Drag March "Coming for your children"

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-30-2023, 10:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm going to agree with you on this; I just want to first say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a "right winger." Liberal democracy cannot work without a conservative party. The term "right" covers rather a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors from monarchists to Nazis to evangelicals to small business owners who just want their Congress to balance the budget, most of whom don't share the same values. In the U.S. the latter may comprise traditional Burkean conservatism.  About the only thing that collects them under the "right" rubric is that at a very general and abstract level all are more comfortable with hierarchy than liberals and actual leftists, though the range of degree here is great. A portion of this "right" is not so wedded to the GOP that they cannot vote Dem when the GOP seems unable to manage issues important to them.

I don't recall that being an "independent" was ever a big issue for some on the right until it became clear that the Iraq War was going sideways. Fox was just ramping up its full propaganda power in 2002-03; it was easy to maneuver that audience into conviction the war was necessary and Saddam had WMDs. Hannity and Rush led the charge against the "traitorous left," who saw Saddam as quite distinct from Al Qaeda and didn't see why we had to invade even if he had WMDs, which he likely didn't according to our own intel. So "the left" supported Saddam and Al Qaeda. True Americans don't criticize a president during a war. They back him. Then after the prompt victory came the jubilant celebration which seemed to confirm Bush's judgment and American power. Hey world--this is what happens when you mess with America. You with us or against us!?

Three years later, after Fallujah, with battle deaths reaching the thousands AFTER the "victory," and still no WMDs, the crowing fell silent. Rush and Hannity and Fox had been wrong about LOTS of things. Then Obama won, and wanted healthcare for people who couldn't afford it. Then a big recession hit. Clearly O. was also mismanaging the war. Was he "too close" to "those people"? Just asking. 

2010--that's when I first began hearing it. Hard right wingers were no longer "Republican" and cursing both parties. They hated Obama for reasons they could never clearly articulate. But he was hammered every day about his brown suit or the coffee cup salute etc. Were lower and middle class Americans REALLY opposing tax cuts to the rich and the end of pre-existing condition clauses? Jon McNaughton began painting pictures of O. burning the Constitution and the like. Tea Partiers wanted the government out of Medicare, and they gave the House back to the GOP--the party noted for its defense of government programs. And when I argued with them on line or in person, citing Bush or planks in the Republican platform, they'd suddenly say they weren't Republican, and throw up Fox-generated false equivalences while telling ME to get my head out of the sand.  "Both sides" were to blame for the 2008 recession and such like. And Hilary supported the Iraq War too. The WMDs had been moved to Syria. 

I think this may be a kind of plausible deniability. The party that represents your values and policy preferences REALLY poops the bed; then course-corrects to get worse. But it's no longer YOUR party so you're not responsible for the choices of people you voted for. But when election time comes around, you are still going to vote for the party that represents your interests as you see them. Pretend like you are in the middle and then, wow, your "independent" sources inform you this Biden fellow is corrupt and has weaponized the DOJ, plus he is a "socialist," while Trump just outlined a persuasive foreign policy which will make America great again by shrinking its diplomatic investment in the world--so you go with him. A tremendously successful businessman (you saw him on The Apprentice, right?) who stands for the common man. No wonder the fearful "fake news" makes up stories about bankruptcies and fraud and accusations of sexual assault and obstruction and misuse of office and sedition.

People like Stewy and Nately are, I think, genuine independents. They voted with one party for a time, while it was a rational and defensible choice. Then they saw that party veer into crazy. They're not convinced by the alternative. That makes their vote genuinely up for grabs; You can't just say "socialist!" or "trans bathrooms" to herd them your way. Dems might get them with reasonably good candidate; if not they'll likely go 3rd party. We never see them defending Trump's Muslim ban as not a Muslim ban or arguing that he was not responsible for 1/6 or demanding a border wall or praising Trump's SCOTUS picks. That's not true of the hard right "independents" we are speaking of. They will always oppose "the left," as it has been defined for them.  If Fox says the Durham Report exposed FBI bias then, by God, they'll prove it with Fox links. Russia investigation exonerated Trump from all collusion and obstruction. Trump's coup attempt is not a deal breaker. Sheesh. But don't "label" them just based on what they support. 

You can be an agnostic and still support papal infallibility, right? 

I too agree that there is nothing, "wrong," with being right wing: as you say, opposing viewpoints make for a just society and fair laws/rules (at least they should, in theory), but I feel I must clarify:

I was merely saying that people are actively stating their independence, before going off on a right wing-fueled tirade (that's obviously an exaggerated term, but it gets the point across) and compared to people like Brad and who'sits, they don't have to qualify this notion before they go on their tirade(s).

And it is this action that raises questions to the validity of their claim or, it raises questions as to why they must qualify that, unprompted (ie: that they know there is something wrong with that POV).

Great post though, Dill

(07-01-2023, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Let's face it, most of us didn't get OUR sex education from our parents no matter how great they were.

Most of us didn't get it from our schools either...especially those of us who went to Catholic school.

Kids are getting this info from each other...just like we did...only now they have the internet too.

The push to get rid of sex education in schools is tied to the right's fear of ANYTHING sexual.  They are the ones who say girls can't have their shoulders exposed for fear of distracting the boys.  they are the ones pushing for dress codes, for girls only of course, so they can maintain their "modesty".  They rail against anything they consider "indecent" in the media in the name of "protecting the children".  

Yet they are the mostly likely to be charged and convicted of abuse of children.

They want to "make America Great Again" back when men could keep women and girls in their place and men and boys can do as they please.

So they fight against abortions, they fight against contraception, they fight against no fault divorces.

They want to roll back any advanced women have made so we can get back to "the good old days".

Fortunately our kids generation see that for what it is.  So while the pendulum is swinging away from protecting anyone not a white male Christian is will swing back when these old, angry men starting shuffling off this mortal coil.

Maybe in the US, but here in Canada, we got A SHIT-TON of sex ed in school and I was in Catholic school from grade 1-13 (no, Ontario abolished Grade 13 3 years before I got into High School, but I stayed an extra year to raise my marks, as my average was too low to get into the University(ies) of my choice).

My parents were *almost* completely hands off, but not because of fear or ignorance; it was solely due to the facts that A: We are SIGNIFICANTLY more open and honest about sex in Canada, hence why Degrassi (between Junior High, High and the Next Generation, all 3 shows spanning 4 decades) was so incredibly popular in the US and B: it WAS being taught in all schools and we had many commercials and bumpers after/before shows growing up, that warned of us of the dangers/risks of not just sex, but drug abuse, bullying, etc.

The amount of HPV ads (and to get vaccinated from the virus) I have seen in my life is probably more numerous than any other singular ad, save for food-related ones lol.

(07-01-2023, 08:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The term having sex doesn't automatically equate to consensual sex.

If a girl is being raped by her father, she's technically having sex -- even though it's against her will.

A man forced to rob a bank because his family is being held hostage, is still technically robbing the bank -- even though he's an unwilling participant in the act.

Pally's statement was 100% percent correct; children are having sex and as she pointed out -- the reason they're having sex is because they're BEING RAPED. They are unwilling participants being forced into sexual activity.

The man being forced to rob the bank doesn't want to be robbing the bank, but he's still unwillingly participating in robbing the bank. 

To take a 3rd party stance here (of which I try to look at everything in life), you guys are 100% correct in that what Pally said was completely honest and apt...

... however many human's minds are conditioned to believe a certain notion, ie: that in this case, that Pally said this to imply that it was consensual.

I get both sides of the argument.