This is clearly very off topic and will be my last post on this, but circumcision of babies is a cultural thing (American culture for instance?) not health related. Seeing how tiny (weighed against the negatives) the health benefits are according to every medical website I can find, bringing it up at all seems more like justification for the practice than the reason for it.
2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates: Do They Have Policies? What Are Their Policies? Let's Find Out!
Yeah, agreed with mango, the health benefits are trivial and the actual reason is pretty much exclusively religion, aesthetics, and/or cultural inertia. The burden of proof required that a permanent, nonreversible body modification should have to meet before violating consent just needs to be higher than that. If the benefits really seem worth it and if it really is so minor, the kid can have it done once they’re capable of participating in the decision.
Which is not to diminish Megabattimus’s experience, or that of anyone else for whom being circumcised materially improved their lives. I’m just also coming from the perspective of someone who was circumcised but for whom that contributed to my gender and body issues.
Circumcision occasionally leads to death for no discernable benefit. The slight reduction in diseases are counteracted by the fact that people who are circumcised tend to forego condoms more often due to reduced sensitivity.
I can not see how it’s a non-issue. I am also often made uncomfortable by the weird demonization of the foreskin portrayed by American media, when that part of the body has several proven benefits.
Bodily autonomy is important. I find the comparison to vaccinations completely unfounded.
I’m anti infant circumcision (for the reasons y’all have mentioned). But in the context of Yang’s campaign, this seems like a weird wink at the MRA-types that often surround the issue.
That’s fair. The anti-circumcision issue can definitely be a dogwhistle for some gross people.
This is pretty much exactly my line of thinking. Yang is drawing a very particular group of shitlords, and stuff like this just makes me feel he is giving them lots of winks and nods.
It’s probably not a good sign that I’ve begun seeing memes from people who were formerly for Trump—now supporting Yang—about using Yang’s proposed $1k/mo UBI to stockpile weapons.
Yang’s language also doesn’t actually get into actual reasons for the stance, just vague notions of social pressure, which does give me the same inkling that he aiming at the fringes. His entire strategy seems to be getting minor support from as many groups as possible, which means my earlier read that he’s a man without convictions is probably pretty on point.
Circumcision is unnecessary and yields no real medical benefits. Only one poster in this thread has actually cited the biggest side effect of circumcision: loss of sensation. Circumcision is as personal a surgery as you can get, and yet we’re only talking about how the surgery affects the public (how a circumcised penis is less ‘gross’, how STDs are more difficult to spread, etc.) Why are we only talking about how their circumcision affects us?
Moving past circumcision: it’s worth noting that eliminating circumcision and demanding a UBI (to support the NEET lifestyle) are both massively important topics to internet shut-ins. I can’t say whether or not he knows who he’s courting here, but consider these talking points a win for channers.
If he doesn’t know what he’s doing, that’s indicative of a startling lack of awareness that should be disqualifying. If he does, well, that’s even worse. (And considering, on that front, that he’s calling his UBI plan “Freedom Dividends”—I think he knows full well what he’s doing.) Either way, I’m less enthused by him than by most of the other candidates in a fairly milquetoast field, which should say something.
In another direction, I am a little interested in Pete Buttigieg, who I don’t think anyone here has brought up yet. Ideologically, he doesn’t seem as left as Sanders, but seems like one of the few candidates who hasn’t minced his language or waffled on some major issue. While it might just be because it’s short, his record doesn’t seem to carry any of the issues that Harris, Booker, Biden, Beto, etc. have picked up, and it seems like he was very popular in a very blue town. Still, I can’t seem to find a lot of concrete stuff on him, so I’m taking all that with a grain of salt?
Is there any actual proof of this? Because I always see this point but I’ve never found scientific data supporting it.
Hey we should prooooobably try to wrap up the circumcision talk, it feels like the thread’s veered a bit too far off course.
Yang’s weird relationship to internet dudes has very much disturbed me. I have a buddy who’s like, idk, an anti-SJW but definitely not a right winger, very “I see what’s really going on” etc., and he’s into Yang, basically thanks to Joe Rogan. Seeing channers and that ilk latch onto the guy worries me a lot. He’s got some interesting policies but I just don’t feel like I know what this dude’s deal is, and I don’t really have interest in seeing another “businessman” running for President, especially ostensibly as a Democrat.
i mean not sure if anyone mentioned it cuz i just skimmed this but he tweeted some weird white genocide bs like he def seems to be lookin at that crowd
In fairness, I think there is more to the article and issue he’s talking about than a white nationalist argument.
At the same time, if you skim some of the replies, they certainly seem to be taking it that way.
That tweet… is bad. I don’t see how you could phrase that that way without knowing exactly what it sounds like.
Sure, just as there is more to UBI than sitting at home eating tendies, or more to circumcision than channeling all your self-loathing into the fact that your penis was circumcised against your will instead of dealing with your social inadequacies head-on. And yet,
Oh 100%, and fwiw I do agree with your earlier points. He’s worrying me a bit, also because he’s being picked up as a topic of discussion by places like 538 without much consideration of what might be driving his campaign.
cough You uh got a Freudian slip going on there re: the dude’s name. cough
FUCK I fixed it how did that post get like 6 likes and no one said shit
I trusted you Waypoint
On the topic of Pete. I am also interested in him and even though he has a lack of policy(That doesn’t stop Beto supporters clapping at his vague policies and positions.) I think by the time of the debates he might be able to hold his own(His pod save america interview was what got me interested in him). I was surprised he got enough donors to be in the debates especially as some other higher profile people have yet to reach the donor minimum like Yang.