Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SteveJRogers
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • KingOlerud
    replied
    I will take that, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveJRogers
    replied
    Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SteveJRogers; 09-13-2020, 11:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveJRogers
    replied
    Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post
    Telegraph UK has said that those criticizing "Cuties" are "terrified of child sexuality". That's a real quote.

    Another publication has called criticism of this French movie "anti-semitic" - if you can make heads or tails of that.

    They will be calling us "pedophobes" soon as I long ago unfortunately predicted.

    The Left is admitting now that protection of children - and normal society - from this predatory garbage is a "right wing" opinion. That should make everyone who is not a satan-worshiping marxist - and anyone who has children - a right winger. Netflix should die in the marketplace for airing this. Yes I am anti free speech when it comes to blatantly sexualizing children. I'm anti-art. A book burner. A fascist. In fact I would happily watch everyone responsible for promoting this.....

    Well, let's just leave the sentence right there.
    The fact that I'm seeing anti-gender reveal parties tweets, memes, etc call the ridiculousness out more so due to the "idea" of gender being just a "social construct" than the parents being complete attention whores for doing such over the top presentations, along with the added idea that its up to the very young child themselves to make their own mind about the gender they'd like to be being used un-ironically and sincerely, does scare me into thinking that you are right.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingOlerud
    replied
    Telegraph UK has said that those criticizing "Cuties" are "terrified of child sexuality". That's a real quote.

    Another publication has called criticism of this French movie "anti-semitic" - if you can make heads or tails of that.

    They will be calling us "pedophobes" soon as I long ago unfortunately predicted.

    The Left is admitting now that protection of children - and normal society - from this predatory garbage is a "right wing" opinion. That should make everyone who is not a satan-worshiping marxist - and anyone who has children - a right winger. Netflix should die in the marketplace for airing this. Yes I am anti free speech when it comes to blatantly sexualizing children. I'm anti-art. A book burner. A fascist. In fact I would happily watch everyone responsible for promoting this.....

    Well, let's just leave the sentence right there.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingOlerud
    replied
    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.

    The only major thing I may have been wrong about was the girl that got railroaded in Italy. I think I had some bad sources of info on that one. I was wrong there and should never have listened to anything in our media. I also regrettably liked Mitt Romney at one point but we're going way back. I should have known he was a c*cksucker all along. I claimed polls were crap in 2012 and got dunked on for it when B*tch Romney threw the election - and I took it in stride - but 2016 proved me right on that score.

    Beyond those two things my record is fairly unimpeachable. And it's not like I don't back up what I say when challenged. In this case reality is backing me up far more quickly than I would have imagined and it's nauseating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shastada
    replied
    Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post
    I'm just doing the Ickey Shuffle at this point but out of curiosity have you seen the latest California bill, Steve?
    Take a look at the backlash for the new movie 'Cuties' on Netflix.

    https://nationalfile.com/sundance-co...king-preteens/

    The libs are pushing this ****... if people don't fight back what do you think will happen? It's not here yet, but they're working their way into the media... IT IS COMING

    Leave a comment:


  • KingOlerud
    replied
    I'm just doing the Ickey Shuffle at this point but out of curiosity have you seen the latest California bill, Steve?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Mocha Fidel
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveJRogers View Post

    Thinking about my post above, it is interesting that QAnon is getting dismissed by the mainstream because of their Alex Jones like conspiracies once you do a deep dive on them.

    Yet, because of the names that imply that if you are against them, then you an evil, racist and fascist scum, Antifa and BLM as organizations aren’t afforded the same deep dives into their platforms and goals.
    The guy that ANTIFA/BLM shot and killed over the weekend is a member of a group called "Patriot Prayer" which supports law enforcement and Trump. Media is labeling him and the group white supremacist.
    Incredible how a beautiful harmless name offers no protection to a conservative group while these scumbag leftists tell me that BLM is a LITERAL description of that group and ANTIFA can't be bad because their name literally says they are "anti-fascist" so that must be what they really are.

    I can tell you where a name sure as hell would be accurate. That is if leftists created a group called
    "ESPOS" short for "EVIL SCUMBAG PIECES OF ****."

    THAT would be a PERFECT description for what they ACTUALLY are!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Mocha Fidel
    replied
    Originally posted by Onda7 View Post

    The nhl did have kneelers early this month.
    Well, they can go fu*k themselves too, then. Didn't get a chance to do it today, but cancelling my FIOS package that includes Sports related channels. I never thought I'd see the day when I would do that. I hope there are many more like me and that these *******s get hit where it REALLY hurts...in their WALLETS!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Mocha Fidel
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveJRogers View Post

    I didn’t create the meme.

    That was trying to bolster my point to KO that pro-gender fluidity, pro-willing sex industry workers, “stop being so religiously sanctimonious when it comes to adult themes and sexuality in media” etc libs are disgusted and hate the very notion of pedophilia.
    But they're NOT disgusted with Pedophilia. They used that meme because they are projecting their own disgusting filthiness onto Trump and can't resist taking whatever shots at him they can conjure up.
    Just as they ridicule the woman that accused that sacks of senile, pedo ****, Biden, of sexual assault while wanting to hang any conservative that is accused of even kissing a woman on the cheek by the balls.
    The left is pure evil. A cancer open this nation.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveJRogers
    replied
    Just to add thinking about it more, you certainly see it on social
    media platforms where libs announce they are cutting off family members simply because they spout out support for Republican platform points, or aren’t compliant with current SJW approved standards.

    As well as columns in lefty rags like HuffPo, Slate, Teen Vogue, etc that flat our tell the reader/viewer/listener how you should confront and antagonize Rethuglican family members at gatherings, specifically at Thanksgiving and the December holidays.

    That should significantly tell you how the regard for traditional “strong relationships with your nuclear biological family members” is getting lessened in recent years, or how low traditional family units should be on the Lib Hierarchy of Group Status.
    Last edited by SteveJRogers; 08-30-2020, 10:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveJRogers
    replied


    I give no support to people who riot, loot, and harass in the streets. That stuff offends my sensibilities every bit as much it would for a law and order conservative. But when it comes to condemning "the movement", you have to pin down what that even means. Where exactly does this movement begin and end? Are you asking me to condemn the black lives matter protests or the Black Lives Matter organization?

    The trick with Black Lives Matter organization is that it is wholly innocuous in name but led by malicious Marxists and critical race theorists and under girded by violent antifa foot soldiers. It's a devious bait and switch. This might seem obvious to you and me but not so much to general public who only pay attention casually. I fully condemn the dishonest branding, its actual ideology, and the chaos it has wrought -- 100%, whole cloth.
    Trying to steer this back to the original post of this thread, and what KO is trying to tell me about acceptance/normalizing sick behaviors, you can certainly see what they are doing ideology with the platforms on their websites. The concept of destroying the traditional nuclear family as a concept that should be held in any regard, and replacing it as a value/morals teaching structure with whatever transient thing (work environment, social group, etc) the person happens to belong to at the moment in one such movie, show or book.

    Its hard to deny that many popular TV shows, movies, books, etc in recent decades have had a greater emphasis on a character's inner circle of friends or co-workers being more important to that character than their blood relatives.

    Obviously its not some big conspiracy by entertainment industries, but the days of the family sitcom or structured and "normal-ish" nuclear family being shown in an ironically funny or satirical or sappy way is pretty much in the distant past.

    And its not that the shows and movies aren't of subjective quality, but that's just how things are, and things do have a way of mirroring them in reality, despite what the great majority of people who like that sort of movies or TV shows, etc will say.

    Hell, I've even used the idea that reality shouldn't reflect what we see in fictional media once when describing a favorite character of mine on the Sopranos, that I really don't aspire to be a drug addicted wannabe thug!

    But it is hard to say that there hasn't been a movement in mainstream pop-culture to severely downplay the importance of one's birth parents/siblings in favor of whatever ensemble group that individual happens to be in, and the audience is following, during the duration of the TV show, movie, etc.

    Not that it necessarily informed the BLM platform statement about it, it more likely grew out of the over-reliance of marginalized youths gravitating to dangerous gangs due to lack of strong parental figures in the home, but it is interesting that it happens to be the Norm (actually that's a pretty decent unintended pun/reference) more often than not when one watches movies and TV in recent decades.
    Last edited by SteveJRogers; 08-30-2020, 10:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Onda7
    replied
    Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post
    Except "the BLM movement" is arguing that Rand Paul and his wife weren't assaulted because it was just talk and talk isn't assault. *You* are the one giving them cover if you don't condemn the movement entirely. I mean this is Rand Paul, not Ted Cruz. They are coming for everyone.

    Actual peaceful protesters are a totally separate discussion and completely irrelevant since nobody in the entire world has a problem with people "peacefully protesting".



    Yeah....While sometimes he comes off as a bit of a dink...Paul is one of the few, from my knowledge, supporting ending no knock warrants and at least limiting qualified immunity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Onda7
    replied
    Originally posted by defender View Post

    You are no stranger to the search feature on this forum. Go back to the time when the kneeling first started and I'm confident you'll find that there were people who certainly did have a problem with peaceful protesting.

    I give no support to people who riot, loot, and harass in the streets. That stuff offends my sensibilities every bit as much it would for a law and order conservative. But when it comes to condemning "the movement", you have to pin down what that even means. Where exactly does this movement begin and end? Are you asking me to condemn the black lives matter protests or the Black Lives Matter organization?

    The trick with Black Lives Matter organization is that it is wholly innocuous in name but led by malicious Marxists and critical race theorists and under girded by violent antifa foot soldiers. It's a devious bait and switch. This might seem obvious to you and me but not so much to general public who only pay attention casually. I fully condemn the dishonest branding, its actual ideology, and the chaos it has wrought -- 100%, whole cloth.

    But do I condemn the lower case black lives matter protests in their entirety? Not quite. There's plenty of decent people who are willing to say that black lives matter (because they do). They might wear or a shirt or go to a rally. They want some police accountability and more criminal justice reform, and they support black athletes who want to kneel, boycott, or whatever. Am i really supposed to believe that every single one of these millionaire NBA and MLB players are actually Marxists who want to burn the system down? Personally, I think it's more likely they're just... Democrats.

    As usual, tribal thinking sucks. There's degrees and shades here. I'd argue that if we condemn everyone who says that black lives matter rather than the nefarious elements of Black Lives Matter, it only inflames the latter.
    You are spot on....but the sad thing is you will rarely hear a major voice from the right or left (media wise or politician wise) break it down like this....though I reckon this is how a majority of folks actually feel.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X