I’ve not once witnessed anything you’ve posted that corroborates this.
As much as you may find it funny to troll, the people you’re trolling don’t.
Not wasting my time with you in PWI.
2 Likes
It was really only you since it was easy
It’s not a fair comparison when one side has openly attacked and marginalized gays. Gay conservatives have had to tone down, even hide, their gayness if they want to have political careers. Gay liberals will be more outspoken and high profile because that side of the aisle hasn’t forced them to keep quiet.
Sexuality shouldn’t even be a political issue. Trans people have their own agenda that revolves around them. It has nothing to do with politics.
1 Like
I get your point. However that is not the context in which I’m writing. If it were not for leftists pushing and pushing, all the different camps of the sexual Revolution would be considered people almost no one even pays much attention to, because it is a leftist creation. The sexual Revolution in itself is antithetical to conserving anything, first and foremost the nuclear family system.
I already recommended The New Politics of Sex by Dr. Stephen Baskerville, 385 pages that no fellow academician has contested. Sex actually has to be politicized or regulated to some degree in a serious society, but not in the destructive ways we do now.
Could you expand on this? Just curious what you mean; you’re very well-read and I appreciate your perspective
1 Like
Thanks.
First, there is the brutal family/divorce-court system that is biased towards men and until recently has “no-fault” divorce. This system tears apart families, fleeces men or the poorer partner, thoroughly screws up children, and takes away custody from someone who does not want his or her family to be torn apart. Seventy-something percent of no-fault divorces are initiated by women.
Then there was the change in policy of women in the military, which I’m not sure is wise to get into here. But from what I’ve read by politically-incorrect authors has caused enormous damage. And I’m not only talking about damage in fighting effectiveness as is commonly known. I also refer to what has been done to men financially and the destruction of families.
There is the forced (and often failed) exportation of our sexual libertinism and norms on the rest of the world, much of whom don’t want it, or accept such libertinism and are corrupted by it. Some don’t want them because they are incompatible because of religion and how the social dynamics in some parts of the world operate (eg, low-trust societies).
There are ever expanding terms for what is domestic violence and sexual harassment. They are of course actual violations, but what constitutes them, like “racism” and “hate speech” have expanded to the point in which people with common sense do not know if they’re committing such violations, let alone the terms having become absurd. This has changed the social climate to the point in which women are recording men looking at them in gyms, never mind that not everyone likes the way they go about their business in gyms either. Flirting (men acting like men) can be misconstrued as harassment now.
Then there’s LGBTQ that is now shaping policy, education, and social dynamics. And because of the current climate we live in, intellectual discussion about it cannot be had. Even online, including here, many cannot have intellectual discussions on the matter without gaslighting and emotional blackmail or career ruin.
I can go on with politicization but I’ll be here too long and I’m not quite sure if I’m coming across alright being on a phone and limited time.
Besides politicization there has been a total erasure of any regulation of the sexual market for a viable social order through socially-enforced norms with no government involvement. I wrote about this extensively in the dating thread.
I hope this explains some of it. Again, I’m on a phone and don’t have much time. I can point you to some content on this.
8 Likes
Ah, come on! Everyone with common sense knows when he’s committing such violations: Whenever he says anything negative about a non-Progressive female or select minority group member, or anything that has ever been associated with someone like that.
2 Likes
The problem is contemporary thinking.
It goes: “This is my cause. If you dont make my cause your cause or become an ally, then you’re against it.”.
“If you’re against my cause its because you’re an ignorant [insert -phobe here]”
“Since you’re a [-phobe] nothing you say, think, or feel means anything, and any cause you have is shit.”
“Since your cause is shit, you are shit.”
Now the target of this is no longer human and you’re free to do what ever you see fit. Rob them, burn their house, drag behind a truck, what ever.
Its an oversimplified, intellectually lazy, toxic weponization of our brains tendency to do less, and its being done by the extreme ends of both “sides”.
6 Likes
I’m not sure whether it’s that, or that this society no longer recognizes individual rights…only privileges. When everything is up for grabs, it’s difficult to compromise or even coexist with your opponent. I can’t think of a single governing principle of this society that would prohibit the extermination of one side by the other, if the government was weighted heavily-enough that way. We say, “Yeah, yeah, that’s why you need a divided government,” and not, “Yeah, sorry. No one has the right to kill another person, who has not either killed, or put in reasonable fear for his life, another.”
2 Likes
Left/right wing spectrum was also different back then.
Prime issues of contention we see amongst the left and right such as abortion, marijuana legalisation, critical race theory, creation of for profit prisons, climate change, immigration, islam (not going by left/right order, you can easily decipher which side stands where) etc weren’t nearly as polarized or prominent in the early 1960’s relative to today
Except hormonal contraception was synthesised with eugenics in mind (i.e the removal of undesirables breeding within society). Abortion wasn’t always a fringe left vs right issue either.
Abortion was quasi legal in the United States throughout the 1800s. The reason it was initially banned wasn’t necessarily a fringe left vs right issue either, physicians opposed abortion due to the prominent “do no harm” terminology present within the Hippocratic oath. Feminists were usually vehemently opposed to abortion up until the mid 1900’s
The NY society for suppressing vice (founded in 1870s) eventually managed to push through what was known as the comstock law. Prior to this, information pertaining to the use or abortifacients was deemed acceptable to publish. The Comstock law also made it illegal to publish any material relating to how one could acquire the means to procure contraceptives or prevent transmission of VD.
By 1900s abortion was illegal aside from cases of rape, incest or the mothers life being in danger.
In the 1960’s cases like that of Sherri Chessen led to people re-assessing the situation. Sherri has ingested thalidomide during her pregnancy and wanted to procure an abortion because the baby was likely to be born like this
There were a number of pre Roe precedents that had nothing to do with feminism or left wing agendas.
Initial proponents of birth control wanted to create human ‘perfection’ through ‘selective breeding’. While one can certainly breed in and out various characteristics (height, perhaps IQ to a degree, muscle mass), doing so on a wide scale is largely considered unethical because it would eventuate in the de facto chemical castration for the masses. The advent of progesterone analogues for BC was developed with the intent to stop poor people from reproducing.
The left/right wing spectrum we know as democrats and republicans today came to fruition and solidified in the 1970’s/80’s.
Harassment? That’s not harassment… that’s sexual ASSAULT!
This was probably a joke but in the UK (maybe US too) an assault can be caused by words if it causes fear of immediate physical violence (we also have ‘battery’ which is what most people think of when we hear the word assault). There’s also a precedent stating the “causes fear of violence” is subjective and does not need to have the ‘reasonable person’ test.
Well when I was studying my law degree there was a thing where a bunch of feminists tried arguing that men saying hello and trying to initiate a conversation is sexual assault because of the sexual undertone… 
5 Likes
Outrageous!
What an egregious violation!!!
How dare you say hello! Who do you think you are? Speaking to me like that?
Instant jail!
Forever!
2 Likes
This is a totally different story than “abortions rights” activists. American eugenicists would be appalled by the sexual irresponsibility and misconduct we see today or what they considered misconduct at the time they were around (eg, they were against miscegenation, homosexuality, and likely never imagined a trans movement in America). They were also seriously invested in preservation of the nuclear-family system, which is why they looked down upon the low-impulse control and illegitimacy they saw in the lower class.
So when there is talk about how such people were the original progressives, it is a moot point because they were people new leftists/liberals despise because they were antithetical to all they stand for.
I light use the word liberal going forward instead of left considering the shifting semantics that are gone through in such conversation, even though what is right or left in the current day is generally understood by most who engage in PWI discussions, online and offline.
Is it not interesting as to how the origins/precedents that paved the development of legalised abortion, birth control etc were VERY different relative to what we think about today when we think of birth control and abortion?
I think it’s interesting…
He tries, but it is quite obvious about Lindsey Graham.
1 Like
I think, with how you put sides in quotes, we need to move away from two sided thinking and recognize that the extreme elements on both sides are really their own sides.
And what they don’t realize is eventually the backlash to this is going to be insanely cruel and terrible.
I honestly can’t wait.
2 Likes
I am actually with you on this considering the enormous damage the Sexual Revolution has done to society, particularly to children who have been born into abuse and neglect!
3 Likes
This is an unpopular opinion and wildly off topic but I think through genetic engineering and manipulation will give birth to the next generation of “super humans” and is the next step in human evolution if we live that long.
I know all the dangers and concerns about it, but it is inevitable.
1 Like