Newsflash: Time to Amend the Lib Hierarchy of Group Social Status

[SteveJRogers]

I got this from Steve earlier in the thread "Anyway, I’ll concede to KO on the chipping away at what is considered mainstream behavior until it gets turned the other way." but I'm not sure I've had my full throated apology yet. At some point you have to realize it's fruitless to argue with me and probably better just to listen. I'm not perfect but I'll put my track record for time proving me 100% correct on things up against anyone here.

I am reminded of the controversy in the early 1990s when Murphy Brown had a child out of wedlock, and I think it was well after the controversy died down in the news cycles that they got around to doing the storyline of who her son's father was.

But barely a decade later, when Friends, probably a bigger sitcom, in terms of ratings and marketing campaigns, did that with the Rachel Green character, there was no sort of backlash from anyone, and this was when the O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh "pop culture war" was at a big peak.

Thing is, compare the two characters. Brown was a world famous TV journalist, who certainly would afford to have her baby without the father being involved in their lives. Rachel, while from money, had been cut off from her parents' funds and was single and working at a for commission job in mid-town Manhattan, with only close friends (including her daughter's father, whom wouldn't find out about being the child's father for a few episodes into the storyline) as her support structure.

Seems like the Friends scenario would have been more palpable for the "we need to be careful about life turning out to imitate art" crowds. But since in the ensuing years single parenting did rise as being a mainstream occurrence, whether the mother could afford to have the father (forcibly or not) in the child's life or not.

And, I think I mentioned this about the BLM "platform item" about the destruction of the nuclear family unit's importance, mainstream pop culture did manage to cultivate the prevailing thought that you don't need to be tethered to those who conceived you, or even whom you were raised with to be your life support structure, regardless of whether or not those persons deserve your cutting them out of your life or not. Also, the way lefty journalism gives their readers/viewers/listeners green lights to be asshats to their righty family members at in-person social gatherings should tell you how ingrained such notions are already in mainstream society.

So yeah, it is scary to think how right you are sounding here.

[KingOlerud]

I will take that, thank you.

[SteveJRogers]

https://notthebee.com/article/slate-...ophilia-creepy


I’m going to repeat what I’ve said, so KO, don’t take this as a take back of the apology but the thing that is troubling to me is how pedophilia has been seen as a predominately vile thing across the board many socio-political spectrums.

Libs have felt strongly about not caring that (hashtag) Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself because it’s “one less pedo alive.”

Many liberals who have left the church, or become outright atheists cite the coverups of the pedophilia scandals among priests as their reasoning.

Never mind priests having a fetish for young boys has been a “shooting fish in a barrel” schoolyard joke, and reason to hate priests of any denomination (I have a very liberal Episcopalian priest friend who often has to answer glares with “I’m not a pedophile” when seen in public with his clerical collar on after a major story breaks) for decades now!

The crux of the bathroom debates was always the idea that there was a population of perverted trans former men who’d use women’s bathrooms as a place to act out on their perversions. The opponents were saying to stop being so transphobic and that sort of behavior is very remote in the community.

So what of those lefty held thoughts and opinions if this sort of behavior is getting more normalized, or more spotlight is shined on the anti-this side as being Q-Anon creepy, conspiracy driven conservatives?