US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?

 

[Michael Wade]

Do you guys forget how antifa rampaged through America unchecked during the Trump era? Why would they miss a guy who refused to do anything about them?

My point was that they expected Biden to do more then trump. Not less.

More then a few people living in fear turned to the dems to save them and what have they earned? Less then nothing as they are repeatedly ignored and memory holed by Biden and the media.

Even if the dems got trump out legitimately, they are pissing on the people who voted for law and order.

 

[Ashford Lawrence]

This is the same reason I don't agree with the "baste Zoomer" theory. Most will be even worse versions of the bugmen we see now after a lifetime of constant insanity, and the ones who aren't will be blackpilled and just want to see everything burn based off recent trends.

Basically this. The typical zoomer has been fed a steady diet of Ritalin and social justice from the moment they were conceived. Far from saving America, it will be the zoomers who build the camps where they will murder their own friends and families by the millions.

 

[XYZpdq]

Where's that SOTU address, Joe?

iirc it's penciled in for late April, maybe 29th?

 

[Local FloRida-man]

It was a retarded strategy that was one of many things that cost him the election.

As opposed to what? Fixing all their problems and hoping like a retard the dem media machine doesn't spin it in their favor? Pure Trump lost (if you discount the fraud) because whites broke for Biden. And they did that because American whites are suicidally retarded, and they deserve everything they vote and pay for.

You are no longer the candidate of law and order if you let cities burn to own da libtards.

You can totally be the law and order candidate and not waste federal resources on states and cities that revel in the chaos caused by their own poor choices. There's a reason we have a federal system of government. And if you think saving dems from their poor policies makes them like you, well, let's just ask the now blue bastion of NYC how appreciative they are of Giuliani cleaning up their crime problem.

More then a few people living in fear turned to the dems to save them

Like someone who thinks they can heal a gunshot wound by asking the guy who shot them to put a few more rounds in.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

 

[Zero Day Defense]

"Based" is a term that's been in use as a general "that person is grounded in reality" sentiment longer than it's been associated with the right-wing and/or conservatism. It doesn't necessarily imply either. For instance, (may god forgive me for bringing it up) in gaymergate that one old feminist woman was often referred to as being "based" and she was far from what anyone would consider conservative.

Perhaps, but it's most associated with the right-wing youth. Additionally, the focus shouldn't be on who it's directed towards, but the applicator of the phrase-- Christina Hoff Sommers was considered "based", ultimately, because her ideology as presented was germane to the emerging right-wing youth at that time (if they had actually realized what second wave feminism was, though, they would have considered her a Great Satan).

And no, as said I don't expect them to be conservative, anybody with brains doesn't expect them to be "conservative" because, well, fuck conservatism. It obviously hasn't worked and prior to the current progressive mania it elevated the right-wing equivalent to a place of prominence in society... which was bad enough that today's zeitgeist arose from the repercussions of such people being at the helm of society writ-large.

The current progressive zeitgeist had already been brewing in universities for decades, and those graduates had to go somewhere in our society. The foundations for the orthodoxy regarding homosexuality and moreso transgenderism in particular were generated by psychologists such as Kinsey and Money. The sexual revolution, during which events such as the Roe v. Wade verdict and the creation of Playboy (which coincided with and influenced greatly the already extant free love movement and the general relaxation of sexual mores) well predated even the rise of the religious right, talk less of any proposed fallout caused by them.

Ceteris paribus sans the elevation of the religious right, however, we would have still largely been in our present situation. The dominance that rad-libs were allowed to have in our cultural propagators without substantive pushback all but assured that.

This all gets away from the point, however, that the idea of tempering the current evolutionary stage of progressivism with the center-left instead of diametrically stomping at least most of it into the ground is naive at best-- they have the same ideological foundations, and present progressivism is in large part a natural progression of the center-left mindset writ more annoying and obtrusive. You're getting nowhere with that, because in order to defeat them ideologically at this point you either have to propose a superior and better liked values system or show that your values system better embodies their values than theirs does. You just can't do the former when your distinguishing factor is only that you're "less intense" and you can't do the latter properly when they're operating from what they feel is moral because under most circumstances you'd be able to be accused of not going far enough or intentionally stopping short of the logical conclusions.

I assume here that this is a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway, I suppose.

It wasn't, entirely.

I would think it would at the minimum involve a rebuke of identitarian politics as well as other progressive shibboleths like gender theory adjacent shit like transgenderism being pushed on the populace. Beyond that it would boil down to the individual but, I mean you should already get the gist. A pushback against progressivist ideals without turning fully over to entirely conservative ideals. For instance, wanting to curb immigration illegal or otherwise,

Why wouldn't this be an entirely conservative viewpoint? Curbing illegal immigration may be a moderate position (assuming "moderate" to be "status quo" and considering the laws we have on the books to be "status quo"), but curbing immigration in general is distinctly conservative because it's an action meant to, in cultural terms, conserve culture and provide more incentive to assimilate.

but not really caring one way or the other about the state of the legality of abortion or gay marriage.

You have to care one way or the other, because you have to uphold laws that go one way or the other. Also, why would it be that we care about illegal immigration and transgenderism but not abortion or gay marriage?

I expect that there's a specialized answer for each of the aforementioned.

Or not wanting universal healthcare or U.B.I., but not giving a shit about single motherhood, divorce rates, or the state of the nuclear family in general.

Same question as above, but this is just reckless. "Sh'yeah, let's not pay mind to the fact that the building block of our national community is crumbling and leaving children more exposed to malignant influences while causing them to suffer developmental disadvantage. Let's not pay mind to the fact that men, mainly, are being robbed blind of their finances and parental rights just because their marriage didn't work out."

To wit, less conservative and more "hey, we're okay with the changes in society that occurred up until Occupy Wallstreet". I'm going to preempt you here, and say that calling that kind of attitude "conservatism" is the same kind of shit feminists pull when they ask the whole "do you want equality for women? You do? Then you're a feminist!" shit.

That's not conservatism. That's the kind of thing Carlson did in that interview with Shapiro when he talked about how he was just a guy who wanted to go back to the way things were in 2005-- it completely misses the point. 2005, 2008-- what we're dealing with now has been brewing since well into the 20th century and was bred from ideologies that sought to destroy the hold of cultural institutions seen to maintain the status quo (such as churches and families) with little regard for the harm that would bring. The roots go far deeper than "they're pushing trans stuff on our kids!" if you believe that to be a bad thing to begin with, which is my entire point regarding my cynicism regarding the ultimate political orientation of Zoomers: they don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes, and they either don't realize or don't want to realize how much needs to be extricated and how much they need to yoke themselves with afterwards. "You've gone too far!" will never be an adequate argument against the current zeitgeist-- it's like rubbing a topical cream when you really need an injection.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

You can totally be the law and order candidate and not waste federal resources on states and cities that revel in the chaos caused by their own poor choices. There's a reason we have a federal system of government. And if you think saving dems from their poor policies makes them like you, well, let's just ask the now blue bastion of NYC how appreciative they are of Giuliani cleaning up their crime problem.

That was a situation that Trump should have rubbed in constantly. Democrats stand for Burn Loot Murder and should have first threatened to send in the Nat'l Guard and if that didn't work, embolden the Proud Boys and build a hard power base from there. As the Nika riots proved, the best way to retain power is to kill the detractors.

 

[gaystoner]

Has he given one yet? If not, I don't think he ever will, if he did, that will likely be the only one he ever gives. If anyone starts giving SOTU addresses it will be Harris, in an attempt to get people used to her as president. That won't work probably, and will be seen as being very peculiar, but the Dems don't have any good options other than even more blatant electoral fraud.

he's been invited by the crypt keeper..i mean pelosi to address a joint session of Congress on April 26th

 

[brentkanaris]

This right wing doomerism is tiresome. It's coming from do-nothing people whose only contribution is complaining others do nothing. Either do something or leave Rome while it's still standing.

 

[The Last Stand]

View attachment 2095768

The bottom picture was not meant for "children's entertainment." But, children have access to such material thanks to the Internet and media.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

"Based" is squarely in the domain of conservative/"conservative" youth, and is connected to some polls that suggested children were presenting more conservative than those of the previous generation. I'm almost certain that the "based zoomer" meme embodies an unironic expectation of a conservative resurgence within the next generation, but indeed, the bare minimum of the expectation is that they're set to become anti-progressive.

Here's the rub: what, exactly, does that mean? What is it supposed to mean?

My read is that Josh’s statement from the stream a few weeks back touching on the shit with Gab and Torba is probably a good indicator on based zoomers and late millenials. You have people that are disgusted with the alphabet people, but also think the old right leads absolutely nowhere (and they’re right on that).

 

[LurkTrawl]

Spoiler: Loooooong reply

Perhaps, but it's most associated with the right-wing youth.

For you, sure. Not for people who've been using it since before the right co-opted it.

Additionally, the focus shouldn't be on who it's directed towards, but the applicator of the phrase-- Christina Hoff Sommers was considered "based", ultimately, because her ideology as presented was germane to the emerging right-wing youth at that time (if they had actually realized what second wave feminism was, though, they would have considered her a Great Satan).

Are you trying to say gamergate was right-wing? Lmao.

The current progressive zeitgeist had already been brewing in universities for decades, and those graduates had to go somewhere in our society. The foundations for the orthodoxy regarding homosexuality and moreso transgenderism in particular were generated by psychologists such as Kinsey and Money. The sexual revolution, during which events such as the Roe v. Wade verdict and the creation of Playboy (which coincided with and influenced greatly the already extant free love movement and the general relaxation of sexual mores) well predated even the rise of the religious right, talk less of any proposed fallout caused by them.

Ceteris paribus sans the elevation of the religious right, however, we would have still largely been in our present situation. The dominance that rad-libs were allowed to have in our cultural propagators without substantive pushback all but assured that.

This is apologia. Those college students and those societal events still wouldn't have led by themselves to what we're seeing today without the heavy-handed authoritarian Religious Right at the helm constantly driving the youth of that day to things seen as "subversive". It simply wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't able to be framed as a form of rebellion against an established dogma.

This all gets away from the point, however, that the idea of tempering the current evolutionary stage of progressivism with the center-left instead of diametrically stomping at least most of it into the ground is naive at best-- they have the same ideological foundations, and present progressivism is in large part a natural progression of the center-left mindset writ more annoying and obtrusive.

If what you were saying were true, the right wing would all be goose-stepping ethno-nationalists or theocrats at this point seeing as it's the same principle but on the right. Ultimately it doesn't have to be a conservative or right-wing ideology that takes it's place - that's you speaking from your own idealized view of the situation rather than looking at it objectively.

You're getting nowhere with that, because in order to defeat them ideologically at this point you either have to propose a superior and better liked values system

Which could be the system that I entailed already.

or show that your values system better embodies their values than theirs does. You just can't do the former when your distinguishing factor is only that you're "less intense" and you can't do the latter properly when they're operating from what they feel is moral because under most circumstances you'd be able to be accused of not going far enough or intentionally stopping short of the logical conclusions.

And why is that, do you think? Because while I may agree with the former point the latter doesn't quite make sense. Again if this were the case you'd have the right wing falling into unironic fascism and other such extremes, or you'd have the entirety of the left rather than a prodigiously squeaky wheel parroting this tripe. As it stands, I think you're missing a large part of why progressivism has such pull at the moment with the establishment, and such are filling in those gaps with suppositions.

Why wouldn't this be an entirely conservative viewpoint?

Because calling everything that isn't progressive conservative is fucking annoying and is the same fallacious bullshit feminists pull, as I remarked further on in the post. Not everything exists in a duopoly of "progressive or else".

Curbing illegal immigration may be a moderate position (assuming "moderate" to be "status quo" and considering the laws we have on the books to be "status quo"), but curbing immigration in general is distinctly conservative because it's an action meant to, in cultural terms, conserve culture and provide more incentive to assimilate.

Again this is a feminist saying "but you want equality for women, right? You're a feminist!". I cannot repeat this often enough because it's such a fucking irritating, shitty logical trap to try and pidgeonhole people as your "allies" when they're patently not. If they were "conservative" as the label is currently understood, they'd be for much, much more than just what I mentioned they'd theoretically be advocating.

You have to care one way or the other, because you have to uphold laws that go one way or the other. Also, why would it be that we care about illegal immigration and transgenderism but not abortion or gay marriage?

"We"
Nigga stop. People are capable of holding complex and nuanced views. Just because someone's not a fan of immigration doesn't mean they need to give a fuck about gay marriage. Politics isn't a game where you "pick a class" and take the good with the bad. With the environment that the generation we're discussing has grown up in, it's entirely plausible that they would care more about transgenderism for the same reason you have a legion of fedora-tipping euphoric atheist millenials long after the religious right has been defanged - they're a big face of progressivism. To say nothing of the fact that telling someone that they have to treat a man like a woman because he says he's one, regardless of medical facts or all reason really, is a world apart from caring about homosexuality or gays marrying when it was established as "normal" when these people were still in gradeschool.

Same question as above, but this is just reckless. "Sh'yeah, let's not pay mind to the fact that the building block of our national community is crumbling and leaving children more exposed to malignant influences while causing them to suffer developmental disadvantage. Let's not pay mind to the fact that men, mainly, are being robbed blind of their finances and parental rights just because their marriage didn't work out."

Again, that's the mindset I'm expecting from them since it was established as "normalcy" when they were young, and it's an aspect of society that either won't have much sway over them by the time they enter politics, or it wasn't a problem for them to begin with. We're talking about a generation that is going to have to be selfish by necessity given how much rougher of a start they'll have even compared to millenials. I fully expect a political atmosphere centered around trying to make things better for themselves first and foremost.

And yes, yes, I know, "oh making the nuclear family stronger is better for everyone!" and so on. Reminder that these people are raised in an environment where it's already had such damage done to it that the only way to rectify it would be seen as "oppressive" by them.

That's not conservatism.

Yeah, that's the entire thrust of what I was getting at.

That's the kind of thing Carlson did in that interview with Shapiro when he talked about how he was just a guy who wanted to go back to the way things were in 2005-- it completely misses the point. 2005, 2008-- what we're dealing with now has been brewing since well into the 20th century and was bred from ideologies that sought to destroy the hold of cultural institutions seen to maintain the status quo (such as churches and families) with little regard for the harm that would bring. The roots go far deeper than "they're pushing trans stuff on our kids!" if you believe that to be a bad thing to begin with, which is my entire point regarding my cynicism regarding the ultimate political orientation of Zoomers: they don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes, and they either don't realize or don't want to realize how much needs to be extricated and how much they need to yoke themselves with afterwards. "You've gone too far!" will never be an adequate argument against the current zeitgeist-- it's like rubbing a topical cream when you really need an injection.

That's a fine opinion, but it's not fact. It seems more to me that you'd rather have a much more conservative society and - while I can't begrudge someone of a political opinion for wanting it to be the dominant one, that's politics after all - you're acting as if though if we don't go back to the way things were before the RR toppled over then we're all doomed to be in the progressive zeitgeist for eternity. It's just not black and white, and as I said if that were even remotely true progressives wouldn't have had to wriggle into all the right nooks and crannies of society to ensure that their ideology came out as the figurehead when the pendulum finally did swing back leftwards. I've gone on at length in a different post as to why I think they came out ahead of other left-of-center ideologies, but I will admit openly that while I do believe a lot of their prominence is artificial it can't be understated that they did in fact only come to the fore ahead of their contemporaries after they had attained critical mass in the news media, education, and government infrastructure of the west.

Basically, to reiterate, if what you're saying here were true then there wouldn't have ever been a transitional period between the RR and the progressive dogma we see today. There was, however, and I do believe that a non-insignificant part of the next generation will try and bring that about - that's the "based zoomers" meme in a nutshell. I also believe that thinking that there's any reason to be dismayed or disappointed about that when that's the best you're gonna get is the very definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Just be glad there's a chance they won't be even fucking worse or more leftward than the inmates currently running the asylum.

TL;DR: They don't need to be conservative or right-wing to be "based", and be glad that there's even a chance that they won't be even worse/more left wing than the current assholes at the helm.

 

[Dona Morte]

Why do you think they put him in aviators? He literally can only squint.

To make him look "cool".
Colburt buys it hook line and sinker.

 

[soy_king]

Spoiler: Loooooong reply

For you, sure. Not for people who've been using it since before the right co-opted it.

Are you trying to say gamergate was right-wing? Lmao.

This is apologia. Those college students and those societal events still wouldn't have led by themselves to what we're seeing today without the heavy-handed authoritarian Religious Right at the helm constantly driving the youth of that day to things seen as "subversive". It simply wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't able to be framed as a form of rebellion against an established dogma.

If what you were saying were true, the right wing would all be goose-stepping ethno-nationalists or theocrats at this point seeing as it's the same principle but on the right. Ultimately it doesn't have to be a conservative or right-wing ideology that takes it's place - that's you speaking from your own idealized view of the situation rather than looking at it objectively.

Which could be the system that I entailed already.

And why is that, do you think? Because while I may agree with the former point the latter doesn't quite make sense. Again if this were the case you'd have the right wing falling into unironic fascism and other such extremes, or you'd have the entirety of the left rather than a prodigiously squeaky wheel parroting this tripe. As it stands, I think you're missing a large part of why progressivism has such pull at the moment with the establishment, and such are filling in those gaps with suppositions.

Because calling everything that isn't progressive conservative is fucking annoying and is the same fallacious bullshit feminists pull, as I remarked further on in the post. Not everything exists in a duopoly of "progressive or else".

Again this is a feminist saying "but you want equality for women, right? You're a feminist!". I cannot repeat this often enough because it's such a fucking irritating, shitty logical trap to try and pidgeonhole people as your "allies" when they're patently not. If they were "conservative" as the label is currently understood, they'd be for much, much more than just what I mentioned they'd theoretically be advocating.

"We"
Nigga stop. People are capable of holding complex and nuanced views. Just because someone's not a fan of immigration doesn't mean they need to give a fuck about gay marriage. Politics isn't a game where you "pick a class" and take the good with the bad. With the environment that the generation we're discussing has grown up in, it's entirely plausible that they would care more about transgenderism for the same reason you have a legion of fedora-tipping euphoric atheist millenials long after the religious right has been defanged - they're a big face of progressivism. To say nothing of the fact that telling someone that they have to treat a man like a woman because he says he's one, regardless of medical facts or all reason really, is a world apart from caring about homosexuality or gays marrying when it was established as "normal" when these people were still in gradeschool.

Again, that's the mindset I'm expecting from them since it was established as "normalcy" when they were young, and it's an aspect of society that either won't have much sway over them by the time they enter politics, or it wasn't a problem for them to begin with. We're talking about a generation that is going to have to be selfish by necessity given how much rougher of a start they'll have even compared to millenials. I fully expect a political atmosphere centered around trying to make things better for themselves first and foremost.

And yes, yes, I know, "oh making the nuclear family stronger is better for everyone!" and so on. Reminder that these people are raised in an environment where it's already had such damage done to it that the only way to rectify it would be seen as "oppressive" by them.

Yeah, that's the entire thrust of what I was getting at.

That's a fine opinion, but it's not fact. It seems more to me that you'd rather have a much more conservative society and - while I can't begrudge someone of a political opinion for wanting it to be the dominant one, that's politics after all - you're acting as if though if we don't go back to the way things were before the RR toppled over then we're all doomed to be in the progressive zeitgeist for eternity. It's just not black and white, and as I said if that were even remotely true progressives wouldn't have had to wriggle into all the right nooks and crannies of society to ensure that their ideology came out as the figurehead when the pendulum finally did swing back leftwards. I've gone on at length in a different post as to why I think they came out ahead of other left-of-center ideologies, but I will admit openly that while I do believe a lot of their prominence is artificial it can't be understated that they did in fact only come to the fore ahead of their contemporaries after they had attained critical mass in the news media, education, and government infrastructure of the west.

Basically, to reiterate, if what you're saying here were true then there wouldn't have ever been a transitional period between the RR and the progressive dogma we see today. There was, however, and I do believe that a non-insignificant part of the next generation will try and bring that about - that's the "based zoomers" meme in a nutshell. I also believe that thinking that there's any reason to be dismayed or disappointed about that when that's the best you're gonna get is the very definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Just be glad there's a chance they won't be even fucking worse or more leftward than the inmates currently running the asylum.

TL;DR: They don't need to be conservative or right-wing to be "based", and be glad that there's even a chance that they won't be even worse/more left wing than the current assholes at the helm.

Gen Z girls are still incredibly woke, and if they want these girls to fuck them they'll be woke too.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

This right wing doomerism is tiresome. It's coming from do-nothing people whose only contribution is complaining others do nothing. Either do something or leave Rome while it's still standing.

As much as I bitch about the future being terrible, I do think there's still enough sane people left for something good to come from the aftermath of this global circus.
The main issues I see is that I don't think much can be done other then waiting it out and hoping for the best while trying to strengthen your communities.
And as crap as America is currently, trying to run from it is dumb simply because everywhere else is either a carbon copy of America's issues, a third world dictatorship or a country like Japan and Russia which genuinely are on the verge of collapsing.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

For you, sure. Not for people who've been using it since before the right co-opted it.

We're speaking in generalities.

Are you trying to say gamergate was right-wing?

Christina Hoff Sommers was regarded as a figure of note outside Gamergate, and even within it, her ideology as presented was germane to the sensibilities of gamers, right wing or otherwise. Thus, my point.

This is apologia. Those college students and those societal events still wouldn't have led by themselves to what we're seeing today without the heavy-handed authoritarian Religious Right at the helm constantly driving the youth of that day to things seen as "subversive". It simply wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't able to be framed as a form of rebellion against an established dogma.

If you think that, you don't have a proper understanding of what the aim of that movement even was, which was to overthrow the status quo. They always would have been able to pose it as a rebellion against the status quo, and they were fighting from advantage since they promised freedom from stuffy rules while maintaining a system in which you could recognize yourself as moral.

If what you were saying were true, the right wing would all be goose-stepping ethno-nationalists or theocrats at this point seeing as it's the same principle but on the right.

I'm comparing specific ideologies, and ethno-nationalism/theocracy are distinct ideologies that happen to be classified "right". There are plenty of people that are conservative without being religious, because of how they behold purely the practical consequences. A theocrat may come to many of the same conclusions but their rationale has to do largely with their religious adherence. Ethno-nationalists reason differently from the typical modern conservative because their priorities and motivations are flatly different (typical modern conservatives aren't interested in ethnostates).

If you can demonstrate that center-left tendencies don't share a substantial rational base with modern progressivism (i.e. that they don't justify themselves by the same logical chain, differences being in where they choose to stop), then you'd have a point.

Because calling everything that isn't progressive conservative is fucking annoying and is the same fallacious bullshit feminists pull, as I remarked further on in the post. Not everything exists in a duopoly of "progressive or else".

Okay? But I explained why it's in the conservative domain, while acknowledging the existence of a moderate position. Curbing illegal immigration can be seen as moderate, but curbing immigration in general is squarely conservative because of the typical intentions behind the idea. If you can describe liberal-but-not-progressive intentions that could be associated with this (rather than flare up about supposed feminist rhetoric), you'd have a better point.

Again this is a feminist saying "but you want equality for women, right? You're a feminist!". I cannot repeat this often enough because it's such a fucking irritating, shitty logical trap to try and pidgeonhole people as your "allies" when they're patently not.

You should pay more attention to what I actually wrote-- which is that it's a conservative position, not that the person holding the position is a conservative-- instead of having flare ups about supposed feminist-flavored rhetoric.

It is a conservative position, simple as. It's a position held by conservatives normally but not by liberals because the values behind the idea as usually presented clash with liberal values. A liberal agreeing with this idea is finding common ground with a conservative, regardless of the rest of their ideology.

People are capable of holding complex and nuanced views. Just because someone's not a fan of immigration doesn't mean they need to give a fuck about gay marriage.

You misunderstand, likely. I'm literally asking what the ideology of someone who would have this combination of views would resemble.

With the environment that the generation we're discussing has grown up in, it's entirely plausible that they would care more about transgenderism for the same reason you have a legion of fedora-tipping euphoric atheist millenials long after the religious right has been defanged - they're a big face of progressivism. To say nothing of the fact that telling someone that they have to treat a man like a woman because he says he's one, regardless of medical facts or all reason really, is a world apart from caring about homosexuality or gays marrying when it was established as "normal" when these people were still in gradeschool.

The normalization of both homosexuality and transgenderism was concurrent by the specified time.

We're talking about a generation that is going to have to be selfish by necessity given how much rougher of a start they'll have even compared to millenials. I fully expect a political atmosphere centered around trying to make things better for themselves first and foremost.

Selfishness in the face of the complex of widespread societal issues they'll have to deal with would only make matters worse. I don't understand how they would "have to be selfish by necessity".

And yes, yes, I know, "oh making the nuclear family stronger is better for everyone!" and so on. Reminder that these people are raised in an environment where it's already had such damage done to it that the only way to rectify it would be seen as "oppressive" by them.

No shit. Rectifying the issue would be seen as "oppressive", and letting the issue persist would ruin more future generations. The solution is obviously to rectify the issue, but in order to do that, you have to get people to assent to yoking themselves. At the heart of the issue is exactly that: it's much easier to break something down than it is to build something up, and progressives are very good at breaking things down.

Yeah, that's the entire thrust of what I was getting at.

And the thrust of what I was getting at was that your prediction was offensively off the mark.

It seems more to me that you'd rather have a much more conservative society and - while I can't begrudge someone of a political opinion for wanting it to be the dominant one, that's politics after all - you're acting as if though if we don't go back to the way things were before the RR toppled over

You're assuming I want to go back to the RR period in the first place, which isn't the case. I don't know if I've already said it here, but the religious right promoted intellectual featherweight arguments that were never designed for apologia, but rather were tools by which they reinforced their societal control-- that's at the heart of the contradiction of having poorly formed, callous, and simple arguments while asserting influence over the sociocultural aspect of the national community. As a result of this, they handed the liberals a pre-signed checkbook that helped them advance just about anything they wanted because opposition to them would be seen as stemming from being a fuddy-duddy fundie.

The extent of their stupidity reached Congress, where their politicians would-- as an example-- make arguments that appealed to some vague idea of "sanctity of marriage", as though the state recognition of marriage and the religious institution of marriage were anything similar. Rather than be practical (e.g. point out that marriage financial benefits were to encourage family formation, and gay people could not be expected to have families because they can't naturally reproduce, point out that they should stay away from surrogacy because a child is entitled to the love of their mother and father, and absent that, they at least deserve a facsimile of that with an adoptive mother and father, point out that gay people can have wedding ceremonies and name changes just fine without state recognition, even allow them to visit their partners in the hospital past normal visitation times) they made surface-level appeals to religion.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Can Biden or Harris hurry and do something retarded again so we don't have the thread get clogged up with essays?

 

[FunPosting101]

This right wing doomerism is tiresome. It's coming from do-nothing people whose only contribution is complaining others do nothing. Either do something or leave Rome while it's still standing.

I kinda agree with this, but I also want to add that expecting a return to the values of pre-1960s America is painfully naive and foolish, we're not going to un-invent contraceptives, condoms, various STD treatments, and we're also not going to outlaw abortion. People like those things being legal and they do not want that to change. Moreover, the percentage of people who care about christianity will likely continue to shrink. These things aren't going to change, so any path forward for opposition to woke bullshit will have to find something else than jebus and trad values.

The fact that the progs are trying to push tranny bullshit on little kids is one serious potential point for opposition, the fact that the left is trying to do the pedo normalization song and dance again is another. Fucking with peoples kids(or literally fucking them, obviously) is one thing that absolutely infuriates regular people, and it is one really obvious point of failure for the whole woke trend in general. Also the blatant unfairness of the title IX kangaroo courts is another potential failure point and if Trump hadn't been thrown out of office by fraud I think that we'd be well on our way to those courts either being toothless or gone.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

Can Biden or Harris hurry and do something retarded again so we don't have the thread get clogged up with essays?

 

[Garm]

View attachment 2098060

Shit or get off the pot assholes.