Conservatism is a political ideology which is measurably associated with homophobia
I have to say that I doubt your premise here. I don’t think that homophobia even has a meaningful definition… let alone be measurable.
But let’s agree that for whatever reason, liberals support a gay agenda, and conservatives oppose it… generally speaking. I think that is clearly the case.
But what is missing is that you’re just not qualified to invent a disease as being the cause of the distinction between those that push an agenda and those that reject it.
It’s easier to invent a fake illness called “homophobia” than it is to actually listen to those that don’t support a gay agenda. In other words, it’s a “cheap shot”.
How would you like the accusation that your support for a gay agenda was only because your were a homophilliac?
Does that sound right to you? Isn’t it just a means to dismiss your position altogether and slap you with a label?
You bet it does.
RE: Milo saying Trans commit sex crimes at a much higher rate… is not answered by saying they ALSO have a larger victimization rate.
In fact, one can postulate that being a victim of a thing, might lead you to being a perpetrator as well. Don’t abused kids grow up to be abusers? Don’t children of broken homes end up having broken homes of their own?
Being the victim of a crime, is NOT the opposite of committing a crime.
The opposite of committing a crime is being lawful.
Re: Real repercussions for real human beings… Milo would say the same thing.
But he would suggest that the things his opponents say are the things that represent the real dangers where the most serious harm is done. He’d say that your concerns are trivial in comparison.
It’s not enough to assert that he harms people. Your assertions don’t count as evidence.
When Milo speaks, he generally says what harm his opponents are responsible for (or at least what is at stake), describes the nature of the harm and the mechanism behind it… and then describes the cure.
That’s a pretty comprehensive approach… so you’ll have to do much better than a simple assertion IMHO.
[EDIT: With regard to Milo’s comments on Trans people committing sex crimes, you were pointing at a distinction that I didn’t notice at first, and it’s really important that you pointed it out. I missed that Milo’s words were that Trans were “involved” in sex crime… and THAT is what made his statement technically correct. And YES! You are 100% right to blast that out of the water. It’s not a substantial statement when made that way. I made the mistake if hearing him say that they committed sex crimes disproportionately. 100% my bad.
I think the basis for your challenge of him is a strong one.
Now, for clarity… I think one has to go to Milo and say: “did you mean to say involved, or did you mean committed?” He seems to be TRYING to say committed… but he didn’t and he should clarify that for us.
Sorry for having missed that key distinction. You did make a reference to it!
Best,
R
P.S. This means that some of my argument above is not really relevant anymore… it’s correct (naturally :) just not relevant… so feel free to ignore that. I leave it for historical records of me totally missing the key point. Rare! :)