Why conservatives and liberals can’t talk to each other

It is often referred to as a rhetoric vs. dialectic divide, but even people tossing those two words around don’t really understand them, so let’s put it a different way with smaller words.

Conservatives are info junkies and like information for its own sake.  Thus, they believe that bringing facts, data, information (even of the unfactual infotainment sort) into a discussion should be persuasive to liberals.  They get very confused when liberals argue for x in one comment/remark and argue against x ten minutes later or six comments later in the same thread.  But liberals aren’t interested in information, even if it confirms their biases.  They are strictly about protecting their self-image as morally elevated and intellectually sophisticated.

Global warming/climate change is a great example.  Most liberals don’t realize that the average skeptic’s position is not that carbon isn’t being emitted, but that the side effects (feedbacks) of the carbon emitting are not as large as the favored models claim.  This is a more complex argument, but it’s one that is based on considering the data that is actually there regarding climate modeling and climate measuring/analysis.  Liberals believe that global warming skeptics don’t believe carbon exists.  Or even more simply that skeptics “hate science” or “don’t realize the SCIENCE is SETTLED”. And this is because such factless hilarity preserves their mental image of themselves as informed, morally suasive individuals who reasoned their way to the correct social display.  The idea that the skeptic position is about confirming an anomaly’s existence rather than declaring the anomaly “settled” without such confirmation is anathema.

Liberals can’t talk to conservatives because conservatives want discourse and discussion (information exchange).  Conservatives can’t talk to liberals because liberals want reassurance that they are following the right moral consensus (power exchange).  Yep, I went there!


5 reasons why it’s good (and traditional) for SAHMs to pay for housecleaning.

  1. Establishes a consistent and reliable baseline that suits your household.
  2. Helps train you, the SAHM, in the classic art of delegation. Delegating frees a SAHM up to do more complex organizational tasks and decorating to make the house more of a home.  Modelling specialization is healthy and a sign of civilization.
  3. Makes it easier to teach the children basics of housecleaning because you aren’t worn out from constant maintenance/fire-putting-out cleaning.  SAHMs who try to do it all have a much harder time raising children who have any experience with household chores.  The kids just get used to watching Mamma drudge through everything.
  4. Provides employment and builds community relations by keeping money in the community and by not being as strict an employer/employee setup, but something more casual and with the opportunity to build acquaintance and properly ordered mingling of social classes.
  5. Shows the children there are many ways to make a living that are respectable and decent paying and strikes a tiny but noticeable blow at the modern cult of the makework desk job as only “real” job.

Why a confinement model of pregnancy is pro-woman

It is kinder and less stressful in contrast to the American mule thing.  Under a confinement model, pregnant women aren’t forced into the standard of trying to match the ones who can do All The Things in every trimester and who don’t appear to even know what morning sickness is.  Instead, every pregnant woman is given the benefit of the doubt and not burdened with additional expectations that she appear in public or do a lot of physical labor.

Other people in the community come to the pregnant woman.  The pastor or priest comes to visit, she isn’t expected to waddle into church with a passel of younguns behind her.  Other women visit and the expectations for the state of the house are very different, because the time to grow the baby is considered important all by itself.

There has been a lot of historical variation in the confinement model, and it mostly involved waiting until a baby bump was likely for what should be obvious reasons.  But there is a tenderness to it and a preservation of women’s space and a women’s sphere that is sorely missing from modern American norms regarding pregnancy.

A broad standard that builds rest and healing into the natural course of pregnancy, labor and the postpartum period seems pretty pro-woman to me.

Alfie and the failure of the dissident right to ground itself historically.

The dissident right, manosphere, neoreaction, dark enlightenment, orthosphere, etc, whatever you want to call the giant tent of weird subcultures that are conservative-liking but not terribly conservative in thought all have the same problem.

They don’t appear to read or watch fiction made in the 20th century.  And they don’t read fiction from the 18th and 19th centuries.  They read and recite thirdhand commentary on commentary at best from three or four writers, and this results in many of them believing silliness such as PUAs being a brand new entity in the world, invented with the interwebs.

Alfie (1966) shows otherwise.  It put Michael Caine on the map and it might as well be called “PUAs: Behind the Mask”, because it is almost half a century old and reveals all the general spiritual decay behind the PUA front of insouciance and skirt-chasing in a way that blows any of the blogs about such things right out of the water.  It also reveals that the PUA pushing a guru system thing is hardly new, although Alfie certainly wasn’t making money off it.

But think about that one.  “Red pill” info about women *and men* was known and put into a mainstream British film in the mid-1960s.  If any of these self-proclaimed enlightened ones ever bothered to pay attention to media through the decades, they’d see that what they seem to think is a brand new round thing has been rolling along without them for decades.

Likewise, just reading fiction at all would reveal to them that a lot of the beliefs they have regarding how “realistic” they are about human nature are neither original, insightful nor true.  It’s so strange.  They are like very odd, very confused SWPLs.  No history, no sense of the past, and no understanding of how utterly ignorant this makes their proclamations and declarations of wanting to restore and honor same look.  At least the regular SWPLs think the solution is to keep moving forward and constantly redo the stuff that didn’t work.  These guys don’t want to do that, but lack the historical grounding to propose coherent or sound alternatives.

It’s not like this sort of fiction is being kept under lock and key by the liberal cabal.  It’s all hiding in plain sight.


Mindless defense of business interests doesn’t help conservatives


In this article about ridiculously high property taxes in Austin (excerpted or copy-pasted from a paywalled newspaper, it’s not entirely clear), the commenters are all lol liberalz iz dum, but don’t see that it’s commercial property owners who are milking the system to get Other People’s Money to pay for their services on the backs of single family homeowners.  This type of reflexive implicit defending of business interests doing the same thing environmental and social justice groups do in large cities is a big obstacle to conservatives having a shot at normal life.  Conservatives should actually be putting on their small government hats here and asking why it’s ok for commercial property owners to game the appraisal system to avoid millions in taxes.

Instead, every link I found referencing the original paywalled article was from a conservatively oriented site and consisted of laughing at the homeowner who was not really that silly.  SFHs should not be bearing disproportionate costs of local services at all, even if they vote for increased services.  Yes, I said it.  Even if someone votes for more taxes, they shouldn’t bear a disproportionate amount relative to their own property’s market value.  This is what’s going in Austin.  Commercial interests (developers and medium to large corporations) are skating by and paying taxes on a fraction of their market value and all these supposed conservatives can say is that “a woman is stupid, hahaha”.  A system where voting homeowners have 40% of the property but pay 60% of the taxes is not really a time to tribally laugh at liberals.  It’s time to maybe be serious and ask why property taxes seem to be a type of tax that routinely has this kind of death spiral and regulatory capture.

Conservatives also might pause to ask why Republicans are the ones pushing all those exceptions through in Austin, though the exceptions for commercial interests also happen in blue states and counties.   I also find the lack of concern for individual home owning citizens very telling coming from people who are generally fulsome in their praise of single family households.

ETA 6/4/14: the paywalled article got unlocked after the mainstream right wing (Hot Air, Instapundit and the like) got the tribal bit in their teeth and rushed to gloat collectively.  So that happened.

4 facts about the black American unmarried birth rate of 72 percent.

  1. The peak hit early on (prior to the crack wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s) and stabilized.
  2. There was a collapse in actual births.
  3. The percentage of illegitimate births stayed the same even as the maternal demographics became approximately 33% foreign-born.
  4. Higher abortion rates aren’t driving the decline in live births.  Women, even black women are having fewer abortions concurrent with fewer live births.  And the abortion rate was mostly decreasing even as there was a small overall increase in the illegitimacy rate.

So all the narratives are misleading, from the idea that the rate’s been steadily increasing over time to the one that black women are popping out zilions of illegitimate babies for the welfare cash.

The data is from the CDC’s assorted pdfs of births, abortions, illegitimacy rates and immigrant status of mother.

Black women are the canary in the coal mine on this very interesting side effect of the sexual revolution.  Their birth rates crashed with easy access to contraceptives and abortions and never really recovered even with massive immigrant replacement.  Roughly the same absolute number of black babies are being born as was the case FIFTY YEARS AGO.  Think about that one!

Related to this, there was a recent report with some quotes from the Guttmacher Institute that the overall illegitimacy rate is dropping from its peak of 41% of births and that women were having fewer abortions and also reporting fewer sex partners.

The high black illegitimacy rate is awful, but it’s been within a narrow range for several decades now, and isn’t a recent phenomenon.  Thus, any serious debates about it should really consider the actual data pattern rather than the inaccurate narratives about the data pattern.


A third, not sex-focused way to consider a wife’s body changes due to fertility and age

When it comes to conservative Christian chat about how to approach a wife’s body changes due to fertility and age, there are two common branches that suffer from being too sex-focused.

One is when (usually) women talk about staying slim/skinny/fit (sex focused).

The other is when (usually) men talk about how wifey will be friskier as a result of the hormonal and physical changes (obvs. sex focused).

But it is love in wartime.  The changes are something greater.  Women become completely different women. Their very skeletons change, widening in the shoulders and ribcage.  There is so much more change than just the lowering and widening of hips that most people think of as a result of bearing children. Many women change body type from pear to hourglass, or hourglass to apple, etc. Many times these changes are permanent, which is truly fascinating.

One can see it as one of the ways that two becoming one is revealed.  The wife’s very body changes in response to the challenges of marriage, motherhood and age.  The marriage bond itself remakes her flesh and bones.

It’s just another way to consider and cherish.  Just a thought.