Trump Was Elected Because of How Feminism Backfires Over Time - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14791866
mikema63 wrote:If patriotism is the answer then America has no problem. More than half of all Americans say it's the best country in the world compared to 13% for the UK and down in the single digits for most other European countries.

I don't think there could be a more superficial measure of patriotism than this, but regardless this doesn't seem to be completely accurate. According to Pew Research the percentage was 28% in 2014, down from 38% in 2011, while a large majority says the US is among the best countries in the world. I can't find anything on the UK.
#14791894
US isn't the best place to live in the world. Thinking you're the best doesn't make it so.

U.S. Falls in Ranking of the Best Countries in the World
Mar 07, 2017
The United States has fallen to seventh place in a ranking of the best countries in the world.
The report, conducted by U.S. News in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and global brand consultants BAV Consulting, shows that Switzerland is viewed as the world's No. 1 country, and that the U.S. is down from its previous No. 4 ranking, according to a survey of more than 21,000 people from 36 countries in all regions of the world.

Denmark Declared Happiest Country in the World
The Sustainable Development Solutions Network named Denmark the happiest country in the world. Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Finland round out the top five. The U.S. ranks number thirteen.

"People regard the European country highly for its citizenship, being open for business, an environment that encourages entrepreneurship, the quality of life it provides its citizens and for its cultural influence," the report says.

Canada took the No. 2 spot, followed by the U.K., Germany, Japan, Sweden and then the U.S. In 2016, Germany was in first place, followed by Canada, the U.K., the U.S., Sweden, Australia and Japan.

http://time.com/4693280/us-best-countri ... d-ranking/


USA... USA... USA...
#14791927
I can't imagine how you'd measure patriotism to your satisfaction Kaiser, but regardless it was literally the least important thing I said in my entire post.

You have basically painted all your political disagreements as either on your side, or dangerous elements who seek to undermine society. This is simply ridiculous. These groups think they are improving society, it's what they want to fundamentally do with their political advocacy.

That you have failed to convince anyone that secretly they are going to ruin all that is good in the world doesn't mean they seek to ruin all that is good in the world.
#14792569
mikema63 wrote:I can't imagine how you'd measure patriotism to your satisfaction Kaiser, but regardless it was literally the least important thing I said in my entire post.

I don't know what you mean here. I've replied to your OP earlier and then to your last post. As far as I can see, there were no other points in that post, but let me know what you want me to address if I missed something.

I'm sure there are measures of patriotism out there, with some being more useful than others, but we can hopefully agree that, first, a single question won't capture the whole sentiment, and second, you need to be more specific when asking the question you mentioned. Take, for instance, the Pew poll I quoted earlier. The group which has seen the greatest decline (15%) between 2011 and 2014 is Republicans, which should at least raise questions as to how they interpreted the question, e.g. are they partly judging the Obama presidency and/or other things?

mikema63 wrote:You have basically painted all your political disagreements as either on your side, or dangerous elements who seek to undermine society. This is simply ridiculous. These groups think they are improving society, it's what they want to fundamentally do with their political advocacy.

That you have failed to convince anyone that secretly they are going to ruin all that is good in the world doesn't mean they seek to ruin all that is good in the world.

Of course they want to undermine society as it currently exists. After all, it is so unjust, racist, sexist, etc. that nothing short of a fundamental transformation is necessary to improve it.

But I certainly don't question their motives. Rather, I believe the fact that they are acting on a moral imperative makes them such a powerful opponent. Obviously, I think they are wrong, and there is nothing more dangerous than the combination of being wrong and moral self-righteousness.
#14792572
I think there are a few people who want to fundamentally change society in these groups but most really don't. After all there is nothing particularly fundamental about changing marriage licensing to include gays. In fact many more radical LGBT groups believe it simply draws gays away from radical change and integrates them into "normal" society.

Obviously what people think is fundamental to the US or whatever other country varies but from what I can tell the legal definition of marriage isn't really a societal cornerstone. I also don't think women's liberation really disturbed American democracy.

Mainstream x rights groups typically push for surface changes to society. None really undermine democracy either, for all people complaining about squelching free speech it's actually easier now to put your ideas out there in a practical sense than it was even a decade or two ago. So I think ultimately reality will win out regardless of who's right.
#14792575
Every individual change or push for change is not a big deal in isolation and will seem benign. That's why most reasonable people, including myself, were never up in arms about them. It doesn't stop though and even minor issues are increasingly blown out of proportion, e.g. gay marriage (essentially a name change in the UK and NZ) was said and treated as a major policy issue at the time. Cameron - a conservative no less - called it one of the most important issues of our time. At the same time, groups are added at will, i.e. as I said earlier, the latest are illegal immigrants, and in another thread, people with mental illnesses, whether that's autism, transgender or anything else, and the normalisation of their conditions.

If our societies are fundamentally unjust - and how else can you interpret systematic racism, sexism, etc.? - then they need fundamental change.

Having said all that, I think in the long term it's in progressives' interest to back off and become reasonable for the reasons I mentioned in my response to warsmith. If the majority starts acting like you guys, I know where I'd put my money when it comes to winning the identity politics game.
#14792577
I'm on my phone so I'll give quick thoughts instead of something more in depth as a response.

1.) The illegal immigrant question is a complicated one and there are tons of contextual factors to consider. Mexicans in the US are different than the refugee situation which is different than between European countries etc. Etc.

2.) Leaving out the endless argument about trans people being mentally ill or not I see no reason not to normalize mental health issues that are incurable, not a threat to others, and not a threat to the people that have them. Most autistic people can function well enough in society. So can trans people. You can't make someone not autistic or not trans, they aren't a danger to themselves or others, so why unnecessarily restrict or pathologist them?

3.) Systemic is not the same thing as fundamental. Slavery was fundamental to the South's economy but Jim Crow wasn't fundamentally necessary for the south. Besides what is meant when two people talk about systemic racism or whatever can be really different. For many it's ultimately going to be about changing how the US education system works, fixing welfare, or some other change that ultimately doesn't fundamentally change society. Others think you need communism to solve systemic racism, which would be a pretty fundamental change.

4.) God only knows what political trends will win out. I can't predict what will be going on a year from now, much less what will or won't benefit progressives in some distant future.
#14793401
It's just a 'get out of prison' free ticket and not really much more.

All of this is connected, it's all just a careful ruse. Is it not obvious yet, must we play this game of wits? obviously the simple solution is that if women really wanted men to respect them they would them, and vice versa. Women just hate being "used for sex" that much, but yet will women ever stop being attracted to money? (power) women are just yet again, resorting to what comes very naturally to them, and it's their ability to lie and manipulate. Or maybe it's just a strange inability to somehow not be altogether honest. Why do women find it so difficult to be honest?

This is obviously why men have always been payed more, if anyone has ever been confused about this. They always have had to, but hating men would just be hypocritical, because I am sorry women, but you're just as guilty. If you really wanted feminism to work you'd simply be responsible and treat men more equally. Either way, you'll never be on equal footing in this way.
#14793406
I guess it'll always sort of be like this, ahahahahahahahaha.

I have to get a "good job" and wear fancy clothes that symbolize my worth and stature and look "dominant" so that they can feel like "Cinderella" and not "pretty woman" but sometimes pretty woman is good enough. Ahahahahahahahahaha.



[img]
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/81 ... 1QGQjf.jpg[/img]
Israelis nervous about BDS

There are many Muslims in America, what will brin[…]

From Prohibition to today, from one depraved socio[…]

Well, most people getting GRS are not military age[…]

How do you know I don't have ten children, skin[…]