Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

coopasonic wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:44 pm The day after your 14th birthday you could be considered "over 14."

Please don't argue with me, I'm just amusing myself here. :D
And in many ways that is how you refer to them when talking about them legally or when it comes to requirements. You must be over 14 to.... Like, generally, you must be over the age of 14 to work on the books in non agricultural occupations. Or you must be over 16 to be legally responsible for a child. Or if you are over the age of 15 you can be tried as an adult in Colorado.

(I kid, my little sister was part of "you show, you go" in high school and about gave my dad a heart attack. In the long run, her son probably saved my parents' marriage. As my sister could not take legal responsibility for her son even if she wanted to, my parents acted as second parents to their grandbaby. Previous to this experience, my freshly retired father was very agitated and constantly interferin with the household my mother had been running for the previous 30 years.)
Freyland
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Freyland »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm That could be a Sophomore dating a Junior. That's not exactly extreme.

That's not to say that people getting pregnant at 15 is a good thing, just that I don't see it as extreme as some people seem to be making it out to be (nor a sign of poor parenting.)
I disagree about the parenting statement. The parents should be the first line of education on how not to get pregnant. Do I know how much educating they performed? Of course not. But if we are talking about food or bad parenting assumptions, this is definitely a knock against.
Sims 3 and signature unclear.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55315
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm That could be a Sophomore dating a Junior. That's not exactly extreme.

That's not to say that people getting pregnant at 15 is a good thing, just that I don't see it as extreme as some people seem to be making it out to be (nor a sign of poor parenting.)
I wouldn't call her a bad parent for that. I'd call her a raging hypocrite and a terrible person, based on her publicly espoused views and legislative history.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55315
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

coopasonic wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:44 pm The day after your 14th birthday you could be considered "over 14."

Please don't argue with me, I'm just amusing myself here. :D
Also worth noting that she's due in April so "over 14" now doesn't necessarily mean "over 14" at the time of loving, godfearing conception.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

Freyland wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:16 pm
Blackhawk wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm That could be a Sophomore dating a Junior. That's not exactly extreme.

That's not to say that people getting pregnant at 15 is a good thing, just that I don't see it as extreme as some people seem to be making it out to be (nor a sign of poor parenting.)
I disagree about the parenting statement. The parents should be the first line of education on how not to get pregnant. Do I know how much educating they performed? Of course not. But if we are talking about food or bad parenting assumptions, this is definitely a knock against.
Of course they should. And I have no idea if they did. But plenty of great parents give plenty of great talks and support that lead to early grandchildren. Teenagers, on the whole, don't make good decisions. Some make bad decisions with good information, some make them with bad information. And some teenagers get pregnant despite following the best advice (and 'complete abstinence with no exceptions' is not the best advice), just like some adults do.

Is it more likely to happen with poor parenting? Yeah, of course it is. But it isn't exclusive to bad parenting.

And I'm not going to judge her worthiness as a mother based on it, regardless of how much I personally dislike her. Just because it's possible doesn't mean I get to convict her. Besides, there are plenty of choices she's made herself (that are on the record) to judge her for.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
Freyland
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Freyland »

Since I will consider myself a bad parent if one of my spawn induces or gets pregnant during their teen years, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Sims 3 and signature unclear.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

We will at that. Having almost finished raising two teenagers (the youngest is 19 and change), I stand by my views. Unless you're with them 24/7, teens are going to do teen things, and are going to do them in teen ways (by which I mean impulsively and without forethought for consequences, mostly because their brains haven't finished developing the ability that lets adults avoid those things.)

Good parents do their best. Poor parents do too little (or even too much.) But at the end of the day, they're all at the mercy of their kids whims (and hormones.) And all parents can do is shift the odds in the kids' favor as much as they can. That shouldn't be underestimated - but even with a +10, sometimes they're going to go out and roll a 1, just because the opportunity presented itself.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19978
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Both things can be true, I think. If my 13 yo daughter were to become pregnant, I would totally be wracked with guilt and very much consider myself to be a horrible parent.

Not the same as BEING one, I guess, but that way leads to the ‘meaning of words’ rabbit hole which I will not go down.

Also 100% agree with BH, per usual, when it comes to his parenting mindset. (‘Agree with’ - but rarely, if ever ‘achieve’ his seemingly zen parenting state)
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

I think the question to be asking ourselves is: What has Lauren Boebert done to warrant any benefit of the doubt whatsoever?

She's part of a political party that is dead set on taking reproductive rights and body autonomy away from women, and many (most?) would consider her to be among the very worst of that party.

She's a bad parent. Any hypotheticals are about just how bad a parent she is, not whether she is one or not.

And I say all that while being in total agreement with Blackhawk in general, and VERY sympathetic to Freyland's view as well. Sometimes kids go off the rails and there is nothing a parent can do except help them hide the bodies.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth »

Plenty of 17 year olds don't impregnate 15 year olds. Is that down to luck or good parenting?
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 3:44 pm Plenty of 17 year olds don't impregnate 15 year olds. Is that down to luck or good parenting?
Depends on the 17 year old.

There seems to be this idea in the US that if kids are "raised right", whatever that means, they won't have sex until older. I don't even necessarily mean this thread. Sex education is incredibly important, but far too many kids don't understand how things fit together, let alone what the ramifications are.

We have a literal biological drive to reproduce that is nearly as powerful as our need to eat and drink and sleep. And we acquired that need long before our life expectancy was more than about 25-35. Perhaps younger.

Kids are going to fuck (not all of them of course, but many. So very many) Some will do it responsibly. Some won't. Some will get pregnant. Some won't. The Venn diagram has lots of intersections. Parenting is just a single factor of a host of factors that will affect this.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19978
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:19 pm There seems to be this idea in the US that if kids are "raised right", whatever that means, they won't have sex until older. I don't even necessarily mean this thread. Sex education is incredibly important, but far too many kids don't understand how things fit together, let alone what the ramifications are.
That is very likely tied to our religious origins, no doubt. And many MANY parents do not like the idea of their kids getting sex education either at all, and definitely not in school. I am not one of those parents, to be clear, but they are legion. Probably some of it tied into the current culture sub-war of parents v schools, mistrust of yet another instituion (public schooling), etc.

The mere thought of holy, innocent Johnny being exposed to a teacher saying "penis" and "vagina" is as abhorrent as Biden winning another term. YMMV depending on region, state, city, district, etc etc.

To be fair to Johnny, he may indeed be both holy and innocent prior to sex ed, but the idea that many parents have is that by learning about sex, he will, of course be turned into a bespoiled, evil-minded heathen.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:34 pm I think the question to be asking ourselves is: What has Lauren Boebert done to warrant any benefit of the doubt whatsoever?
It isn't about benefit of the doubt. It's about how we comport ourselves when dealing with shitty people. When we start damning people for things that they might have done (and, at the same time, creating an artificial social standard that could hurt other, non-shitty people - if we say she's a bad mother, then how many other mothers are we calling bad?), then we're doing it wrong. And I'll reiterate what I said earlier: It isn't like we don't have tons of things that we know that she's done to judge her a shitty human being. We don't need to get our hands dirty with this to prove what kind of person she is.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:47 pm The mere thought of holy, innocent Johnny being exposed to a teacher saying "penis" and "vagina" is as abhorrent as Biden winning another term.
Egads! Such language! Times have changed!

I say that we change it to 'pencil' and 'elbow', and then hire an editor to go back through all of Carpet_pissr's old posts to remove any other such language (and also to change his name to Carpet_pizza.)
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:38 pm
It isn't about benefit of the doubt. It's about how we comport ourselves when dealing with shitty people.
No.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:49 pm
Blackhawk wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:38 pm
It isn't about benefit of the doubt. It's about how we comport ourselves when dealing with shitty people.
No.
I see your no, and raise you a yes!
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

How long do these people need to scream how shitty they are before we believe them? Some of the ideas these people espouse cannot be reconciled with being a good parent. But we need to assume they are hypocrites instead of being bad parents?

No thanks. I'll take them at their word. They've screamed them at us enough.

Comport that.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 6:19 pm How long do these people need to scream how shitty they are before we believe them?
Who said we didn't believe them? Part of my point was that we already know it to be true based on actual things actually done. We don't need to go searching for more evidence that they're shitty. We can smell 'em from here.

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 6:19 pm Some of the ideas these people espouse cannot be reconciled with being a good parent. But we need to assume they are hypocrites instead of being bad parents?
Except that's not the argument. The argument consisted entirely of, "She won an award for being a good parent, but her 17-year-old son is having a baby so she's clearly a bad parent."

And that's bullshit. For me to take that position, I'd be also be calling ~29 million other parents per year bad parents for something that their kids did on the assumption that it was 100% their fault, regardless of how they parented. And that's also bullshit. We don't need to bring back 50s style shaming and stigmatizing.

Is she a bad parent for actively promoting anti-science stances, working against education, working to hurt trans kids, promoting a philosophy that gets thousands of kids shot, etc? Hell, yes. But that wasn't what we were discussing.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

What we were discussing was whether she's a bad parent. You said "now hold on a minute, we don't know that her kid having underaged sex and impregnating a 15 year old girl makes her a bad parent".

I'm saying in light of who she is and how she behaves, she's almost certainly a bad parent, her kid's behaviour is just additional evidence. Of which we have a preponderance.

That's why I said no benefit of the doubt. Does her kid's behaviour reflect poorly on her? Yes it does. Is it evidence of bad parenting? You said not necessarily. I'm saying given everything else we know about her, it's a safe bet. I.e. she's *probably* a bad parent.

And that's enough for me.

I feel like I'm watching insane clown cannibals running amok in the GOP but you're worried about how we "comport" ourselves when we judge them.

Fuck them, is my comportment. I'm willing to accept the risks of being wrong in this case.

edit: requiring parents to be 100% responsible before labeling them bad parents is an impossibly high bar.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo »

Ok, I'm going to try to illustrate my viewpoint here.

1. GOP are actively, openly making life harder for thousands of people across the country, including children.
2. Boebert is easily amongst the worst of them.
3. Her kid has done some questionable things, that reflect poorly on her.
4. People have said she's probably not as good a parent as her award implies. In fact she's likely a bad parent.
5. You said whoa, slow down, let's not jump to conclusions. Some kids do stupid things and it's not the parents' fault.
6. I'm saying the conclusions being reached are reasonable and rational. No jumping required. We know things about her. Things she's shared willingly.


That's it.

I'm sick of people under reacting to the GOP bullshit, because maybe this one particular thing is not actually what it appears to be. Even though it is almost certainly what it appears to be.

It's why we have "fair" articles in the NYT. These people are shit people. Of fucking course she's a terrible parent. Her son could be valedictorian and we still have enough evidence to assume she's a terrible parent. Which is a totally subjective arbitrary thing to begin with. What's an objective definition of a good or bad parent, that we could use so we don't make any mistaken judgments?
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:22 pm Ok, I'm going to try to illustrate my viewpoint here.

1. GOP are actively, openly making life harder for thousands of people across the country, including children.
2. Boebert is easily amongst the worst of them.
3. Her kid has done some questionable things, that reflect poorly on her.
4. People have said she's probably not as good a parent as her award implies. In fact she's likely a bad parent.
5. You said whoa, slow down, let's not jump to conclusions. Some kids do stupid things and it's not the parents' fault.
6. I'm saying the conclusions being reached are reasonable and rational. No jumping required. We know things about her. Things she's shared willingly.


That's it.

I'm sick of people under reacting to the GOP bullshit, because maybe this one particular thing is not actually what it appears to be. Even though it is almost certainly what it appears to be.

It's why we have "fair" articles in the NYT. These people are shit people. Of fucking course she's a terrible parent. Her son could be valedictorian and we still have enough evidence to assume she's a terrible parent. Which is a totally subjective arbitrary thing to begin with. What's an objective definition of a good or bad parent, that we could use so we don't make any mistaken judgments?
I actually agree with alost everything there, except:
Her kid has done some questionable things, that reflect poorly on her.
What he did, to me, doesn't reflect on her at all. It is a single point of data, and it is a point of data that applies equally to literally millions of great parents. She's a shitty person. She's probably a shitty parent. Neither is because her son had sex with a girl that could have been a year and a few months younger than him (to which people seem to be equating him with a pedophile), and neither is because said girl got pregnant.

I don't think we should under react to GOP bullshit. I think that we if we are willing to publicly shame her for something that doesn't (IMHO) justify public shaming, and at the same time effectively declare the same about millions of other parents, then we're just adding more bullshit. React to the GOP bullshit. But if if you do it in a way that also impacts random innocent bystanders, expect me to call it. And in the end, it just weakens any of the real arguments we have against her. "But her emails!" "But his stutter!" "But her son!" "But his Depends!" "His family's real name sounds funny!" It's just adolescent neener-neener crap, and while it is a 'reaction' to the GoP, it isn't a valuable reaction. It's just petty vindictiveness.

Argue the truth. Smack them upside the head with the truth. Badger our representatives to address the truth. But this? Come on.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

The other thing is that she actively pursues policy to enable this to happen for millions more.

Most without her resources to manage it as best as possible, and not have the rest of their lives go down the toilet.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Pyperkub wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:24 pm The other thing is that she actively pursues policy to enable this to happen for millions more.
Yeah, that's the thing.

There is zero chance that this was an intended pregnancy. But Boebert is a leader of the reactionary movement aiming to cancel the sex education (and, next up, the contraception) that prevents unintended pregnancies.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

I was never arguing that she was a good person or undeserving of scorn, if that is what some people think.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by waitingtoconnect »

It’s incredible political mileage is being made out of this. Traditionally your teenage child being impregnated by a teenager or your teenage child impregnating another teenager is a mark of great shame.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

Tradition in regards to sex is generally bullshit.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:47 pm Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
This is one of the greatest quotes ever. I feel like it really captures a certain element of progressive ideology (not all of progressive ideology, but a part).

It’s also complete and total bullshit.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth »

Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:04 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:47 pm Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
This is one of the greatest quotes ever. I feel like it really captures a certain element of progressive ideology (not all of progressive ideology, but a part).

It’s also complete and total bullshit.
You think progressives are particularly beholden to tradition? Isn't conservatism by definition the ideology bound to tradition?
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

Alefroth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:51 am
Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:04 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:47 pm Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
This is one of the greatest quotes ever. I feel like it really captures a certain element of progressive ideology (not all of progressive ideology, but a part).

It’s also complete and total bullshit.
You think progressives are particularly beholden to tradition? Isn't conservatism by definition the ideology bound to tradition?
Suposably. Radical conservatism is reactionary.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Alefroth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:51 am
Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:04 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:47 pm Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
This is one of the greatest quotes ever. I feel like it really captures a certain element of progressive ideology (not all of progressive ideology, but a part).

It’s also complete and total bullshit.
You think progressives are particularly beholden to tradition? Isn't conservatism by definition the ideology bound to tradition?
No, quite the opposite. I feel like this sums up the tendency of progressives to throw out that which has come before because the young always know better, and fuck your tradition.

To me, conservatism and progressiveness are at two ends of the spectrum on this. Conservatives tend to wallow in the past, viewing anything new through a negative lens as dangerous. Progressives tend to want to reject the past wholesale, viewing anything grounded in “tradition” as limiting and anachronistic.

As usual, I tend to feel like people would be much better off aiming for a perspective somewhere in the middle of those two poles.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

How about this, then?

Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:42 am How about this, then?

Image
Enlarge Image
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Pithy sayings aside, I'm for an informed review of standards and practices on a regular basis.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:55 am Pithy sayings aside, I'm for an informed review of standards and practices on a regular basis.
Now, that certainly doesn’t make for a pithy saying, but that’s a notion I can get behind.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:00 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:55 am Pithy sayings aside, I'm for an informed review of standards and practices on a regular basis.
Now, that certainly doesn’t make for a pithy saying, but that’s a notion I can get behind.
:obscene-drinkingcheers:
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:55 am Pithy sayings aside, I'm for an informed review of standards and practices on a regular basis.
It was required bureaucracy to my old job. It became more and more required as cybersecurity became a bigger and bigger part of NAFTA or USMCA or whatever NAFTA was rebranded and retooled to be under TFG. Corporate continued to try and pay lipservice to the idea and it was probably a good 5% increase in annual work for any one with administrative responsibilities but it was a worthwhile endeavor, or would have been if resources and people were budgeted for.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

Tradition is awesome. I love tradition. But tradition needs to be examined from time to time to see if it is still valid and necessary, or if it is just "the way we've always done it." And that goes double if the tradition involves limiting, separating, punishing, ostracizing, or shaming people. And if you find that something that limits people does so entirely as a social construct, it probably needs to go. Especially when it comes to sex, where most of the 'traditions' are about putting women 'in their place' while reaffirming men's authority and power.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55315
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

We're constantly reminded that we're really no different than we were a few hundred or even a thousand years ago.

Over a third of the planet is under full authoritarian rule and less than half is under any form of democracy. Less than 15% is under full democratic rule, the US included.

Most of the world lives in what we would consider poverty. Around 62% lives on less than $10/day.

It's still a feudal, authoritarian planet. It's just that the biggest democracies have most of the money and some of the best weapons.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
Post Reply