The New Lounge

[Dattier]

Not to mention, most of their ideologies went from “We just want acceptance” to “You better accept this or you’re the worst person on Earth”. People got tired of being accused of things they aren’t and the constant victimhood.

That right there, in the bold, is a perfect example of what I said.
(Now, that's a line a lot of y'all use here all the time, claiming someone else just proved your point for you with no further elaboration. Watch what I do next that makes it different here...)
I said, "[t]he Left eat their own."
(See? That's actual support for how someone just proved your point.)

 

[Dattier]

The Dem Party is in shambles not because of internal dissent; it’s because they uniformly support positions that are wildly unpopular with the American public such as trans in women’s sports and sanctuary cities.

Agree re: transwomen in women's sports, not on sanctuary cities.

They are also in shambles because they cozy up to corporations and Wall St, trying to be Republican-light. Yet they're also the party of Occupy Wall St. Do you see how easy it is to poke holes in your lazy claims about their uniformity? Do you not see any difference at all between Sen Schumer and Rep Tlaib? Between Rep Pelosi and Rep AOC? Y'all LOVE pointing it out when there is squabbling in the Democratic Party, yet now you're claiming they are uniform?

 

[Dattier]

People got tired of being accused of things they aren’t and the constant victimhood.

Being told that privilege and systemic prejudices exist is not an accusation, and acting like it is is equally playing the victim. Same with the "war on Christmas" and LGBTQIAQAD+/- "lifestyles" being shoved down your throats and tons of other examples.

 

[Mac9192]

Question for anyone but Dattier. Have liberals always been as intellectually dishonest as him? I feel like it hasn’t always been this way. I go back and forth between whether they believe what they are saying or just flat out lying. When did this change? It seems you used to be able to have reasonable conversations with them. Is it simply TDS? Is it that the left’s ideologies have gotten so out of hand that they have to lie and bypass reality to stay in line with their marching orders? I mean most of them refuse to even define what a women is because they are so invested in their script.

Thoughts?

The year 2015 is where the division started to grow. It's like liberals are stuck in 2015. They've taken their talking points from their media leaders, and continue to pound the "Trump's the enemy" gavel since then. As good as education is, with them it's a big reason why they won't change. They refuse to accept it unless it comes out of the mouth of a fellow lib, and listening to uneducated buffoons is beneath them. The conservative has learned to use his eyes more. The liberal is unwilling to. Why? Because he read an article by a professor from Harvard telling him things are good.

The liberal refused to believe Biden was mentally unfit. I mean their sources weren't talking about it, so these uneducated yahoos saying these bad things about the President had to be only out of hate. But when that same Harvard professor then writes a piece about Biden needing to step down, all the sudden their opinion changed.

 

[KDSTONE]

Agree re: transwomen in women's sports, not on sanctuary cities.

They are also in shambles because they cozy up to corporations and Wall St, trying to be Republican-light. Yet they're also the party of Occupy Wall St. Do you see how easy it is to poke holes in your lazy claims about their uniformity? Do you not see any difference at all between Sen Schumer and Rep Tlaib? Between Rep Pelosi and Rep AOC? Y'all LOVE pointing it out when there is squabbling in the Democratic Party, yet now you're claiming they are uniform?

Re: the comment about cozying up to Wall St while at the same time supporting the Occupy mvmt, most would probably call it hypocrisy rather than being diverse in thought as a party

 

[Dahntay#1]

We're all way dumber in our 20s. You think those people who remained liberals just stopped developing? Continued maturity and learning only occurs for you and other ex-liberals? You're demonstrating equally one-dimensional assessments now in your mid 30s.

It seems you were saying that I have no reference of being a liberal. I’m letting you know that I am all too familiar.

I don’t think those that stay liberal stopped developing necessarily. I just think that some develop a better BS detector as they get older and learn how the world works. If that skill is never developed, you’re 100% going to stay liberal.

 

[KDSTONE]

Being told that privilege and systemic prejudices exist is not an accusation, and acting like it is is equally playing the victim. Same with the "war on Christmas" and LGBTQIAQAD+/- "lifestyles" being shoved down your throats and tons of other examples.

Anyone against trans in women’s sports is frequently called a transphobe.
If you had the audacity to point out the violence attached to the BLM protests, you’re David Duke.
Look at the way the Left went after Harrison Butker. Anyone who goes off script will find themselves in the crosshairs of the Woke bullies.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Being told that privilege and systemic prejudices exist is not an accusation, and acting like it is is equally playing the victim. Same with the "war on Christmas" and LGBTQIAQAD+/- "lifestyles" being shoved down your throats and tons of other examples.

Because most of those privileges and prejudices don’t exist and conservatives are simply pointing out why. However, being a victim is a virtue in 2025. When I was growing up, it was shameful to complain about everything and be a victim. But liberals actually found a way to make it cool to be a victim. The more you complain, whether valid or not, the bigger of a hero you are.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Anyone against trans in women’s sports is frequently called a transphobe.
If you had the audacity to point out the violence attached to the BLM protests, you’re David Duke.
Look at the way the Left went after Harrison Butker. Anyone who goes off script will find themselves in the crosshairs of the Woke bullies.

And this is why people stopped taking all of the ‘isms and phobias seriously. They became useless words thrown around to spook people and divide the masses.

 

[Dattier]

The year 2015 is where the division started to grow. It's like liberals are stuck in 2015. They've taken their talking points from their media leaders, and continue to pound the "Trump's the enemy" gavel since then. As good as education is, with them it's a big reason why they won't change. They refuse to accept it unless it comes out of the mouth of a fellow lib, and listening to uneducated buffoons is beneath them. The conservative has learned to use his eyes more. The liberal is unwilling to. Why? Because he read an article by a professor from Harvard telling him things are good.

The liberal refused to believe Biden was mentally unfit. I mean their sources weren't talking about it, so these uneducated yahoos saying these bad things about the President had to be only out of hate. But when that same Harvard professor then writes a piece about Biden needing to step down, all the sudden their opinion changed.

And I would claim it started with the spread of the Internet. There's a reason GW Bush was the most unpopular President ever, then Obama was, then Trump 1.0 was, etc. It just keeps getting worse.

I've demonstrated numerous times how I avoid being susceptible to the "professor from Harvard." I recommend it to y'all every time you post a specious source. Y'all seem to believe that as long as it isn't msm and as long as it soothes your need for confirmation bias, it must be true, then you act just as smug and arrogant as you claim liberal intellectuals are.

None of us is an expert at everything, so eventually we have to trust someone. It comes down to who do you trust, how did you come to trust them, and why. The joke on the Left is that the Right likes to do their own research then claim equal footing with an established scientist. The joke on the right is that the Left puts too much faith in academia and the intellectual establishment without considering how those institutions may also be compromised. There's some truth to both and we would all be wise to strike some balance.

It was strategically disadvantageous to acknowledge President Biden's mental decline. Until it wasn't. President Trump is not far behind him, but y'all aren't going to acknowledge it unless you have to.

 

[Dahntay#1]

The year 2015 is where the division started to grow. It's like liberals are stuck in 2015. They've taken their talking points from their media leaders, and continue to pound the "Trump's the enemy" gavel since then. As good as education is, with them it's a big reason why they won't change. They refuse to accept it unless it comes out of the mouth of a fellow lib, and listening to uneducated buffoons is beneath them. The conservative has learned to use his eyes more. The liberal is unwilling to. Why? Because he read an article by a professor from Harvard telling him things are good.

The liberal refused to believe Biden was mentally unfit. I mean their sources weren't talking about it, so these uneducated yahoos saying these bad things about the President had to be only out of hate. But when that same Harvard professor then writes a piece about Biden needing to step down, all the sudden their opinion changed.

This makes a lot of sense actually.

 

[Dattier]

Anyone against trans in women’s sports is frequently called a transphobe.
If you had the audacity to point out the violence attached to the BLM protests, you’re David Duke.
Look at the way the Left went after Harrison Butker. Anyone who goes off script will find themselves in the crosshairs of the Woke bullies.

Yes, I acknowledged as much re: transwomen in women's sports.
Chances are if you're focusing on the small amounts of violence adjacent to BLM protests, you're consuming a form of biased media with an agenda.
Harrison Butker said stupid things his own teammates called him out for. He was never on team Woke anyway, so he never had that script to stray from to begin with.
The whole idea behind capital W Woke was to stand up to bullies. A significant portion of them have indeed become bullies.

Because most of those privileges and prejudices don’t exist and conservatives are simply pointing out why. However, being a victim is a virtue in 2025. When I was growing up, it was shameful to complain about everything and be a victim. But liberals actually found a way to make it cool to be a victim. The more you complain, whether valid or not, the bigger of a hero you are.

Shedding light on injustice is not playing the victim. That's what oppressors want you to think so you'll keep your mouth shut, head down, and be a good worker bee. And they praise you for being stoic and not shamefully playing the victim when the real shame is on them for victimizing people. Fighting that is the only way to reject victimhood.

Those privileges and prejudices absolutely exist. The Left has badly miscommunicated around it. A poor, struggling white person doesn't want to hear about their white privilege, and frankly, it's insulting to emphasize it, as if they're supposed to think anything about their current situation is made better by learning about it. It's the same kind of toxicity as when conservatives tell us to be grateful for America at the expense of improving America.

 

[Dattier]

This makes a lot of sense actually.

It validates you for what you already believe. That's what "makes sense." But tell me more about how only liberals do that.

 

[KDSTONE]

And I would claim it started with the spread of the Internet. There's a reason GW Bush was the most unpopular President ever, then Obama was, then Trump 1.0 was, etc. It just keeps getting worse.

I've demonstrated numerous times how I avoid being susceptible to the "professor from Harvard." I recommend it to y'all every time you post a specious source. Y'all seem to believe that as long as it isn't msm and as long as it soothes your need for confirmation bias, it must be true, then you act just as smug and arrogant as you claim liberal intellectuals are.

None of us is an expert at everything, so eventually we have to trust someone. It comes down to who do you trust, how did you come to trust them, and why. The joke on the Left is that the Right likes to do their own research then claim equal footing with an established scientist. The joke on the right is that the Left puts too much faith in academia and the intellectual establishment without considering how those institutions may also be compromised. There's some truth to both and we would all be wise to strike some balance.

It was strategically disadvantageous to acknowledge President Biden's mental decline. Until it wasn't. President Trump is not far behind him, but y'all aren't going to acknowledge it unless you have to.

Based on their last debate, I’d say that Trump is a few country miles behind him.

 

[KDSTONE]

Yes, I acknowledged as much re: transwomen in women's sports.
Chances are if you're focusing on the small amounts of violence adjacent to BLM protests, you're consuming a form of biased media with an agenda.
Harrison Butker said stupid things his own teammates called him out for. He was never on team Woke anyway, so he never had that script to stray from to begin with.
The whole idea behind capital W Woke was to stand up to bullies. A significant portion of them have indeed become bullies.


Shedding light on injustice is not playing the victim. That's what oppressors want you to think so you'll keep your mouth shut, head down, and be a good worker bee. And they praise you for being stoic and not shamefully playing the victim when the real shame is on them for victimizing people. Fighting that is the only way to reject victimhood.

Those privileges and prejudices absolutely exist. The Left has badly miscommunicated around it. A poor, struggling white person doesn't want to hear about their white privilege, and frankly, it's insulting to emphasize it, as if they're supposed to think anything about their current situation is made better by learning about it. It's the same kind of toxicity as when conservatives tell us to be grateful for America at the expense of improving America.

Billions of dollars in property damage doesn’t equal “small amounts of violence” but fair enough otherwise.

 

[Dahntay#1]

@Dattier so to be clear, I’m guessing you think as a white man your have some sort of privilege over others. Tell me more about how this works.

 

[GhostOf301]

Roll the tape...

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.


I've added some bold, establishing that President Trump was indeed talking about the protests and protesters, not some amorphous debate. And establishing that the question he answered in the infamous quote was indeed a focus on neo-Nazis. As I have acknowledged, he did reject the label of "neo-Nazi," which does rebut and disprove the common misinterpretation of his quote, but then he goes on the say there were very fine people on both sides. The one side being the people who showed up armed with guns and tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us," made up of numerous alt-right hate groups and white nationalists, including someone who murdered a counterprotester. On the other side, you had people countering them. Our tough-talking cowboy of a President minced words when it was time to make a strong statement denouncing white nationalism.

Was this a "perfect press conference," like the "perfect call" to the Ga AG asking him to find 11k votes? If you think it was, you're a delusional yes man who has no business ever pointing at the Left when you have a plank in your own eye. If not, how about you stop defending it 100% and acknowledge where he screwed up.

Clearly, I was wrong about him not directly speaking about the protests or the protesters. But I am not wrong that he condemned the neo nazis and the left created their own view of what he was saying. It wasn't a perfect presser. He could have separated the people who were against the removal of the statutes but not part of the groups demonstrating. I remembered wrong that he did.

 

[GhostOf301]

@Dattier so to be clear, I’m guessing you think as a white man your have some sort of privilege over black men. Tell me more about how this works.

Yes. He thinks he is naturally superior to black men because he's white.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Yes. He thinks he is naturally superior to black men because he's white.

I edited the original question from black men to anyone to see if he was going to say it himself.

 

[GhostOf301]

Billions of dollars in property damage doesn’t equal “small amounts of violence” but fair enough otherwise.

Much like in Gaza. The majority of gazans don't take part in killing Israelis. But they sit quietly while hamas does it for them and celebrate it. People would build human shields around cop cars so that the rioters could have time to burn and flip cop cars before the police could stop them. Those people weren't violent or destructive, but they were complicit. The whole peaceful protest garbage was all lies. Just because 7 out of 10 protesters were peaceful, doesn't mean that the protest was peaceful

 

[Dattier]

Clearly, I was wrong about him not directly speaking about the protests or the protesters. But I am not wrong that he condemned the neo nazis and the left created their own view of what he was saying. It wasn't a perfect presser. He could have separated the people who were against the removal of the statutes but not part of the groups demonstrating. I remembered wrong that he did.

Okay, then, we're in agreement: He bungled it and the Left misrepresented and exaggerated how he bungled it.

 

[Mac9192]

And I would claim it started with the spread of the Internet. There's a reason GW Bush was the most unpopular President ever, then Obama was, then Trump 1.0 was, etc. It just keeps getting worse.

I've demonstrated numerous times how I avoid being susceptible to the "professor from Harvard." I recommend it to y'all every time you post a specious source. Y'all seem to believe that as long as it isn't msm and as long as it soothes your need for confirmation bias, it must be true, then you act just as smug and arrogant as you claim liberal intellectuals are.

None of us is an expert at everything, so eventually we have to trust someone. It comes down to who do you trust, how did you come to trust them, and why. The joke on the Left is that the Right likes to do their own research then claim equal footing with an established scientist. The joke on the right is that the Left puts too much faith in academia and the intellectual establishment without considering how those institutions may also be compromised. There's some truth to both and we would all be wise to strike some balance.

It was strategically disadvantageous to acknowledge President Biden's mental decline. Until it wasn't. President Trump is not far behind him, but y'all aren't going to acknowledge it unless you have to.

First off, the internet when it comes to our government & the media has been more positive. It's taken away the monopoly they've had on what the public sees & listens to. Second, I believe my example of you and the Harvard professor is fairly accurate. Your third paragraph is also fairly accurate.

Your last part about Trump's mental decline? This is either your delusion at work or you're just flat lying.

It's like me selling you my car that is in really good shape, yet you say that it has two flat tires and it's leaking oil.

 

[Dattier]

@Dattier so to be clear, I’m guessing you think as a white man your have some sort of privilege over others. Tell me more about how this works.

Yes. Society affords me certain privileges through no merit of my own that others have been unfairly denied. Find anywhere in that definition where I'm saying I'm better than anyone.

As a Christian, my faith culture is more represented than others; my holidays are aligned with federal holidays.
As a white person, I'm judged by what other white people do less often. No one justifies suspicion of me by citing crime that they refer to as "white on white crime."
As a man, I'm seen as a more natural leader than most women and I'm granted authority women often have to work harder to receive. In my 50s, I'm considered weathered and rugged, not old and invisible.
As a cis person, I don't have to fight over which bathroom I get to use or for people to call me by the name I ask them to use.
As a heterosexual person, no one says I'm shoving my "lifestyle" down their throat because I wear a wedding ring, have a picture of my wife on my desk, make references to my wife in casual conversation, or hold my wife's hand in public. No one challenges my right to marry. No one actually calls my nature a "lifestyle." People with similar family structures to mine are represented in art and literature without people accusing it of being an agenda.

And yes, I've experienced exceptions to the examples above, too. I've been targeted for being white by both BIPOC and white virtue signalers. I've been accused of mansplaining when I was being really careful trying to avoid exactly that. I've been the only cishet man in the room and felt people gravitate away from me. The difference is that those experiences have been isolated and short-lived.

Completely anecdotal, but about 12 years or so ago I rear-ended someone at a stoplight. I was braking too slowly, glanced down, glanced up and hit the guy. Totally my fault. I'd had one beer at a restaurant right before that, chugging the last of it as I was paying before jumping in the car. Totally fine to drive, but almost certainly smelling like that last chug. The dude I hit was Latino, with shaky English. I spoke to him pleasantly and apologetically enough while we waited for police. The cop who responded was Black. He asked the other guy 3 times if he'd been drinking, more intense each time. The dude didn't smell like it or sound like it or look like it, but he asked him 3 times. I almost certainly smelled like I'd been drinking, and I was definitely at fault, but he didn't ask me a single time whether I'd been drinking. As an isolated incident, it's too small a sample size to draw any conclusion, but when it fits with so many similar anecdotes, systemic racism is the only plausible explanation for why it went this way. I mention that the cop was Black because despite being more susceptible to the same type of prejudice himself, he was operating as a police officer at that point. Systemic racism isn't about conscientious malice from one person to another; it's about subtle ways in which it is built into the system and potentially infects us all despite our conscious good intentions.

 

[GhostOf301]

Yes. Society affords me certain privileges through no merit of my own that others have been unfairly denied. Find anywhere in that definition where I'm saying I'm better than anyone.

As a Christian, my faith culture is more represented than others; my holidays are aligned with federal holidays.
As a white person, I'm judged by what other white people do less often. No one justifies suspicion of me by citing crime that they refer to as "Black on Black crime."
As a man, I'm seen as a more natural leader than most women and I'm granted authority women often have to work harder to receive. In my 50s, I'm considered weathered and rugged, not old and invisible.
As a cis person, I don't have to fight over which bathroom I get to use or call me by a name other than the name I ask them to use.
As a heterosexual person, no one says I'm shoving my "lifestyle" down their throat because I wear a wedding ring, have a picture of my wife on my desk, make references to my wife in casual conversation, or hold my wife's hand in public. No one challenges my right to marry. No one actually calls my nature a "lifestyle."

And yes, I've experienced exceptions to the examples above, too. I've been targeted for being white by both BIPOC and white virtue signalers. I've been accused of mansplaining when I was being really careful trying to avoid exactly that. I've been the only cishet man in the room and felt people gravitate away from me. The difference is that those experiences have been isolated and short-lived.

Completely anecdotal, but about 12 years or so ago I rear-ended someone at a stoplight. I was braking too slowly, glanced down, glanced up and hit the guy. Totally my fault. I'd had one beer at a restaurant right before that, chugging the last of it as I was paying before jumping in the car. Totally fine to drive, but almost certainly smelling like that last chug. The dude I hit was Latino, with shaky English. I spoke to him pleasantly and apologetically enough while we waited for police. The cop who responded was Black. He asked the other guy 3 times if he'd been drinking, more intense each time. The dude didn't smell like it or sound like it or look like it, but he asked him 3 times. I almost certainly smelled like I'd been drinking, and I was definitely at fault, but he didn't ask me a single time whether I'd been drinking. As an isolated incident, it's too small a sample size to draw any conclusion, but when it fits with so many similar anecdotes, systemic racism is the only plausible explanation for why it went this way. I mention that the cop was Black because despite being more susceptible to the same type of prejudice himself, he was operating as a police officer at that point. Systemic racism isn't about conscientious malice from one person to another; it's about subtle ways in which it is built into the system and potentially infects us all despite our conscious good intentions.

That is one really long bumper sticker.

 

[Dattier]

First off, the internet when it comes to our government & the media has been more positive. It's taken away the monopoly they've had on what the public sees & listens to. Second, I believe my example of you and the Harvard professor is fairly accurate. Your third paragraph is also fairly accurate.

Your last part about Trump's mental decline? This is either your delusion at work or you're just flat lying.

It's like me selling you my car that is in really good shape, yet you say that it has two flat tires and it's leaking oil.

The existence of the Internet is overwhelmingly positive in many, many ways. It has not helped political discourse.

I demonstrated in the very post you cited and numerous times previously how the Harvard prof analogy does not apply to me, including the irony that I often pause to consider whether such things do apply to me. To wit: "...the Left puts too much faith in academia and the intellectual establishment without considering how those institutions may also be compromised. There's some truth to [that and corresponding criticism of the right] and we would all be wise to strike some balance."

I concede to @KDSTONE 's point that President Trump's mental decline is considerably less advanced than President Biden's. That President Trump is not as sharp as he was 15 years ago is also logical, evident, and undeniable.

Your car analogy probably makes sense in your head, but doesn't land with me, and I have now thoroughly clarified that I think President Biden's mental decline has been steeper.

 

[Dattier]

That is one really long bumper sticker.

A normal length bumper sticker would surely be deliberately misconstrued.

 

[Mac9192]

The existence of the Internet is overwhelmingly positive in many, many ways. It has not helped political discourse.

I demonstrated in the very post you cited and numerous times previously how the Harvard prof analogy does not apply to me, including the irony that I often pause to consider whether such things do apply to me. To wit: "...the Left puts too much faith in academia and the intellectual establishment without considering how those institutions may also be compromised. There's some truth to [that and corresponding criticism of the right] and we would all be wise to strike some balance."

I concede to @KDSTONE 's point that President Trump's mental decline is considerably less advanced than President Biden's. That President Trump is not as sharp as he was 15 years ago is also logical, evident, and undeniable.

Your car analogy probably makes sense in your head, but doesn't land with me, and I have now thoroughly clarified that I think President Biden's mental decline has been steeper.

Fair enough post other than the second sentence. The internet isn't helping with political discourse, I agree. But they've grown in popularity due to the extremely low credibility of the media.

And based off the last 10 years, they have no one to blame but themselves. As the old saying goes, they got too big for their britches.

 

[Dahntay#1]

@Dattier Let me ask you a question. I should hope that if nothing else, we can agree on the fact that men commit more violent crimes than woman. If we can’t at least agree on that, we probably can’t agree on anything. With that agreement being assumed, do you think that men are unfairly targeted by police since we are arrested more than women? Is that female privilege?

 

[Dattier]

@Dattier Let me ask you a question. I should hope that if nothing else, we can agree on the fact that men commit more violent crimes than woman. If we can’t at least agree on that, we probably can’t agree on anything. With that agreement being assumed, do you think that men are unfairly targeted by police since we are arrested more than women? Is that female privilege?

I do not think men are unfairly targeted in that I don't think they are preemptively targeted, and if we are committing more crimes, we should be arrested more often.

If neighbors call the police about sounds of violence from next door and the police find a husband and wife both bloodied, I concede that everything else being equal they are likely to be more suspicious of the man. Or that women more often get favorable custody of children in a divorce settlement could be another example of woman privilege. As Louis CK jokes, when the doctor comes in and he's Indian, he quietly thinks, "Yes!" I guess that's Indian privilege. There are times when it cuts both ways. There is usually a clear predominance, though.

I would submit that sexism harms even the perceived benefactors. Men suffer more from stress-related ailments specifically because a patriarchal system traditionally puts a disproportionate amount of pressure and fiscal responsibility on their shoulders. Men suffer in silence and isolation more often because patriarchal systems tell us we're supposed to surpress emotion and be self-reliant. Same with racism. Oppression of BIPOC hurts white people, too. Fight for others' liberation not because you pity them, but because it liberates you, as well.

 

[Dattier]

Fair enough post other than the second sentence. The internet isn't helping with political discourse, I agree. But they've grown in popularity due to the extremely low credibility of the media.

And based off the last 10 years, they have no one to blame but themselves. As the old saying goes, they got too big for their britches.

I think it's good that media monopolies are crumbling, but even when that is organic, the concern about what replaces it is valid. The influx of gonzo media may serve the purpose of breaking up the compromised monopoly, but it doesn't have any more inherent credibility: The Taliban were hailed as heroes for pushing out the Mujahidin; Castro was a hero for getting rid of Batista; Lenin was a hero for overthrowing the Russian monarchy. And they all went on to do monstrous things themselves. And the French peasants that overthrew Louis-whatever-number and Marie Antoinette became tyrants in much the same way many in the Woke crowd have. The same applies to all the gonzo media.

Even in situations where a person or group has no one to blame but themselves, it does not therefore justify any and every reaction. That's most literally addressed in the 8th Amendment, but it applies conceptually elsewhere.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Yes. Society affords me certain privileges through no merit of my own that others have been unfairly denied.

What privileges do you have that others have been unfairly denied? The key phrase being unfairly denied.

As a white person, I'm judged by what other white people do less often. No one justifies suspicion of me by citing crime that they refer to as "white on white crime."
As a man, I'm seen as a more natural leader than most women and I'm granted authority women often have to work harder to receive. In my 50s, I'm considered weathered and rugged, not old and invisible.
As a cis person, I don't have to fight over which bathroom I get to use or for people to call me by the name I ask them to use.
As a heterosexual person, no one says I'm shoving my "lifestyle" down their throat because I wear a wedding ring, have a picture of my wife on my desk, make references to my wife in casual conversation, or hold my wife's hand in public. No one challenges my right to marry. No one actually calls my nature a "lifestyle."

Considering the crime rates of certain demographics, why wouldn’t people be more leery of those that commit more violent crimes?

People are allowed to think that men are better leaders than women. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. I hear people say routinely that women are smarter than men and no on bats an eye. It’s their opinion. Who cares?

If you want to role play and pretend to be something you’re not, I honestly have no problem with it. But when you want me to role play with your delusion, that’s when you’re crossing a line.

For LGBTQ people, no one cares what they do until they go out of their way trying to prove how gay or trans they are. But when we start to see it in every other commercial, tv show, cartoons, etc, yes obviously it’s an agenda and we are going to voice our opinions. Voicing our opinion of not wanting it to be shoved in our faces is seen as being a bigot. As a matter of fact, simply not agreeing with any lifestyle or belief on the left is seen as being a bigot.

 

[Th0r]

Maybe I’m a psycho, but I enjoy reading the back and forth in this thread. It’s always interesting to see how these discussions play out and the opinions from both sides.

“Considering the crime rates of certain demographics, why wouldn’t people be more leery of those that commit more violent crimes?”

Because that’s not how crime or logic works. Crime stats reflect broad social issues, not some inherent trait of a particular demographic. If we followed this logic, we’d have to be wary of all sorts of people based on group statistics rather than individual behavior—which is obviously unfair and impractical.

Also, if crime is the concern, why not focus on the root causes (poverty, education, access to resources) instead of just blaming entire groups? That’s like blaming all men for violent crime when the majority of violent offenders are male. Nobody does that because it’s ridiculous.

“People are allowed to think that men are better leaders than women. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. I hear people say routinely that women are smarter than men and no one bats an eye. It’s their opinion. Who cares?”

Sure, people can have opinions, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. Thinking men are better leaders than women is not just an opinion—it’s a belief that has real-world consequences, like workplace discrimination and fewer leadership opportunities for women.

And as for the “women are smarter than men” comment—when people say that, it’s usually meant as a joke or flattery, not as a justification for systemic inequality. The difference? One belief has been used to exclude and oppress people, while the other hasn’t.

“If you want to role-play and pretend to be something you’re not, I honestly have no problem with it. But when you want me to role-play with your delusion, that’s when you’re crossing a line.”

This is just dismissive and misses the point entirely. No one is asking you to “role-play”; they’re asking you to respect their identity—just like you’d expect people to respect your name, pronouns, or basic dignity.

And let’s be real, you already “role-play” in daily life by using people’s preferred names and titles. If someone changes their name from Mike to John, you don’t throw a fit and call them delusional. But somehow, when it’s a trans person, it’s suddenly an issue?

“For LGBTQ people, no one cares what they do until they go out of their way trying to prove how gay or trans they are. But when we start to see it in every other commercial, TV show, cartoons, etc., yes, obviously it’s an agenda and we are going to voice our opinions.”

Let’s flip this for a second—straight relationships and gender norms have been all over media forever, and no one called it an “agenda.” But the moment LGBTQ people get any representation, it’s suddenly “being shoved in your face”? That’s just selective outrage.

Also, LGBTQ people exist in the real world, so of course, they’re going to exist in media. If representation makes you uncomfortable, that says more about you than it does about the media.

“Voicing our opinion of not wanting it to be shoved in our faces is seen as being a bigot. As a matter of fact, simply not agreeing with any lifestyle or belief on the left is seen as being a bigot.”

No, what makes something bigoted isn’t disagreement—it’s when that “disagreement” turns into trying to suppress, mock, or exclude people. If someone doesn’t agree with your religion, that’s fine. If they start saying your religion is a delusion and shouldn’t be in media, that’s a problem.

At the end of the day, no one’s forcing anything on you. People just want to exist without being treated like a problem. If seeing others represented feels like an attack, maybe it’s worth asking why that bothers you so much.

 

[GhostOf301]

Maybe I’m a psycho, but I enjoy reading the back and forth in this thread. It’s always interesting to see how these discussions play out.

“Considering the crime rates of certain demographics, why wouldn’t people be more leery of those that commit more violent crimes?”

Because that’s not how crime or logic works. Crime stats reflect broad social issues, not some inherent trait of a particular demographic. If we followed this logic, we’d have to be wary of all sorts of people based on group statistics rather than individual behavior—which is obviously unfair and impractical.

Also, if crime is the concern, why not focus on the root causes (poverty, education, access to resources) instead of just blaming entire groups? That’s like blaming all men for violent crime when the majority of violent offenders are male. Nobody does that because it’s ridiculous.

“People are allowed to think that men are better leaders than women. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. I hear people say routinely that women are smarter than men and no one bats an eye. It’s their opinion. Who cares?”

Sure, people can have opinions, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. Thinking men are better leaders than women is not just an opinion—it’s a belief that has real-world consequences, like workplace discrimination and fewer leadership opportunities for women.

And as for the “women are smarter than men” comment—when people say that, it’s usually meant as a joke or flattery, not as a justification for systemic inequality. The difference? One belief has been used to exclude and oppress people, while the other hasn’t.

“If you want to role-play and pretend to be something you’re not, I honestly have no problem with it. But when you want me to role-play with your delusion, that’s when you’re crossing a line.”

This is just dismissive and misses the point entirely. No one is asking you to “role-play”; they’re asking you to respect their identity—just like you’d expect people to respect your name, pronouns, or basic dignity.

And let’s be real, you already “role-play” in daily life by using people’s preferred names and titles. If someone changes their name from Mike to John, you don’t throw a fit and call them delusional. But somehow, when it’s a trans person, it’s suddenly an issue?

“For LGBTQ people, no one cares what they do until they go out of their way trying to prove how gay or trans they are. But when we start to see it in every other commercial, TV show, cartoons, etc., yes, obviously it’s an agenda and we are going to voice our opinions.”

Let’s flip this for a second—straight relationships and gender norms have been all over media forever, and no one called it an “agenda.” But the moment LGBTQ people get any representation, it’s suddenly “being shoved in your face”? That’s just selective outrage.

Also, LGBTQ people exist in the real world, so of course, they’re going to exist in media. If representation makes you uncomfortable, that says more about you than it does about the media.

“Voicing our opinion of not wanting it to be shoved in our faces is seen as being a bigot. As a matter of fact, simply not agreeing with any lifestyle or belief on the left is seen as being a bigot.”

No, what makes something bigoted isn’t disagreement—it’s when that “disagreement” turns into trying to suppress, mock, or exclude people. If someone doesn’t agree with your religion, that’s fine. If they start saying your religion is a delusion and shouldn’t be in media, that’s a problem.

At the end of the day, no one’s forcing anything on you. People just want to exist without being treated like a problem. If seeing others represented feels like an attack, maybe it’s worth asking why that bothers you so much.

All of this sounds respectful and great. But it's ignoring reality. They are absolutely shoving their lifestyles into the faces of society. It's not just about loving who you love. The pride movement has become so sexually charged you have parents bringing their kids to events where freaks are wearing nothing but a banana hammock with their ass cheeks hanging out and we're supposed to just tell the children that this is normal behavior. That is not normal behavior no matter what your sexual orientation is or what your pronouns are. Drag queen storytelling for elementary children. No, that is indoctrination and it is shoving it in the face of society. Demanding that I call you something that I know you're not is forcing your delusions on me. I don't have to purposely refer to someone as the pronoun they don't want be to as. That would be disrespectful. But I also don't have to play along with their games. I will just refrain from using pronouns.

I am sorry, but if it were simply a matter of people just wanting to exist without being treated like a problem, there would be no reason to have pride events where their sexual fantasies are played out in front of the public. As a general rule, no one cares who you love, no one cares if you want to transition.

 

[Dattier]

What privileges do you have that others have been unfairly denied? The key phrase being unfairly denied.

Considering the crime rates of certain demographics, why wouldn’t people be more leery of those that commit more violent crimes?

People are allowed to think that men are better leaders than women. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. I hear people say routinely that women are smarter than men and no on bats an eye. It’s their opinion. Who cares?

If you want to role play and pretend to be something you’re not, I honestly have no problem with it. But when you want me to role play with your delusion, that’s when you’re crossing a line.

For LGBTQ people, no one cares what they do until they go out of their way trying to prove how gay or trans they are. But when we start to see it in every other commercial, tv show, cartoons, etc, yes obviously it’s an agenda and we are going to voice our opinions. Voicing our opinion of not wanting it to be shoved in our faces is seen as being a bigot. As a matter of fact, simply not agreeing with any lifestyle or belief on the left is seen as being a bigot.

Every example I stated is an example of something unfairly denied to people and which adversely affects civil rights, job opportunities, and safety.

You're trying to justify stereotypes and prejudices. That's disgusting.

On the bold... If someone's name is Michael but he goes by Mike, or if he goes by his middle name which is Ashley, which sounds more like a girl's name, you would accept it and never think of calling him Michael. Same thing with the names of transpeople. Same thing with pronouns. If a cis man has long hair and a bunch of traditional feminine physical traits, you would rightly get fired for calling him a woman. What are you gonna do? Insist on a cup check? It's no different for anyone else. It's none of your business what's on their birth certificate or what's in their pants.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop saying bigoted things. They get accused of being in your face for doing the exact same things heterosexual couples do that no one even notices. I already gave you examples. It is not in "every other" commercial, show, etc. You only notice when they are. LGBTQIAQACW+/- people just want you to leave them alone.

Everything you're saying is the equivalent of saying, "I don't have a problem with Black people... as long as they're not mugging me, or as long as they're one of the 'good ones.' "

 

[Dahntay#1]

Maybe I’m a psycho, but I enjoy reading the back and forth in this thread. It’s always interesting to see how these discussions play out.

“Considering the crime rates of certain demographics, why wouldn’t people be more leery of those that commit more violent crimes?”

Because that’s not how crime or logic works. Crime stats reflect broad social issues, not some inherent trait of a particular demographic. If we followed this logic, we’d have to be wary of all sorts of people based on group statistics rather than individual behavior—which is obviously unfair and impractical.

Also, if crime is the concern, why not focus on the root causes (poverty, education, access to resources) instead of just blaming entire groups? That’s like blaming all men for violent crime when the majority of violent offenders are male. Nobody does that because it’s ridiculous.

“People are allowed to think that men are better leaders than women. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. I hear people say routinely that women are smarter than men and no one bats an eye. It’s their opinion. Who cares?”

Sure, people can have opinions, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. Thinking men are better leaders than women is not just an opinion—it’s a belief that has real-world consequences, like workplace discrimination and fewer leadership opportunities for women.

And as for the “women are smarter than men” comment—when people say that, it’s usually meant as a joke or flattery, not as a justification for systemic inequality. The difference? One belief has been used to exclude and oppress people, while the other hasn’t.

“If you want to role-play and pretend to be something you’re not, I honestly have no problem with it. But when you want me to role-play with your delusion, that’s when you’re crossing a line.”

This is just dismissive and misses the point entirely. No one is asking you to “role-play”; they’re asking you to respect their identity—just like you’d expect people to respect your name, pronouns, or basic dignity.

And let’s be real, you already “role-play” in daily life by using people’s preferred names and titles. If someone changes their name from Mike to John, you don’t throw a fit and call them delusional. But somehow, when it’s a trans person, it’s suddenly an issue?

I can't comment on everything , so I'll pick the first 3.

Because that’s not how crime or logic works. Crime stats reflect broad social issues, not some inherent trait of a particular demographic. If we followed this logic, we’d have to be wary of all sorts of people based on group statistics rather than individual behavior—which is obviously unfair and impractical.

Also, if crime is the concern, why not focus on the root causes (poverty, education, access to resources) instead of just blaming entire groups? That’s like blaming all men for violent crime when the majority of violent offenders are male. Nobody does that because it’s ridiculous.

No one is saying that anything is an inherent issue. But what do you expect from people? You expect them to say "You know what, that person may be dangerous. However, they may have grown up in poverty, had a poor education, and didn't have access to resources, so I'll put myself and my family in harms way because its not their fault. Not to mention, I don't know a person that thinks everybody from any race or demographic is all the same way.

Sure, people can have opinions, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. Thinking men are better leaders than women is not just an opinion—it’s a belief that has real-world consequences, like workplace discrimination and fewer leadership opportunities for women.
Why are we pretending that men and women have the same strengths and weaknesses? Its just not reality. It sounds good but we all know its not true. Ask yourself, why wouldn't you hire a man to babysit your kids? Its for a couple of different reasons, most notably women are more nurturing and better equipped to care for a child. Its also why the overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers are women. But the moment we say that men are probably better at something, such as leadership, all hell breaks lose. And I'm not saying that women cant be good leaders at all.

This is just dismissive and misses the point entirely. No one is asking you to “role-play”; they’re asking you to respect their identity—just like you’d expect people to respect your name, pronouns, or basic dignity.

And let’s be real, you already “role-play” in daily life by using people’s preferred names and titles. If someone changes their name from Mike to John, you don’t throw a fit and call them delusional. But somehow, when it’s a trans person, it’s suddenly an issue?

A couple of things here. First, this goes into what I said in an earlier post. This is just the left going along with whatever the media tells them to do. You would've been seen as a lunatic if you were walking around calling yourself by different pronouns 15+ years ago. When the msm started to push the narrative, that's when the left got onboard.

Secondly, since we know its all made up by the media, it makes us not want to play along even more. If I walked around calling myself Big Daddy and called you a bigot if you didn't play along, would you not think I was insane?

 

[Dattier]

All of this sounds respectful and great. But it's ignoring reality. They are absolutely shoving their lifestyles into the faces of society. It's not just about loving who you love. The pride movement has become so sexually charged you have parents bringing their kids to events where freaks are wearing nothing but a banana hammock with their ass cheeks hanging out and we're supposed to just tell the children that this is normal behavior. That is not normal behavior no matter what your sexual orientation is or what your pronouns are. Drag queen storytelling for elementary children. No, that is indoctrination and it is shoving it in the face of society. Demanding that I call you something that I know you're not is forcing your delusions on me. I don't have to purposely refer to someone as the pronoun they don't want be to as. That would be disrespectful. But I also don't have to play along with their games. I will just refrain from using pronouns.

I am sorry, but if it were simply a matter of people just wanting to exist without being treated like a problem, there would be no reason to have pride events where their sexual fantasies are played out in front of the public. As a general rule, no one cares who you love, no one cares if you want to transition.

Then don't go to the freakin parade one day per year. Again, selective outrage. Same with drag queen story hour. Quit being so triggered by anyone living their life differently.

You would sound like a robot made out of cardboard for a 1940s movie if you tried to talk without using pronouns.

 

[Dattier]

Secondly, since we know its all made up by the media, it makes us not want to play along even more. If I walked around calling myself Big Daddy and called you a bigot if you didn't play along, would you not think I was insane?

Calling you Big Daddy would be participating in a fetish, which no one ever has to do without consent. All conservatives can ever think about when the subject of LGBTQIAQCAFA+ people comes up is sex and genitals. Gay people also eat lunch. Trans people also take their cars for oil changes. It's not a fetish. It's who they are. YOU are fetishizing them.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Every example I stated is an example of something unfairly denied to people and which adversely affects civil rights, job opportunities, and safety.

You're trying to justify stereotypes and prejudices. That's disgusting.

On the bold... If someone's name is Michael but he goes by Mike, or if he goes by his middle name which is Ashley, which sounds more like a girl's name, you would accept it and never think of calling him Michael. Same thing with the names of transpeople. Same thing with pronouns. If a cis man has long hair and a bunch of traditional feminine physical traits, you would rightly get fired for calling him a woman. What are you gonna do? Insist on a cup check? It's no different for anyone else. It's none of your business what's on their birth certificate or what's in their pants.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop saying bigoted things. They get accused of being in your face for doing the exact same things heterosexual couples do that no one even notices. I already gave you examples. It is not in "every other" commercial, show, etc. You only notice when they are. LGBTQIAQACW+/- people just want you to leave them alone.

Everything you're saying is the equivalent of saying, "I don't have a problem with Black people... as long as they're not mugging me, or as long as they're one of the 'good ones.' "

You're being dramatic. Everybody stereotypes and prejudges. Its how people survive. I guarantee if you showed up to certain parts of Durham at 1am, you would be doing a whole lot of stereotyping and prejudging. Its laughable that you want us to believe that you view everyone the same when you go out with your family and no one ever posses a greater risk than anyone else. Get real.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Calling you Big Daddy would be participating in a fetish, which no one ever has to do without consent. All conservatives can ever think about when the subject of LGBTQIAQCAFA+ people comes up is sex and genitals. Gay people also eat lunch. Trans people also take their cars for oil changes. It's not a fetish. It's who they are. YOU are fetishizing them.

No you're just a bigot because you won't call me what I want be called.

And no one ever has to call you by your pronouns without consent either.

 

[Th0r]

All of this sounds respectful and great. But it's ignoring reality. They are absolutely shoving their lifestyles into the faces of society. It's not just about loving who you love. The pride movement has become so sexually charged you have parents bringing their kids to events where freaks are wearing nothing but a banana hammock with their ass cheeks hanging out and we're supposed to just tell the children that this is normal behavior. That is not normal behavior no matter what your sexual orientation is or what your pronouns are. Drag queen storytelling for elementary children. No, that is indoctrination and it is shoving it in the face of society. Demanding that I call you something that I know you're not is forcing your delusions on me. I don't have to purposely refer to someone as the pronoun they don't want be to as. That would be disrespectful. But I also don't have to play along with their games. I will just refrain from using pronouns.

I am sorry, but if it were simply a matter of people just wanting to exist without being treated like a problem, there would be no reason to have pride events where their sexual fantasies are played out in front of the public. As a general rule, no one cares who you love, no one cares if you want to transition.

LGBTQ people aren’t “shoving” anything in anyone’s face—they’re just no longer hiding. If visibility feels overwhelming, it’s not because they’re doing too much; it’s because you’re not used to seeing them. Pride events vary, and if risqué outfits are the issue, then apply that same energy to Mardi Gras, music festivals, or even the beach. Drag story hours? They’re just people in costumes reading books, no different from clowns or Disney characters. The outrage is selective.

No one is forcing beliefs, just basic respect—like using names and pronouns people go by, something we do every day with nicknames and married names. Avoiding pronouns isn’t neutral; it’s just passive-aggressive. And if Pride is “too much,” then so are churches, cultural festivals, and national holidays. Every group celebrates identity.

If no one cared who people loved or how they lived, there wouldn’t be anti-LGBTQ laws, bans on healthcare, or people losing jobs over their identity. Maybe the issue isn’t them existing—it’s some people not wanting to see them at all.