Do you think differently to me? That’s not acceptable. I refuse to associate with those who harbour diverse beliefs!
Tends to be the case where in Australia too, I don’t believe the divide between city/country folk is unique to America. Around my old place of residence (semi rural) there was also a relatively high rate of gun ownership. Can’t say the same about where I live now.
You’re losing me here. I don’t consider homosexuality to be a bad thing/inherently abnormal. Increased rates may rather be a byproduct of increased acceptance towards differing sexual orientations, as people aren’t afraid to come out due to perceived stigma.
Good question, I’ve been associated with suburban, city and country lifestyles. They’re all unique in their own way, primarily consisting of vastly differing demographics. I don’t think the left are the product of all that is bad in todays day and era. You speak with disdain regarding cancel culture, yet seem to harbour similar intent towards mainstream media; amongst other societal conventions due to perceived degeneracy. I find both political spectrums have aspects of which I find equally irritating. The “woke, politically correct” bullshit on the left irks me just as much as the concept of closing off the idea of cultural progression in favour of potentially outdated, conservative ideals irks me.
Ehhhhhhh, there are some pretty backwoods country towns… I sense a little bit of personal bias here. There are inherently positive/negative aspects relating to both varieties of residency. As a blanket statement, both country/city folk seem equally closed off towards one another.
At risk of offending quite a few people (not my intention)
If one looks at the key demographics that voted for Donald Trump, it becomes clear many of these rural regions have relatively low rates of college completion, let alone high school graduation comparative to big cities. I’m not stating those who voted for Donald Trump are all uneducated, rather I firmly believe he heavily catered towards this demographic.
Is this to mean such people are worth less? Absolutely not! though I would argue they’re easier to politically manipulate.
This isn’t to state educated people didn’t vote for Trump, as many did. Rather I’d argue he targeted a demographic of which was more abundant rurally.
The data is relatively clear (as clear as social science data can be) that it is not a function of being afraid to come out. The animal example I pointed out above is a proof of concept.
Homosexuality on its own is not bad, but homosexuality on a large scale as practiced in the US for example is a very big problem, morally bad and abnormal. Exclusive homosexuality is destructive to society. Homosexuality as it was practiced in the Greek or Roman ancient cultures to the contrary doesn’t have these problems. There’s a non damaging way to include homosexuality in society and then there’s the way we try to do it now.
Are you telling me pushing through large crowds of densely packed individuals (like sardines) whilst being partially suffocated by large blobs of human flesh and the smell of factories and rat faeces isn’t cathartic to you?
You neglect a very obvious thing: colleges and universities are the most blue indoctrinating institutions in the US. Political manipulation is rampant there. The whole super woke Crowd is university “educated” if you call a social science degree education.
We can agree to disagree. The prevalence of homosexuality within the USA is indicative this demographic makes up a stark minority. What is “exclusive homosexuality”?
Actually there is some substance behind this. I’ve noted this agenda to be present amongst the educational curriculum in university here. Still, I can think for myself and genuinely don’t agree with a large portion of conservative ideals regardless of my curriculum. Quite frankly I’m not sure if that’ll ever change. I’m not quite as liberal as I was a few years ago, though I sure as shit can’t see myself turning what America would call “red”. I’d identify as “centre left”
Yes. And some of the university educated people later sit in high paying leading positions and dictate news, politics, social media. There’s a reason Amazon is now banning books, Spotify installed a hateful content policy (had to roll it back because of rap), Facebook and Twitter ban news and downgrade content they don’t agree with and even forums get now banned from Amazon servers because they violate Amazon web service policy. It’s just outright censoring in the US. And since these companies are world wide leading companies…
Like Rupert Murdoch in Australia (right wing agenda mind you)… This style of media manipulation certainly isn’t unique to the left. Rather it depends where one sources their news from.
That’s exactly right. I almost walked out of this conversation. You know better than any other poster how many times I’ve said, “I’ll discuss something and before you know it, I’m wrapped up in a conversation about Islam, women’s rights, slavery, evil mustache men, and so on!” I believe in many cases it is done to gaslight and keep the person from having a say on anything societal. H said that wasn’t his intention, and that’s fine. But if someone does it again I’m stepping out of the conversation. It can be highly disingenuous.
There’s actually a logical fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerum because of the high probability of the mention of Hitler when someone is trying to make a moral argument. @lordgains
I think Rupert Murdoch has/had a pretty massive influence in Aus.
I think it depends on the conversation at hand. If I were too start passionately talking about eugenics and someone mentioned “hey, that Hitler was a bad egg; look how that turned out”, he/she’d have a point bringing that up. On the other hand, if you’re talking about sociocultural norms and your take on them it’s probably irrelevant for me to bring up the Holodomor. That being said, me bringing up Islamic theocracies when one mentions the concept of a modern era theocracy isn’t gaslighting. Rather it’s the only real life comparison we have as to how such a societal framework could turn out. I think it’s situational as to whether one can interpret such analogies as gaslighting/straw manning (am I using this terminology correctly?). As you’ve seen via my reply I thought it was unjust, unfair and irrelevant to mention slavery and other past toxic societal aspects when talking about consequence stemming from the sexual revolution.
I apologized for my snappiness, and I am speaking sincerely here.
@unreal24278 for example, with what is said here by H, no one or any society can or would be able to classify any behavior or actions. Because anything can be considered abnormal, then we shouldn’t classify anything as normal, decent, or good.
I agree and disagree with this analogy. Differing sociocultural norms exist within different demographics/locations. At the same time it’s fair to state actions like first degree murder, rape, overt manipulation for personal gain or gratification can be classified as abhorrent. There are a select few fundamentals that very few would argue denote acceptable conduct.
I think this discussion went off the rails again haha
I think we should limit this to something specific, these meta discussions lead to nothing.
But I think metal discussions lead to something: @unreal24278 do you know Warrant? I listen to them a lot atm and I think they were great!
I’ll post a topic: what about marriage laws? Relationships, that’s where we started. I think that no fault divorce laws, alimony laws and states support of single parents are maybe not designed to but they have the effect of making fathers obsolete financially which is a big part of the destruction of the nuclear family.
There’s also women now complaining that it’s unfair that they have to support (and I quote) “a fully abled, grown up, educated man with their hard earned money” because they earn more. For decades these women said, well bad luck for you! Now that some of them are top earners they thinks it’s sooo unfair.
No-fault divorce is inherently unjust, even in name alone. Of course either the husband or wife initiate it, and the legal system favors the person doing so. However the majority of no-fault divorces are initiated by the woman.
At-fault divorce grounds are adultery, prison sentence, withholding sex, adultery, abuse. No-fault is… uh… no grounds.
A whopping 70% of divorces are initiated by women without such a reason and another 20-25% are initiated by men basically forced by the woman through her behavior. But it’s clear why, they profit from it in nearly every case. Get the children, get the money. Apparently after breaking a promise and contract you made with another human being you are entitled to all of their earnings, but only when you got a vagina.
In Germany there’s a law that you are the legal father of the child if your ex wife gets pregnant in the first 310 days after divorce. Even if you didn’t live together anymore, even if you didn’t have sex. You have to go to the courts to not pay for that child until they are grown ups. Ridiculous.
But this is where you start to get conflicting thoughts (IMO). You talk about freedom and limited government but then list stuff that a lot of it has to do with letting people make their own choices.
I actually think we already have incentives for a lot of this and some of it I don’t even think is that important. It’s not like smoking is widely accepted. We ban it in almost all public places. It’s considered gross and the negative health consequences are public knowledge. We have commercials that talk about not smoking. And yet I believe we should allow people to smoke if they want to do so. Isn’t that part of the freedom and limited government you said was important?
Most of us would agree many of these things you listed aren’t great. I would argue some aren’t a big deal. But the solution is what? Jail people if they “fuck around?”