[Tainari88]

We're talking receipts though. Your people were probably in Texas first too.

No, the Santo Domingo folks are not first in Texas folks. That would be the Native American tribes of Texas. Who are they?

Native American tribes in Texas
From sources across the web
Comanche
Apache
Atakapa
Biloxi people
Cherokee
Kiowa
Adai
Akokisa
Aranama
Caddo
Choctaw
Coahuiltecan
Hainai
Kadohadacho
Kickapoo
Nacogdoche
Nechaui
Alabama people
Chickasaw
Coushatta
Deadose
Isleta del Sur
Nabedache
Nabiti
Show less

Then came the Spanish and the Tejanos too. So the Santo Domingo crowd did not get there until way later. They are newcomers. Rancid is disqualified as the first people in Texas.

[Rancid]

No, the Santo Domingo folks are not first in Texas folks. That would be the Native American tribes of Texas. Who are they?

Native American tribes in Texas
From sources across the web
Comanche
Apache
Atakapa
Biloxi people
Cherokee
Kiowa
Adai
Akokisa
Aranama
Caddo
Choctaw
Coahuiltecan
Hainai
Kadohadacho
Kickapoo
Nacogdoche
Nechaui
Alabama people
Chickasaw
Coushatta
Deadose
Isleta del Sur
Nabedache
Nabiti
Show less

Then came the Spanish and the Tejanos too. So the Santo Domingo crowd did not get there until way later. They are newcomers. Rancid is disqualified as the first people in Texas.

The point I'm making is that even the first people of these lands are not considered Americans by the MAGA dipshits.

[Tainari88]

@Rancid do not State what is implicitly understood.

[Potemkin]

The point I'm making is that even the first people of these lands are not considered Americans by the MAGA dipshits.

[QatzelOk]

...Go ahead, say I am against men. I have to live in a household with mostly men and males. I am not the majority here. Hee hee...

"Some of my best friends are men?"

You may not be the "majority" gender in your home, but in expressing a mild hatred for men (and old white men in particular) you are expressing what the media has gotten the majority to indulge in. You have taken the bait of their hate-speech against males.

The dream of mass media is that "No woman ever gives any real support or encouragement to any male she knows."

Men can get by with just reliable sex for a few years. And then the muted-hatred that the media fed their female companions begins to surface. Divorce after five years because love of a man is impossible if you are a woman who has absorbed a lot of commercial media products.

Poison your soul and your community! Consume mass media!

***

The point I'm making is that even the first people of these lands are not considered Americans by the MAGA dipshits.

This means that Democrats can scoop up a few percentage points of the popular vote by just making a few "unceded land speeches." Prime Minister Trudeau made a lot of these speeches - tears in eyes - before he was forced - by his sponsors - to help the Isrealis do some land-clearing.

[Tainari88]

"Some of my best friends are men?"

You may not be the "majority" gender in your home, but in expressing a mild hatred for men (and old white men in particular) you are expressing what the media has gotten the majority to indulge in. You have taken the bait of their hate-speech against males.

The dream of mass media is that "No woman ever gives any real support or encouragement to any male she knows."

Men can get by with just reliable sex for a few years. And then the muted-hatred that the media fed their female companions begins to surface. Divorce after five years because love of a man is impossible if you are a woman who has absorbed a lot of commercial media products.

Poison your soul and your community! Consume mass media!

***



This means that Democrats can scoop up a few percentage points of the popular vote by just making a few "unceded land speeches." Prime Minister Trudeau made a lot of these speeches - tears in eyes - before he was forced - by his sponsors - to help the Isrealis do some land-clearing.

I have to say Q, this made me laugh a bit. Reliable sex? And a mild hatred for men? Well in psychology class they often say women marry men that remind them of their fathers. Or that women are looking for a paternal figure or that many women never get the needed attention from the males in their lives that are important for establishing a rapport with the opposite sex Q.

That is not my case at all. My father was very involved in my daily upbringing, and we had countless meaningful conversations, we shared a lot together and he took care of us physically, emotionally and formed a lot of my character in particular Q. He was also very affectionate, and open and artistic as a person. So his influences were very artistic, creative and full of a lot of fun. He loved dancing and playing music and painting and writing. That was his life. Raising his daughters with many great experiences was what he wanted for us. He was highly unconventional Q. My parents were married for 21 years. Not five years. I have been married for 40 years. I have never thought of men with mild hatred or anykind of hatred and maybe that is part of the reason why I feel comfortable in this forum. I never felt men were a threat to my feminity or were some kind of human group to be resentful towards. Why? I adored my father. My husband was a good friend of my father before I even met him. I only have had long lasting, loving relationships with men. I could have adopted a daughter instead of a son. But I did not care that he was a boy. I just wanted to do a good job as his mother. He had issues with women due to his early experiences of abandonment and abuse by women in his life. So I had to pick up the broken pieces for him and bring an alternative to resentment. I could never had any success with that if I had been holding some kind of mild hatred for males or men could I?

The joy of my life currently are four males. My older son, my husband, my younger son and Potemkin. Lol. All of them are a joy for me. I think women who hate men in general are missing out. I will never alienate myself from half of the human race over some petty thoughts about having to punish innocent men because there are one or two bad apples out there giving all decent men a bad name eh? Not all women are the same in character or personalities eh? So why would I expect men to be the same and resent them?

I love the fact that the men in my life were great men. My father gave me a deep love and a deep trust of men in a very profound way. I trusted him, respected him and admired him as my father and as a fellow human being. My great hope is that if I die one day I can see him again. What joy that would be for me eh Q?! I could see him telling me or asking me, 'What have you been up to while I was waiting around over here for you? Tell me all about your adventures without me eh?

How could anyone resent men with that thought and hope for when we all expire some day on this Earth darling Q.

You remind me of my husband with his boredom with cars and so on. And you have many of his ways. No wonder I liked you from the first time I read you on this forum.

But I think you got a bad deal with your family. Someone as sensitive as you are inside and as tender in character and also tough too? Should have had a family that understood him innately and loved him for being the man you are and not what they wanted you to be and never could be.

it is their loss Q. For any father or mother that did not appreciate how intelligent, creative and wonderful you are in this world? Are blind people with no hearts. That is my opinion.

Amor. T.

[QatzelOk]

... Well in psychology class they often say women marry men that remind them of their fathers. Or that women are looking for a paternal figure or that many women never get the needed attention from the males in their lives that are important for establishing a rapport with the opposite sex Q.

That is not my case at all. My father was very involved in my daily upbringing,...

Did you spend more time talking to your father, or more time interacting with commercial media?

In the 70s when you and I were kids, the average North American child watched 7 hours of TV per day. So commercial media had a lot of control over how young females (of our generation) would relate to males for the rest of their lives.

Ariel Dorfman touches on this a lot in "Para leer el pato Donald" where Dorfman notes the absence of a traditional father figure in "children-oriented" cartoons like Donald Duck.

Why does mafia media want to castrate the male figure in its media? Is this a way of "dis-arming" the family by making the females unsupportive of their male siblings and parents?

Yes, this is exactly what it is, and it is why a society that lets mafia control its media is doomed to social disintegration. Like fatherless kids because divorce is practically universal in a male-hating world of media zombies.

That your father was involved in your upbringing doesn't change this social phenomenom at all.

MLK's "dream" was destroyed by generation after generation of fatherless families, and socially-disenfranchised sons.

[Tainari88]

Did you spend more time talking to your father, or more time interacting with commercial media?

In the 70s when you and I were kids, the average North American child watched 7 hours of TV per day. So commercial media had a lot of control over how young females (of our generation) would relate to males for the rest of their lives.

Ariel Dorfman touches on this a lot in "Para leer el pato Donald" where Dorfman notes the absence of a traditional father figure in "children-oriented" cartoons like Donald Duck.

Why does mafia media want to castrate the male figure in its media? Is this a way of "dis-arming" the family by making the females unsupportive of their male siblings and parents?

Yes, this is exactly what it is, and it is why a society that lets mafia control its media is doomed to social disintegration. Like fatherless kids because divorce is practically universal in a male-hating world of media zombies.

That your father was involved in your upbringing doesn't change this social phenomenom at all.

MLK's "dream" was destroyed by generation after generation of fatherless families, and socially-disenfranchised sons.

Way more talking with my father. If you knew him personally it would make sense.

Ay Q. you see the limitations of talking on a public forum about private family relationships eh?

Any parent that allows their child to see over seven hours a day of TV is not a parent who is paying attention to their child's mental or emotional health.

I lived in sunny climates most of my growing up years Q. Denver was the coldest I lived in and I spent many of those years studying or working long hours. TV time was limited. I was too cheap to pay for cable. So all of it was kind of a nonissue in my apartment.



I am not your average anything in most instances anyway Q.

I think the culprit of why they are undermining the father figures in the nuclear family Q might be that in order to control what kinds of messages your family receives you need to undermine the authority figure in the home. At least the traditionally cut out paternal figure The one that sets the rules per se. So the father as seen as the one that might compete for rules in a household?

I happen to think that the deterioration of family relationships has to do with wanting both adults to produce for capitalist society. Women are paid less than men in general for the same work. If you can get women's labor on the cheap? You make more profit. Men making enough on one salary for an entire family to live on? Is not an advantage for capitalist production modes.

So you have to interfere and intervene. Men should not have much of a say in their own homes. It should be a decision made by women and men who want to CONSUME. Consume like there is no tomorrow. Living off the land and being thrifty and spending a lot of face time with your kids doesn't leave a lot of control of life for the mafia media as you say.

Q, I have no idea really how you grew up day to day.

All I have is what I have read from you over the years as indicators. Small things and words chosen and sentences written. Over time, it paints a picture of who you are Q. Only for those that listen and love words and how they express the mind of the people writing the sentences. You have a very distinct and defined style. You also are used to repudiation and being rejected and so on. You remain very solid in your definitions of life. I will not say more. Because I do not want to be prying anyway.

Ariel Dorfman's books my mother had in her home. We often talked about a lot of different authors.

I rarely want to watch anything anymore. I prefer writing my opinions here.

If I did not find it a nice activity I would not participate eh?

I think I caught a cold and it is a lot of violent coughing. I am going to have to lie down a bit today. And drink some ginger and lemon tea.

[Godstud]

In the 70s when you and I were kids, the average North American child watched 7 hours of TV per day. So commercial media had a lot of control over how young females (of our generation) would relate to males for the rest of their lives.

Stop making up false "facts" to push your idiotic narrative. You look like an absolute fool when you fabricate things for your dipshit narrative. Please show a source for your LIE. You're a bigger propagandist than MSM.

[Tainari88]

Stop making up false "facts" to push your idiotic narrative. You look like an absolute fool when you fabricate things for your dipshit narrative. Please show a source for your LIE. You're a bigger propagandist than MSM.

You know I got curious about our generation that Q mentions? My husband was born in 1960 and his birthday is tomorrow. I asked him how many hours of TV did he watch on average? Knowing how he hated sitting down for any period of time and how much he loved being outdoors in the Caribbean climate all day? His answer did not surprise me. I think he said he watched nearly zero. Only cartoons on Saturday mornings with his friends.

Then he talked about his childhood pals. None of it was about watching a lot of TV.

He was not a wealthy kid or middle class either, so eating out and buying expensive stuff was kind of out of the question. His favorite thing was seeing if a nun from a nearby Roman Catholic church could donate their upright piano for him to be able to play it. His big dream eh? He still wants a good quality one right now. He plays on an electric keyboard now. But he wants an upright one.

I was born in 1966. I do not remember a lot of TV. I do remember a lot of jumping rope, hopscotch, and chasing other kids around some banana plants and getting wet in the heavy rains of the Caribbean. I loved those. I liked going to the beach with my cousin. Fond memories.

[QatzelOk]

...Any parent that allows their child to see over seven hours a day of TV is not a parent who is paying attention to their child's mental or emotional health.

I lived in sunny climates...

The average child watched 7 hours of TV per day, and this means that the average parent permitted this.

I don't know why you can't seem to discuss this extremely important fact without tangents into what a happy childhood you yourself had. Should people interrupt the discussions about the genocide in Gaza by saying that "I have never been genocided by anyone?"

Is this an appropriate way to discuss a political subject? With "Me I...?"

Stop making up false "facts" to push your idiotic narrative. ...

Watching a lot of TV probably contributed to your level of charm.

...In fact, television viewing didn’t peak until 2009-2010, when the average American household watched 8 hours and 55 minutes of TV per day.

And the ’00s saw the greatest growth in TV viewing time of any decade since Nielsen began keeping track in 1949-1950: Americans watched 1 hour and 23 minutes more television at the end of the decade than at the beginning. Run the numbers and you’ll find that 32 percent of the increase in viewing time from the birth of television to its peak occurred in the first years of the 21st century.

Over the last 8 years, all the new, non-TV things—Facebook, phones, YouTube, Netflix—have only cut about an hour per day from the dizzying amount of TV that the average household watches. Americans are still watching more than 7 hours and 50 minutes per household per day....

Note that I mentionned "North American" children, and that the chart is "American households." Canadians watched even more TV than Americans did in the 70s. As a Canadian child who read this stat when I was 14 years old, I wondered "why would Americans in Florida or California EVER watch TV? They don't have long boring winters stuck in suburban prisons like we do."

[Godstud]

Watching a lot of TV probably contributed to your level of charm.

I probably watched a lot less than you, as you are absent of any level of charm, you smug, sanctimonious cretin.

I call BS on that article(conveniently behind a paywall), as no one I know watched 7 hours of TV a day in the 70s or even the 80s. You couldn't do that if you have a job or school, and there weren't enough channels to find anything worth watching.

More nonsense from you, is all this is. I don't doubt you watched that much TV. It's evidenced by your current addiction to social media.

[QatzelOk]

I probably watched a lot less than you, as you are absent of any level of charm, you smug, sanctimonious cretin.

I call BS on that article(conveniently behind a paywall), as no one I know watched 7 hours of TV a day in the 70s or even the 80s. You couldn't do that if you have a job or school, and there weren't enough channels to find anything worth watching.

More nonsense from you, is all this is. I don't doubt you watched that much TV. It's evidenced by your current addiction to social media.

You can't really debate social subjects like this one because you're too emotionally involved with "me versus you" discussions which are really boring and childish on a site like this one.

But growing up in suburbia, we were all ruined (not just you) by television, and - just as cruely - isolated by car-company-designed suburban sprawl.

...Kids have lost the freedom to roam. This is directly linked to greater feelings of loneliness, weaker sense of community, a lower sense of safety & less frequent social activities with friends....

A survey conducted in 2019 of more than 2,000 UK adults found that:

Nearly nine in ten (88%) Britons aged from 18 to 24 said they experience loneliness to some degree with a quarter (24%) suffering often and 7% saying they are lonely all of the time.
In comparison, 70% of those aged over 55 also say they can be lonely to some extent, however, only 7% are lonely often and just 2% say they are lonely all the time5.

By accepting the social changes of suburban sprawl and the resulting screen addiction, we have created the first generations where young children are LONELIER than old people like me. What a huge failure this is, and that we don't even notice - is because of our screen brainwashing.

"I have a dream" was interrupted by screen-dead minds that can't organize themselves in order to improve their lives.

Likewise, in Québec, much of the progress of the Quiet Revolution has been chewed up by the non-participation of suburban reactionaries - who are dead to the world of social structure and to the social participation that goes with it.

[Godstud]

You can't really debate social subjects like this one because you're too emotionally involved with "me versus you" discussions which are really boring and childish on a site like this one.

Look in a mirror some time. You're projecting your own inadequacies. You initiated this, after all.

But growing up in suburbia, we were all ruined (not just you) by television, and - just as cruely - isolated by car-company-designed suburban sprawl.

You speak only for yourself. My childhood in suburbia was rich, and very enjoyable. I didn't live on a TV or addicted to media, like you, apparently. I had parents who limited such activities, as I do now with my children in regards to social media/TV. You don't know that though, because you'll never be a parent. I see the animosity there, too.

If people are lonely now, it is by choice. Culture has changed, but it wasn't suburbia that did it. Media and social media changed the world. It told people they'd be happier being independent and self-reliant. You, and others, have bought into this lie. FFS, it's a lie that the elites(of which you speak so frequently) are selling. You're selling their lie, and it's very ironic.

[Unthinking Majority]

By accepting the social changes of suburban sprawl and the resulting screen addiction, we have created the first generations where young children are LONELIER than old people like me. What a huge failure this is, and that we don't even notice - is because of our screen brainwashing.

"I have a dream" was interrupted by screen-dead minds that can't organize themselves in order to improve their lives.

Likewise, in Québec, much of the progress of the Quiet Revolution has been chewed up by the non-participation of suburban reactionaries - who are dead to the world of social structure and to the social participation that goes with it.

Staying on a device all the time is a choice. No adult is a victim of screen time. It's a choice. People have agency and free will. If someone is lonely, get off their phone and go outside and join an activity or talk to a neighbour etc. The human population has never been larger, there's people everywhere and if you open your door and leave your house you will find many people. You will be lonely if you only take part in activities inside your house that don't expose you to other people, or if you choose not to talk to other people when you come across them.

Stop whining and complaining about everything. There's many worse things in the world than smartphones and suburbia LOL, geez talk about "first-world problems". You're not a victim, you're just the most negative-thinking human being on the face of the planet. Life is great, put the device down and go take part in it.

[Godstud]

@Unthinking Majority, Well said. Choice. You can choose to be offended by everything(studies show that people who are Woke/SJW, what have you, are amongst the unhappiest), or you can just get out there and live your life.

You can choose not to be online all the time, and I only have fond memories of going to the park after school until my mom blew the hockey whistle to tell us to come home for dinner. After dinner and doing dishes, we'd go out again, and not come home until it got dark. We'd watch a few weekly shows and maybe couple after school when the weather was dreadful, but we didn't live indoors, and my mother would kick us out if the weather was nice.

I do the same for my son, and he's allowed about 1 hour of internet time a day, except on weekends or on holidays. Parents have to teach their children balance.

@Unthinking Majority First World problems, indeed. We only worry about this nonsense when we have nothing of substance to actually worry about. Suburban living didn't make modern society. Being a wealthy society did that all on its own.

[QatzelOk]

Staying on a device all the time is a choice. ...

Children have no choices when it comes to driving a car to activities or wandering around suburban roads. Their options have been limited by THEIR OWN PARENTS who followed trends that ultimately hurt their own children in serious ways.

Just like all those generations of "loving parents" (just like you) - in the 1600s - 1800s - who gave their kids opium every day to knock them out. Loving parents who harmed their own kids over many generations.

Or heroin addicts who wake up from a heroin trip to find that their baby has choked to death. They will cry and cry because "they're loving parents" just like you are. But they love heroin as much as you (and most other parents) love following trends and fitting in.

When you tell "loving parents" that their heroin addiction or suburban isolation is harming their kids, they simply don't believe it because "they're loving parents."

This is not an explanation because loving parents can do great damage to their own kids with new technologies.

[Godstud]

Suburbia is NOT isolating. That's a lie that you push with your narrative.

Loving parents restrict their children from over-engaging in activities that can be harmful to them, not letting them do anything they want.

[Unthinking Majority]

Children have no choices when it comes to driving a car to activities or wandering around suburban roads. Their options have been limited by THEIR OWN PARENTS who followed trends that ultimately hurt their own children in serious ways.

Why would a child need a car to go to activities? I played with the kids on my street and in my neighbourhood, we created our own activities just like children a thousand years ago. Typically families with children are the people who move to the suburbs. A bike can take a kid far. There's typically a park or 2 within walking distance in the suburbs. Walking is good for physical health. Stop whining.

It takes literally zero effort to not buy your child a device. Device use can also be limited. People make these choices by their free will. If a parent makes dumb unhealthy choices for their children, or an adult makes bad choices for themselves, and neither are able to properly manage the technologies they use and choose to stay inside their homes they will not meet a mate, they will not procreate, and they will not pass on their genes, while the genes of more adaptable people will survive and be passed on. This is Darwinism. Only losers whine when they lose. Winners brush themselves off and get on with it.

Just like all those generations of "loving parents" (just like you) - in the 1600s - 1800s - who gave their kids opium every day to knock them out. Loving parents who harmed their own kids over many generations.

Or heroin addicts who wake up from a heroin trip to find that their baby has choked to death. They will cry and cry because "they're loving parents" just like you are. But they love heroin as much as you (and most other parents) love following trends and fitting in.

When you tell "loving parents" that their heroin addiction or suburban isolation is harming their kids, they simply don't believe it because "they're loving parents."

This is not an explanation because loving parents can do great damage to their own kids with new technologies.

Only an idiot would try heroin. Devices are far less addictive than heroin, there's no chemical dependence. Stop whining and go outside. Don't worry about other stupid people making stupid choices, stop worrying about things you can't control while ignoring everything you can control. You live in a prison of your own making, it has nothing to do with the suburbs. Your outlook at life is far more damaging to you than any technology, you're not a slave to your phone you're a slave to your own mindset. Somebody has convinced you that you're a victim and that the world is a tragedy. Boo-hoo, life is hard, my grandparents grew up poor during the Depression and then were sent to fight in WWII and came back with PTSD. They survived, made the best of it, got married, procreated. I don't think Candy Crush addiction is a high barrier.

[QatzelOk]

Why would a child need a car to go to activities?...

Because the child's cattle-like parents "followed a trend" and moved to an isolated bungalow in the middle of nowhere.

(IMPORTANT) And if the parents refuse to drive the child to all the activities that he would have been able to walk or bike to in a pre-car-industry-altered city... the child will grow up without the necessary social skills to lead a healthy life of self-actualization.

And if one of the parents becomes a designated driver, the kids will not learn independence and autonomy at the age that kids are supposed to learn these basic life-skills (8 - 11)

That you don't seem to care about the lower quality of life that children have in automobile suburbs... really puts into question your ostensible "love" of children.

Most adults have a stronger need to "fit in" (within a techno-sickened society) than they have the ability to "foresee" problems their children will have if they indulge in new technologies.

Parents handed their kids opium products, television, video games, cellphones... etc. without having the slightest idea how these foreign objects might handicap their own kids. As long as they are following the current trend, they "feel" they are loving their kids properly. Which is simply untrue. Ask all those opium-damaged children from just a few centuries ago (when westerners were genociding the Americas and giving their kids opium).