, let’s not let The State regulate bedrooms” thing, with the ‘vague annoyance’ being the feeling of “this shouldn’t be an issue, everyone should agree to let gay people do what they want.” (I believe the exact phrasing was ‘vague annoyance that the question of gay rights comes up,’ which is ambiguous in a very rationalist-y way)
Obviously that’s not the best position ever to have on gay rights (strong “I would rather not have to think about it” vibes) but I think it was just supposed to be an edgy way of framing “doing the bare minimum to not be homophobic”, written such that, when people get confused about what it means, they can go “aha! you took my words out of context, how dare you interpret me in bad faith”
Just gonna drop this here…
At first I wanted to post about someone’s having come to accept trans people as a consequence of rationalist writing as being worthy of sneer—but who am I to suggest there is a “right way” to come to the right view.* But as a cis gay man, I can’t but feel a little “annoyed” by irrationalist anti-queer homophobia.**
*(That being said, there are definitely wrong ways to come to “correct views.”)
**I guess I am saying that I don’t think he’s actually “good” on this topic, just maybe (perhaps) more circumspect with how he writes and maybe has some sympathies with trans people in a way that he doesn’t with gay people. But I don’t know! Scott likes to obfuscate what he really believes.
Where is this quote from?