Why was the photoshopped celebrity porn okay for seven years, but immediately after computer-generated celebrity video porn became available, photoshopped celebrity porn became unacceptable? To be consistent, of course, but obviously something has changed.

Is it the fact that the photoshops require some artistic skill and therefore might be considered art?

Or is it that photoshops were grandfathered-in? They already existed before social media activism. They were frowned upon, but tolerated because they had always been there. To attack them would seem puritan. The new technology that creates the videos allows an opportunity for a conversation which forces a moral opinion to be made. The internet population at the advent of Photoshop may have been more forgiving and respectful of the freedoms of the new frontier, or it may be that the male population was just much larger.

I saw a comment that said, “The modern left has become the religious right”. That statement came with a conservative agenda, but there is a grain of truth in that the population (left and right) has become more morally judgmental and simultaneously fearful of said judgement.

It reeks of privilege.

Remember first and foremost that no one gave a shit about revenge porn, or if they did, they did a piss-poor job of getting it legislated away. Yes they're working on it, but it should NOT be this hard. If an ex has your bank account information, or your house keys, or your car keys, or anything else that is TRUTH about your life, but you no longer wish them to have access, AND THEY USE IT ANYWAYS, felony (in most cases, but especially anything financial).

Second, this is NOT for the benefit of regular people.

'7" if they took your face, or if they took steele's face, or my face and put it in a porn... WE would care obviously. However, NO ONE else would know/care! We're just not special and no one will know us from any other person.

This was done to protect celebrities who do not want something being made that will go viral instantly and (god forbid) become what they are known for (more than their usual accomplishments).

If they truly cared, 'fake' porn, 'involuntary' porn, whatever, would have been banned from the get-go and this new AI assisted porn would 'of course' be banned as soon as it was thought up.

And reddit is becoming more of a media machine for celebrities and corporations all the time. They are redesigning with that in mind. They can't have anything stand in the way of that.

Anytime questionable content on reddit starts making waves in the mainstream, reddit comes a blockin. I don't necessarily know the answer to how to handle all this, because we as a society are not prepared for the true face of information. But they're a for profit entity. Right or wrong, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

It’s not surprising at all. Not reddit caving, nor the imagery being banned by others. I thought DMCA might be the way it would be quashed, but I knew somehow it wouldn’t be allowed to stand.

Matthew 7:3-5
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Rar I want my 15 minutes of life back.

So first off, in your rush to counter-criticize and post something you think is clever you missed the chance to reflect on your own side’s failings. What I posted is a joke, in response to your patently narrow focus on “sticking it to the left.”. Yes, puritanical doesn’t have to literally mean religious all the time, we get it.

The joke is that you are criticizing the left for even TRYING to correct the status quo. I even made a large post of how I am not pleased at the speed at which this issue has been addressed. You took 7’s reply, ignored 9/10’s of it, took the last paragraph and said “the left IS being pretty pushy about their values! Hur hur!”

All this, while your side has completely abandoned having values at all. Conservatives used to represent the moral authority. They tried to tell us what was right and what was wrong, usually through the lens of religion (literal purantanism). Conservatives used to represent the party of family values. Originally to keep the whites and blacks from mixing, then it evolved to the role of the man and woman in the household, and then further to “no queers!”.

All of this is fine and well. The problem is you have a leader that is the antithesis of damn near EVERYTHING you used to/are supposed to stand for. He has violated every puritanical viewpoint your side stereotypically holds AS WELL AS the non-puritanical viewpoints your side holds. There is literally an article about how the evangelical right is giving him a mulligan on the shitty person he is because there’s a chance they could get policy passed that favors them. You stand for nothing.

I would tell you that “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” but you don’t even have a glass house. You’re sitting on a pile of shards crushed so deep into powder that, ultimately, you’re throwing stones at OUR glass house because you have nowhere to go.

And don’t give us that “I didn’t vote for, nor do I stand for Trump” nonsense. He represents what conservatism has become. You may think socialism is stupid, but at least it stands for an ideal greater than whatever you call your new standard bearer.

In spite of ALL OF THIS, you have the audacity... THE AUDACITY... to criticize the left for trying to find the line on morality. For holding OUR leaders responsible for what they say, and do, and get caught doing. For judging THIS community as an echo chamber, extreme leftists, group think, whatever because we haven’t joined you in your abandonment of all things worth changing for. At least we are trying to have a reasoned discussion on a level higher than “I don’t like socialism for the 17th time derp derp”.

As to your Thaddeus post, where should we begin? After the 5 minutes of discussing how the name Thaddeus means someone must be smart? Or the 5 minutes after that where he basically had the same arguement as you: “I, personally, don’t like socialism, therefore it is a bad thing. I mean just LOOK at it.” The last 5 minutes (I feel) went over your head if you were trying to use it as a point. He states that Trump won because he “tells it like it is” and “says what he’s thinking”. That SHOULD have been the reason he lost.

I want you to reach out and put yourself in the shoes of law enforcement. Imagine you’re the kind of officer that would use the n-word to a civilian. An officer that has stolen from his fellow countrymen and been required (via settlement) to return those ill gotten gains. I want you to imagine an officer that freely admits that he has sexually groped women and there was nothing they could do against his authority. Now I want you to look at me, across the interwebs, and say you think that officer can carry out his capacity to serve. Now I want you to look at a job more important than any officer’s, and somehow justify that a higher position, a leader’s position, is somehow MORE appropriate for someone when they do these things.

Your Thaddeus went on for a few minutes about how ‘socialists’ were trying to stop our leaders from having a dialogue. The left is trying to say that when you say something, WE BELIEVE YOU. If you’re a POS that gropes women, you don’t get to represent us as a leader. Full stop.

‘Leftists’ are trying to come to an agreement about what we as a community should allow a potential leader/civilian/authority figure to say (political correctness), which gives us insight into their potential leadership abilities, and what the disqualifiers are. The fact that ‘your’ people would vote for rock, if it meant they’d gain power, doesn’t speak wonders for your ideas on what a ‘good’ political/economic system should look like.

But, thank’s for trying to participate?

The petty fascists here don't take the time to back up their feels with anything of substance.


With all due respect, I think they're just tired of your shit. You call them moral arbiters, fascists, and make comments that generally include a jab at their beliefs with no backing (socialists want to redistribute the wealth FOR NO GOOD REASON!). If you (and fish and numbers) removed the biting sarcasm and disdain from many of your arguments, you could have a robust back and forth. However, you don't seem to be coming forward in good faith. You want to say what you want to say, and then you'll 'put up with' their "pathetic" "socialist" response. I'm not saying you can't THINK it. Just don't say it. It undermines the good faith I was talking about.

7 was right on the money with many of his observations about how the new self appointed moral arbiters are coming from the Left.


When changing anything, one can always ask "Who the hell do you think you are to tell US how to run things? Things were FINE before you showed up!"". As if somehow being the first to the table means the rules you've been using to run the game are fair, balanced, or in any way perfect for the society that exists NOW. Moral arbiters are constantly needed because we as a species haven't figured out all the morals yet. We can't; it is kind of the point of a perpetual society. We were fine with slavery at one point until we weren't. It took moral arbiters constantly calling your ancestors racist until you and the arbiters died (and their children going "Oh maybe we should stop being cunts") for things to change. Then this really obscure guy, MLK Jr. came along as a moral arbiter saying CRAZY things like maybe black people are equal to white people or something. People, like yourself, called him a socialist, and a troublemaker, and that he was meddling in society to change everyone to his worldview. Fuckin' arbiters man. Who do they think they are, trying to change society for the better? We already know what's better!

Yea, I'm a little perplexed about how he got the support of the religious right.

steele, I call this progress.

I think it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

Lose. I know you won't/can't get your side to do this. However, the moral option is to lose because you don't have a candidate worthy of the office. Don't bring up the other side's candidate (I know it's in your head). Your candidate is unfit to the level of dangerous. If you would kill us all to not have a candidate you don't 'like' over one that is dangerous, you're violating that good faith mentioned above.

The Left and what they represent are a greater threat to their values than a flawed individual. The Left; that's what they are all about... meddling in society and lives towards their worldview.

They are, at least, trying (as opposed to your zero sum, burn the world as opposed to the other side winning argument). Action in this world brings about a reaction. What you call meddling, the Civil Rights movement would call progression. I know you don't agree, but change hurts, and is for the best.

I do have that audacity. Because I do not believe the Left has principles.


A genetic logical fallacy neglects the contents of an actual argument in favor of attacking where it came from. Genetic attacks are illogical because of the myriad times when a "terrible" person or "organization", despite being "awful", still said something true.

I'd challenge a Leftist to name one of theirs and defend it. Without that, you cannot have morality.

All men are created equal and they deserve the right to life. Leftist ideal. Rightist counter: You believe lazy people (outright refuse to work) are worth less than a (willing to) working individual. In fact, if a lazy person were to be allowed to die, it was kind of their fault.

What does this law enforcement example have to do with anything?

Law enforcement gets a lot of flak about having to be "above" it all as if they aren't human. Not going to get into the politics of it. If you didn't get it, then just forget it.

My "people" would vote for a rock... simply because the rock would be incapable of expanding government and forceably redistributing wealth because... well, it's just a rock.


Expanding government has been happening since the dawn of time. We lived in caves, then in packs, then we started farms, etc... We all have to live together and government is a way to (attempt) to be fair. Somewhere along the way you looked around said, OK STOP!, I'm good here. I'm a white male and I got what I need. The government is expanding because we as a society are expanding. The government being made up of THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE means that you need to accept that you are not going to end up with 140% like you may be used to. It will probably be 110% - 98% of what you are used to. I am terribly sorry for your loss.

First and foremost you need to accept that you have a reputation. Remember the good faith I keep bringing up? People don't think you have any. So if you are bitter, sharp, rude, snide, arrogant in a post - people don't think you are trying to make a point. They think you are lobbing a grenade, walking away, and anyone that engages with you is a fool. To a degree, they are right, because you have defensively place yourself 'above' them. "You don't need to change your language tactics, they need to stop being such idiots and accept or argue with your 'truth bombs'!"

norok said @ 4:11pm on 7th February [Score:-3 Boring]
I'd be willing to entertain forgiving student loan debt... if part of the package deal would be defunding college programs that churn out worthless degrees that never had a hope of earning enough to pay down the debt they incur.

Your "suggestion" or "discussion" is aggressive, condescending, and lacks empathy towards your audience.

You'd 'entertain'? Meaning you're in the superior position and you might have a chuckle about any discussion before ultimately making the choice that you decide? You don't look like you're engaging on equal ground in good faith.

Worthless. You realize that you don't know the audience you're speaking to? Some (or possibly many) people on the site might have these degrees that don't seem to be leading to the jobs they were originally intended. What you might be ignoring is the fact that baby boomer generation sent many of us to college with a "do what you enjoy" mentality. "Get a degree, any degree, and you'll be middle class (or greater) and happy!". When the baby boomers were young this was true, and the cost of education was 1/10 of what it was today. Education got a touch of the capitalism bug, charge what people WILL pay, not what it's worth.

You appear to be blaming the victim(s). That's a lack of empathy. No one wants to engage with an asshole that can't feel them (or worse, blames them for their own situation).

Never had a hope. As shown above, these had hopes because 50 years ago a degree in anything could basically be used to be anything. Now, if you don't have a specific degree in your specific field with specific experience, you're screwed AND in debt. These people aren't failing because THEY did something wrong. The system changed from underneath them. Those that couldn't adapt are not failures. The system let them down.

Here is what you would need to post to not get downmodded to shit, keeping in mind people might punch you (downmod) anyways because you've impressed on them (by past actions) you're a piece of shit, non-empathetic troll:

PC-norok said @ 4:11pm on 7th February [Score:+4 Insightful]
I think the student loan situation is a pointed issue. I feel both sides would agree that the production of degrees that do not lead to gainful employment is unsustainable economically for both the education centers and the students earning these degrees. I would suggest -insert norok solution- as a way of protecting the financial interests of the debtors, while at the same time providing students with adequate compensation for what they are already paying for. Just a thought.

norok said @ 5:45am on 20th January [Score:-1 Unworthy Self Link]
Isn't this just what the Republicans did under Obama?

You only got a -1, and from the site's owner who thinks you detract from the discussion. See above about non-good faith. You should stick to criticizing your own side, at least initially. I know that's hard because gosh-darn we like to pick on the other side (myself included). However, if you NEVER criticize conservatives and talk about their failings, people start to think *gasp* you might be biased AND unable/unwilling to compromise on solutions.

Just as in the public spaces of the media and academia the Left has no interest in debating ideas; only silencing dissent as their ideas are not based in values nor principles thus would be shredded in open discourse.

This is a HUUUUUUGE generalization, condescending, know-it-all-ism AND all about your ideological opponent. Based on this, I would be just as "RIGHT" as saying all conservatives are evil, full stop. You would get nothing (not grow) from that statement. In fact, you'd call me intellectually dishonest and remove yourself from the discourse. You did when I lazily brought up Hitler in a another thread. However, that would be hypocritical considering you're complaining, right now, about how people on the site are not engaging with you and THAT counts as silencing you. You're allowed to leave conversations and they aren't (without being called silencers and non-debaters)?

The reason I resort to sarcasm and quips is because I know I won't get a fair debate anyway.

So you've entered into the discussion in bad faith, because you feel the other side is entering in bad faith. Fine. You do not get to complain that they should offer you good faith when you yourself JUST ADMITTED entering into the discussion in bad faith from the get go.

The good news is they are losing. More people are having fun on the Right and the mainstream is continuing to reject their ideas in part because of their stodginess. More people on this site have criticized them for their downmodding than have been added as voices to their little rank. They are not convincing anyone; in fact it's the opposite.

This is opinion, and fine to hold, but it seems bitter. Progressive-ism is 'doomed' to win. There is no idea, throughout history, that we have held on to forever. Thus conservatism, the holding on to ideals of the past for as long as possible, is also doomed. Relish your victories. I truly mean that. Empathize that what you and yours felt under the Obama years is what your ideological opponents are feeling now. The harshness and cast-aside-ism that you place on them now, expect returned with interest when the pendulum swings back. Accept what you deserve graciously.


That is a good definition of genetic logic fallacy. But incorrectly applied. I never said they were terrible people. I said they didn't have principles.

They think they have principles. They get to decide if they have principles. You saying they do not, makes them wrong or stupid (in your opinion). People that are wrong and/or stupid all the time are terrible people. Thus, one could infer that you are calling them terrible people by saying they do not have something that you KNOW they will disagree with you about having. You are making yourself the arbiter of who has principles without adequately implying that it is simply your opinion, and could be wrong.


I reiterate my challenge for them to name one.

This is the best response you're going to get from the site. No one else will engage with you until you apologize for acting in bad faith (remember, you said you did). I'm not saying you have to, a man's pride is his own horse to wrangle. I'm simply saying you'll have to engage with boring ol' me or no one at all.


I would agree with your first principle that all are created equal and deserve a right to life. I would have no counter to that principle. The Right sees that people should have equality of opportunity. The Left sees that people should have equality of outcome. These are two very different things.

This is a much larger political discussion and I will simply give you something to chew on. The Right is willing to kill (if necessary), the Left thinks no one should be left behind (heck, even criminals). Socialism seeks to expand that empathy (no one left behind, regardless) to all human beings. It's not fair. Some are stronger, some work harder, some don't have handicaps.

If you would look ahead, instead of focusing on what your brother has, you could be happy. But you won't and you don't. It is important to you that no-one get more/equal for less effort. You will expend more effort trying to stop 'them', then what you would have gained simply working all along.


I'm not going to engage with your last paragraph on the count of racism and sexism. Drop the anti-white male shit.

That's not anti-white male. Using Monopoly as a metaphor: If, 50 years ago, white males started the game with $2000, Blacks started the game with $600, Asians started with $900, you get the point. If someone were to come along and say everyone, regardless of skin color, religion, gender, etc. starts with $1500, do you consider white males to have lost anything?

Thank you for your input. I read the whole thing but just a few comments:

When it comes to picking degrees yes, I will blame but they are not victims. Most everyone enters college at age 18; when we consider people adults. At that point when they make choices they are responsible for them. Perhaps their parents misinformed them, perhaps college advisors misled them, these are all possibilities. The latter is something that I would like addressed if we are going to wave away college debt. As part of the package; colleges must be transparent about future employment statistics for instance.

Empathy for those under Obama. I agree; the pendulum swings every several years. I don't think I am the one that needs to be told that though. Democrats act like the end of the world has come when in all probability they will hold all branches in 10 years. That kind of objectivity isn't lost on me. But I wasn't talking political parties. I was talking the pernicious continuance of Marxist ideas. It failed miserably after the 60s and it is rearing it's murderous head once again. I don't think the mainstream is buying it... try as the media might.

Socialism is a product of Marxism and while ostensibly it is grounded in empathy it seeks utopia. In every instance one tries for utopia you end up with distopia. Socialism saps wealth, makes everyone poorer, and does so through force. There is nothing virtuous about it.

Again, don't bring racism into this.

Most everyone enters college at age 18; when we consider people adults. At that point when they make choices they are responsible for them.

And I would agree if the environment stayed exactly the same for 18 year-old's across time. But the current situation went from a poker game (skill and luck increases your chance to win) to a carnival game (the games are literally designed for you to lose). That's the creeping capitalism I like to mention. Selling something regardless of the ethics should be frowned upon.

The latter is something that I would like addressed if we are going to wave away college debt. As part of the package; colleges must be transparent about future employment statistics for instance.

This seems like a reasonable trade.

Another fun suggestion was that your debt is frozen until you become employed in a career situated to your degree (government and business can argue what that is) and earn above a living wage. It would make colleges vested in assisting you in getting that first job out of college in particular.

Democrats act like the end of the world has come

Honestly I think it's the nukes. Man has talked about using them. If you think the repercussions of dropping one will be contained SOLELY to the blast location... I humbly disagree. We're all on this boat together. Can't have the captain talk about throwing Molotov cocktails on board regardless of how much he hates that guy at the other end.

Also, I don't think Democrats have outright said he was the anti-christ. Shitty person, sure. But not the mystical force that will kill all life on earth and bring about an eternity of darkness. Then again, let's see what Mueller finds. ;-)


It failed miserably after the 60s and it is rearing it's murderous head once again.

Who's been killed recently?

In every instance one tries for utopia you end up with distopia. Socialism saps wealth, makes everyone poorer, and does so through force.

It mathematically can't make EVERYONE poorer. I don't think you like WHO it makes richer, but you're free to hold that opinion. As for force, the United States Government has never required that you stay. Part of the TOS states that the rules may change while you live here and you have to accept it, change it, or you're free to leave. If you're saying enforcement of laws is unacceptable force... I'm not sure what you want.

Again, don't bring racism into this.

I don't know if you're calling me racist? I'm simply asking that if women don't have the right to vote, and then they do, did men lose anything when that happened, IN YOUR OPINION? I just want to know how you parse that. Does the addition of a thing necessitate a loss elsewhere?

I'm honestly trying to understand your base code here in order to facilitate future discussion.

In terms of existential threats and war... my opinion is that we are better off with Trump than with Hillary. Trump I would assume, and this is just my postulation, understands the cost of war to the country. Hillary on the other hand was much more of a hawk during her time as Sec of State. If we were going to start a conflict; it would have been her and the residual neo-con establishment. To be frank, I think they are still crying wolf with Trump. There could be, and my very well be in the near future, someone much worse.

Ask the people of Venezuela how well a Socialist government is going for them. It is a prime example of a modern implementation's failure.

The sinister thing about Socialism is that it sounds so good on paper; everyone will be better off... but that has never been the case. Rationing, shortages, etc. are all commonplace when the government takes over the means of production. People are not incentivised to create and invent. Capitalism is not perfect; but it has given us everything we enjoy in the modern world. Human achievement will slow and diminish the farther you get away from free enterprise.

I'll explain my call of racism; I do not accept the casual bigotry that goes around when talking about white people or men. Just as I wouldn't stand for someone grouping any other race or sex into a category and then levying a judgement on them based on the condition of their birth. It's become far too common to let that rhetoric slide, especially from the Left, and I don't.

Trump I would assume, and this is just my postulation, understands the cost of war to the country.

This conflicts with your Thaddeus article where "Trump tells it like it is" and doesn't really understand the politics (i.e. cost) of a situation. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways. He can't be an off the cuff, says whatever he's thinking, AND total tactician that knows exactly what he's saying and its consequences.

Ask the people of Venezuela how well a Socialist government is going for them. It is a prime example of a modern implementation's failure.

In all of these examples a poor country has gone socialist as a means for survival. It seems to fail because when there's not enough to go around, the authority starts hoarding "what's left". I will admit my history (and fear) of socialism is probably not as great as yours, but has there ever been a country as rich as ours (and I mean world power level) that has tried socialism? I think a hybrid of our democratic process, mixed with our cultural beliefs on as much freedom as possible, along with the mixing pot of beliefs, races, etc. would blend well with the good parts of socialism. It's not all or nothing, we can take the parts we like and leave the rest you realize? It doesn't even have to be tomorrow. We can slowly move towards it to avoid the failures of the past.

I do not accept the casual bigotry that goes around when talking about white people or men.

Do you/would you accept the casual bigotry that goes around when talking about any other race, gender, or culture (add-on)?

Also, when women gained the right to vote, did men lose anything, in your opinion?

On the topic of Venezuela, I don't think so and here's why: The country sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. It is also located in a tropical biome with ample sunlight and water making it ideal for agriculture. The only way that these could be squandered is with poor central planning and management. Rather than excuse it away as just being poor; modern Socialist should look to that country and ask what really went wrong.

I think the better question in terms of the US being so rich and trying socialism is... 'is the US rich because it has had an aversion to Socialism?"

I think culture is fair game to criticism. Not all cultures are equal because they are made up of people's choices and behavior. No, giving someone equal rights does not take away from someone else's rights. Taking away someone's money tho is wrong.

Do you believe weakness is a choice?

That's a very broad word. Strength and weakness are very transient. Stephen Hawking has a weak body but one of the strongest minds of our time. Professional athletes go on to become flat broke and develop health problems. What are you getting at?

Stephen Hawking didn't personally do anything to become weak of body or strong of mind (yes the second one is debatable, but not the inherent ability).

Professional athletes go on to become flat broke which they could have physically avoided by not squandering their millions, one would assume?

Alcoholics could choose not to drink, but instead choose to do so.

Thieves could choose not to steal, but they give in to weakness of character.

The poor could avoid high interest credit cards which ultimately keep them in debt, but they choose to have things now instead of waiting.

All of this is frailty, or weakness, of human beings. Some of these problems are technically a choice. You had said some cultures are not equal because of their choices.

Do any/some/all of these make sense to you as a person?

It's not a trap, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy. You can disagree with all of the above, or agree with it, I don't have a quipy comeback.

Executing people for being gay is a choice a culture makes. Sacrificing a young girl to black magic is a choice. A village ordering rape of a girl is a choice. And going to the moon was a choice.

These are all examples of choices made by distinct cultures. They may be isolated examples of what cultures will produce but they come from long lines of development into distinct manifestations of a culture's beliefs and values.

I support bringing people from all cultures to the United States. However, they should all remember there were reasons why they absconded from their homes. This is one of the many reasons I supported Trump. He, however inarticulately, was willing to stand up to the Leftist equalist narrative and get people to talking about whether or not we want to have everything that comes with unbridled immigration.

Extended edit for anecdotes: One of my business partners is from India; his family moved here when he was very young for economic opportunity. One of the failings he cites about his home country is rampant corruption. "Black Money" is the business culture of India. To be fair; Modi is trying to change that but that's another topic. An old girlfriend from Jamaica once told me as an American in her country you should always travel with $200 in cash so that you could buy your way out of any police altercation. Just try that in the US and see where it lands you. Again, these are ways that cultures have organized themselves that end up with inferior results to the Western world.

And we were doing so well...

You've picked individual situations, from developing countries, and used them to describe the entirety of their culture.

Executing people for being gay is a choice a culture makes.


America does that.


Sacrificing a young girl to black magic is a choice.


America does that.


A village ordering rape of a girl is a choice.


America does does does that.


And going to the moon was a choice.


For America... you picked an accomplishment... to describe our culture.

Here is a running list of atrocities happening right now, running backwards in time.

This goes back to my point about throwing stones in glass houses. You don't have a glass house man. It's long gone. America has the resources, the fed/spoiled population, and the arrogance to commit more atrocities daily than these countries can do in a month.

You don't have the right to shit on these countries just because yours is farther along in the economical race and has better geographical placement on the monopoly board.

The human sex trafficking ALONE that goes on in this country should be enough for you to be embarrassed of it.

Political corruption is terrible, but no different then we have here. Politicians are bought and sold on a daily basis. For you, you'll cry Hillary Clinton, Soros, etc., and for the rest here the Koch Brothers I'm sure will do.

As for police corruption, I'm sorry to say, happens too. You mention $200? Our police force just demands an American level bribe. But you keep calling those other countries inferior.

Specific cultures do not commit crime. People do. Always people. So whether you allow immigrants or you don't, you're going to have the same type of crime your country produces.

Anyways, back to the original question. Do you think weakness is a choice?

I thought that we were getting somewhere as well. You seem over critical of America. I can respect people that are critical. Being critical means you like something enough to make it better. What I do not like is opponents of America. I think we will just have to disagree on this but I am a believer in American Exceptionalism.

The examples you cited were indeed individuals. But the examples I cited involved the manifestation of common beliefs and tacitc approval of the local community in which they took place. That goes beyond individuals and speaks to the culture. Local culture, maybe, but unarguably a set of principles from that community which I would reject plucking members to become new Americans. Would you want someone like this living next door? What about living in your basement with your family? Open borders sounds like a noble pursuit to people that expect the government to take care of everything via taxes until you ask of people how many refugees are they willing to board themselves.

And also, child marriage is not child rape ordered by community elders. It's not good and I don't support it but there are two very different motivations at play in each. I'm sure you can see that.

People can choose to be weak, people can choose to be strong. People can be born weak, and people can be born strong. That's about the best answer I can give.

You seem over critical of America.
Over critical would be, "America does X, and so therefore is irredeemable no matter what it does and should be demolished/removed/fall." (Possibly your viewpoint of Iran?)

I am not being overly critical.

What I do not like is opponents of America.
Which, coincidentally, appears to be anyone critical of America. Weird how that works out.

I am a believer in American Exceptionalism.
Actually I'm starting to see it now. You're a fundamentalist, but your god is a country. Christians can't handle criticism of their god either. "Sure he asked a follower to murder a baby, murdered a few himself, and called for the genocide of entire nations, but he's god so what are you gonna do, he's obviously right.".

You're as forgiving of America as they are of their god because your mental footing sits on this 'truth'. To lose it would be to lose everything, you'd spend years trying to find yourself again. It's easier just to dismiss your enemies as opponents than consider the possibility that America is not great all the time, that god may not be good all of the time. A god cannot make mistakes but your country can. By convoluting the two you've set yourself up to lose.

The examples you cited were indeed individuals.

No, see, you don't get to decide that. You're subjective and in love with the nation. You don't get to be part of the jury and definitely don't get to be the judge. Individuals are what make up our (and everyone else's) nation. So when these kind of incidents are ALLOWED to happen, it speaks to the nation's culture, it speaks to what we think people should have the freedom to do and what they cannot do. You don't get to dismiss the parts of the country that embarrass you and say, "Well, they're not REALLY Americans/Christians. They don't represent us as a whole." BULLSHIT. It was through your group think, your rigorous prodding that "we" are right and "they" are wrong, that these 'individuals' were able to climb mount stupid and do terrible things.

But the examples I cited involved the manifestation of common beliefs and tacitc approval

You're not even reading these. The people were ARRESTED for doing these things. Gee, almost like the country finds that sort of thing distasteful, not a part of their culture, and went so far as to outlaw it. Who do they think they are, destroying your entire premise like that? Ungrateful foreigners, that's who.

From your articles:

"Virar police arrested the girl's homemaker mother Meenakshi, father Ambaji who is employed in a private firm, and aunt Madhuri Shinde on Wednesday."

"Some 20 people from Multan, Pakistan, have been arrested for ordering the rape of a teenage girl, in revenge for a rape her brother allegedly committed."

Local culture, maybe, but unarguably a set of principles from that community which I would reject plucking members to become new Americans.

If you keep throwing these stones in that non-existent glass house of yours, one of them is bound to cross the goddamned planet and smack you in the back of the head. You had "people" in Charlottesville praising nazi-ism, something this country had to send good soldiers off to die in order to defeat. We had to lose a perfectly innocent young American so that your ROGUE INDIVIDUAL of that group could get his "freedom of speech" on. These people judge others on the basis of skin and creed. Something you have admitted is illegal, and against our culture as Americans. This happened just last year. This is, at least part, American culture. I'm betting you haven't even thought of rejecting them as Americans.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't want to have people like that living next door.

And also, child marriage is not child rape ordered by community elders.

No you're right. It's child rape ordered by THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS. Because they can't handle the 'shame' of their daughter being pregnant from rape, they subject their child, their own flesh and blood, to marry their attacker. What do you think is going to happen to the victim (you know, the one originally raped) now that they and their attacker are married?

One is village pride, and the other is family pride. I understand tribalism, that it can cause groups of people to do stupid things, but I do not understand hurting your own genetic offspring. It is unnatural to me.

Oh and to throw you for a loop, one of stories is illegal in both countries, and the other story is LEGAL in 25 states. "It's not good and I don't support it."

What country do you not support?

I made a sincere distinction of critics and opponents because I am careful to apply labels. Thoughout our interactions you are very liberal in your labeling. Labels get tricky. It creates rigid borders. I try to avoid using them but sometimes they are expedient I admit.

So no, I'm not a fundamentalist or worship the government. A label that would apply to me would be Libertarian. I'm actually not a fan of government. Culture though, I like American culture. It has it's flaws but from my vantage to me it seems in many qualifications as superior in the world. Why else would so many want to live here?

You didn't say what you thought an opponent was, only that you disliked them.

Worshiping the 'ideal' of America does not mean worshiping its government. The government stops your Charlottesville friends from burning crosses on some of their neighbors lawns, but in their 'ideal' America they'd be free to do so (and did so here).

You judge refugees and immigrants, entire cultures even, before they have individually done anything wrong based on what you THINK their cultures are. However, I could show you criminal Americans and you would say "nothing we can do, they were born here" (and ironically in the same breath you would turn the Dreamers away I assume).

Our culture is not 'superior' until you can show it has no flaws. Otherwise, it has its advantages and its disadvantages in comparison to others.

Many people want to live here because of opportunity. There's money to be had here. That doesn't say anything to your 'superior' culture as, if we didn't have the money, the number wanting to come would change significantly.

I.e. Leaving a country that might stone/beat you to death for theft, to one that will simply shoot you while you're at school is a step up. That doesn't mean you're moving to the best country ever.

I'm guessing this poster believes you need to earn the right to vote. That means property ownership, a test, proof of employment, etc. If push came to shove, though, I'd say they think woman's suffrage did good things for women, but not society. I just had someone tell me the other day that women are meant to be nurturing in the first 8-10 years, and it's the mans responsibility to prepare them for life after that, and the reason we have a "soft" society is because that has been disrupted. Further, it's normal for conservatives to take the worst example - like the left does with somalia when talking about libertarianism - to use as the shiny example that socialism doesn't work. Meanwhile, another tactic is to ignore context. You've touched on that above in previous posts in regard to a college education/ degree and a job. Originalism is much more prevalent in right wing circles than is acknowledged.

Besides, parts of socialism exist in this country already simply by nature of governmental interference. Or not. Speed limits, or regulations that protect it's citizenry from the release of chemicals into the environment, governmental bailouts of wall street or subsidies for BigAgra are all examples of somebody directing traffic. It's all hyperbole when a dystopian society is the result of socialism. It's just not true, and there are examples in history that the theory wasn't what fucked everything up, people did. Just like people are fucking up capitalism and "democracy;" and there are no examples of the supposed utopia capitalism and democracy supposedly brings. We most certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, live in a utopia. But I agree with you that there is nuance and subtlety in the social mechanism we choose. It's not either/ or binary choice, but when you want to win an argument or convince/ manipulate your constituency, straw men and false equivalencies are your friend.

But for me the bigger question is : Why have conservatives engaged in a war to eradicate liberalism when espousing the benefits of a free people? It's a double standard. Conservatives love to talk about the left wanting to impose authority, acting like daddy, but conservatives do the exact same thing with regulations intended to squeeze a person to engage in certain approved behaviors. The same daddy complex. It's no secret that the removal of a safety net is intended to force people into choosing between doing what the government says, leave, or die. Conformity is the only option. Which is what conservatives are so fearful of socialism.

C18H27NO3 I think this was meant to reply to norok. Let me know if I'm wrong.

No, to you. Feel free to reply. I don't engage with norok. Or at least try not to. For many of the reasons you stated. But also because I find conservatism selfish and narrow minded at it's root. The same way conservatives try to convince me I'm uniformed and stupid if I don't agree with right wing thinking, I find it pointless to argue/debate with a fencepost that has zero intention of moving.

Well in that case hopefully I'm not the one being referred to as the 'poster'. I believe everyone should have the right to vote and would expand it to the US territories, cut up DC (leaving the white house, mall, and capitol building) and make it a state with representation (at this point it has more population than Vermont and Wyoming).

I would offer a $1,000 (move it with inflation) tax write off for those that show they voted. Throw another national holiday for voting on to the pile. We can get rid of Columbus day if you want it balance.

The "did men lose anything by women gaining the right" was simply to gauge the philosophical math I'm dealing with.

People saying what 'women' should and shouldn't be is the same as saying what a white male 'should be' to norok. Infuriating because "White males can be whatever they want to be! Rarrrrr!" (I'm just messing with you norok) ;-)

Conservatism is a failure to empathize. I don't believe the people can actually help it. It's the way the wiring works in their brain (might even be a natural defense mechanism). You can even cure someone of conservatism on a specific issue, and they will stay conservative on others.

We can see this when the issue is thrust upon them from within. If you're conservative, and anti-gay, and then you have a gay child the paths diverge. Yes, some throw their child out doubling-down, and others adapt and have a sudden 'change of heart' about homosexuality. It's because NOW the situation is ABOUT them, it AFFECTS them, it IS them. That empathy problem has a tendency to clear up real quick.

I understand not wanting to engage with them, sometimes it can seem like circles. But if you eat right, watch your pace, and don't overdue it; some wandering gypsy man told me it all works out. ;-)

You have to give it a chance. It's a real thinker that one.

.