| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That last video, it only took him 3 minutes to compare feminists as worse than nazis.
Seriously, if you're going to bash feminism, please show me an example of a country or culture that benefits from a lack of women's rights. If feminism is so horrible, it should be easy to show. It should be demonstratable that when women are in charge of 1/2 of everything, it all goes to s&~*.
Because I can just pull out countries like Somalia. Women don't have very strong rights, they're often sold into arranged marriages, they're often punished after being victims of rape. If anti-feminism is so great, should we expect Somalia to be the next world power?
|
Zousha can I suggest that you take a look at some of the Skeptic pod-casts and sites just to counter the the stuff you have overloaded on.
Skeptoid
skeptoid.com
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
The Skeptic Blog
http://www.skepticblog.org/
Thank you. I was actually already looking at Skeptoid. They don't have much on this particular topic, but their other stuff is still very helpful. I'm also a big fan of Michael Shermer after reading his book "Why People Believe Weird Things."
|
Plus, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I personally support the rights of the LGBT community. Gay people SHOULD have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. I made sure to vote NO on the proposed Constitutional Amendment here in Minnesota that would have made the legal definition of marriage heterosexual only, and I'm glad that amendment didn't pass.
I'm sorry if I've been rude or disrespectful. I was kind of emotional when I started this topic, jumped up on paranoia and such.
Rock on fellow Minnesotan no vote here too. Can you ask my neighbor to take his sign down now?
Oh I don't think you were rude but some of the posters here were pretty awful. I was serious about my post. I have been hearing these same arguments for 30 years now. From all kinds of sides too. I usually stop listening when they appeal to change before its too late. There is always a number of stages or phases to the plan. It just so happens to always be close to the final stage. That's what I was getting at.
|
|
Plus, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I personally support the rights of the LGBT community. Gay people SHOULD have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. I made sure to vote NO on the proposed Constitutional Amendment here in Minnesota that would have made the legal definition of marriage heterosexual only, and I'm glad that amendment didn't pass.
I'm sorry if I've been rude or disrespectful. I was kind of emotional when I started this topic, jumped up on paranoia and such.
Rock on fellow Minnesotan no vote here too. Can you ask my neighbor to take his sign down now?
Oh I don't think you were rude but some of the posters here were pretty awful. I was serious about my post. I have been hearing these same arguments for 30 years now. From all kinds of sides too. I usually stop listening when they appeal to change before its too late. There is always a number of stages or phases to the plan. It just so happens to always be close to the final stage. That's what I was getting at.
I see what you mean. I doubt I can persuade people to take their signs down though. When I tried to talk to my old high-school/college friend about it, she just but her Vote Yes sign in a tree so people couldn't take it down. :P
Yeah, I got really nervous when the accusations of trolling started. I've been a roiling mess of emotion over this lately, concerned whether or not I'm a hypocrite for thinking there's something to the NAP while also greatly enjoying games like Pathfinder, Mass Effect and Medieval II: Total War. I wanna do right, and as Styx put so eloquently in their song "Borrowed Time:"
I'm so confused by the things I read
I need the truth but the truth is
I don't know who to believe.
The left says "Yes" and the right says "no"
I'm in-between and the more I learn
Well, the less that I know.
I'm not trying to flame or insult people here. I seriously want some input and alternate perspectives to help me figure myself out...
I was kind of surprised both the marriage amendment and voter ID amendment failed. Happy, but surprised.
Frickin' Minnesotans.
Don't mind me, I'm just an angry Wisconsin lefty just waiting to see what new radical crap my Republican legislature is going to ram through. Walker talked this last weekend about eliminating same day voter registration. Same old tricks. Too dang many people voting!
|
|
Frickin' Minnesotans.
Don't mind me, I'm just an angry Wisconsin lefty just waiting to see what new radical crap my Republican legislature is going to ram through. Walker talked this last weekend about eliminating same day voter registration. Same old tricks. Too dang many people voting!
Oh man after all this "prettiest girl at the dance" stuff about Wisconsin nobody saw what happened here in MN. We damn near went red state much closer than Wisconny or Pennsylvania. That surprised me. Not so much the amendments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zousha, at this point I think we need to step back to a more fundamental problem. You're not answering my question, but I think you probably believe that Mr. Youtube did. I did not bother with his video, as he showed himself entirely untrustworthy less than 30 seconds into the first one I saw, but did give his blog post a very cursory skim since I didn't have to listen to his voice. It didn't offer any explanation for how LGBT rights are going to 1) marginalize or 2) undermine biological families either.
Honestly I don't know how it's even theoretically possible for us to accomplish that.
So let me rephrase this a little.
How do you, not Mr. Youtube, know that LGBT rights is all about doing the aforementioned? You're into skepticism, right? Make the case. If it helps, you might want to start by explaining what you mean by biological families, their being marginalized and/or undermined.
MN and WI are very similar in this respect. There's a big conservative bent, but the cities shine blue.
We have a high profile dbag governor, a congressman who was a VP nominee, and the head of the RNC is from here. And yet we managed to put Tammy Baldwin in the Senate.
At the cost of state politics though. Now state-wise we're like all red. It makes me weep.
|
|
I was kind of surprised both the marriage amendment and voter ID amendment failed. Happy, but surprised.
Me too, but then Minnesota has had a very liberal leaning for a long time. I remember my high school history teacher, a great guy I deeply respect, who sort of laid the foundation of my disbelief in moral relativism and suspicion of Marxist stuff (I never trusted Marxist rhetoric from the beginning, I only really started looking at it in depth after stumbling on this guy's vlog by chance), saying that if there was ever a second Renaissance, it'd be in Minnesota.
Also, in addressing your previous statement about how there should be evidence that things are crappy in a feminist culture, you do have a point that there are countries where women still are marginalized, particularly in Africa. But then there ARE problems that feminism either exacerbates through misandry or completely ignores as it doesn't fit their worldview:
Unfair child support and custody laws
The double-standard of circumcision
Women get less prison time than men for the exact same crimes and circumstances
Just so I'm clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. There ARE a lot of places in the world where women are badly treated, but the current model of feminism has traded the idea of equality between the genders to an idea of female dominance, where men are viewed as disposable at best and outright evil at worst.
|
|
Plus, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I personally support the rights of the LGBT community. Gay people SHOULD have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. I made sure to vote NO on the proposed Constitutional Amendment here in Minnesota that would have made the legal definition of marriage heterosexual only, and I'm glad that amendment didn't pass.
I'm sorry if I've been rude or disrespectful. I was kind of emotional when I started this topic, jumped up on paranoia and such.
Rock on fellow Minnesotan no vote here too. Can you ask my neighbor to take his sign down now?
Oh I don't think you were rude but some of the posters here were pretty awful. I was serious about my post. I have been hearing these same arguments for 30 years now. From all kinds of sides too. I usually stop listening when they appeal to change before its too late. There is always a number of stages or phases to the plan. It just so happens to always be close to the final stage. That's what I was getting at.
I see what you mean. I doubt I can persuade people to take their signs down though. When I tried to talk to my old high-school/college friend about it, she just but her Vote Yes sign in a tree so people couldn't take it down. :P
Yeah, I got really nervous when the accusations of trolling started. I've been a roiling mess of emotion over this lately, concerned whether or not I'm a hypocrite for thinking there's something to the NAP while also greatly enjoying games like Pathfinder, Mass Effect and Medieval II: Total War. I wanna do right, and as Styx put so eloquently in their song "Borrowed Time:"
I'm so confused by the things I read
I need the truth but the truth is
I don't know who to believe.The left says "Yes" and the right says "no"
I'm in-between and the more I learn
Well, the less that I know.I'm not trying to flame or insult people here. I seriously want some input and alternate perspectives to help me figure myself...
See this really rubs me the wrong way. This type of debate makes people think they have to be on one side or the other. There is absolutely no reason why you cant agree with gay marriage and gay parenthood and promote the biological family. It starts with your own home, your own family, your own community. We don't need laws to protect what we believe in. Anyone who says we do I immediately suspect their agenda.
|
|
Zousha, at this point I think we need to step back to a more fundamental problem. You're not answering my question, but I think you probably believe that Mr. Youtube did. I did not bother with his video, as he showed himself entirely untrustworthy less than 30 seconds into the first one I saw, but did give his blog post a very cursory skim since I didn't have to listen to his voice. It didn't offer any explanation for how LGBT rights are going to 1) marginalize or 2) undermine biological families either.
Honestly I don't know how it's even theoretically possible for us to accomplish that.
So let me rephrase this a little.
How do you, not Mr. Youtube, know that LGBT rights is all about doing the aforementioned? You're into skepticism, right? Make the case. If it helps, you might want to start by explaining what you mean by biological families, their being marginalized and/or undermined.
Well...honestly, I don't know. From what I've watched and read it's less that wanting rights is bad and more that cultural Marxists want to use people who want rights as a means of creating social warfare, a problem they can then step in and claim to be able to solve by replacing biological parents with adoption and sperm/gamete donation run by the state. Kind of like Aldous Huxley's depiction of society in Brave New World.
The blog post basically claims that the information LGBT advocates use suffers from heavy confirmation bias and as a result presents a skewed version of the facts that can be dangerous if used as propaganda that gender is completely subjective when there are real biological differences between men and women (the most obvious being the genitalia, obviously) and that both are necessary for a stable society.
I doubt it's an acceptable answer, and honestly it's one I've become less and less convinced of this over time, especially after seeing some of John Corvino's research on the subject. He's certainly a lot more open-minded than the other guy, as he co-authored a book and is friends with an advocate for traditional marriage.
Sorry if that last bit's a tangent. The point is...I think I'm wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archpaladin-
I would posit that the negative, and possibly misandrous, phenomena you listed are actually more remnants of a pre-feminist society in which women had extralegal privileges, rather than the result OF feminism.
I understand that there are various social ramifications of sex equality, but those are things that needed to be sorted out, not symptoms of some grand plot to remove men from power or something. Even you admit that, while you don't like some of these negative things going on, you think that all people ought to be considered equal under the law, correct?
There will be some rather absurd fallout, but it's not good enough reason to deny people rights, IMO.
|
|
Archpaladin-
I would posit that the negative, and possibly misandrous, phenomena you listed are actually more remnants of a pre-feminist society in which women had extralegal privileges, rather than the result OF feminism.
I understand that there are various social ramifications of sex equality, but those are things that needed to be sorted out, not symptoms of some grand plot to remove men from power or something. Even you admit that, while you don't like some of these negative things going on, you think that all people ought to be considered equal under the law, correct?
There will be some rather absurd fallout, but it's not good enough reason to deny people rights, IMO.
You raise a good point, and one feminists are prone to ignore: Women DID have rights in a pre-feminist society, they were just different kinds of rights. I'm not saying rights should be denied. I'd argue that we're currently sort of in a post-feminist society, where women have mostly achieved the kinds of rights the movement set out to gain, and that the feminists that are left are the radical ones, since the moderates have generally moved on with their lives and don't feel the need to fight anymore. That they've already won.
It should go both ways too, though. People should treat each other as equals, rather than as an "us and them."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may not realize this, but women are not yet equal under the law in the US. The ERA (equal rights amendment) never passed. If the constitution doesn't explicitly say that the sexes are equal, it's not unconstitutional for laws to discriminate against one or the other.
I agree that it should work both ways, but I think all we're witnessing is the pendulum swinging a BIT in the other direction. Rather than gaining momentum, however, it's merely coming to rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I meant to say that women DIDN'T have rights. They were treated in a certain manner, but they were reliant on the moods and humors of men to treat them as equals. Even if you were a well treated slave you didn't have any rights.
"Different kind of rights" is just nonsense. If they weren't legal rights they weren't rights at all, but simply privileges that SOME enjoyed.
|
|
You may not realize this, but women are not yet equal under the law in the US. The ERA (equal rights amendment) never passed. If the constitution doesn't explicitly say that the sexes are equal, it's not unconstitutional for laws to discriminate against one or the other.
I agree that it should work both ways, but I think all we're witnessing is the pendulum swinging a BIT in the other direction. Rather than gaining momentum, however, it's merely coming to rest.
That's true, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that Sharon Osbourne can laugh and make jokes about a man's genitalia being mutilated in an incredibly horrible way on public television, while if a man joked about a woman being treated in such a way on TV he'd become Public Enemy #1 in an instant. Osbourne couldn't even keep a straight face when she tried to apologize for her statements, which speaks volumes about its sincerity, or rather a lack thereof.
|
|
And I meant to say that women DIDN'T have rights. They were treated in a certain manner, but they were reliant on the moods and humors of men to treat them as equals. Even if you were a well treated slave you didn't have any rights.
"Different kind of rights" is just nonsense. If they weren't legal rights they weren't rights at all, but simply privileges that SOME enjoyed.
Yes, but a lot of society was built around protecting women due to the dangers of childbirth. Men fought the wars so women didn't have to. Men did the physical labor so women didn't have to. Men put their lives on the line daily because women put their lives on the line when giving men the single most important thing in the world, a chance to pass on their genetics in the form of a child. The ability to have children was a big ace in the hole for women as a whole, and the issue is that many women want all the benefits of what men have, without having to do the bloody, nasty work men have to do to get those benefits, especially since the bargaining chip of childbirth's potential fatality is a lot less effective now due to modern medical science.
...so, is this thread about Cultural Marxism or is it about double standards?
You continue to make arguments about how you think society is unfair, and I can easily grant you some of that stuff. I have no intention of trying to make society fair on that level, no one here can control what others think and do with their own freedoms.
Alls I'm saying is expanding the opportunities for people, like myself, who don't fit into the "kill, feed, mate" paradigm of caveman mentality. People choose not to have kids, and so how do you balance rights that, in your mind, pivot around a woman's giving birth?
As for the Sharon Osborne thing? Who cares? Humor is humor. Daniel Tosh made a tasteless rape joke and was lambasted in the mainstream media. But his show still gets crazy ratings and people on the interwebs defended his right to be a jerk and/or make jokes about things that are uncomfortable. So, I think your assumption that men can't get away with saying sexist things is incorrect.
Again, life is unfair, like it or lump it. The only thing I'm concerned with is that we're all equally protected under the LAW. Beyond that, I have no use for political correctness.
A little of both, as promoting double-standards disguised as egalitarianism is part of the Cultural Marxist playbook.
Oh come on now, knock that off.
There's no such thing. Cultural marxism isn't even a thing, it's just a label given to a bunch of reactionary social conservatives to denote "things that are changing and are icky."
Who are these cultural marxists? Where is their playbook printed? I'd love to see it.
The law protects us only so long as everyone regards the law as a right and just one.
While I agree with double standards being disgusting, I'll have to go with what you're saying.
Life really ain't fair, but change is going to come slowly or not at all. Just have to deal with it for now.
|
|
You continue to make arguments about how you think society is unfair, and I can easily grant you some of that stuff. I have no intention of trying to make society fair on that level, no one here can control what others think and do with their own freedoms.
Alls I'm saying is expanding the opportunities for people, like myself, who don't fit into the "kill, feed, mate" paradigm of caveman mentality. People choose not to have kids, and so how do you balance rights that, in your mind, pivot around a woman's giving birth?
As for the Sharon Osborne thing? Who cares? Humor is humor. Daniel Tosh made a tasteless rape joke and was lambasted in the mainstream media. But his show still gets crazy ratings and people on the interwebs defended his right to be a jerk and/or make jokes about things that are uncomfortable. So, I think your assumption that men can't get away with saying sexist things is incorrect.
Again, life is unfair, like it or lump it. The only thing I'm concerned with is that we're all equally protected under the LAW. Beyond that, I have no use for political correctness.
Neither do I. On that, we definitely agree.
A big part of the Sharon Osbourne thing is that reactions like hers are a major factor in why men who are sexually assaulted or abused don't come forward about it. They're afraid if they admit stuff like this they'll be shamed and laughed at. That's an artifact of our culture expecting men to be the tough and invincible breadwinners.
You raise a good point about the fact that people choose not to have kids. I mean, a big part of the reason why child rearing was so important was inheritance law, right? But now inheritance is primarily based on the choices of the property's owner (it was in the past too, cutting people out of wills and all, but generally first-born-sons all the way), so how do you account for families where there's no "first-born-son" for the property to go to? I hadn't looked at it that way.
And I'm sorry if I missed your previous points. I may have a BA in English, but argumentative writing was never my strong point. That's why I prefered D&D and Pathfinder to political advocacy groups in school.
|
|
A little of both, as promoting double-standards disguised as egalitarianism is part of the Cultural Marxist playbook.Oh come on now, knock that off.
There's no such thing. Cultural marxism isn't even a thing, it's just a label given to a bunch of reactionary social conservatives to denote "things that are changing and are icky."
Who are these cultural marxists? Where is their playbook printed? I'd love to see it.
You know what? I'm actually kind of convinced that you're right. Just reading the Wikipedia article about it indicates that there's a lot of bogeyman-mentality involved in that label. Plus, my father basically said the exact same thing when I discussed this topic with him...
|
|
This is what I'm asking for when I want the step-by-step. How does letting GLBT people serve in the military, adopt children, marry, not get murdered for loving while non-hetero, etc, actually do any of that.Easy. All of those things provide facts. Facts are inimacle to conservatism. The more that people see that homosexuals can serve in the military openly, marry, adopt, raise kids, and freely walk down the street without being stoned WITHOUT causing the collapse of society as we know it or God dropping a meteor on their heads, the worse the contrast between reality and conservatism becomes.
If people see that the social aspects of conservatism are false, they might see that the economical aspects of conservatism are false. If you can't scare people into voting against their own economic interests to prevent a non existant evil, then how can you do it? Without people voting against their own economic interests we'd have a progressive taxation that would put a higher tax burden on the rich and less on the poor and middle class.
Minorities and homosexuals HAVE to be a boogie man to scare people. No one is scared of a boogie man they see every day being normal. The more different and "other" homosexuals stay the scarier they can be. Take that away and conservatives will have to rely on their policies.
This reminds me of something I heard on a documentary about Jim Crow the other day.
"The oppressors and subjugators did not fear black failure, they feared black success."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*blink*
I'm not used to my arguments having any traction around here.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*blink*
I'm not used to my arguments having any traction around here.
Well, I don't have any real evidence to prove mine, so I have to retract it. I may disagree with you in some regards, but judging from your arguments and the majority of the others it's clear that I've been overreacting about this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Accepting that you could have been wrong on some topic is the beginning of wisdom, and a crucial step toward an open and skeptic mind.
Congrats. No all people are capable of this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One probably costly but worthy way of coming closer to the truth by making up your mind: travel!
Seriously: Many European nations are, by estimate of those believing in the 'cultural marxism' conspiracy pretty far ahead into socialist territories (without realizing that, even) and I remember various US right wing politicians talking about socialist Europe.
Get the money together to make a trip there - Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgia, etc. If you plan ahead you can use student routes in these countries to travel as a backpacker, making the trip within Europe less expensive and more likely to meet up with the actual population (many if not most people there will speak English).
See how they live and they think, expand your horizon, then review you fears and doubts again.
Yes, but a lot of society was built around protecting women due to the dangers of childbirth. Men fought the wars so women didn't have to. Men did the physical labor so women didn't have to. Men put their lives on the line daily because women put their lives on the line when giving men the single most important thing in the world, a chance to pass on their genetics in the form of a child. The ability to have children was a big ace in the hole for women as a whole, and the issue is that many women want all the benefits of what men have, without having to do the bloody, nasty work men have to do to get those benefits, especially since the bargaining chip of childbirth's potential fatality is a lot less effective now due to modern medical science.And I meant to say that women DIDN'T have rights. They were treated in a certain manner, but they were reliant on the moods and humors of men to treat them as equals. Even if you were a well treated slave you didn't have any rights.
"Different kind of rights" is just nonsense. If they weren't legal rights they weren't rights at all, but simply privileges that SOME enjoyed.
It isn't that women don't want to do the Bloody nasty work... Australian women can serve on the front-line if they meet the physical requirements. Australian women work in mines and manufacturing. You can also be gay or lesbian and still serve in the Australian military.
You will find that while our army is small it is considered one of the best. None of the changes made has reduced its effectiveness.
Women and the Gay and Lesbian community fought hard to prove that can do it and they fought hard to win the right to do it.
|
|
One probably costly but worthy way of coming closer to the truth by making up your mind: travel!
Seriously: Many European nations are, by estimate of those believing in the 'cultural marxism' conspiracy pretty far ahead into socialist territories (without realizing that, even) and I remember various US right wing politicians talking about socialist Europe.
Get the money together to make a trip there - Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgia, etc. If you plan ahead you can use student routes in these countries to travel as a backpacker, making the trip within Europe less expensive and more likely to meet up with the actual population (many if not most people there will speak English).
See how they live and they think, expand your horizon, then review you fears and doubts again.
I have traveled in Europe at least a bit. Back in high school I spent a month over in France with the French Club, and a week of that living with an actual French family near Annecy. Back then I wasn't really concerned with political philosophy, but it was an interesting look at things, now that I look back on it.
|
|
Yes, but a lot of society was built around protecting women due to the dangers of childbirth. Men fought the wars so women didn't have to. Men did the physical labor so women didn't have to. Men put their lives on the line daily because women put their lives on the line when giving men the single most important thing in the world, a chance to pass on their genetics in the form of a child. The ability to have children was a big ace in the hole for women as a whole, and the issue is that many women want all the benefits of what men have, without having to do the bloody, nasty work men have to do to get those benefits, especially since the bargaining chip of childbirth's potential fatality is a lot less effective now due to modern medical science.And I meant to say that women DIDN'T have rights. They were treated in a certain manner, but they were reliant on the moods and humors of men to treat them as equals. Even if you were a well treated slave you didn't have any rights.
"Different kind of rights" is just nonsense. If they weren't legal rights they weren't rights at all, but simply privileges that SOME enjoyed.
It isn't that women don't want to do the Bloody nasty work... Australian women can serve on the front-line if they meet the physical requirements. Australian women work in mines and manufacturing. You can also be gay or lesbian and still serve in the Australian military.
You will find that while our army is small it is considered one of the best. None of the changes made has reduced its effectiveness.
Women and the Gay and Lesbian community fought hard to prove that can do it and they fought hard to win the right to do it.
I understand. And you've got to be tough as nails to live in Australia in the first place. That land is no place for the weak. ;)
I understand. And you've got to be tough as nails to live in Australia in the first place. That land is no place for the weak. ;)
Nope you don't..... Australians live mostly on the east coast in towns and cities. Australia is like Canada but hot rather than cold.
What about all the venomous creatures sitting around?
What about all the venomous creatures sitting around?
I hope you aren't refering to australian women...
What about all the venomous creatures sitting around?
If you are not stupid you won't die.
Nobody has died from a spider bite since 1979.
There have been 41 fatalities due to snakes in the period from 1980 to 2009 out of a population of 22 million.
@Smarnil
The best DM I ever had (3.5e campaign) happens to be an Australian woman.
And I meant the snakes and spiders. What makes you say that the women are venomous?
This is really an interesting thread. I see a lot of "live and let live", which is great. I'm of the philosophy of "just leave me the hell alone"...which I 'd like to see more of here in the States.
Both sides of the political spectrum here are hell-bent on acceptance of their views, enough that its kinda off-putting...ie, builds resentment.
So, you're gay? Good for you! Just don't expect any special deference from me.
So, you have a strong faith in God? Great! Just don't try to make a law denying rights to someone you don't like.
And so on, ad nauseum...just my 2cp.
Torillan,
Since when is having the same rights as anybody else, such as marriage, special deference? They're not asking for special bloody deference! They're asking for the same bloody things that straight people take for granted!
I think what Torillian was trying to say was black white yellow green or purple, christian, buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or pastafarian, straight, bi or gay, you are no better or worse than anybody else and he is not going to put you above anybody else in his estimation because you are not a unique and special snowflake you are an imperfect human like the rest of us.
I think what Torillian was trying to say was black white yellow green or purple, christian, buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or pastafarian, straight, bi or gay, you are no better or worse than anybody else and he is not going to put you above anybody else in his estimation because you are not a unique and special snowflake you are an imperfect human like the rest of us.Torillan,
Since when is having the same rights as anybody else, such as marriage, special deference? They're not asking for special bloody deference! They're asking for the same bloody things that straight people take for granted!
You know, I really wish people would get that message across on a global scale.
It's kind of tiring having to fear getting beaten up or killed when you just want to walk around.
Been having the need to evade neonazis (not even kidding), skinheads and other crazy racists in my lifetime.
Free your mind and the rest will follow. The only hope for humanity, or your country, is if you liberate yourself and stands out as a beacon of hope for the rest of us. No actions can free a person that wants to be enslaved.
Somebody mentioned Norway in this thread. I happen to be from Norway. I am a member of Høyre, the leading liberal conservative party in this country, which makes me a class-C traitor in the Anders-lingo. I read the entire manifesto of mr. Breivik, our homebred terrorist, so I am quite aware of the way he uses the concept "Cultural Marxist". I think he coined it very well.
According to american standards Høyre would be a socialist party, with many members suspected to be communists. Around here we don't see it quite like that. The biggest social-democratic (see how they do it, instead of calling themselves "socialists" they water it out by adding "democratic" - social marxist trickery?) party is Arbeiderpartiet - the Labour Party. At the moment they are the senior partner in the government coalition. The Labour Party in Norway were members of Comintern, a Communist organisation between 1918 and 1923. One of the minor members in the coalition government is Sosialist Venstreparti - Socialist Left Party, and the started out in 1973 as the Socialist Electoral League, an electoral coalition with the Communist Party, Socialist People's Party, Democratic Socialists – AIK and independent socialists (an electoral league is a technicality which allows different political parties to count their votes together and distribute any offices according to a premade plan). So there is some merit to the idea of communists riding on the tailcoat of socialism, at least in Norway, home of the most well-known exponent of the concept of "cultural marxism".
On the other hand, the true hard-core communists, "Rødt" (meaning "Red") is a merger of former parties, all with revolutionary communist aspirations (non-violent of course), and they are not part of the government coalition. One very obvious reason for this is their total lack of seats in the parliament, and their track record for cooperation with the socialist parties is abysmal. They get 1-2% of the total numbers of votes cast each election. I voted for them twice, just to give Erling Folkvord a seat in the city council. He is probably the only honest politician in Norway.
Norway is a rather peculiar country. We get high revenue from the oil installations in the North Sea, this obviously is a big boost for the economy. The prices in Norway are high - a pint of bear costs ~$4 bought in a store or ~$12 when bought in a bar. A drink is ~$20. A Big Mac is ~$10. A small (0.5 liter) soft drink bottle is ~$3 in the cheapest stores, and $5 gives you an economy bottle (3 times the size, or 1.5 liter). One bread (750 grams~=1.5lbs) will cost you ~$4. Gas is ~$10/gallon. A car is twice as expensive as in the US - except electric cars, which aren't taxed. However, the median income is $70000 at the current exchange rate, which helps explain a price structure 25-40% higher than in neighbouring countries.
Norway has no legally fixed minimum wage. Unemployment is around 3%. The population used to have a high degree of cohesion, but the last 20 years I have experienced this fraying at the edges. If oil suddenly lost its value, places like Groruddalen in Oslo, where I live, would become difficult places to live in ~2 years. Also, if we had not had oil I suspect our policies and economic outlook would be like Greece.
links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(Norway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(Norway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Left_Party_(Norway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Party_(Norway)
You know what? I'm actually kind of convinced that you're right. Just reading the Wikipedia article about it indicates that there's a lot of bogeyman-mentality involved in that label. Plus, my father basically said the exact same thing when I discussed this topic with him...A little of both, as promoting double-standards disguised as egalitarianism is part of the Cultural Marxist playbook.Oh come on now, knock that off.
There's no such thing. Cultural marxism isn't even a thing, it's just a label given to a bunch of reactionary social conservatives to denote "things that are changing and are icky."
Who are these cultural marxists? Where is their playbook printed? I'd love to see it.
Bogeyman-label should be right. You will sooner meet someone who introduces himself as a child molester than someone who says they are a cultural marxist. As for their playbook - if it existed it would look something like the protocols of the elders of sion, which is a hoax, if someone ever were in doubt of its authenticity. "Cultural Marxism" is a rehash of an old method of ascribing ill intent to someone you do not like.
Bogeyman-label should be right. You will sooner meet someone who introduces himself as a child molester than someone who says they are a cultural marxist. As for their playbook - if it existed it would look something like the protocols of the elders of sion, which is a hoax, if someone ever were in doubt of its authenticity. "Cultural Marxism" is a rehash of an old method of ascribing ill intent to someone you do not like.You know what? I'm actually kind of convinced that you're right. Just reading the Wikipedia article about it indicates that there's a lot of bogeyman-mentality involved in that label. Plus, my father basically said the exact same thing when I discussed this topic with him...A little of both, as promoting double-standards disguised as egalitarianism is part of the Cultural Marxist playbook.Oh come on now, knock that off.
There's no such thing. Cultural marxism isn't even a thing, it's just a label given to a bunch of reactionary social conservatives to denote "things that are changing and are icky."
Who are these cultural marxists? Where is their playbook printed? I'd love to see it.
That was joke in my Dicey post earlier; the only reason to accuse someone of cultural Marxism is because you can't accuse them of political Marxism. Given that Marxism is a political movement, if it's not political Marxism, Marxism isn't a very relevant term.
Cultural Marxism sounds like something reactionaries shout when they realize demographics are changing.
I really can't get the point of the links you're posting pally.
1) Social science doesn't live up to the standards of other science
-In other news, the sun rose in the east.
2) LGBT studies are factually wrong, so they are morally wrong
This doesn't follow
3) Since LGBT couples have a higher rate of divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I would imagine that many strait couples get and stay married for their kids. Without that incentive divorce rates go up.
This argument would also work against mixed race marriages.
4) There aren't as many LGBT people as it seems so we don't need gay marriage.
-It doesn't matter if gays are 10%, 1%, or .000001% of the population. Rights follow an individual.
5) 2003, based on 1911 women and 1391 men, shows that domestic violence in LGBT circles can be as high as 22% for women and 29% for men
Whats disingenuous here is that the article doesn't provide a contrast, because strait couples have comparable rates of domestic violence.
Yeah, yeah, goblins have small dicks. You guys are wicked funny.
Also, btw, goblins are just the kinds of lovers where it doesn't matter how large (or small) their genitalia are. Ladies, one look into our eyes overflowing with warmth and compassion, one whisper from our high-pitched yet erotically melodious voice, one caress from our smooth and sensitive hands and you'll climax.
It's true.
Yeah, yeah, goblins have small dicks. You guys are wicked funny.
Also, btw, goblins are just the kinds of lovers where it doesn't matter how large (or small) their genitalia are. Ladies, one look into our eyes overflowing with warmth and compassion, one whisper from our high-pitched yet erotically melodious voice, one caress from our smooth and sensitive hands and you'll climax.
It's true.
That hasn't been my experience; all I have to show from your "smooth and sensitive hands" is bruises. :(