Lovstuhagen

quite a find

OK I think we have just had some different experiences with this... And that is completely fine and valid. I do not dispute yours.

I knew a girl who struggled with a lot of gender issues that I did not understand because I was actually raised in a relatively liberal, upper middle class home. Of course, my father is a devout conservative, but so many people in my extended family have all manner of conflicting ideas, and discussion of these things was never barred...

So when she talked to me about how her family frowned on her for even being interested in sports or dressing "boyish"ly , I was shocked.

So, who knows.

The United States is a very big place.

I remember, as a conservative, even getting culture shock at the levels of conservatism among Texans (lol). So, I will say that... I just don't know.

I think I am right for one segment of the society, and you are right for another. Which is another reason to prefer decentralization, IMO: let each area address its own issues, and to have a standard be one of largely tolerance.

Maybe he still is

By a very very very small amount of people maybe, those who were considered to be radicals. Not only did a majority of people believe that homosexuality should not be accepted or tolerated, this was a time where at least half of the population believed that homosexual relations should be illegal… And this didn’t change until quite recently.

I think it was far more widespread than you think. Yes, it's absolutely the case that there were scary, intimidatingly conservative places in America in the 1970s... But it is also the case that people in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, etc. were all listening to what was being released from the coasts. Boomers & Gen X grew up knowing who all these stars overdosing on drugs and practicing alternative lifestyles were. Which is why things like Roe v Wade were possible...

You also see crazy numbers like this:

Gallup's trend by age reveals that widespread experimentation with marijuana first occurred among adults aged 18 to 29 between 1969 and 1973, rising from 8% to 35%. It then continued to mount, reaching 56% by 1977, and remained at that level in 1985. Since then, however, marijuana use among young adults has progressively declined. At the same time, as the bulge of young adults who tried marijuana in the 1970s ages and replaces older Americans who never tried it, the rate of all Americans who have ever tried the drug has increased slightly.

Gallup

Check out these numbers

In the days when pre-marital sex was taboo, many couples had at least one powerful incentive to marry. This may have been the case in 1969 when Gallup found that premarital sex was frowned upon by two-thirds of Americans, while only 21% felt these relations were acceptable. That critical view dropped sharply by the early 1970s to 47%, and in 1985 Gallup found a majority of Americans on the other side, with 52% saying premarital sex was morally okay. Today, according to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

Gallup

34% of people in 1983 said that homosexuality should be an acceptable moral lifestyle as well...

Again, Gallup...

1/3 people saying it is acceptable probably indicates a far greater amount of people thinking it is somehow cool - like how being in a biker gang is cool, or like how being a drugged out disco burnout or hippie was also cool.

The “hippie revolution” was pretty much dead at that point. And of course, “normies” always hated the hippies. They were considered to be radicals, they were probably seen in a less favourable way than people see “antifa” today. And at that time, the hippies were associated with murderers and cults (Jim Jones, Charles Manson).

... But its impact never left. 1/3 of people found homosexuality a morally acceptable lifestyle in 1983. Do you think it was anywhere close to that prior to the hippie revolution?

Compared to how things were before the 60s, yes. But that’s just because before the 60s, “free love” was unthinkable and recreational drugs simply did not exist in the eyes of the general public (outside of alcohol and tabacco). But we also shouldn’t forget that those things happened in very specific metropolian areas.

Kids in suburban America were smoking pot in the 1970s.

My sources show 56% of people having smoked pot by 1977.

lol well played

Right, there are reasons to suggest that it is not a good idea to include the 4skin.

Here I agree with you. But I know that fantasising all day long about violence and “finally getting revenge” while blaming “the opposite side for everything” will certainly not help. And this goes for both right wingers who are fantasysing about lining up and shooting all the trans people/leftists/sjw’s as well as all the extreme lefties who fantasise about “bringing out the guilitine” and executing all the rich people, racists and right wingers.

Fate allowed me to reply to your post on Bastille day in honor of the guillotine...

But let me say this... any sort of violence is always reprehensible, and even though I am guilty of laughing at it occasionally (which is uncouth and something I will address), I do condemn it...

I think it would be beneficial for the patient, rational people on all sides to always remind everyone we are all people, and that we shoudl decide things

• in respect of one another's rights and autonomy
• through consensus
• recognizing that the other person is loved, cherished by their family
• recognizing that we fail as neighbors when we let people suffer

and that violence can only be done if it is defensive and meant to protect the innocent.

It is because of these same principles that I endorse free speech, unconditionally. I have no right to coerce anyone, right... I would never use violence towards such an end.

Pacifism, liberty, democracy... self-rule. These are all linked.

Indeed it does but after a day I got my energy back. This will probably even be a far better response...

What was “prestigious” about being a “homo” in the 90s? What is prestigious about being trans today? They are overwhelmingly hated all over the world for who they are, the push against that hate has been met with extreme scepticism by a lot of people.

As I had heard it described by a few people, it was considered cool in the 70s to have gay friends. Disco was at its peak, and people were still living in the wake of the hippie revolution. Recreational drugs were very widely used, as was all sorts of things like swinging... So, having gay friends was considered normal... and, by the 1990s, the mainstreaming of gay actors and gay themes in TV began to take off. There was the famous "I Kissed A Girl" track in 1995, but more importantly, Ellen and various other TV shows had gay subplots and main characters.

Obviously, you can bring up that significant swathes of the country still opposed it, but the power dealers in NYC, LA, etc., all were on board with it, and hence the fast progression towards the approval not just of homosexuality in general, but same sex marriage.

Also, what are you implying when you say “without making any commitments”? Isn’t one of the right’s main criticisms that the changes are too permanent/not reversable? Shouldn’t you be happy that they “aren’t commiting”?

Yes, it's totally one of our main criticisms, and I absolutely congratulate the people who do not give themselves permanent damage. They certainly dodged a bullet.

But there is also something to say about people adopting ideas of convenience for virtue signaling.

I’m just saying it’s not as “unnatural” as you might think, or rather nature can be pretty fucked up and weird in it’s own right.

Right, there's no lack of cruelty...

There's so many ways to use the word natural. When we employ it simply as occurring in nature, we cannot come to moral conclusions about it...

But when we say "It's natural for a child to love his parents," we all know what is being communicated: the healthy, normal thing for a child is to have an attachment and affection for their parents. When children do not do this, which could be for a variety of reasons, it's viewed as uneahtlhy and not normal...

Even though severe autism or other emotional disorders may occur in nature.

I think it’s pretty silly when people say “we are banning the nazis” when they are talking about you. I mean many do it to provoke you and piss you off while they know you are not actual nazis, but still, it’s pretty silly. But at the same time, I don’t really know how to address it, it’s just how people on the internet seem to act and you people certainly like to provoke, so you almost have to expect a reaction.

Thank you.

I'd also like you to know that, if I had my way, we would have not made any provocative posts at all and pot a moratorium on such content in order to establish trust, so that when it does come out there would be more people who had experienced us differently.

I actually think this position of my own is naive but I think that making the effort counts. I think, though, defederation would have been inevitable, and that we might even get the posts talking about how they are more dangerous NAZIS! because of the fact that they tried to infiltrate us by posting... like normal, moderate conservatives or some such.

[posting now to see if there is an error again]

It's also worth noting that this has come out because the guy is in a psych ward and we are all supposed to be aware of how fragile his mental health is, and that there is apparently no chargeable offense here.

The latter may be true but it does not diminish my ire.

I just had a huge crisis...

I never had a post disappear on me before... But after spendign 20 minutes writing a reply to you, my post disappeared..!

Absolute total loss 😅 😆 😂 ☹️ 🥴

Not even sure what to do at this point.

I'll try to address this all again later.

OK, so let me say that I would just summarize my idea about transgenderism in that it is caused by the following or a combination of the following:

• Gender dysphoria
• Autogynophilia/autophalophilia, occasionally even shame-centered sadomasochistic practices and the ability to subject others to feelings of intense shame or scandal (this is also involved in exhibitionism)
• Sophistry about gender & gender identity
• Attempt to resolve other identity and parental issues through extreme self-ownership and hitting the reset button

Some people it is 100% gender dysphoria. Some people it is a combination of all of these. Some people dwell purely in the sophistry aspect, and are easily identifiable by the people who make very superficial changes to their appearance and then simply identify as "non-binary" or some such. They are like the bisexuals of the 1990s: they signal their uniqueness to get prestige without making any commitments.

So... To me, when anyone starts taking such hormones to lactate and presents this to a child, they are not doing it as an actual woman, but they are doing it as a person who is deeply troubled...

And if I was a male who was lactating due to a medical condition, I would not offer it to my own baby. I mean, sure, lol, "What if you're on a desert island with nothing else to eat..?!" scenario, yeah, OK, lol, but I mean as a principle it is such a departure from the norm. Not only would it take me entirely out of my comfort zone, it wouldn't be healthy for the baby. Like would you want to be told that you were fed from the hairy nipple of a heterosexual man with a lactation condition...? On the one hand, yuo could say no harm, no foul...

But this is pure, disembodied reason thinking purely along Cause>Effect lines without the proper context of healthy human living, culture, and norms.

I hope that clarifies the position.

And my aim isn’t to paint you all as violent extremists, my aim is to show you that tolerating this kind of “discourse” is just destroying your own community and ultimately undermines the free-speech space you want to build.

Two weeks ago I actually felt bad about a lot of this but now I don't since I have seen that a lot of the people who voted against us were not just mistaken, but extreme in their views.

You are great - and keep coming back here - and I do accept your criticism. The very rough, immature humor might even be occasionally powered by some authentic, ugly hatred...

But I also actually think that guys getting their hatred out in stupid internet posts is OK. Maybe even helpful. More importantly, I think anyone who is willing to start using violence for political reasons is already insane. There's nothing I can do to help them. They are at timebomb who will go off for some strange social or religious reason if not for a political one; they are attracted to anything that justifies a violent outburst.

I think free speech is never dangerous, so I am not into censorship. Since we have defederated from people who have such low opinions of free speech... the slap has no sting anymore.

God bless my man.

I will say some prayers about this situation... Of course, it is far in the past... But it is upsetting and I pray for the repose of their souls, and I pray for peace in the world.