Do you hold the door open for strangers?
- Thread starter LetsGoDuke301
- Start date
That's what I posted earlier.
That's why I posted a link to the Associated Press article about the change, and why it happened, and who was behind it.
Letsgo and a few other people were starting into how horrible progressive liberals were, because they assumed the name change was somehow connected to liberals, but they apparently didn't actually read about the facts of what happened.
This wasn't about liberals or anything; it was the Boy Scouts themselves (who are NOT changing the name of the organization, just one program within it) changing the name of a group that accepts boys AND girls to actually reflect that.
This wasn't a PC thing; it was a factual thing. It wasn't initiated or pushed by anyone outside of the Scouts; it was the Scouts themselves who did it. It wasn't for politically correct reasons; it was because the organization already accepts girls, and wanted to make sure girls could work to earn Eagle Scout, which is a BIG deal in Scouts, and which is the pinnacle achievement of that group
Being factually accurate matters. Surely nobody is reading the actual facts and still getting their panties twisted. Instead, I am sure most people are reading that and saying "Oh! My initial reaction was misguided. Makes sense that a group that has both boys and girls in it would make a simple change like that. My bad."
It's interesting... the number of hyperventilating assholes on twitter and stuff who are raging about this, without actually knowing what happened... the very definition of snowflakes.
Last edited:
I imagine twitter is rolling on it. Don't do the twit.
At the end of the day, I feel like it is a good thing to have organizations that cater to both growing boys and girls. So I am not against the move at all. I am just skeptical about their motivations. @bkingUK made good points about expansion and business. But it wasn't that long ago when folks were pushing their progressive agendas on the BSA. And they were successful. I just feel like the influence of the PC culture had more to do with leading up to allowing transgenders and then girls than you may be willing to admit. And that eventually led to removing Boy from Boy Scouts.
BTW. Keep up the good work everybody. This thread is becoming legendary. I will find some other social issue for us to bitch about tomorrow.
So, somehow teaching kids that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancies is them saying you cannot use contraceptive?
You want to qualify that statement? Because that's absolutely not true. Gays, transgender, etc sure, not when it comes to the black community.
In fact Dems have fought against just about every single major civil rights movement ever until recent history.
Last edited:
Ah, yes. You know, the MSM called Billy's accusers whores. Here we have an actual whore, and they make her out to be a victim.
Cannot make this up.
Abstinence-only education prohibits educating students about contraceptives.
I didn't say Democrat or Republican. I said liberal and conservative. Liberals have always fought for the extension of civil rights to oppressed groups; conservatives have always fought against that. That the profiles of the two major political parties have changed over the years is a separate point.
This article largely supports your claim, but its very opening sentence casts it as something other than run-of-the-mill hypocrisy: "What a difference twenty years — and a seismic cultural moment — make." It goes on to show liberal acknowledgement that they need a reckoning with the allegations against Bill Clinton. It cites the New York Times, CNN, and the Atlantic as already beginning to address it.
Also near the beginning, there's this sentence: "[They] unquestioningly protected an accused serial sexual predator because he championed their agenda." Is this a one way street, or might ending the dialogue at calling out MSM, Democrats, and liberals be hypocritical?
I don't want to end dialog. But the difference here is that the alleged sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump was consensual. She is a porn star that makes money shamefully selling her body for money. She is not a victim.
Do you find it embarrassing that she is a household name because she may give the resisters hope of impeaching Trump?
He said liberals, not Democrats. What we see today as Democrats and Republicans is quite different than what was Democrat and Republican back when Dixiecrats showed up.
Let's go apples-to-apples then and focus on the numerous women who have made similar accusations against President Trump. Forget Stormy Daniels. That's a whole different issue on top of the sexual assault allegations.
And I quoted that last bit for a reason: [They] unquestioningly protected an accused serial sexual predator because he championed their agenda."
As long as President Trump is good for the economy, who cares about his immorality?
As long as President Trump appoints conservative judges, who cares about his immorality?
As long as he x, y, and z for the conservative agenda, let's call everything against him "fake news."
Any of that sound familiar?
Yep, if Clinton were in office today, he wouldn't be getting a pass like he did in the 90's. MSM and congressional democrats would be bending over backwards to be more objective. See Al Franken.
I don't think it's a matter of objectivity, really. We've had a huge cultural shift in our attitudes toward sexual assault. Democrats are still going to focus more on Roy Moore and President Trump and Republicans are still going to focus more on Al Franken and Bill Clinton.
If she was threatened, intimidated or tricked into signing an NDA, then she is in fact a victim. Stormy said herself she was not a victim of abuse in any way and I've never seen a single take that focused outrage on the infidelity part of it. You're looking at it from your preferred perspective, not reality.
I don't have to like the President personally. I don't have to like all the things he says. I don't have to agree with everything he says or has done. What I care about are his policies. I like most of them. I like lower taxes. I like less regulation. I like tougher boarder security. I like tougher foreign policies. I like rebuilding our military. I don't care that Trump supposedly cheated on his wife. Again, I don't have to like the guy personally. I look at the policies between what Trump said he would do and the status quo of Clinton and more broadly, the Democrats, and it's an easy decision on who to vote for. There isn't a damn thing the Democrats have pushed even since Trump got elected that has made me think twice about voting for Trump again in 2020. Essentially, I think the things they want to do will take us back to the same place that Obama had us, which wasn't good for the country.
That's always going to be true. What I'm saying is that democrats and left leaning pundits are holding their 'side' accountable now. Not seeing that from the right, at least in terms of consequences.
Oh yeah? Joy Reid is being held accountable? Tom Brokaw are being held accountable? Give me a break....
Yeah, this is the strange disconnect I see... like... how did Ray Moore go through all of that and still have such support?
I think there is a LOT more denial of reality on the right... a lot of "Well, that's just fake news!" and conspiracy stuff... and a lot more believing of stuff that is just unbelievable, and in fact stands in opposition to OTHER beliefs... the whole "I hate Obama because of his CHRISTIAN pastor, but he is also a Muslim" sort of cognitive dissonance. It's like the huge number of Trump voters who saw the Trump crowds and Obama crowds and said the Trump crowds were bigger when they clearly weren't, or majority of self-identified "very conservative" Americans who believe that Muslims are secretly trying to implement sharia law in the United States... or the crazy fact that MORE conservatives believed Obama was born abroad AFTER he released his birth certificate.
(NOTE: I am about to talk about conservatives and liberals, NOT Republicans and Democrats!)
There are fundamental psychological differences between conservative thinkers and liberal thinkers. A number of studies have found...
"Psychologists have repeatedly reported that self-described conservatives tend to place a higher value than those to their left on deference to tradition and authority. They are more likely to value stability, conformity, and order, and have more difficulty tolerating novelty and ambiguity and uncertainty. They are more sensitive than liberals to information suggesting the possibility of danger than to information suggesting benefits. And they are more moralistic and more likely to repress unconscious drives towards unconventional sexuality.
Fairness and kindness place lower on the list of moral priorities for conservatives than for liberals. Conservatives show a stronger preference for higher status groups, are more accepting of inequality and injustice, and are less empathic (at least towards those outside their immediate family). "
I think the psychological makeup of people has a lot to do with all of this stuff (for example, the idea that 'threat' registers more "loudly" with conservative thinkers than liberal thinkers) and there are obviously differences in how we therefore process and respond to information.
BTW, two bits for reading, for anyone interested... an article about the right, the left, and how the sides deal with lies...
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...re_more_susceptible_to_believing_in_lies.html
... and a piece from a group of researchers (one of whom is a friend of mine!) about the spread of fake news in our current world, and what sorts of people generally spread and believe it more.
https://shorensteincenter.org/combating-fake-news-agenda-for-research/
PS Yes, I know some people will just not read this and get all angry at me. Don't bother.
Joy Reid was suspended from The Daily Beast and I haven't seen her on MSNBC lately, regardless of what her friends might be saying publicly. Haven't seen any info about the Brokaw situation.
Both of these revelations are too new to evaluate yet. NBC did their due diligence on Matt Lauer - I'm sure they'll do the same here.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! How about any comment on that last bit? "Not seeing that from the right, at least in terms of consequences." What say you?
Reid has apologized effusively about blog posts over a decade old. A lot has happened in that decade wrt LGBTQ issues, too. The accusations against Brokaw happened exactly one week ago. Exactly what do you expect to have happened already?
So you don't have to like the President on a personal level... Would that apply equally to people who support B Clinton b/c they approve of his agenda?
So you don't have to like the President on a personal level... Does that mean you have to defend him against criticism on a personal level? B/c you have.
As one purporting to be Christian, how do you reconcile the President's behavior with your own moral beliefs?
Well. It's somewhat apples to apples. I find the timing of Trump's accusers suspect and I also find it suspect that after he won the election, news programs stopped paying them for their stories. That said, I have no doubt that Trump is an adulterous POS and I won't defend him morally. I shouldn't have to. And I know it is the same on the flip side.
Bur are you embarrassed that a whore is a household name because she may give the resisters hope of impeaching Trump?
That's fair. I agree that if she was threatened that she would be a victim of that. Sounds like she shouldn't have taken the money for whatever it was she was taking the money for.
I don't accept that that is why she is a household name. I am embarrassed for people who take any piece of news as a sure sign of some huge, inevitable result.
She didn't become a household name being a porn star. Unless I am selling the industry short.
But I agree with the last part. Using it on message boards to get people riled up is fun though.
She came up in the course of Mueller's investigation, right? It doesn't paint the President in a good light, but I'd stop short of saying she is a household name specifically b/c of wishful thinking on the part of the President's detractors.
Rachel Maddow and like 50 others signed a document supporting Tom Brokaw prior to anything being investigated. Meghan Kelly already came out and said they needed to be careful because nobody knows what they don't know. So it appears, at least at this very moment, that the #metoo movement doesn't apply everyone. Do you think Sean Hannity would have received the same level of support if the allegations were against him? Hardly...
I don't have to reconcile the President's behavior with my moral beliefs. What he does is on him and is between him and God. I like his policies. I like the direction of the country as compared to the prior eight years under Obama. I think he's a scumbag, but I knew what I was getting by voting for him in 2016. I'm more than likely going to vote for him again regardless of this Stormy Daniels stuff or any of the other Playboy model stuff. Again, I don't have to like him personally. I don't have to agree with everything he does or says. I like his policies. Just because you weigh some of those factors more doesn't mean I or anyone else has to.
Sarcasm? There, to my knowledge, was no standard to teach human sexuality when I went to school. They taught it in health as human sexuality.
You don't find the timing of the allegations against Brokaw, shortly after he called out Sean Hannity, suspicious? You have found the timing of so many other things like this suspicious when a conservative was implicated...
You've defended our President every time there have been allegations against his character. I would think you'd stay out of those discussions and stick to defending him on policy issues if you really think he's such a scumbag.
That's why I said "I am sure some of you won't read this." I know conservatives don't read.
But we can tell the difference between a man and woman. I think that's pretty important
You saying that is the only reason I posted that, sweetheart.
Similar threads
