Thought Terminating Cliches

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 185
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Gay marriage is fine and moderate. (truthfully every society historically turned a blind eye to varying degrees among the elites and such)

It's interesting the way people (conservatives especially) try to rewrite history as if they were more inclusive and tolerant of the Others to alleviate themselves of their deplorable rhetoric + behavior. It was only within the last 20 years that Justice Scalia, considered "one of the greatest conservative intellects of our time" compared homosexuality to beastiality and murder while arguing that the state should be able to criminalize gay sex. It was only within the last ten years that a Democrat presidential candidate would openly endorse gay marriage. And when that happened, it was considered brave and courageous (politically unsavory) because only 50% of the country supported gay marriage while 83% of people live in liberal cities -- meaning even a lot of people in liberal cities were opposed to gay marriage which I can attest to for certain.

The fact is: it's only because of social progressives and activists that society was forced to accept gay marriage and that corporations and the media started to highlight inclusivity, diversity, Pride month, etc. That's how gay marriage became normalized; that's how the needle was moved. That's why you think gay marriage is "moderate" today when it was considered radical a decade ago. Make no mistake that social conservatives have donated time and money to fight against this progress tooth and nail every single step of the way and continue to do so.  This suggests to me that the backlash against trans people will be revealed as equally asinine and immoral one day as society learns more, is exposed to more and becomes more tolerant which is usually the case. It's always been the social progressives pushing to secure civil rights. I'm more than comfortable being on their side of the culture war. The question is why aren't you? 


Redefining a woman to anything with 2 legs and a dress is not.
Oh stop. Nobody would consider you a woman just for putting on a dress . But if you told us that you innately felt a physiological or even just social compulsion to present yourself to the world as female, I would call you by your preferred name and use she/her pronouns in reference to you because doing so would be no skin off my back.

Indeed there are some aspects of the gender discussion I still don't understand, but I simply don't feel the need to go out of my way to antagonize people who already seem to be going through enough. I don't get the compulsion to mock people you think are suffering from gender dysphoria. I don't understand the arguments against their transition surgeries when we don't care about all the other kinds of plastic surgeries that people get with their associated risks.  It seems pretty obvious that being anti trans is more about attacking people than being concerned for their well-being. I mean I could potentially see a societal concern with kids taking hormone blockers, but we allow parents to chop off their baby's foreskin which a lot of men resent when they get older so who knows. 

Also consider the fact that most social conservatives are religious. These people believe that a 1/3 man 1/3 god 1/3 spirit was BORN OF A VIRGIN, died and came back to life, then rose off into the sky like a helium balloon... and these are the same people screeching about how being trans defies the laws of biology lol. They should probably pipe the fuck down considering their most sacred beliefs are all  premised on things that defy the laws of chemistry, physics , biology and humanity as we know it. Plus they reference God as He/Him and father despite the fact that God presumably has no penis and no XY chromosome... go figure. 

My point being that we can tolerate or even respect people whose beliefs we find absurd, and not go out of our way to make their lives harder or more miserable unnecessarily. The gendered bathroom laws are dumb. Not allowing people to change their sex on their birth certificate is dumb. Not calling people by their preferred pronouns is dumb. Going out of your way to ridicule people for being "weird" is dumb. I believe that one day society will be more open minded  and knowledgeable on things that seem foreign today regarding gender, but in the meantime I just don't find it that hard to leave people alone and be a decent person if you don't understand or accept how they identify. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 I'm more than comfortable being on their side of the culture war. The question is why aren't you? 
Lol, I am not on the side of any extreme wing, left or right. I see you have no comments about the manifest destiny and prohibition culture wars. That's pretty telling.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
My point being that we can tolerate or even respect people whose beliefs we find absurd, and not go out of our way to make their lives harder or more miserable unnecessarily. The gendered bathroom laws are dumb. Not allowing people to change their sex on their birth certificate is dumb. Not calling people by their preferred pronouns is dumb. Going out of your way to ridicule people for being "weird" is dumb. I believe that one day society will be more open minded  and knowledgeable on things that seem foreign today regarding gender, but in the meantime I just don't find it that hard to leave people alone and be a decent person if you don't understand or accept how they identify. 

Ok well here is my point. Society can accommodate religious freaks without structurally falling apart. What will cause society to fall apart structurally is to remove every unique protection for biological women by granting it to men. While it's interesting to see biological women cry foul when they are no longer allowed to have their own gendered sports league, that will be nowhere near as devastating when biological men are given the same social protections in all areas and society then falls apart when women will no longer be able to rely on men to perform the tasks a functioning society demands men do. Already we see a big problem with many men picking up useless degrees instead of the traditional trades that women refuse to do like plumbing, welding, engineering, etc. Men demanding protections when women traditionally seek a male partner that supports a family etc... We see droves of men refusing to support or raise a family, and while that kind of equality seems fair on paper, it's the stuff of historical dystopias. A functioning society enhances and promotes biological differences so that society can make the best of those traits. There is no logical reason to deny the science that different biological sexes have different brains and will always have vastly different life experiences especially where it comes to self-fulfillment, a reason for being, and identifying a purpose that brings happiness. A dying society insists everyone must have equality, despite biological differences. That's the kind of social engineering that has a very poor track record historically. 

Personally I have no "phobias" about trans people. The only phobias I have is the insane social engineering involved that ensures there will be no safe space for a biological man or a biological woman. Creating a unisex society isn't something we have properly thought out enough.

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, I am not on the side of any extreme wing, left or right.

Lol I said nothing about being extreme. I asked why you are against social progressives on this issue in the culture war and you didn't respond, as usual. 


I see you have no comments about the manifest destiny and prohibition culture wars. That's pretty telling.

LOL you ignore 99.5% of everything if I say, so if you think not responding to someone is indicative of them having a good point, then you must think I'm a friggin genius!  

I don't understand the point you are making about Manifest Destiny and Prohibition. You said "people see a lot of the extreme progressivism and sudden change 50 years ago that went way too far. Many view manifest destiny as being backward and many view the prohibition era as being backward."

First of all Prohibition was 100 years ago and Manifest Destiny was 175 years ago. Secondly it was straight, cis, white, socially conservative Christian men that were responsible for both of those things at the expense of brown people and personal freedom... and yes many people saw those things as problematic later on. Are you trying to use them as further examples to prove my point that social conservatives will  probs once again be looked at as being on the wrong side of history? 

I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that gay people are acceptable but trans people aren't, because trans goes "too far" and liberals should just be happy that society now accepts gays and move on. Of course I've already responded to that. I explained that accepting gay people was once seen as "too far" (VERY RECENTLY). All of the civil rights we recognize today including women and black people having equal rights was considered too far until social progressive lobbyists changed society's perception. That will happen again with trans people, though you may not be alive to see it. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
this is a very important post from you and is the reason TERFs are not full of hatred but genuinely are concerned that literally no women-only spaces can exist anymore.

The funny thing is men-only spaces were considered taboo to make as early as around 2009ish.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I don't understand the point you are making about Manifest Destiny and Prohibition
My point is that winning a culture war does NOT mean it is necessarily good for society.  Change for the sake of change is a terrible idea, which is why I absolutely detest the term "progressive"

There are no "sides" to reasonable moderate changes for society. That's the kind of false dichotomy that causes people to stop examining policies based on some unfounded trust of a political party.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Society can accommodate religious freaks without structurally falling apart.

This kind of catastrophizing is ridiculous. Trans people aren't going to be the downfall of society lol. I have trans friends and they are otherwise "completely normal" human beings. They have jobs, they pay taxes, they follow the law, and they aren't hurting anyone. You probably wouldn't even notice some of them were trans if you saw them out and about. 


What will cause society to fall apart structurally is to remove every unique protection for biological women by granting it to men. 
Such as what???


that will be nowhere near as devastating when biological men are given the same social protections in all areas and society then falls apart when women will no longer be able to rely on men to perform the tasks a functioning society demands men do.

It's interesting to see the same people who say "robots will take our jobs" suggest that we need men to do certain jobs as if men are particularly irreplaceable. As curious as I am which jobs you think men must do, I really don't feel the need to go down that road because I neither deny nor care that gendered preferences exist for different roles in society (although I do have some feelings on it, working in a male dominated industry myself). I agree with you that society need not disavow biological or cultural differences in gender. I just don't agree that we need to abuse or diminish trans people, and you never explained why we should. 

It's very weird to me that you are blaming women and/or trans people for men choosing to not support their families and choosing to get useless degrees by the way. This seems like another example of men shirking responsibility for their own shortcomings. Aren't fathers supposed to be super important, especially in the development of young men? Why then are social progressives to blame for father's failures in creating responsible male citizens if this is such a significant problem? Saying "women should have equal rights" is not saying men should be shitty dads.  Men are not being emasculated by women voting or having jobs. Nor are men being emasculated by someone being born female and then identifying as a male later on or vice versa. 


Creating a unisex society isn't something we have properly thought out enough.
I agree and most people do not want to live in a unisex society. Many like myself just feel that people should be able to identify however they want without persecution. And while I value and recognize gender distinctions (I am a lesbian after all... meaning I obviously do not think men and women are the same) I think it's obvious as time go on that gender is more flexible than boomers realized.

g2g for now, it's too nice to be inside. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
It's very weird to me that you are blaming women and/or trans people for men choosing to not support their families and choosing to get useless degrees by the way. 

I don't know why you are saying I am blaming women for this. There are plenty of men along with women that support social policies protecting men from the consequences of failing their necessary societal duties. I am glad you agree with me that creating an effectively unisex society with equal protections for all biological sexes and with societal expectations for none is not very well thought out at all.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
 I am glad you agree with me that creating an effectively unisex society with equal protections for all biological sexes and with societal expectations for none is not very well thought out at all.

I do believe in equal rights and protections for all sexes. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I do believe in equal rights and protections for all sexes. 
Most feminists disagree vehemently.

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Progressives don't think anyone should be drafted. Another example of them being right. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I have no problem with women being placed in the draft same as men. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Another example of them being right. 
Until we actually need troops.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s amusing to me that people will go from “we have unlimited gun rights cuz the founding fathers did not support standing armies” in one minute to saying the federal government should be able to forcibly conscript you into a standing army the next minute. 

Since this has to be clarified - your personal support for a draft does not disprove that progressives support equal rights in abolishing the draft for both sexes. 

I hope you weren’t one of those people whining about liberal hippy draft resisters and draft dodgers in the 60s and 70s. Surely by now you recognize those prolonged wars were a bunch of bullshit. 

Don’t worry the next war big enough to warrant a U.S. draft won’t be fought with soldiers on the ground, so another one won’t be necessary. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Don’t worry the next war big enough to warrant a U.S. draft won’t be fought with soldiers on the ground, so another one won’t be necessary. 
Depends how much of the world Biden manages to piss off in the next couple of years.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Nevin Valev, owner of GlobalPetrolPrices, says several factors influence the differences between countries, mainly whether countries produce oil and the amount of taxes they charge.


65 countries have cheaper gas than the USA right now. (even Mexico for fucks sake)...

USA's high prices higher relative to 65 other countries are not a "Global problem" as you mindlessly keep repeating.
That's news to the rest of the world.

This is why you are not a serious person to talk to.

"At $5.037 per gallon (as of June 6), gas is cheaper than in over 90 countries including Norway and China, and more expensive than in over 70 others"

"There are several gas price factors pushing costs up globally for gas and other commodities, including supply and demand related to the war in Ukraine, economic sanctions on Russia, and the continued impact of the pandemic. Given that all those factors appear fairly entrenched, it’s unlikely that gas prices will decline significantly any time soon, particularly as seasonal demand rises moving into summer."
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
There is no reason why any American needs to pay more than FUCKING MEXICO for gasoline they could have easily produced locally were it not for the Marxist fucktards taking Marxism WAY too seriously.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Thought Terminating Cliches
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
"This is why you are not a serious person to talk to."


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you know Mexican Gas was more expensive than USA gas by 35 cents a gallon in 2020?

WTF happened in 2 years to make Mexican gas CHEAPER than USA gas?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Prices can be as much as $2 cheaper just across the border in Mexico, however. That comes thanks to Mexican government subsidies. The government of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador uses revenue from oil drilling to subsidize domestic gasoline and diesel prices. [**]
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So where are the goddamn USA subsidies? People are fkn hurting.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
At the end of April, Exxon Mobil reported $5.48 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2022 – also more than doubling its profits compared with the same period last year. Revenue for the Irving, Texas-based company was $90.5 billion, far exceeding the revenue of $59.15 billion during the same quarter in 2021. May 7, 2022 [**]
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So fucking what? They invested 81 billion to get 6 billion return per year. That's below average for most investments.

So AGAIN, where are the goddamn subsidies?

Poor people are fucking hurting and this asshole administration has ZERO solutions.

Mexico can fucking FIX THIS. WHY THE FUCK CAN'T AMERICA!!!
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Pelosi also has an ASSLOAD of stocks in "green energy" and zero stocks in independent oil drillers. Can you take a fucking wild guess as to where all the subsidies are funneled at the expense of poor people?

People are sick of the game where the poor always lose.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So where are the goddamn USA subsidies? People are fkn hurting.
So you're for socialism now. Will make note of that.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So you're for socialism now. Will make note of that.
I am for fixing a problem the Biden administration created by ENDING OIL

If that means subsidies, then that is what it takes to fix the fuckup Biden did.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Fixing the problem... With socialism.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Whatever it takes to fix the fuckup Biden did. At least we agree.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Danielle
It’s amusing to me that people will go from “we have unlimited gun rights cuz the founding fathers did not support standing armies” in one minute to saying the federal government should be able to forcibly conscript you into a standing army the next minute. 
The Founding Fathers clearly thought that conscription was fine: "Post Ratification of the Constitution, Article I.8.15, allows for Congress to conscript" and the fact that militias used to be a form of conscription. All able-bodied men in prescribed age ranges could be called upon if necessary. James Madison even attempted a national draft for the War of 1812.

In fact, you're much more likely to need to conscript during a conflict when you don't have standing armies lmfao