Is anyone else confused?!

[mikbone]

I don’t even know where to start.

Also, I like to listen to audiobooks while on daily jogs / mt. biking.  I like fantasy sci/fi genre but recently the pronouns and same gender romance has me totally confused.  It surely doesn't help the plot and I just tune out cuz it truly has me baffled.

Homosexuality used to be like 4% of the population.  I have no idea what it is now but I assume higher. 

From current TV and novels one might concluded that it was > 50%.
 

Anyone worried about perpetuation of the species?

[mikbone]

Guess she was wrong.  I think… maybe?  🤔

Or it could just be two gay dudes dressing up like girls.

What is your take?

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by mikbone

[laronius]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:04 PM, mikbone said:

Guess she was wrong.  I think… maybe?  🤔

Or it could just be two gay dudes dressing up like girls.

What is your take?

 

I think the attack on free speech is the more concerning issue here. I recognize that not all countries have codified freedom of speech, but even in our country we see this same attitude springing up.

[Carborendum]

On 5/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, mikbone said:

Anyone worried about perpetuation of the species?

Only when they start forcing women to have abortions.

As things are now, the leftists will breed themselves out of existence.  Conservatives should have as many kids as their physiology and economics allow (even if it means sacrificing some luxuries).  But they need to raise their children in the Lord's way.

"LGBT" stuff was just "something that exists."  Now it is preferred and taught and sometimes enforced (Jazz Jennings).

Abortions are simply "a right" to exercise "choice."  But I have known women who were pregnant and the doctors tried to talk them into an abortion when there was nothing wrong.  The doctors simply thought the mother was too young or they weren't economically ready... Basically lifestyle choices were causing doctors to try talking them into an abortion.

We only had our first in a hospital.  But since my wife almost died because of their negligence, we decided to use midwives.  The next two were by one midwife who was wonderful.  Then we moved to Colorado.  We hired a pair of midwives who seemed nice enough.  But with our 7th child, one midwife retired.  The other told us that she could no longer support us in our lifestyle choices.  I delivered the baby myself at home.  And he is the most devious kid in the family.  Maybe the midwife was right. 

Now take a look at society today.  It seems pretty clear that there will be more and more pressure to have abortions for any condition (e.g. women get too tired and can't work as much when pregnant).  And look at how many people are ridiculing women who choose to be "trad-wives".  The very fact that "trad-wife" is a term is a big sign of where things are going.

We need to out breed them and keep them out of public schools.

[Guest Godless]

On 5/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, mikbone said:

I don’t even know where to start.

Also, I like to listen to audiobooks while on daily jogs / mt. biking.  I like fantasy sci/fi genre but recently the pronouns and same gender romance has me totally confused.  It surely doesn't help the plot and I just tune out cuz it truly has me baffled.

Homosexuality used to be like 4% of the population.  I have no idea what it is now but I assume higher. 

From current TV and novels one might concluded that it was > 50%.
 

Anyone worried about perpetuation of the species?

I think an accurate description of what we're seeing is an increase in LGBTQ identification as a result of increased LGBTQ acceptance. It's hard to say how many LGBTQ people were among us 50 years ago because most of them were deep in the closet for safety reasons. It's very likely that the percentage of LGBTQ people hasn't increased as much as the people who are openly LGBTQ now that it's relatively safe to come out of the closet.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Now take a look at society today.  It seems pretty clear that there will be more and more pressure to have abortions for any condition (e.g. women get too tired and can't work as much when pregnant). 

I think you're misunderstanding the "choice" part of pro-choice. The anecdotal evidence I've seen or heard about women being pressured into having abortions almost always involves an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got his mistress pregnant.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And look at how many people are ridiculing women who choose to be "trad-wives".  The very fact that "trad-wife" is a term is a big sign of where things are going.

Personally, I have no issue with women who choose to live the "trad life", so long as it's truly her choice and not her husband's. That being said, it's worth noting that "trad" is often used as a not-so-subtle dog whistle for white nationalism. THAT'S why I tend to bristle at the term.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

almost always involves an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got his mistress pregnant.

I know it’s just anecdotal, but there was a conservative republican congressmen from Tennessee who was “pro life” but paid for his mistress to have like three abortions. You don’t need to be rabidly pro life to find that appalling. It’s sick. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/24/desjarlais-pro-life-congressman-who-urged-abortions-for-ex-wife-and-mistress-is-running-again

Having said that, I think the overwhelming majority of pro lifers wouldn’t even think of acting like that. 
 

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

Personally, I have no issue with women who choose to live the "trad life", so long as it's truly her choice and not her husband's. That being said, it's worth noting that "trad" is often used as a not-so-subtle dog whistle for white nationalism. THAT'S why I tend to bristle at the term.

One of the hardest things for conservatives to accept is that now that women have a choice to have fewer babies and work outside the house-they do exactly that. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a homemaker though. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by LDSGator

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think an accurate description of what we're seeing is an increase in LGBTQ identification as a result of increased LGBTQ acceptance. It's hard to say how many LGBTQ people were among us 50 years ago because most of them were deep in the closet for safety reasons. It's very likely that the percentage of LGBTQ people hasn't increased as much as the people who are openly LGBTQ now that it's relatively safe to come out of the closet.

I remember as a young man reading the arguments in the press over homosexual acceptance. The fear voiced by some on the right, and openly mocked in the press, was that the homosexuals were trying to convert the precious children to homosexuality! Homosexuality was to be openly portrayed as good and desirable! Children would be encouraged to "experiment" with homosexual relationships, or even PRESSURED into them! Next, they would be coming after our young children, maybe even five years old! These concerns were berated as foolish ignorance; the kinder responses were the homosexuals saying, "We would NEVER do such things. We aren't missionaries! We are just people trying to live our lives! Just leave us alone and let us be!" And fools like me were convinced. "Hey, live and let live. If they do immoral things, that's between them and their Creator, and not our business. They aren't coming after our children."

Yes, we were fools. To my utter astonishment, I look around today and see that all those things the ultra-conservative, hysterical right-wingers predicted have literally come true. Those hysterical idiots were in fact prophets, and the level-headed, rational, open-minded conservatives like me were fools.

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think you're misunderstanding the "choice" part of pro-choice.

True. "Choice" is a code word used by the Left. By the term, the Left really means "MY choice". When you choose the Left, you're choosing the right. That's protected, holy choice. When you choose the Right, you're choosing the wrong. Laws don't protect those evil people who choose the wrong.

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

The anecdotal evidence I've seen or heard about women being pressured into having abortions almost always involves an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got his mistress pregnant.

Funny how the Left chooses their anecdotal evidence, even more than the Right.

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Personally, I have no issue with women who choose to live the "trad life", so long as it's truly her choice and not her husband's.

Behold the noble protector of women! Always looking out for the wicked devices of those thar men.

Except, what is a woman? Some questions are better left unasked.

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

That being said, it's worth noting that "trad" is often used as a not-so-subtle dog whistle for white nationalism. THAT'S why I tend to bristle at the term.

"Dog whistle: (noun) A pretense used to criticize anything insightful or inoffensive that people on the Right say by pretending that they're really trying to say something nefarious."

[NeuroTypical]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

53 minutes ago, Godless said:

That being said, it's worth noting that "trad" is often used as a not-so-subtle dog whistle for white nationalism. THAT'S why I tend to bristle at the term.

"Dog whistle: (noun) A pretense used to criticize anything insightful or inoffensive that people on the Right say by pretending that they're really trying to say something nefarious."

Honestly, I've been trying to learn what "dog whistle" means for a year now without success.  When I'm off battling in culture wars on anonymous social media sites, I routinely get accused of blowing a dog whistle, and I really don't understand what's being said.  Usually I'm good at understanding meaning behind levels of ironic sarcastic meta-speak (like Vort is showing here), but with the term dog whistle, I'm still trying to find out what it actually means.

@Godless, can you help me?  Here are some examples of things people say to me in online arguments.  I'd love a plain English translation:

"Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug."
"[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]"
"Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off."

I'm doing things like asking someone to give me the definition of a woman, or arguing in favor of capitalism/against socialism or communism, or questioning/criticizing gender-affirming care surgical options for youth.

I mean, I don't think I'm a jackbooted alt-right nazi white nationalist, but I get comments like this directed at me at least weekly.  The recurring invitations to go drink bleach and d*e in a hole I can understand.  But there's some nuance here I'm missing.

Edited May 17, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug."
"[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]"
"Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off."

To be fair, @Godless wasn’t insinuating anything like that. Other leftists absolutely do but he (godless) lacks the meanness that other leftists have. 

I can’t imagine anyone here on the right ( @mirkwood, @Vortsubscribing to Nazism in my wildest dreams either. No one is accusing anyone here of that. 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

Just now, LDSGator said:

To be fair, @Godless wasn’t insinuating anything like that. Other leftists absolutely do but he (godless) lacks the meanness that other leftist have. 

Totally agree.  @Godless, I've never seen you do nasty stuff like this.  But you used the term, and I'm genuinely hoping you'll help me understand it.

[Guest Godless]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

I remember as a young man reading the arguments in the press over homosexual acceptance. The fear voiced by some on the right, and openly mocked in the press, was that the homosexuals were trying to convert the precious children to homosexuality! Homosexuality was to be openly portrayed as good and desirable! Children would be encouraged to "experiment" with homosexual relationships, or even PRESSURED into them! Next, they would be coming after our young children, maybe even five years old! These concerns were berated as foolish ignorance; the kinder responses were the homosexuals saying, "We would NEVER do such things. We aren't missionaries! We are just people trying to live our lives! Just leave us alone and let us be!" And fools like me were convinced. "Hey, live and let live. If they do immoral things, that's between them and their Creator, and not our business. They aren't coming after our children."

Yes, we were fools. To my utter astonishment, I look around today and see that all those things the ultra-conservative, hysterical right-wingers predicted have literally come true. Those hysterical idiots were in fact prophets, and the level-headed, rational, open-minded conservatives like me were fools.

The underlying theme here is that you view homosexuality as something bad and morally wrong. The "gay agenda" is less about evangelism and more about safety and acceptance. It's understandable that people with moral objections to an LGBTQ lifestyle would take issue with that. As I said, I firmly believe that the perception that LGBTQ identification has sharply increased is, at least in part, exactly that - a perception resulting from increased acceptance and understanding of LGBTQ community, which in turn has emboldened LGBTQ people who may have otherwise stayed in the closet. I believe that people feeling safe to express their identity is a positive thing, so long as the characteristics inherent in that identity don't harm anyone else.

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

Funny how the Left chooses their anecdotal evidence, even more than the Right.

Personally, I hate anecdotal evidence. It's a logical fallacy for a reason. But sometimes when you see something happen with noticeable consistency, it's appropriate to point it out, like the fact that an overwhelming majority of child predators seem to be cis men in positions of religious power.

 

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

Behold the noble protector of women! Always looking out for the wicked devices of those thar men.

Except, what is a woman? Some questions are better left unasked.

 

For the puposes of this discussion, I'm using your definition.

 

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Dog whistle: (noun) A pretense used to criticize anything insightful or inoffensive that people on the Right say by pretending that they're really trying to say something nefarious."

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Totally agree.  @Godless, I've never seen you do nasty stuff like this.  But you used the term, and I'm genuinely hoping you'll help me understand it.

A "dog whistle" is a term that is commonly (and predominantly) used by people who wish to promote nefarious ideas without using language that is universally recognized as bigoted or hateful. It's often a tricky concept to navigate because the terms in question can sometimes be used with innocent intent, as you stated.

To revisit the example I pointed out, "trad" is often, but not exclusively, used by people who wish to create self-sustaining communities based on the Western European tradition. "Western European", in this context, typically means white. I've found that a significant number of people who espouse these views do so because they fear "white replacement", the idea that white people will be bred out of existence within the next few generations unless white people form autonomous communities off the grid. This isn't anecdotal, btw, there are entire websites and publications dedicated to "trad-life", and the deeper you dig, the louder the dog whistles get.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

To revisit the example I pointed out, "trad" is often, but not exclusively, used by people who wish to create self-sustaining communities based on the Western European tradition.

There’s absolutely some truth to this, but most of the people I see using the term are Andrew Tate loving fans who punch dry wall and think girls break up with them because they are “too nice”. 

[zil2]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle

YouTube?   (Just gonna go back under my rock now.)

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

There’s absolutely some truth to this, but most of the people I see using the term are Andrew Tate loving fans who punch dry wall and think girls break up with them because they are “too nice”. 

Tate seems to have a lot of fans on Gab. Just sayin'. 😉

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Tate seems to have a lot of fans on Gab. Just sayin'. 😉

He’s a weak mans idea of what a strong man is.

[Guest Godless]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

YouTube?   (Just gonna go back under my rock now.)

I'll be honest, I don't understand that one either. Then again, I rarely abbreviate things in general. I feel like abbreviating words blunts their impact (especially profanities 😇).

Edited May 17, 2023 by Godless

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

YouTube?   (Just gonna go back under my rock now.)

yt is shorthand for white.  TikTok has a very limited amount of space for each comment, forcing such things into existence to enhance brevity while preserving conciseness.

(And kudos to you for keeping a healthy and comfortable living space.  I wouldn't think of it as living under a rock, I'd think of it as @zil2 moving towards the tree of life, holding on to the iron rod, while across the waters, you can hear NeuroTypical has infiltrated the 2nd floor of the great and spacious building, and everybody's megaphones seem to have plenty of battery life left.)

[Traveler]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:57 PM, mikbone said:

I don’t even know where to start.

Also, I like to listen to audiobooks while on daily jogs / mt. biking.  I like fantasy sci/fi genre but recently the pronouns and same gender romance has me totally confused.  It surely doesn't help the plot and I just tune out cuz it truly has me baffled.

Homosexuality used to be like 4% of the population.  I have no idea what it is now but I assume higher. 

From current TV and novels one might concluded that it was > 50%.
 

Anyone worried about perpetuation of the species?

I believe you are spot on in your reference to perpetuation of the species – meaning the human species.  The most scientific approach to understanding complex systems that is generally accepted is the use of Chaos Theory.  I am willing to discuss chaos theory because I have employed the fractal-based algorithms of chaos theory in my profession of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.

The reason this is called Chaos Theory is because that for complex systems to exist that all the parameters of the complex system must remain in balance.  When any individual parameter exceeds its particular threshold of balance then all the parameters will adjust as necessary to achieve a new balance.  The reason this is called chaos is because once and new balance has occurred it is theoretically impossible to return to the previous state.

There is not doubt that LGBTQ+ ideology is a parameter of human behavior, and that this parameter is significantly changing and directly related to human survival.   We know that if the entire human population were to modify behavior as defined by LGBTQ+ that humans would cease to exist within a generation.   I would point out this this application of chaos theory is in principle far more exact than the concept of concern for global warming or climate change. I personally cannot imagine a single possible benefit to the human race possible if the parameter of human reproduction crosses a threshold of balance.  I would be interested in any expression of a possible benefit to humanity.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I think an accurate description of what we're seeing is an increase in LGBTQ identification as a result of increased LGBTQ acceptance. It's hard to say how many LGBTQ people were among us 50 years ago because most of them were deep in the closet for safety reasons. It's very likely that the percentage of LGBTQ people hasn't increased as much as the people who are openly LGBTQ now that it's relatively safe to come out of the closet.

And I think your take is only a small portion of the reality we're seeing.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I think you're misunderstanding the "choice" part of pro-choice. The anecdotal evidence I've seen or heard about women being pressured into having abortions almost always involves an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got his mistress pregnant.

So, I'm an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got my mistress pregnant?  Thanks.  Now I know what you think of me.

 ******* I know you didn't mean it that way.  But I'm showing you an example of how useless and usually inaccurate it is to call something a dog-whistle.

Anecdotal. yes yes.  "almost always".  yes yes.

When is this pressure EVER justified? Anecdotal?  Why wasn't this "one outlier" fired and have his license revoked? They're telling doctors who refuse to perform abortions that they have to do so or lose their license.  Why is the opposite not also cause for revocation?

The fact that doctors were doing it at all just because the mothers WANT larger families and want them earlier in life was somehow a "medical decision"?  Since when?  All these families (that I still keep in contact with) have enjoyed very fulfilling lives.  And most of them are financially stable.  All the children well-adjusted (there are two exceptions from my sample size). There should never have been any pressure to get an abortion at all.  

Why would ANY doctor do this?

• There was a time when abortion was so abhorrent that no doctor would even think about it.
• Then there was a time when abortions were considered medical necessities for only the worst case scenarios.
• Then they were pushed on people who had made some bad choices where it would be a very difficult life fi they didn't choose it.
• Then they were conveniences.
• Now the mothers are ignorant ultra-conservatives if they don't choose an abortion before 30 years old.

2 hours ago, Godless said:

That being said, it's worth noting that "trad" is often used as a not-so-subtle dog whistle for white nationalism. 

You haven't looked back far enough.  I remember certain liberal social scientist (if you can call them that) way back in the 80s (TV interviews and round-tables.) using this term disparagingly against "old fossils" who can't keep up with the times.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, I'm an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got my mistress pregnant?  Thanks.  Now I know what you think of me.

 Nope. @Godless wasn’t accusing anyone here of doing that. It’s so far from what he was saying that I can’t help but wonder if you are purposely trying to not understand it. 

No one would accuse other posters here of doing that. Not myself, not @Godless. No one. And if they did, they’d be called out immediately. 

Way off base. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

like the fact that an overwhelming majority of child predators seem to be cis men in positions of religious power.

 

Hmmmm...having been involved in such investigations a time or two I would say that is not accurate.

[Guest Godless]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now the mothers are ignorant ultra-conservatives if they don't choose an abortion before 30 years old.

I have no idea where you're getting this conclusion from, but it's hyperbolic at best.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You haven't looked back far enough.  I remember certain liberal social scientist (if you can call them that) way back in the 80s (TV interviews and round-tables.) using this term disparagingly against "old fossils" who can't keep up with the times.

And google used to be a number (I mean, technically, I suppose it still is). The meanings of words can change.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

I have no idea where you're getting this conclusion from, but it's hyperbolic at best.

This is not a "conclusion."  This is specifically what a liberal told me because we had children when my wife was in her 20s. 

To the best of my memory her words were, "Well, you're both young and don't understand the realities.  It must be a religious thing.  People like you shouldn't be allowed to have kids.  You just don't know any better."  

And another liberal many years later told me that it was unhealthy for a my wife to have children after 35.  Both of these individuals were rude enough to give me the unsolicited advice that my wife should abort both.

And yet another person (without mentioning abortion) told me that it was unhealthy to have babies any closer than 5 years apart.  Well, do the math.  How many kids can anyone have?

3 hours ago, Godless said:

And google used to be a number (I mean, technically, I suppose it still is).

Yeah, it may not show up.  Not everything pre-1995 is available on the internet.  But I did hear people using it on some TV interview-type show.  I wish I could remember which one.

3 hours ago, Godless said:

The meanings of words can change.

You're still sticking with the dog-whistle accusation?  Then maybe you do really think I'm just an ignorant ultra-conservative and not worth listening to.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Carborendum

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You're still sticking with the dog-whistle accusation?  Then maybe you do really think I'm just an ignorant ultra-conservative and not worth listening to.

No. I don't believe that about you. As I said, "dog whistle" terms are often, but not always used to conceal nefarious ideas. Not all people who champion "trad life" are white supremacists, but I think it's important to recognize that a lot of them are. Whatever meaning may have applied to the term 40 years ago is obscure at best, and at worst has been co-opted by white nationalists.

Here's a parallel from my personal life experience. As a teen and young adult, I found myself immersed in skinhead culture as I navigated the punk/hardcore scenes in Baltimore and DC. A lot of people don't know this, but skinheads weren't always associated with Nazis. It started (I think in the 60s, maybe 70s) as a bunch of blue collar kids with shaved heads hanging out in their work boots and playing loud music. At some point, neo-nazis discovered that these working class hooligans were easy targets for xenophobic propaganda. The result is that the skinhead scenes got heavily infiltrated by Nazis. But there have always been skins who rejected the Nazi ideology, and they tend to be very vocally anti-racist because they know the assumptions that people will make about them otherwise. It's not fair to them any more than it's fair to non-racist trad-lifers that they're associated with something vile. I'm not saying that you're an ignorant bigot. I'm not even saying that you need to stop using the term "trad". I'm just pointing out that the term has some unsavory connotations attached to it that you may need to address from time to time the same way that, after ~20 years, I still have to explain to people that not all skinheads are Nazis.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

No. I don't believe that about you. As I said, "dog whistle" terms are often, but not always used to conceal nefarious ideas.

I'll address this, then I have to issue a correction.

Do you really believe that most conservatives are Nazis or skinheads?  (I'm assuming not)  Then why on earth do you believe that whenever a conservative says some of these phrases are dog whistles of the alt-right?  Many conservatives will simply say something because it is the most efficient way to communicate something.  I'd daresay that most of us don't even know that anything we're saying could be taken to be a dog whistle of any kind -- good bad or indifferent.

You have often touted outliers and anecdotal evidence.  Have you ever considered that a lot of these are also just outliers?

--- Now the correction.

I realized that my last post mixed up some of the lines from my previous post.  Let me run through it step-by-step.

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Now take a look at society today.  It seems pretty clear that there will be more and more pressure to have abortions for any condition (e.g. women get too tired and can't work as much when pregnant). 

I've told you about some personal experiences that I've had about this. I've got more.  But your response is:

10 hours ago, Godless said:

I think you're misunderstanding the "choice" part of pro-choice. The anecdotal evidence I've seen or heard about women being pressured into having abortions almost always involves an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got his mistress pregnant.

Since this was my personal experience, and you call such people "ultra conservative hypocrites" then the take away would be I'm an ultra-conservative hypocrite.

As I acknowledged before I recognize that you said "almost always".  But you can't discount outliers as worthy of ignoring it and then justify yourself by acknowledging outliers.  And then you did it again in this most recent post.  Outliers.  Very convenient.  I'll address that later.

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, I'm an ultra-conservative hypocrite who got my mistress pregnant?  Thanks.  Now I know what you think of me.

 ******* I know you didn't mean it that way.  But I'm showing you an example of how useless and usually inaccurate it is to call something a dog-whistle.

7 hours ago, Godless said:

I have no idea where you're getting this conclusion from, but it's hyperbolic at best.

So, since you said some statement that had a specific purpose, it was very easy to take it a completely different way than you intended it.  It even has logic to it as I've pointed out.  But you didn't mean it that way, did you?

The fact is that I've noticed a dichotomy of usage.  On the internet, I hear some "self-identifying" trad-wives calling themselves that because they are some sort of activist or other.  I've heard lots of liberals using the label as a pejorative.  Most conservatives never say it.

In real life, I've never heard it used at all except by one liberal in my circles.

Now: Outliers.

It is a very common method of justification to ignore outliers when they speak against you and emphasize them when they are for you.  This is neither left nor right.  Rather, it is just a human thing.  We all want to believe we're right.  So, if there's any evidence for our side (whether the preponderance or merely an outlier) we'll cling to it.

So, this is not something that is worthy of putting people down.  It is, however, a valid criticism.  So, when is citing outliers justified?

1. When the outlier says something special about the overall analysis, we should really study that outlier.

There was a study of human happiness which graphed happiness (y-axis) with some other trait (x-axis, sorry, I forget what was on this axis) that is usually associated with happiness. 

But one researcher noticed that there was an outlier group that was far outside the range of the line-of-best-fit.  It turned out that this group were the happiest of all.  They wondered why that group was different.  The reason was that according to their research, another trait that had not been linked to happiness was actually a better predicter of happiness than the previous x-axis.  So, then they studied that as the source of happiness.

2. When outliers are signs of variant groups.

Too many times we do studies and make rules -- even pass laws that are a one-size-fits all solution to a very complex problem.  We need to take a look at different approaches to the same problem with different groups.  Looking at outliers as groups helps us figure all that out.