> then the more effective position is to
(emphasis added)
I agree with you that people have the right to be upset, to moralize, etc. My insinuation was that it isn't effective as public policy, which is the extra step that moralizing conservatives seem eager to take.
I'm fine if they want to sit in the corner and whine, but if they're going to use this whining to enact policies that don't work, and that haven't worked despite decades of trying, then I'm going to push back, and yes, I'm going to be a little insulting, especially seeing as they have no problem berating the people that they don't approve of.
People who insist on maintaining a delusion despite evidence that it doesn't work, and despite examples of other policies in other places that produce better results annoy me. Why should I have to pay for the externalities of their stupid opinions when I'm not the one the one having them? (See, it sounds just as ridiculous from the other side)
I'm hard pressed to design a good, reproducible experiment on the question one way or the other.
> The field situation consisted of a park-bench discussion of a topical social issue, arranged by a public-opinion interviewer. Prepared experimental variations were introduced by one of the discussion partners, a confederate of the interviewer. In the critical variation, the confederate insulted the subject during discussion. In other variations, he tried to persuade but did not insult, or else simply gave certain arguments without intent to persuade. Attitude-change results supported the hypothesis of negative change in the insult condition.
Eleanor Gordon-Smith spent two years interviewing people who changed their minds, and suggests this:
> The strategy is this: Ask where people’s beliefs come from as well as what they actually believe.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-difficult-secr...
The paper has been cited only about 40 times in the half-century since it was written, but I found one recent interesting citation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327127198_The_Monta...
Uncivil remarks uniquely diminished the speaker’s reputation, and had little impact on the reputation of the targets of the attack, the perceived winner of the verbal exchange, the reputation of the speaker’s party, or the sense that the country is moving in the right direction. Incivility made the speaker seem less warm and did less to affect perceptions of dominance or honesty. This warmth deficit explained the reputational costs of incivility.
I'm skeptical of the study for a variety of reasons, mostly coming down to the issue of what people tell researchers vs what they actually do. But it's good to know that somebody is at least trying.
If I were trying to get moralizing conservatives to agree with me, then not insulting them would indeed be the first part of an effective strategy. However, I'm not trying to change minds, because that is also fruitless.
For the same reason that trying to convince ordinary people that their promiscuous lifestyles are bad won't actually change their behavior, trying to convince moralizing conservatives that their entire worldview is wrong isn't going to change their perspective.
This kind of person is not trying to achieve an effective outcome through policy, they're trying to use policy as a weapon against people they don't like. Debating the effectiveness of various policy options won't move that particular needle, so why bother?
This is a little problematic for me. You are basically saying people have a right to whine, but not a right to try to remedy the situation causing their whining.
Say you live in a fictional country X. Country X has a problem called "Raw Water Fever" where people get these massive chronic migraines because they take untreated stream water and squirt it up their butts with a baster (this is called "basting" - and gives a nice euphoric effect due to some yet-undetermined combination of native bacteria in the water reacting with gut bacteria). Previous efforts to get people in country X to use treated water fail because they complain the treated water doesn't produce any euphoria. The country also tried outright banning basting, and that was also ineffective.
So, the government decides that the right solution to this problem is to reach into your wallet to subsidize free per-use testing kits for the whole country. These testing kits would be able to tell you whether the water you are about to squirt up your butt has the Raw Water Fever bacteria present.
If you protest, the government says that while are allowed to whine about them reaching into your wallet, that's about all you are allowed to do because they already attempted previously to ban basting and it was ineffective.
Are you cool with this, or would it leave a bad taste in your mouth? Now, say that basting is not country X's only source of problems, it has lots of other problems stemming from behaviors you don't partake in. The government wants to reach into your wallet for each of those problems too. How are you feeling at this point? Are you glad to give up your hard earned money to help citizens of country X continue their favorite behaviors safely? Or does it leave a bad taste in your mouth and make you want to move to a different country where the citizens' behaviors align more with your own?
Like just replace the word basting with the word sex in your example.
"The government tried outright banning sex"--sounds pretty ludicrous! Has any government even tried such a thing in all of history?
Personally, I welcome the prospect of my tax dollars being used to help people rather than kill and maim them. The amount each individual has to contribute for such a thing is likely incredibly low as well.
> Sex is something hardwired into people
This is an appeal to nature. We naturally want to do it, therefore we shouldn't try to resist it? There are many counter examples: violence, incest, tribalism, and other undesirable evolutionary behaviors are hardwired into people (and animals) too, yet our efforts to reduce/temper their influence and emergence can be quite effective (though not 100% effective). Why is sex any different? I think we could temper sexual activity with the right messaging (and more importantly, leading by example) to youth.
Something like "sex is something that should be reserved for a committed relationship, not a recreational activity you should do casually - the latter leads to a lot of problems in society. Nevertheless, the choice is up to you and here are the risks and things you need to know either way..." Obviously "accidents" would still happen, but the idea would be to address the root cause of sex-related issues in society instead of throwing your hands into the air and deciding to just treat the symptoms.
> violence, incest, tribalism, and other undesirable evolutionary behaviors
None of the explicitly mentioned things in this list are similarly essential to the continuation of humans and human civilization. Like violence may in reality be unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it's strictly necessary.
But I do agree that appeal to nature alone isn't very strong. Like to me, I guess it's moreso what seems like extreme impracticality in trying to control people's sexuality to a finer degree than is already in place.
I agree trying to "control" people's sexuality is extremely impractical. That's why I think it needs to be more a cultural value that we collectively decide is worth teaching to kids (and leading by example), not something the government forces on us. I think that would work because it worked for me and my extended family as far as I can tell (with a few exceptions).
I would like to believe I have somewhat of a unique perspective on this. I was raised with the exact cultural values you talk about, and I ultimately chose to reject them (at least partially).
However, I do want to acknowledge what seems like a destabilizing, negative effect "hookup culture" or the like has had on society. Dating apps are part of this whole issue as well.
My own position is that I want to be in a committed relationship but never married. So I guess you could peg me as a serial monogamist.
Parent is responding to accusations of "conservative prejudice." That is its own moralizing.
You can make the pragmatic argument that it's pointless to try to control the risky behaviors of others, or to expect the people engaged in those risky behaviors to bear the cost of them. But it's pretty insulting to then disparage others as "prejudiced" for not liking this deal, while having no criticism of the behavior itself. "People are going to do what they want" -- well maybe some people want to be upset about subsidizing behavior they don't approve of.