one of the things I felt when I got into hbd was that it was not a necessarily a conservative or liberal thing. It just means you have to take it into account when writing laws, no matter what your ideology is.
One of the arguments I’ve heard by tradcons is that women should start shitting out kids in there early 20s and keep doing that until they hit a half a dozen kids or what have you. This is opposed to the professional type women who works a job until they have a kid or two in there mid-to-late 30s but keeps working even after they have the kids.
A tradcon will say something like “you’re going to hurt the kid psychologically” or “every kid needs a mother in the house”. But if humans are as unmalleable as guys like jayman says – is there any real deleterious effects of having a kid being raised by there nanny?
The analogy I always have when I view politics is that of a house already doused in gasoline (i.e. non-asian minorities). Conservatives want to remove all the flammable fluids from the house while liberals want to use the flammable liquids (which could be something like welfare and what not). But neither of them will get to the essence of it which is that even if a crisis is averted, the house is still doused in gasoline and could explode at any time. This kind of reminds me of what Ann Coulter has said about how the democrats have to only pass immigration once while the republicans have to be perfect every time in opposing it.
one of the things I’ve noticed from politics in the United States is how it often devolves into semantics. For instance, calling someone who opposes the right to abortion pro-life. That’s a clearly vague term and everyone could be considered pro-life in some way. Everybody values some type of life – even mass murderers oftentimes commit there crimes for some other life they do care about.
Another example is the environment. The left wing accuses the right of being anti-environment. But almost everyone values the environment or values it at some level. There’s no one who will merely throw trash in there front yard intentionally as a way of saying fuck you to the environment.
You could also argue the same thing about an additional penalty for shooting a police officer. I don’t believe there should be an additional penalty for such a crime for the same reason I don’t believe in hate crimes. And yet if there was some bill in the legislature for enhanced penalties for crimes against law enforcement, I would be pigeonholed as being anti-cop.
You see these things a lot
- someone voting against VAWA accused of being “anti-women”
- supporting voting for some gun control laws being accused of being “anti-gun” (though there are some real anti-gun people that exist)
- someone opposed to affirmative action or disparate impact being called “anti-black”
Maybe this is what vox day means when he says “dialectic vs rhetoric”
has anyone here ever noticed that the same arguments that leftists use to support drug legalization are the same ones that right wingers use to support unrestricted gun access? When I first started following politics when I was a teenager, I noticed the pattern that RWers liked banning things – drugs, pornography, abortion etc so I assumed that they also supported banning guns.
This is all part of my grand theory that deep down it’s not the thing itself but the who that drives politics. It’s not things like guns or drugs in and of itself but rather who is using it.
watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRGow6IC3sM
The short film is a walk through the day in the life of Dan Rostenkowski circa 1980 or 1981 as he prepares to take over the powerful Ways and Means committee. Rostenkowski, or Rosty as he often went by, was plenty corrupt and actually lost his seat in 1994 over it and did a year or so in prison. But even if he was corrupt, Rosty seemed like a good guy with his sort of Jackie Gleason type persona.
Hillary Clinton is also somewhat corrupt and comes across as a total bitch. When Bill was president, she seemed way too willing to inject herself in the political process. During the 90s, she didn’t come across very well as opposed to someone like Rosalyn Carter who just seemed more likable and non-threatening. Watching her speak during speeches is like listening to nails on a chalkboard and it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that rubs me the wrong way but something seems off. As a result, her corruption just seems worse.
This all kind of reminds me of one of Davis Aurini’s early videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7GO5pZgWOY
I’ve seen videos before talking about how America has a sort of ethno religion with things like MLK, the holocaust, and all those other type of things. Normally, you would think that people who know about there society the most are the ones who should be voting but I’m not sure that’s the case in the United States. Someone who knows a lot about the United States has been fed the whole ethnoreligion type stuff and therefore votes emotionally. I myself am guilty of this type of stuff as I was a staunch democrat that voted that way because my view was “if the south votes republican, then the GOP is a priori bad and if the union states mostly vote democrat, then the democrats are a priori good”.
This is a case of knowing a lot about the history of the United States and that actually making you a less rational voter as a result. Even if this is ethnoreligious thinking in and of itself, as a kid, I never really was bothered by any part of British politics, little as I knew about it, because I had in my mind that British politics was a priori good because they all sounded so much more intelligent than Americans and our gas guzzling morons. The fact that there were groups like the BNP meant nothing to me.
But even if that was ethnoreligion in action, it also meant that I might make a better decision running Britain as a noncitizen member of parliament (let’s pretend for the sake of the argument that such a thing exists) because I don’t see myself as part of the culture and don’t have any emotional investments. So in a way, this is like being on a jury. You obviously don’t put families of the victims or families of the defendant on the jury because there’s an obvious conflict of interest. This is why I think the call for having “informed voters” is counter intuitive and that somewhat American citizens who have lived here there whole life may actually make a worse decision in voting than a group of Japanese businessman who don’t know a lot about the United States.
From listening to the F Roger Devlin’s of the world, you would think that women couldn’t vote until 1965 or so. But women have been voting since 1920. For the first fifty years of women’s suffrage – none of the things we hate about gender politics existed. There was no banalities about the “war on women” and men and women more or less voted the same way. Actually until about 1980, women were sometimes more republican than men.
Part of the thinking may have had to do with the assumptions at the time the 19th amendment was passed. At the time, this was merely the continuation of what people called “the family vote” – women voted just as there husbands did. The idea of single women as a vote was not something that was ever envisioned back then. I might add that criticizing single women per se is not necessarily a worthy target for the NRX community. It’s the single mothers who are the real societal threat.
At the same time though – should single fathers be denied the vote too? I mean the manosphere guys talk about single mothers, but aren’t single fathers usually equally culpable?