Yeah, I’m not trying to insult you. I think you’re suffering from schizophrenia. If you’re undiagnosed please seek help.

You’re genuinely schizophrenic, aren’t you?

I hope you get the help you need.

Lmao, I’m very scared of the conservative witch hunt coming my way. I wonder if it’ll be as violent as what you call for against conservatives.

You once again are showing much more of your intellectual capability within your critique then you are exposing any truth carried by your critique. If you can read that paper and come to the conclusion that conservatives don’t possess empathy you’re blinded by bias.

Ultimately you will never have an ounce of respect from any significant portion of the population because you routinely call for the exact action your fear monger conservatives will enact. The worst version of a conservative you could ever come up with is just you with a bible in hand.

In general, yes. Or I’d at least prefer it to lefties.

It’s almost like people protect their own interests over yours, the same way you do.

Is incredibly frustrating dealing with narcissistic, immature zealots who you happen to ideologically agree with. We need a party with people who can act like conservatives in interpersonal communication, and are far left ideologically, cause yall are annoying af.

It’s almost like there’s a reason that successful movements have an emphasis on peaceful protest.

You don’t speak for the left. You don’t speak for lefties. You don’t speak for progressives. You don’t speak for socialists. You speak for yourself, and you shouldn’t do that.

I don’t engage with anecdotes or hypotheticals, but here’s a paper from nature that should help. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0

The fact that you demonstrate zero empathy for conservatives while bemoaning “lack of empathy” is certainly a sight to behold. It’s no wonder no conservative will demonstrate empathy for you when you can fit their eradication.

I hope you know that every sentence you said about conservatives is just blatantly false and doesn’t do anything but paint you as completely unhinged. To be fair you already accomplished that so I guess it’s a moot point.

The statement that conservatives don’t experience empathy is genuinely among the dumbest things I’ve ever read. If you’re going to argue that the chance that some get some reward from good deeds, you’d better also not benefit at all from your good deeds. That includes feeling gratified. If you do get something out of it, and simply excuse it (as you should), but draw some arbitrary line to only include conservatives then you’re simply too immature and dysfunctional to participate in society.

Your insane views don’t do anything to critique conservatives, they only serve to show how dysfunctional your world view is. The left would be better off if you did the right thing and kept your thoughts to yourself.

No, they have separate values that make their priorities in this debate separate from your own.

So was your third paragraph meant as sarcasm then?

They’re only insults if they’re false statements. I’d sooner see you burned than most any conservative I actually know. Your inability to effect any real change in your everyday life and therefore feel the need to LARP political violence online is your own fault, not conservatives. Go volunteer at a local food pantry and save the world from reading more of your twisted delusions.

Let me reframe my original question. How does making gender neutral bathrooms neutralize conservatives concern over restrooms? That’s literally what they’re concerned about.

Was that someone who pushed back against your rhetoric? If so I’m happy to carry the mantle. The level of delusion required to think what you’re saying is okay should necessitate a fistful of anti-psychotics multiple times a day.

You don’t think I’m arguing in good faith? That’s certainly one way to look at this conversation. Your inability or unwillingness to read my comments in their entirety doesn’t constitute bad faith on my part. You’ve once again ignored my comment and made a completely seperate point that I’ve already addressed 3… goddamn times. I’m trying my best to remain cordial but you’re incredibly frustrating to debate with. If your reading comprehension is so low, or you’re unwilling to actually read my entire comments, then please stop commenting. At this point you are outright ignoring the majority of any of my given comments so that you can continue claiming very basic things I’ve addressed and refuted.

The fact you claimed I’m not acting in good faith is fucking unbelievable. Something something every accusation is a confession or something.

Maybe, I’m still reading through but even this has pretty strong sentiments against the first commenter’s.

Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).

Tbf it’s talking most about universalism vs parochialism so I could see where someone would infer that. I don’t think that’s what the paper is saying (so far) though.

No. I’ve stated multiple points in multiple different comments that bring this out of the realm of examples you brought us into. You can engage with any point you take issue with or agree with, I don’t care.

That is why I tried to steer us out of the realm of examples, you can make an example for your position no matter what your position is. Engage with any of my actual statements on the matter.

This is bad faith enough where I’m just going to respond with the same level of bad faith: so by your logic gender isn’t a part of someone’s identity?

So this is the second comment I’ve seen trying to apply a sentiment that doesn’t actually refute the claim, attempt to refute it. The ability to change your appearance isn’t mutually exclusive to allowances being a beneficial data point for identifying someone. Not only is it fringe, but we already have multiple laws that deal with intentionally hiding your identity from the state or law enforcement.

I clarified that in my previous comment.

I’ve also tried to steer us off this subject and into the realm of a debate centered on theory multiple times. If you’re unhappy with the example, please join me in not continuing to bring it up.

Do you have any thoughts on anything else I’ve said?

Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.

I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples. That seems misguided at best. No one claimed these are perfect data points for officers, only that they can help and are therefore warranted.

The information on IDs is the information officers have access to in their computers, it’s also the information dispatch has access to while giving a description. That is why having them on an ID in this particular example is important.

If you want to look at specifically why gender could be useful information in this one example, you can simply envision someone with a beard who identifies as female. The fact that their gender is female could inform an officer what they’d be wearing, where implying looking at the picture would guide the officer to assume the opposite.

This, again, is one example. As a general rule, more identifiers on an ID= a more effective ID, asking for specific examples and trying to reason them separately won’t change that, though we can do that if you’d like.

Can you source the studies that claim lefties prioritize self the least? Liberty conceptually is prioritizing yourself (or other individuals) over the good of society as an aggregate, so the idea that lefties would prioritize society so far above self is very counterintuitive.