https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/09/03/american-policy-is-splitting-state-by-state-into-two-blocs


So I'm on Twitter Friday night and see on the right side of the page that "NationalDivorce" is trending. I browse it for a minute or so. Then, I head over to Economist (to check on foreign affairs) and I see link as a headline article at top of homepage. I go back to Economist today and see that link is now stored as one of several under a section near the bottom of The Economist's home page called "DisUnited States."

One can quibble and parse the details. But when you have The Economist quoting David French as saying he's "no longer certain" that the US can stay united.....and that same general topic is trending on Twitter in the shadow of Biden's declaration of war on the American right......and you see similarly themed stories elsewhere..... The concept is "analytical significance." The topics being discussed speak loudly about the issues on peoples' minds.

The bonds of affection are strained, to put it mildly.

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

We can save the Nation. It requires a smaller less intrusive and less powerful federal government. Contentious social issues have to be decided by the states and municipalities. Welfare programs must be administered by the States if at all.

Washington needs a reset. Washington must do less and take less.

Married A Horn said:

---

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

---

The sad part is the only way to deal with fascists is to destroy their power structure and imprison or kill them, making us just as bad as they are so either way it leads to the same reality of fascism. Once one side goes wrong, it ruins everything for both sides.

He Hate Me said:

---

We can save the Nation. It requires a smaller less intrusive and less powerful federal government. Contentious social issues have to be decided by the states and municipalities. Welfare programs must be administered by the States if at all.

Washington needs a reset. Washington must do less and take less.

---

I agree with all of this but the beast is too big and powerful and those in charge will not give up their power without a fight.

He Hate Me said:

---

We can save the Nation. It requires a smaller less intrusive and less powerful federal government. Contentious social issues have to be decided by the states and municipalities. Welfare programs must be administered by the States if at all.

Washington needs a reset. Washington must do less and take less.

---

I agree and dont think its too late. We havent reversed the trend but I think we can.

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

---

The sad part is the only way to deal with fascists is to destroy their power structure and imprison or kill them, making us just as bad as they are so either way it leads to the same reality of fascism. Once one side goes wrong, it ruins everything for both sides.

---

The reality always is that those who wish to rule with an iron fist are in the minority. Courage in Congress and in the White House is needed to turn the tide. We the people need to have the will to risk new leadership in those places with our vote.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

We can save the Nation. It requires a smaller less intrusive and less powerful federal government. Contentious social issues have to be decided by the states and municipalities. Welfare programs must be administered by the States if at all.

Washington needs a reset. Washington must do less and take less.

---

We havent reversed the trend but I think we can.

---

Based on what .............specifically ?

While i have no faith in political parties i do think eventually better leaders will be elected. It cant get worse.

I know its not specific enough for you but i think moderates will eventually prevail. As each party pushes the limits more voters will move to the center. I hope.

whiterock said:

---

https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/09/03/american-policy-is-splitting-state-by-state-into-two-blocs


So I'm on Twitter Friday night and see on the right side of the page that "NationalDivorce" is trending. I browse it for a minute or so. Then, I head over to Economist (to check on foreign affairs) and I see link as a headline article at top of homepage. I go back to Economist today and see that link is now stored as one of several under a section near the bottom of The Economist's home page called "DisUnited States."

One can quibble and parse the details. But when you have The Economist quoting David French as saying he's "no longer certain" that the US can stay united.....and that same general topic is trending on Twitter in the shadow of Biden's declaration of war on the American right......and you see similarly themed stories elsewhere..... The concept is "analytical significance." The topics being discussed speak loudly about the issues on peoples' minds.

The bonds of affection are strained, to put it mildly.

---

It's not that tidy.

Sure, Texas can divorce from New York, but it would be more difficult to divorce from Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso.

Georgia would have to divorce Atlanta, Florida would have to divorce Miami.

"Biden's declaration of war on the American right." LOL. He's just recognizing war has already been declared on. him and all Americans would don't agree with the MAGA madness.

All this whining about Dark Brandon upsetting conservatives while on the same night Trump stirs more insurrection and lawlessness by saying when he's president again, he's going to pardon ALL Jan. 6 rioters.

Do you guys even begin to understand how hypocritical you are?

I can't help believing we are better together than apart. The majority can only be overtaken if they acquiesce to the demands of the shrill antagonists.

C. Jordan said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/09/03/american-policy-is-splitting-state-by-state-into-two-blocs


So I'm on Twitter Friday night and see on the right side of the page that "NationalDivorce" is trending. I browse it for a minute or so. Then, I head over to Economist (to check on foreign affairs) and I see link as a headline article at top of homepage. I go back to Economist today and see that link is now stored as one of several under a section near the bottom of The Economist's home page called "DisUnited States."

One can quibble and parse the details. But when you have The Economist quoting David French as saying he's "no longer certain" that the US can stay united.....and that same general topic is trending on Twitter in the shadow of Biden's declaration of war on the American right......and you see similarly themed stories elsewhere..... The concept is "analytical significance." The topics being discussed speak loudly about the issues on peoples' minds.

The bonds of affection are strained, to put it mildly.

---

It's not that tidy.

Sure, Texas can divorce from New York, but it would be more difficult to divorce from Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso.

Georgia would have to divorce Atlanta, Florida would have to divorce Miami.

"Biden's declaration of war on the American right." LOL. He's just recognizing war has already been declared on. him and all Americans would don't agree with the MAGA madness.

All this whining about Dark Brandon upsetting conservatives while on the same night Trump stirs more insurrection and lawlessness by saying when he's president again, he's going to pardon ALL Jan. 6 rioters.

Do you guys even begin to understand how hypocritical you are?

---

Freedom is never tidy. Only tyranny can make it so.

Sad thing is, we don't need to have a national divorce. We have sovereign states who can craft law which fits the sensibilities of their peoples. I'm perfectly fine with CA and NY doing their own thing, as long as I can live somewhere where I can do my own thing. (A viewpoint far more widely shared on the right the left.) The main reason TX and FL are trending back to the right? The in-migration is overwhelmingly a dynamic of conservatives leaving CA/NY. Liberals have become insufferably intolerant of anything to their right, so much so that people are actually relocating for political reasons. I have an employee who just transferred here explicitly for political reasons. He was followed by his parents, and then two other family units. A friend of his visited last week to scout a landing place. All of it driven by politics. Those who CAN leave are doing so. Yes, the red is getting redder and the blue is getting bluer. That is not a problem as long resist the temptation to federalize all aspects of policy.

And yes, the speech was indeed a declaration of war on the right. That assessment is supportable analytically as well as within context of stated worldview and dynamics we see on the left and the institutions they control. It's also supportable philosophically - the mainstream left sincerely sees the right as proto-fascism. (Be honest. Say it. We know you think it.) They have long used the institutions they dominate to employ repressive tolerance (political correctness) to squelch dissent. Now, we see a subject-verb-object declaration that the right itself is is a threat to democracy, backed up with the POTUS vowing to employ sovereign power to enforce its worldview: "If you support Donald Trump, YOU are a threat to democracy. All 75m of you are at risk, now....so wise up buddy, you better stop that, or......well, you' don't want to be a threat to democracy, now, do you?" Sure, you heard it differently. But does that mean the way I heard it doesn't matter? Isn't perception reality? Do you really think the intention of that speech was to unify? If so, where were the carrots, my friend? The irony is, liberals always say they care about the way people feel. Unless, of course, you are a conservative, in which case you are irredeemably deplorable and a de facto threat to democracy.

So, yeah, hypocrisy is an issue alright. After all the unison chorus from Democrats and their institutions about the Russia Hoax, doubting the outcome of an election is a threat to democracy? Hillary Clinton broke the law far more broadly and deliberately than Trump, but because Trump roasted both her and the agencies which protected her with lock her up" chants, we must actually attempt to lock him up? He had four years to investigate, harass, and lock up his political rivals. Didn't happen, did it? But look at how hard Democrats worked to lock him up.

Democrats squeal about Russian election interference?
Investigations. Special counsels.
Republicans squeal about election irregularities affecting outcomes?
HOW DARE YOU, you threat to democracy!!!

Hope you're happy.
Trump hasn't created the division in the country.
He revealed it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

While i have no faith in political parties i do think eventually better leaders will be elected. It cant get worse.

I know its not specific enough for you but i think moderates will eventually prevail. As each party pushes the limits more voters will move to the center. I hope.

---

Good post, my friend. I agree.

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

---

The sad part is the only way to deal with fascists is to destroy their power structure and imprison or kill them, making us just as bad as they are so either way it leads to the same reality of fascism. Once one side goes wrong, it ruins everything for both sides.

---

Well, that's unifying

C. Jordan said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/09/03/american-policy-is-splitting-state-by-state-into-two-blocs


So I'm on Twitter Friday night and see on the right side of the page that "NationalDivorce" is trending. I browse it for a minute or so. Then, I head over to Economist (to check on foreign affairs) and I see link as a headline article at top of homepage. I go back to Economist today and see that link is now stored as one of several under a section near the bottom of The Economist's home page called "DisUnited States."

One can quibble and parse the details. But when you have The Economist quoting David French as saying he's "no longer certain" that the US can stay united.....and that same general topic is trending on Twitter in the shadow of Biden's declaration of war on the American right......and you see similarly themed stories elsewhere..... The concept is "analytical significance." The topics being discussed speak loudly about the issues on peoples' minds.

The bonds of affection are strained, to put it mildly.

---

It's not that tidy.

Sure, Texas can divorce from New York, but it would be more difficult to divorce from Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso.

Georgia would have to divorce Atlanta, Florida would have to divorce Miami.

"Biden's declaration of war on the American right." LOL. He's just recognizing war has already been declared on. him and all Americans would don't agree with the MAGA madness.

All this whining about Dark Brandon upsetting conservatives while on the same night Trump stirs more insurrection and lawlessness by saying when he's president again, he's going to pardon ALL Jan. 6 rioters.

Do you guys even begin to understand how hypocritical you are?

---

Get real. The left has been at war with the right for a long time now. The right has been too blind to see it. Now, maybe they're eyes are opened.

But question, do you even realize how hypocritical the left is?

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

---

The sad part is the only way to deal with fascists is to destroy their power structure and imprison or kill them, making us just as bad as they are so either way it leads to the same reality of fascism. Once one side goes wrong, it ruins everything for both sides.

---

Well, that's unifying

---

Wangchung hasn't run for elected office promising to unify the country, so there's that.

Biden stock market lows incoming. People be pissed

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I had a thread a few months back on a National Divorce. Most seemed to be against it. The way I see it the left wants us all to be killed or thrown in prison for our beliefs. I dont see that as something the can be reconciled.

---

The sad part is the only way to deal with fascists is to destroy their power structure and imprison or kill them, making us just as bad as they are so either way it leads to the same reality of fascism. Once one side goes wrong, it ruins everything for both sides.

---

Well, that's unifying

---

I'd rather point out the violence and fascism of the left than lie in effort to unify. W was that last republican president to simply smile demurely while democrats have free reign to attack and make up accusations. Trump isn't an anomaly, he is the future of what the scumbag leftist democrats will have to endure from now on. You're just pissy because Republicans are finally playing your game and you don't like it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

While i have no faith in political parties i do think eventually better leaders will be elected. It cant get worse.

I know its not specific enough for you but i think moderates will eventually prevail. As each party pushes the limits more voters will move to the center. I hope.

---

No specifics is certainly not enough specifics .


In my opinion the only chance for more unity.......specifically .


!. Replace 24 hour news channels with 2 hour maximum new slots . End the practice of these brainless talking heads attempting to attract an audience with lies and half truths . They exist now only to fill in the 24 hour voids.
2. End illegal immigration . Our country needs some time to absorb the millions already here .
3. Terminate foreign aid....every single penny of it . Use those billions of dollars to aid our country's poor, mentally ill and homeless.
4. ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS. Murderers, rapists, arsonists , looters to be arrested and put in prison regardless of their skin color , respective wealth, or political affiliation .
5. Pull US troops out of Europe and South Korea . Put hose troops to use closing our borders to illicit drugs that are killing over 100,000 people a year . Money saved from such redeployment to be spent on our nation's poor , mentally iff and homeless.
6. The Bill of Rights and terms in the Constitution to be strictly followed .




Will any of this happen....of course not.


IMO we are eventually headed to a civil war . Not along clear geographical lines like in 1861.
But rather an entangled mess of states versus states and even neighborhood versus neighborhood.

Far more like the initial stages of the Spanish Civil War.

Pinochet's Helicopter Ride service will be the only thing that eventually brings the country back together. The left will keep ignoring the constitution and, eventually, the center and right will begin to get rid of those who do. Many will have sworn oaths to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies forn and domestic.

I hope it can be delayed or eliminated by expelling the left from positions of propaganda power. But I have very little confidence that will happen. When the left gains power, they are only ever ejected with force, following their trampling on the people.

Yikes..

Those are specific alright.

Your number 1 seems to conflict with number 6.

So you will use our military to enforce our borders and ramp up the drug war.?

I think the reasoning behind troops overseas is to discourage problems before they get to the US.

America already imprisons a greater % of our populaion than any other country.. And your answer is to double down on it.

Thanks for the specifics. Going back to number one, maybe we could penalize the liars. I dont think the ime limit idea would work but if a csndidte, party leader, any politician is caught in a bold faced lie, kick them out. Newspapers and newscasts would be shut down for lying. I know this isnt practical. The problem is not too much info, its too much incorrect info.

Using money to treat the mentally ill is good. The war on poverty, like the war on drugs, is a big failure. Improve education. In our day everyone went to school together. Now a big % of the best students go to private schools or stay home to avoid rubbing elbows with the chaff. One of the biggest inovations in the building of America was that everyone was provided with a free education. Take the future leaders out of school and the free school suffers. I think it harms society. Schools should be run by the states and cities and federal programs reduced.

People need to work. If a man wont take care of his children he/she should not be allowed to have anymore. State welfare should be spent on the children, not the sperm donor. Women should also be held accountable.

There are many problems but America is still a great place to live. My children are thriving. My grandkids will do well. I still think America can and will survive. Most people in America dont live and die by the party line. This board does not represent typical Americans.

Rainbow Stew
There's a big, brown cloud in the city
And the countryside's a sin
The price of life is too high to give up
It's gotta come down again
But worldwide war is over and done
And the dream of peace comes true
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew
When they find out how to burn water
And the gasoline car is gone
When an airplane flies without any fuel
And the sunlight heats our home
But one of these days when the air clears up
And the sun comes shinin' through
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon
Underneath that sky of blue
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew
Alright, Parky?
Here comes Don
You don't have to get high to get happy
Just think about what's in store
When people start doin' what they oughta be doin'
Then they won't be booin' no more
When a President goes through the White House door
Does what he says he'll do
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon
Underneath that sky of blue
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew
Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon
Underneath that sky of blue
We'll all be drinkin' free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew

"I do not want to live in RAINBOW LAND!!!"

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing isnt holding up in schools. I believe courts are ruling in favor of teachers who refuse to call students by their lie/agains-science chosen pronouns.

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Forced restructuring of the English language to incorporate lies into the language, is not a small thing and it matters quite a lot. If you don't stop the smaller evils, the bigger evils won't be stopped either, because they seem more acceptable.

Golem said:

---

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Forced restructuring of the English language to incorporate lies into the language, is not a small thing and it matters quite a lot. If you don't stop the smaller evils, the bigger evils won't be stopped either, because they seem more acceptable.

---

The English language has constantly been restructuring and evolving for the past several hundred years. The English language would not be understood very well by people from just a couple hundred years ago, possibly even by people from a hundred years ago. Worrying about pronouns is minor - we have used different pronouns to describe people for quite some time. There have been many times I've been talking professionally about a person I haven't met and I didn't know their gender (because they have a gender neutral name or they are from a foreign country and I don't know the genders of all of the names from other countries), and in those instances I will use they/them. I've been doing this for quite some time, long before this movement. If someone would prefer to be called they or them, let them. Who gives two fcks? I have much bigger things in my life to worry about than what someone wants to be called. They are winning when you let yourself get distracted by these things because it allows them to push the bigger agenda while you are busy protesting pronoun preferences.

Which is exactly what they want; control. You've got more important things to worry about while the my wrest control of society with lawyers who sue anyone not using the pretend pronouns.

contrario said:

---

Golem said:

---

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Forced restructuring of the English language to incorporate lies into the language, is not a small thing and it matters quite a lot. If you don't stop the smaller evils, the bigger evils won't be stopped either, because they seem more acceptable.

---

The English language has constantly been restructuring and evolving for the past several hundred years. The English language would not be understood very well by people from just a couple hundred years ago, possibly even by people from a hundred years ago. Worrying about pronouns is minor - we have used different pronouns to describe people for quite some time. There have been many times I've been talking professionally about a person I haven't met and I didn't know their gender (because they have a gender neutral name or they are from a foreign country and I don't know the genders of all of the names from other countries), and in those instances I will use they/them. I've been doing this for quite some time, long before this movement. If someone would prefer to be called they or them, let them. Who gives two fcks? I have much bigger things in my life to worry about than what someone wants to be called. They are winning when you let yourself get distracted by these things because it allows them to push the bigger agenda while you are busy protesting pronoun preferences.

---

Yes, language changes. Always has, always will. "Ain't" is in the dictionary now. But that's not the issue we're discussing here.

The key issue is the part in bold. And you framed it wrong. If that was the situation, I'd agree with you. But it's not. They're not asking. They're demanding. There are consequences for not complying. The left here will make those consequences legal, eventually, if not opposed. And, predictably, anyone who disagrees will be called a proto-fascist.....for exercising free speech to resist collectivism that dehumanizes any individual who does not comply.

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Nothing matters more than the ability to recognize and speak the truth. Once you concede that language is the servant of ideology rather than objective truth, you are powerless.

Sam Lowry said:

---

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Nothing matters more than the ability to recognize and speak the truth. Once you concede that language is the servant of ideology rather than objective truth, you are powerless.

---

Bingo. Even a gradual chipping away of traditional Judeo-Christian morality makes it weaker or less likely to succeed by repeated efforts. This has been the left's tactics with sexual morals for a generation, and we are seeing the sever negative implications of it.

Ok, keep focusing on they/them, you will continue to lose actual rights in the process. While you guys have been fighting a losing cultural war for decades, the people in charge have been increasing the deficit and federal spending. You are electing people that will fight the they/them fight for you, but at the expense of financial freedom and an unmanageable debt for our ancestors. Even the chosen one in some of your eyes (Trump) increased the deficit even further than Obama did. At what point do you cut your losses and elect someone that will actually take control of our financial mess? Because the truth is, while you have been focusing on these tangential social issues, the group in power has used the social issues distraction to create a two-party system where the two parties are really two sides of the same coin and they use all of you as pawns to push their true agenda which is to make the rich people that finance their campaigns even richer.

contrario said:

---

Ok, keep focusing on they/them, you will continue to lose actual rights in the process. While you guys have been fighting a losing cultural war for decades, the people in charge have been increasing the deficit and federal spending. You are electing people that will fight the they/them fight for you, but at the expense of financial freedom and an unmanageable debt for our ancestors. Even the chosen one in some of your eyes (Trump) increased the deficit even further than Obama did. At what point do you cut your losses and elect someone that will actually take control of our financial mess? Because the truth is, while you have been focusing on these tangential social issues, the group in power has used the social issues distraction to create a two-party system where the two parties are really two sides of the same coin and they use all of you as pawns to push their true agenda which is to make the rich people that finance their campaigns even richer.

---

I suspect there are some Republican candidates that can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not the binary issue you would make it.

Round 1. Ding Ding. pic.twitter.com/dM6gvqIC4r

— I🤎ALL DOGS (@TerryLy81181401) September 6, 2022