Growing up in this landmass was incredibly and painfully confusing. I was surrounded by people that told me my life was "better than everyone else", and if I ever dared to ask about what "over there" was like, I was mocked, ridiculed, isolated away in everywhere but small circles of post-teenage educated people.
I've only managed to fly outside these states once in my life, and I want to do it again and for the rest of it. The culture I was born into was and is rotting from a group of humans that are too internally frightened and humiliated by their lack of knowledge and feeling like they are owed things. I don't want to live here, and I have been trying to find a place that would accept my mentality as a citizen of a small blue planet even though I come from here... but I always worry I am guilty by association :(
The culture you were born into may very well be rotten, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that it’s the culture of “this landmass”. The USA is enormous, and contains a huge number of cultures and subcultures. I grew up here, too, and experienced nothing like what you describe.
Live the rest of your life abroad if you’d like, but don’t do so believing that everyone in the USA is from the same culture.
Besides Quakerism as the other poster mentions, Bahai'ism in the West seems mostly driven by women and over the twentieth century and beyond has intersected with a number of quirky alternative subcultures.
Women have been dehumanized for millennia, though.
This kind of misogyny would have been used as a joke in All in the Family 50 years ago, and the premise that "liberal women" were a threat to society is as old as feminism, if not as old as civilization itself. You could probably find some variant of "women these days" carved in cuneiform onto a clay tablet.
"Men can have babies. Communism will work this time. Etc". Seriously, anyone in the 70s/80s/90s (or asia today) would think left should be institutionalised. Problem is left call centrists right wing, and everyone right of Stalin Nazis.
Which was the stazi playbook (berlin wall was freedom/anti Nazi wall, keeping everyone in.)
Broken minds, like zombies.
Perhaps you should take a moment to understand what people on the left actually mean, instead of taking memes as sources of truth.
For instance, "men can have babies" is a simple result of politeness and observable reality. Transgender people exist, and can become pregnant and have babies. The polite, sympathetic and decent thing to do when interacting with a transgender person is to use their preferred gender terms. This is true whether you're a small-government, live-and-let-live libertarian conservative (you live your life, I'll live mine) or a Christian values social conservative (Jesus spent his entire life around lepers, beggars and prostitutes and washed their feet as an act of love and compassion).
Combine those two facts 1) you've got a person who had a baby at one point in their life and 2) who should be referred to as a man today, and the result is you get a man who had a baby. Nothing left-wing or liberal about it, just basic civility and politeness to another person, which are values we should all embrace.
FTM transgender people can get pregnant, yes. They don't have the XY chromosomes that cisgender men do, but intersex people don't necessarily have two x or xy chromosomes, and they CAN give birth.
Biology is not black and white, and gender is a social construct.
if the goal is a population that is easy to control and overthrow, you want it to be full of a bunch of weak men who think they are women and a bunch of women who think they are soldiers
Amazing that you think that after Trump - who tried to overthrow a legitimate election - is shafting you over and over and laughing all the way to the bank.
conveniently ignoring the fact that real western socialism and eastern larp have been different since day one of the establishment of the deformed worker's state known as "soviet union"
the first comment says "no tolerance for anyone that doesn’t think, act, look, and live exactly like he does" which is quite funny when you think about the fact that if you disagree with any of aspect of the insanely pervasive liberal ideology, you are immediately ostracized based on the fact that you do not you don't "think, act, look, and live exactly like" and get inundated with a plethora of dumb shit using "phobic" and "ist" as a suffix
Say it. Say you want women to be enslaved housewives again. This is all you males want. The male mind virus is what's destroying this world yet you can't see it.
The male mind is impossible to comprehend. Half of a species no more evolved than its ancestors, still guided uniquely and exclusively by its dick. I am so sick of males.
And if one dares to mention that this kind of dogmatism is pervasive across the political spectrum, and so that that first comment is quite literally correct then despite its irony, then that's a "both sides" thing, and therefore just cope.
It's entertaining sometimes, but man, is it ever depressing too. Good thing the speech is free though... (not that e.g. curtailing dogmatic speech wouldn't be just a treating of symptoms)
definitely is the case that that dogmatism does exist across the political spectrum, it just appears more frequently from one side as opposed to the other.
like i stated in a different reply: "i might fundamentally disagree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it" which seems to only be echoed by one side
Your whole argument collapses when you notice the far right hates people for what they are and cant change, such as their sex or race, and the far left hates people for what they choose to be, such as racist, egoistical, violent...
"Hating women" and "hating people who hate women" are the same "hate" only if you are a shallow thinker who stays at the surface of things and takes words at their face value.
well clearly your hate is morally superior and thus you're justified in your hate opposed to another because you're a brilliant thinker, right?
regardless you saying that those who are far right hate people for something they can't change is just as funny as that first comment in the article, because for example, phrases like 'assigned male at birth' which is literally someone born as male then cosplaying a female. how is that someone who is "what they are and cant change"? i can personally find that to be revolting but it doesn't change reality.
here is a good way for your big brain to understand it, say a far left person wearing a bunch of pride badges gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, you will still see a far right person assist in defending the individual they fundamentally disagree. now reverse the roles and say a far right person wearing a MAGA hat gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, and you will see the far left person assist in the attack.
i might not agree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it, but the same sentiment seems to be lost on the opposite side of the political isle, they would instead celebrate and advocate violence against the other side "for what they choose to be"
Yes. They are saying that hating people for what they choose to be is better than hating people for what they are. Your point being?
Being trans is what you are, it has never been an open choice like how I can choose to associate with a different political party. If people could freely choose what gender they felt like without any mental distress or anguish involved, nearly no one would be trans because it is a massively repressed and limiting position in society, where a good chunk of the world population displays the emotional stability of a rabid bulldog when thinking about them. I could feel your fists clench through the text, especially when you think about only MtFs - a sign of very rational and stable views about gender roles.
Your example is just "let me tell you how good I imagine my side is, and how bad I imagine your side is. Not feeling so smart now huh?". Most far-rightists have no qualms about suppressing the other side if you look at how their societies act, from hyper-religious dictatorships to corrupt populist democracies. It's the right that's the most easily united under hatred, while the left is infamous for infighting and constant drama because they disagree on the minutia of some idea. A lot of the right can accept anything from a theocracy to the death of democracy if what they think gets instated. They do not care about anyone's rights or wellbeing. Maybe some on the regular right would disagree with some of these things, but not anyone who's deep into extreme ideology.
>well clearly your hate is morally superior and thus you're justified in your hate opposed to another
Uh, yes? And you prove my point? Because when you give this scenario:
>say a far left person wearing a bunch of pride badges gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, you will still see a far right person assist in defending the individual they fundamentally disagree
Then the far-right person will earn my respect, not my hate, because it defended the basic dignity of someone attacked for what they are. We could even start a conversation on why they helped someone they think is a "pervert abomination" that "destroys civilization". See, I don't hate the far-right guy for things he can't change about himself, but for his beliefs and hurtful actions at this point in time. The second he stops being hurtful, I have no reason to hate him anymore.
Whereas for the guys who hate women/black people/brown people/Jews etc..., you can't do anything to change for the better, except cease to exist, either by physically dying, or socially dying aka. becoming subhuman/noncitizen.
>regardless you saying that those who are far right hate people for something they can't change is just as funny as that first comment in the article, because for example, phrases like 'assigned male at birth' which is literally someone born as male then cosplaying a female. how is that someone who is "what they are and cant change"? i can personally find that to be revolting but it doesn't change reality.
How exactly are you personally affected by "someone born as male then cosplaying as a female"? You find it revolting but why should you care about their private choices who affect only themselves? Why do you feel you have to interject and meddle and attack? The only "obligation" you may have is to call them by a different pronoun than the one you would like to use. Is that such a "violence" that you feel justified in hating them and denying them rights, job promotions, fighting for their country (voluntarily!) and going to a water closet? Do you feel also violence by basic politeness like when you have to tell someone ugly they are looking rather nice?
Conflating the underlying types of hate is not my intention (nor is conflating the moral character and mental state required to hold either views), what I'm saying is that both of these far-off crowds are genuinely insufferable, damaging to public discourse, and that their justification for being insufferable only goes so far.
You may find their justification to wash one of these sides, but that doesn't collapse jack about my "argument", we just disagree then. Sorry to hear this makes me a shallow thinker in your opinion, unfortunately, gonna have to disagree about that one too.
I did not put forward any arguments by the way, I stated opinions and an anecdote.
I really don't understand people who put being polite and cordial before everything. And honestly, it reeks of "I am not directly affected by it, therefore I don't want to engage with it". "Why can't we be nice with people who call liberal women pestilence that will end civilization?" Clearly you're not a women in the military whose career (or basic safety from sexual assault) may be affected by these guys. But let's not be "insufferable" here, right?
Because it's seriously distracting. It derails people's thoughts and behavior, and distorts their underlying positions over time, radicalizing them.
Consider our very own conversation. According to your very own words, you cannot help but extrapolate that I must be uncaring of women's sexual abuse, and have a lack of experience with sexual abuse myself. Your moral investment is clearly high in this, naturally meaning this is a sensitive subject for you, and that you are thus trying to establish friend from foe. Consequently, it'd be hard to fault me if I went along for the ride, and took serious offense at what you just wrote. I don't think I need to explain why.
But this is no way to have a conversation. And indeed, people who are so amped up are rarely using their words for conversation. It's more of a torment nexus they unleash on those they find to be deserving of it.
Whether such perversion of discourse is acceptable to you, ultimately up to you. I'm a bit surprised you'd be in such disbelief why it's not so for others however.
This is also reflected in political discourse. A common trope I encounter recently is "they'll tell you you're a monster but not that you're wrong". Indeed, things rarely fall into one category. How hurtful and how true something is are different axes that both exist. Would be awfully cool though if people didn't amp up the hurtfulness factor for funsies, based on whatever arbitrary moral justifications, then act coyly surprised when that's what takes focus. Or were at least candid about having done so.
Americans are never allowed to pull the exceptionalism card ever again after this administration is kicked to the kerb.
Growing up in this landmass was incredibly and painfully confusing. I was surrounded by people that told me my life was "better than everyone else", and if I ever dared to ask about what "over there" was like, I was mocked, ridiculed, isolated away in everywhere but small circles of post-teenage educated people.
I've only managed to fly outside these states once in my life, and I want to do it again and for the rest of it. The culture I was born into was and is rotting from a group of humans that are too internally frightened and humiliated by their lack of knowledge and feeling like they are owed things. I don't want to live here, and I have been trying to find a place that would accept my mentality as a citizen of a small blue planet even though I come from here... but I always worry I am guilty by association :(
The culture you were born into may very well be rotten, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that it’s the culture of “this landmass”. The USA is enormous, and contains a huge number of cultures and subcultures. I grew up here, too, and experienced nothing like what you describe.
Live the rest of your life abroad if you’d like, but don’t do so believing that everyone in the USA is from the same culture.
Joe Biden. Kamala Harris. What's your point?
As an atheist I have literally never discovered a religion that respects women, individuality or liberty.
Its always about following rules- which conveniently were made up by other people centuries in the past. People with penises.
From what I've read, Sikhism is pretty egalitarian with respect to sex.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Justice_and_equality
Besides Quakerism as the other poster mentions, Bahai'ism in the West seems mostly driven by women and over the twentieth century and beyond has intersected with a number of quirky alternative subcultures.
Maybe there are reasons why religions that did that died out..
The Quakers are pretty chill.
You’ll have to ask yourself why the only institutions that last for centuries or even millennia are the ones that eschew liberalism.
Dehumanizing part of the population is historically the first step to atrocities.
Women have been dehumanized for millennia, though.
This kind of misogyny would have been used as a joke in All in the Family 50 years ago, and the premise that "liberal women" were a threat to society is as old as feminism, if not as old as civilization itself. You could probably find some variant of "women these days" carved in cuneiform onto a clay tablet.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The right are insane assholes
[the middle of insanity is just right]
"Men can have babies. Communism will work this time. Etc". Seriously, anyone in the 70s/80s/90s (or asia today) would think left should be institutionalised. Problem is left call centrists right wing, and everyone right of Stalin Nazis. Which was the stazi playbook (berlin wall was freedom/anti Nazi wall, keeping everyone in.) Broken minds, like zombies.
Perhaps you should take a moment to understand what people on the left actually mean, instead of taking memes as sources of truth.
For instance, "men can have babies" is a simple result of politeness and observable reality. Transgender people exist, and can become pregnant and have babies. The polite, sympathetic and decent thing to do when interacting with a transgender person is to use their preferred gender terms. This is true whether you're a small-government, live-and-let-live libertarian conservative (you live your life, I'll live mine) or a Christian values social conservative (Jesus spent his entire life around lepers, beggars and prostitutes and washed their feet as an act of love and compassion).
Combine those two facts 1) you've got a person who had a baby at one point in their life and 2) who should be referred to as a man today, and the result is you get a man who had a baby. Nothing left-wing or liberal about it, just basic civility and politeness to another person, which are values we should all embrace.
> observable reality
Man, really? The same argument transphobes use?
"It's observable reality. Just LOOK at her! It's obvious!" compared to "It's observable reality. Just LOOK at him! It's obvious!"
> simple result
I wish it were that simple -_-
I mean, there is such a thing as reality, and it exists regardless of your observing it; we can agree on this much, I'm sure?
>Men can have babies
FTM transgender people can get pregnant, yes. They don't have the XY chromosomes that cisgender men do, but intersex people don't necessarily have two x or xy chromosomes, and they CAN give birth.
Biology is not black and white, and gender is a social construct.
if the goal is a population that is easy to control and overthrow, you want it to be full of a bunch of weak men who think they are women and a bunch of women who think they are soldiers
Amazing that you think that after Trump - who tried to overthrow a legitimate election - is shafting you over and over and laughing all the way to the bank.
conveniently ignoring the fact that real western socialism and eastern larp have been different since day one of the establishment of the deformed worker's state known as "soviet union"
>"Men can have babies. Communism will work this time. Etc".
That's really what is in the Culture novels from Iain M. banks that Elon Musk idolizes.
We are already finding ways to let sterile couples have children. Why is that acceptable and not against nature?
> Problem is left call centrists right wing, and everyone right of Stalin Nazis.
Only MAGA call anyone to their left "RHINO", "cucks" and "communists".
>Broken minds, like zombies.
https://newrepublic.com/post/215314/trump-makes-crowd-swear-...
elaborate
the first comment says "no tolerance for anyone that doesn’t think, act, look, and live exactly like he does" which is quite funny when you think about the fact that if you disagree with any of aspect of the insanely pervasive liberal ideology, you are immediately ostracized based on the fact that you do not you don't "think, act, look, and live exactly like" and get inundated with a plethora of dumb shit using "phobic" and "ist" as a suffix
Say it. Say you want women to be enslaved housewives again. This is all you males want. The male mind virus is what's destroying this world yet you can't see it.
The male mind is impossible to comprehend. Half of a species no more evolved than its ancestors, still guided uniquely and exclusively by its dick. I am so sick of males.
And if one dares to mention that this kind of dogmatism is pervasive across the political spectrum, and so that that first comment is quite literally correct then despite its irony, then that's a "both sides" thing, and therefore just cope.
It's entertaining sometimes, but man, is it ever depressing too. Good thing the speech is free though... (not that e.g. curtailing dogmatic speech wouldn't be just a treating of symptoms)
definitely is the case that that dogmatism does exist across the political spectrum, it just appears more frequently from one side as opposed to the other. like i stated in a different reply: "i might fundamentally disagree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it" which seems to only be echoed by one side
Your whole argument collapses when you notice the far right hates people for what they are and cant change, such as their sex or race, and the far left hates people for what they choose to be, such as racist, egoistical, violent...
"Hating women" and "hating people who hate women" are the same "hate" only if you are a shallow thinker who stays at the surface of things and takes words at their face value.
well clearly your hate is morally superior and thus you're justified in your hate opposed to another because you're a brilliant thinker, right? regardless you saying that those who are far right hate people for something they can't change is just as funny as that first comment in the article, because for example, phrases like 'assigned male at birth' which is literally someone born as male then cosplaying a female. how is that someone who is "what they are and cant change"? i can personally find that to be revolting but it doesn't change reality. here is a good way for your big brain to understand it, say a far left person wearing a bunch of pride badges gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, you will still see a far right person assist in defending the individual they fundamentally disagree. now reverse the roles and say a far right person wearing a MAGA hat gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, and you will see the far left person assist in the attack. i might not agree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it, but the same sentiment seems to be lost on the opposite side of the political isle, they would instead celebrate and advocate violence against the other side "for what they choose to be"
Yes. They are saying that hating people for what they choose to be is better than hating people for what they are. Your point being?
Being trans is what you are, it has never been an open choice like how I can choose to associate with a different political party. If people could freely choose what gender they felt like without any mental distress or anguish involved, nearly no one would be trans because it is a massively repressed and limiting position in society, where a good chunk of the world population displays the emotional stability of a rabid bulldog when thinking about them. I could feel your fists clench through the text, especially when you think about only MtFs - a sign of very rational and stable views about gender roles.
Your example is just "let me tell you how good I imagine my side is, and how bad I imagine your side is. Not feeling so smart now huh?". Most far-rightists have no qualms about suppressing the other side if you look at how their societies act, from hyper-religious dictatorships to corrupt populist democracies. It's the right that's the most easily united under hatred, while the left is infamous for infighting and constant drama because they disagree on the minutia of some idea. A lot of the right can accept anything from a theocracy to the death of democracy if what they think gets instated. They do not care about anyone's rights or wellbeing. Maybe some on the regular right would disagree with some of these things, but not anyone who's deep into extreme ideology.
feel my fists clench through the text? that would imply anger, and if that's what your takeaway was, you live in a very comfortable bubble
>well clearly your hate is morally superior and thus you're justified in your hate opposed to another
Uh, yes? And you prove my point? Because when you give this scenario:
>say a far left person wearing a bunch of pride badges gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, you will still see a far right person assist in defending the individual they fundamentally disagree
Then the far-right person will earn my respect, not my hate, because it defended the basic dignity of someone attacked for what they are. We could even start a conversation on why they helped someone they think is a "pervert abomination" that "destroys civilization". See, I don't hate the far-right guy for things he can't change about himself, but for his beliefs and hurtful actions at this point in time. The second he stops being hurtful, I have no reason to hate him anymore.
Whereas for the guys who hate women/black people/brown people/Jews etc..., you can't do anything to change for the better, except cease to exist, either by physically dying, or socially dying aka. becoming subhuman/noncitizen.
>regardless you saying that those who are far right hate people for something they can't change is just as funny as that first comment in the article, because for example, phrases like 'assigned male at birth' which is literally someone born as male then cosplaying a female. how is that someone who is "what they are and cant change"? i can personally find that to be revolting but it doesn't change reality.
How exactly are you personally affected by "someone born as male then cosplaying as a female"? You find it revolting but why should you care about their private choices who affect only themselves? Why do you feel you have to interject and meddle and attack? The only "obligation" you may have is to call them by a different pronoun than the one you would like to use. Is that such a "violence" that you feel justified in hating them and denying them rights, job promotions, fighting for their country (voluntarily!) and going to a water closet? Do you feel also violence by basic politeness like when you have to tell someone ugly they are looking rather nice?
[dead]
Conflating the underlying types of hate is not my intention (nor is conflating the moral character and mental state required to hold either views), what I'm saying is that both of these far-off crowds are genuinely insufferable, damaging to public discourse, and that their justification for being insufferable only goes so far.
You may find their justification to wash one of these sides, but that doesn't collapse jack about my "argument", we just disagree then. Sorry to hear this makes me a shallow thinker in your opinion, unfortunately, gonna have to disagree about that one too.
I did not put forward any arguments by the way, I stated opinions and an anecdote.
I really don't understand people who put being polite and cordial before everything. And honestly, it reeks of "I am not directly affected by it, therefore I don't want to engage with it". "Why can't we be nice with people who call liberal women pestilence that will end civilization?" Clearly you're not a women in the military whose career (or basic safety from sexual assault) may be affected by these guys. But let's not be "insufferable" here, right?
Because it's seriously distracting. It derails people's thoughts and behavior, and distorts their underlying positions over time, radicalizing them.
Consider our very own conversation. According to your very own words, you cannot help but extrapolate that I must be uncaring of women's sexual abuse, and have a lack of experience with sexual abuse myself. Your moral investment is clearly high in this, naturally meaning this is a sensitive subject for you, and that you are thus trying to establish friend from foe. Consequently, it'd be hard to fault me if I went along for the ride, and took serious offense at what you just wrote. I don't think I need to explain why.
But this is no way to have a conversation. And indeed, people who are so amped up are rarely using their words for conversation. It's more of a torment nexus they unleash on those they find to be deserving of it.
Whether such perversion of discourse is acceptable to you, ultimately up to you. I'm a bit surprised you'd be in such disbelief why it's not so for others however.
This is also reflected in political discourse. A common trope I encounter recently is "they'll tell you you're a monster but not that you're wrong". Indeed, things rarely fall into one category. How hurtful and how true something is are different axes that both exist. Would be awfully cool though if people didn't amp up the hurtfulness factor for funsies, based on whatever arbitrary moral justifications, then act coyly surprised when that's what takes focus. Or were at least candid about having done so.