Discussing 20 zoomer conservatives vs 1 millennial liberal

 Jubilee just dropped another debate, and god, this one is a dumpster fire. This one had tim miller, a liberal milennial I've never heard of, debating 20 zoomer conservatives. All in all, I don't think Miller did a good job, and the zoomers kinda tore him apart. This is in part because he overreached and tried to push controversial liberal positions on issues that I personally would have avoided, and in part because he just didn't argue well and the zoomers had it more together.

Claim #1: ICE has become a fascist institution and it should be abolished in its current form 

 This led to a lot of controversy, and I'm not sure he defended it well. I would agree with the premise, but I would have advised people to learn from history, and to study the early days of Hitler here. Hitler didnt start out with gas chambers, he started with deportations and the like. And ICE's behavior is somewhat similar to gestapo in the early days of the third reich. It's important to note that we ARE talking the early days. Like 1933-1935ish. The later years were far worse, but again, it was a slow escalation. 

Still, this guy didn't argue well at all. I forget exactly what his definition of fascism was but it differed from mine. Keep in mind not all authoritarians are fascists. Although Trump does align with fascism as I've previously discussed. 

And yeah, the zoomers were arguing about how ICE is just keeping us safe, and saying we should deport illegals. Which...I actually agree with in theory. What bothers me about ICE isn't the fact that immigration enforcement exists, it's the extent of their power. He did argue a few points on this like how militarized they are, how big their budgets are (bigger than Israel's entire military), and how they should show leniency in some cases, and I do agree. But yeah, I dont think he argued successfully that they should be abolished. 

I'm not entirely sure I'd argue that. Like you could make that argument, pointing out they were only created in 2003 and at this point they act like a literal gestapo, but at the same time, reform, keeping them within rule of law would probably work. I think the real problem is the current leadership, it's trump and his ilk. It's Kristi Noem. Stephen Miller. Those people. Still, given that the wrong people can get in and use such an apparatus in that way is problematic. But even if we didn't have ICE, they could just as easily use another agency. 

So yeah, I'm mixed. 

Either way, I've made my perspective on immigration clear in the past. I'm not opposed to immigration enforcement and I kinda think both the right and the left tend to make decent points on it in theory (although the left is probably closer to where I'm at right now). I just really have issues with the way Trump is engaging in law enforcement here, and that his actions are unlawful and inhumane. And that he is being cruel for the sake of cruelty, because that's how the right thinks. 

Claim #2: It is not worth the cost of gun deaths every year to have the Second Amendment

So, this is where this debate really crapped the bed. He made a claim, but didn't really back it up. Like, it was a virtue signal, something should be done about gun violence, but then he was really unclear on what policies he was for after being poked and prodded. I hate to say it but the conservatives seemed to have it more together here. 

With me, I'd argue we should be for the second amendment, but be for some gun laws geared at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. A moderate position like that would have been a lot more defensible, because this guy didn't even seem pro second amendment.

However, I will say this is where the debate got cringe and we started encountering the Christian worldview entering discussion. Seriously, these gen Z conservatives are fricking Jesus freaks here. They remind me of when I was their age, which is why i feel comfortable crapping on them. I grew out of that stuff, but I'm unsure if these guys would. At least they're not the literal nazis of the other debate, but still, I really have trouble finding common ground with these people.

Like, they'd say stuff like humans are inherently evil. That's an explicitly christian assumption. One of them doubled down on it saying that what people needed was Jesus. They went on about the breakdown of the family unit and how people growing up without fathers is a problem. This is a common conservative trope going back to the 1960s. Everything was fine until we allowed people to not live in nuclear families, according to them. Like we should just force that model of family units on everyone.

Ugh. I mean, i hate this. But, that's how right wingers think, and I can at least respect the philosophical consistency some of these people had. I mean, I hope they find their way out of this worldview like I did, but many of them probably won't. But yeah, this is what we gotta understand when arguing with conservatives, we're arguing against an entirely different philosophical worldview and at the center of that worldview is the christian god, the bible, and jesus. 

Claim #3: The Trump Administration is an attack on American values 

And then it got worse...

Really. I don't think this guy understands wtf he's doing. He's going into this debate not understanding he's arguing against an opposing worldview with different values, and these guys are going to claim their values are the REAL American values.

Like, this guy is like "yeah, democracy, rule of law, etc." And these guys start arguing about how those are CHRISTIAN values, that they come from God (even thought the natural rights theory god was deistic in nature), and basically putting him on the defensive. This is where I gotta once again give the conservatives credit. I might disagree with them morally, but they're tearing this guy apart. Because they understand worldviews, and this guy...doesn't. So he just keeps walking into these discussions unprepared. 

Look, if we wanna fight this christian worldview, you gotta argue from an explicitly secular worldview. Hell, I'm not sure I'd say "American" values, because, well, that means different things to different people. For the left, these values are largely secular. For the right, they're christian. Existentially, you're walking into a trap of debating on your opponent's terms. So unless you're like me where you literally recreate these values secularly and argue about them being a good idea from a structural functionalist standpoint, you're gonna end up being eaten alive by these guys. And idk, I just don't feel like he did a good job. And the whole time I was just thinking of how I'd argue and push back against them better than these guys would. 

Honestly, he's just making claims he can't defend and being torn apart by the conservatives.

If I were going to reframe this, I'd argue in favor of liberal enlightenment values, which I see as fundamentally opposed to the authoritarianism of the christian worldview (and all religious worldviews). Still, the conservative mind is going to try to claim that stuff as christian, even if it really isn't. 

Claim #4: The reddest states are governed worse than the bluest states

He walked into a rake again! Really, I get what he's going for, claiming that liberal states are more together on the economy, safety nets, GDP, and that conservatives dont know wtf they're doing, but here's the thing, as one conservative put it, they know what they voted for and they LIKE that crap. And while we on the left might think they're rolling around in crap and voting against their interests, again, as long as we disagree on worldview, we're not gonna agree on ANYTHING. 

Like, that's why politics are so messed up. We can't agree on anything because over the past 40 years, we've had these religious nutcases build up an entirely alternative worldview from us, with different values, and different perspectives. We can't agree on ANYTHING. This is why, when I left religion, I was so anti religion for a while, and to some extent still am. Because...as long as these people still have this Christian worldview guiding their thinking, their view of reality is gonna be hopelessly distorted. And we're gonna be arguing with a wall. This is why, in that work I'm trying to write, in the first chapter, I attempt to address worldviews FIRST. I explicitly REJECT the Christian worldview, and argue for a secular humanist worldview instead. I dont make all the philosophical arguments as that could require an entire book itself and quite frankly, resources on that already exist, but yeah. You gotta attack their worldview before you can have any ability to impact them on values. Becuase otherwise their values are gonna be fundamentalist christian ones, and you're gonna be dealing with all of these distortions. 

If anything, the red/blue state thing is a massive distraction. Because these guys started going on about blue state abortion laws, and how bad the cities are, and blah blah blah. And yeah...cities have problems. It doesn't mean blue leadership is bad. It's just that when you have higher concentrations of people, you get more crime, poverty, etc. People vote blue because of the problems in those cities, and conservative values will NOT improve blue areas. You could argue liberal values would improve red areas because safety nets, but yeah, they'll disagree.

If anything, this is where the right went on about how conservatives do a better job "creating jobs." I would actually disagree. I dont think trickle down economics leads to better job growth. If anything, a more bottom up demand side approach is better for job creation in the long term. All supply side trickle down economics does is concentrate the wealth at the top. 

Beyond that, I think job creation is beside the point. The blue areas have the best jobs and the most GDP. This isn't really due to conservative or liberal policies, both sides will lead to roughly the same job growth. It's just that cities are where opportunities are located in job centric economies. So everyone goes to cities. And then concentrating tons of people in one place cause more problems, and everything snowballs from there. Despite living in a small city and being a lib, I actually aint a big city kinda person. I dislike big cities. I think that they're cesspits of poverty and crime kinda like conservatives do, but simply think the problem is concentrating large numbers of people in one place, which introduces a lot of dysfunction into the system. But in terms of jobs, they are better. Again, it's just the nature of the modern economy. 

Which is why i think the red/blue state point is beside the point. Yeah, I'd agree that blue state governance is better since red states oppose safety nets and push all kinds of weird christian regulations that end up backfiring like abstinance only education, but again, try convincing one of these christians that. You can't. Because it's a worldview issue. If anything one lady kept going on about fricking abortion being so bad and red states being better on governing that stuff because they like restrictive abortion laws. Again, these people just have a fundamentally different worldview and unless you address that worldview head on, you're not gonna go anywhere with these people.

Gen-Z Conservative Claim: From the moment of conception abortion is a grave moral evil

Yeah. These gen Z conservatives being Jesus freaks makes them OBSESSED with abortion. And idk, miller did an okay job, but with me, I would've probably gone full bore in doubling down on humanism. Because from a humanist perspective, no, it's not. Abortion is a debate between the life of the fetus and the choice of the parents, specifically the mother. For pro lifers, they believe the value of the fetus is more important because "it's human life." For pro choicers, the choice, bodily autonomy, and freedom of the parents is more important. And where you stand comes down to worldview. While the Bible actually does lean pro choice in my view because of the whole abortion potion thing, life at first breath, the fetus being property in the hebrew law, etc., the worldview emphasizes the whole soul thing. And they believe life begins at conception, and that the soul is just as attached to that body in early pregnancy as any born human. Meanwhile, as a secularist, trying to build a distinct moral framework based on secularism, I'm going to emphasize things like fetal viability, sentience, and nerve system connections that allow for the ability to feel pain. All of these things dont occur until the second half of the pregnancy, between 22-28 weeks or so. I would probably put the cutoff around 24. Only reason I oppose even that is because pro lifers will use ANY opening to push crazy laws banning people who really should have access to medical interventions later than that from getting them. Because these people can't govern worth a crap. But again, they DON'T CARE! These people don't care! Because they're religious nuts! You can't actually reason with them or appeal to similar values because their entire value system comes from the Bible or their interpretation of it (given the Bible is, again, pro choice IMO). 

And then this guy is going on about how OMG LIKE 1/3 OF ALL ZOOMERS DIED TO ABORTION. Like, this is a generational crisis. The same is true of millennials. The same is true of gen Xers. And you know what? I'm fine with it. because before a certain stage of fetal development, I don't value fetal life. I just don't. I value the concerns of born people infinitely more than I value the concerns of zygotes, or even 8 week old fetuses, or 15 week old ones. Really, fetuses don't have moral relevance for me until post 20 weeks at minimum, with that critical window being 22-28 for me. Again, if I had to draw a line, I'd do so at 24 weeks. So...basically, I was fine with the Roe-Casey framework. 

Again, I just don't see any common ground with these people. 

Conclusion

So...overall takeaways. This guy went into this debate underprepared, ended up fighting on cultural issues where I'm relatively moderate and got picked apart by conservatives who were far more intelligent than him (even if i fundamentally disagree with them). And then the debate veered into fundamentalist christianity and the conservative Christian worldview, and this guy just never seemed to recognize that he was dealing with people with a fundamentally different moral perspective. So he did a rather poor job in debating. 

Again, you gotta understand how these people think if you wanna debate them. And this guy doesn't. And I feel like between making sloppy points he couldn't defend and just running into more philosophically coherent people than him, he just did a bad job. It was cringe.