mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
social order
Liberals Won the Culture Wars. What Comes Next?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Anthony

    Here’s something related (as to what comes next): https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/05/the-nationalism-muddle

    • Angel Martin

      Good find !

      The observation about Remainers wanting to exit from “Brexiteer England” is spot on.

      One of the many things about the Remainers that irked me was that they opposed Brexit because it would limit their ability to live and work anywhere in the EU.

      They wanted the basic law of Britain to be written for their exclusive benefit, and they don’t even want to live in the country !

      • Anthony

        No find, Martin, (but thanks all the same) just more context on a subject (like most) that is always more nuanced than the reductive black and white.

  • Suzy Dixon

    I think a lot of younger readers are going to misunderstand this. Kiddos!, this isn’t talking about liberals and SJWs of today. Indeed, theyre awfully unpopular, especially online. Gay marriage, for example, was supported by libertarians aka real liberals in the 70s. The Democratic Party and especially the Clintons were very late in supporting it. And we all know pre-marital sex has been going on forever, but in coming around and accepting it one can very much compare to the end of prohibition. And now the slow end of prohibition on dope.

    Moralists always seem to fail long term. That’s why the new conservatives aren’t moralists. Instead, they are concerned with civic nationalism, economics, and security. The new moralists are the SJWs and other far left zealots. They are the ones feigning moral outrage and trying to dictate what everyone ought to do. It’s not working any better for them than it did for the moralist republicans and televangelists

    • FriendlyGoat

      It’s very hard to fool bright 10, 12 and 14-year-olds——especially in the information age. You can try to spin to the “Kiddos” that everything related to Social Justice is worthy of ridicule, but you do know you’re only heard by embittered and embittering elders, right?

      • Jim__L

        I knew that radical Social Justice stuff was revanchist nonsense well worthy of ridicule at age 10, 12, and 14. =)

        My kids are growing up knowing that same lesson, only they have even more egregious examples of where it leads, and deeply personal reasons to know how the Leftist social agenda hurts families.

        By the time I have grandchildren, things will be turning around.

        • Fred

          From your keyboard to God’s ears

      • Suzy Dixon

        Oh not that young, generation Z is actually appearing to be much more conservative and not interested in SJW nonsense than some of the millennials. The most problemed groups really are young Gen X and perhaps the older half of millennials.

        • FriendlyGoat

          The young-adult conservatives might want to pay particular attention to the present stable of conservative politicians and the coincidence that no boom in living-wage careers is or will be coming from their time in office.

          As for this constant copycat use of the term “SJW” to slam everything rooted in kindness, truth and fair play, well, I would suggest to “Kiddos” that when they hear the term, turn up their “stranger danger” radar and conduct themselves defensively. Everyone using that term today is of questionable character and quite possibly suffering from the REAL “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (where Archie Bunker thinks he is suddenly Superman.)

          • Suzy Dixon

            There are certainly millions of them that would disagree with you. They slam things as SJW nonsense all the time. Everything from selective reporting of crime or trying to apologize away terror attacks, to the new segregation coming from the extreme left. For example, the announcement that Harvard will see a separate graduation ceremony for non-white students. There are YouTube channels with a conservative multi million viewer audience in total dedicated to bashing just this sort of SJW nonsense.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, of course. The pendulum of the moment has swung to Archie Bunker but they are still celebrating the famous mindset of Archie Bunker. People who use the term, SJW, to make fun of those who work for the consideration of other people are jerks, pure and simple. If you don’t like being included in that description, don’t be sucked in with them. Trump or no Trump, you are not going to make the whole country into ignorant fools. You only have a slim (slim) half. The other half of us ain’t dead and we’re not rolling over for you.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Yeah I’m not worried about it. In fact I’m encouraged. The old conservative moralists and televangelists of the 80s and 90s have lost, and so, too, are the new-age liberal moralists losing. Making fun of all moralist zealots and sticking to the important things, like civic nationalism, economics, security, is the winning ticket.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The son of Jerry Falwell (that 80’s guy), yeah, he lost bigtime Sure he did. While almost all working people have actually lost on the economics you tout—-without you knowing. And you have arrived crowing bigger than my wife’s pet roosters. Dark is light. Down is up. Good grief, Suzy.

          • CosmotKat

            “While almost all working people have actually lost on the economics you tout—-without you knowing.”

            What economics was Suzy touting? It seems to me Suzy was making a broader point that you demean with such an ignorant take away line. You seem to revel in the misfortune of those who have suffered under the globalist idea that America sacrifice it’s economic advantage for the benefit of those who grow richer at their expense. I thought you were supposed to be for the little guy, but you seem to hold that little guy in contempt. Another progressive myth goes the way of truth.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Suzy first appeared out of the blue on Disqus just four months ago. Here is his?/her second known comment:

            “MSM are pro Clinton corporations, fake news, and unbelievably bias and political. They’re on their way out, and until they’re totally gone, the new administration as well as youtubers (who often have a larger audience!) will hold the bias, political MSM accountable.”

            Suzy is touting Trumponomics——Trump everything—–Republican everything.

          • CosmotKat

            So, you disagree, but where are the smears in Suzy’s comments? They cannot be found. Think about that.

          • Suzy Dixon

            You mean the economics of depressing wages? Then you’re looking at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and expanded trade with China. Directly led to more unemployment then it did employment, and depressed wages. Obama wanted to ram TPP through. Of course, corporate Republicans and corporate Dems are two heads of the same coin, and that’s why the Democratic Party is wiped out, and the electorate chose a president who was bashing Obamacare, bashing bad trade deals, and promising lower taxes. Only time will tell if he follows through, but he did get elected doing those things

          • Jim__L

            So, shall we start placing bets as to how long it will take him to block you?

          • FriendlyGoat

            What “only time will tell” is whether Trump filled people full of bull and will leave most of them in the dust wondering why they believed baloney. The only thing going on is that the “corporate Republicans” are getting everything they ever wanted beyond their wildest dreams.
            None of it benefits working people.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Nope. Corporate Dems and Republicans wanted TPP, and Trump smartly killed it. Clinton deregulated banks, signed NAFTA, and convinced the Europeans to let china join the WTO.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You can’t “nope” an “only time will” tell. Oh, you can, but time will tell you whatever it tells you—-not your opinion, not mine.

          • Suzy Dixon

            I can say nope to your factually incorrect comment. They most definitely didn’t get what they want. TPP is a big deal, and they’ve wanted it for more than 10 years.

          • FriendlyGoat

            They are going to get most of what they want in TPP, sans worker protections and environmental protections. They may get it country by country. They may get it because pressure appears for us to compete with some agreement led by other nations instead of us. Corporate Republicans are absolutely, positively NOT going to be denied their druthers by a Republican Congress, President and Supreme Court together. It can’t happen and it is not going to happen. Stay tuned.

          • CosmotKat

            “People who use the term, SJW, to make fun of those who work for the consideration of other people are jerks, pure and simple.”

            What a load of crap! What makes you think that everyone you disagree with and hate is some ignorant fool and virtue is only found on the left? More virtue signalling o n your part? This is a theme you come back to time after time, Goat. I know plenty of highly educated, hard working, and faithful people who do a lot of community outreach and work hard for those who need a hand up, are very fair and incredibly tolerant and they are all very open minded and Conservatives. I find the least amount of actual tolerance coming from those you extol as the virtuous and the most closed minds seem firmly planted on the left.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I assume your high-character conservative friends are not running around copycatting the derision in those making fun of others with the SJW pejorative. If they are, they ain’t high-character.

          • CosmotKat

            SJW has been made into a pejorative for a very good reason. It’s utter nonsense. “Social Justice” is a code phrase of the left, which believes that such justice can only be achieved by the recognition that capitalism and the economic inequality it produces must be replaced by a “classless” society wherein all differences in wealth and property have been eliminated. The “Social Justice Movement” (quotation marks are necessary because its version of “justice” is political rather than lexical) is quintessentially deterministic, believing as a core principle that people are what they are because they were born into an inflexible social order.

            The “Social Justice Movement” is at war with classical liberalism, which defines equality as the equality of all individuals before the law, irrespective of “class” or any other collective identity. In modern terms, the conflict between these two worldviews is similar to the conflict between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome,” which can only be guaranteed and enforced by some structure of authority.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Social justice means exactly what the two words individually mean, then strung together as a two-word phrase—-period. Those who make fun of it are the same fools who have their coded-meanness names for any other classes of people they wish to slap—–period. I am not ever going to respect a single one of them. I will be working against all of them. Full stop.

          • CosmotKat

            The problem with your notion of social justice is that you believe kindness, civility, fairness, and justice is only championed by the left and that, Mr. Goat, is your fatal conceit. Period.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nah, I’ve just been called a libtard a few too many times. Now they’re on SJW. It’s the same basket of deplorables doing what they’ve always done. When we grow old enough, our radar actually works.
            We know what to reject and who to reject.

          • CosmotKat

            What goes around comes around. What you say about others gets reflected back on you and while the libtard sobriquet is one I find distasteful many use it as a form of payback. There used to be debate now it’s just back and forth recriminations. The violence emanating from the left is going to be met with equal violence once the right gets tired of the infantile behavior.

          • Jim__L

            It doesn’t have to be violent. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/

            Leftists are proving beyond the shadow of a doubt who the a**holes are here, and that means a backlash is in the offing. =)

          • ——————————

            “It doesn’t have to be”, but it will be.
            There will be skirmishes back and forth like there are now. That will increase in intensity over a long period of time, and eventually TSWHTF. It won’t be in my 50-something life time, but it will happen.

            I’m not sure of your mindset, I only know you from your comments here, but I suspect you are more on the non-violent side in your approach to things.
            There are many who are quite the opposite, and are, at many different levels….

          • Jim__L

            Morality of political violence apart, if you’re organized enough to win through violence, you’re organized enough to win through our political system.

            And conversely, if you’re not organized enough to win through our political system, you’re not organized enough to win through violence.

            The American Revolution may be unique in history as one where the men of violence were also men of principle, capable of governing themselves in the aftermath. It would take a lot to convince me that we’d found another Washington, another Adams, another Madison, Monroe, etc. It’s easier to find Jeffersons, Hamiltons, and Burrs, (to say nothing of Jacksons, Bolivars, Lenins, Castros, etc) which aren’t as helpful in that regard.

          • ——————————

            This is a civil war of ideas that are centered around morality…as both sides see it. This is not like the Revolutionary War, or a war to take land. It will not be resolved through the political system. Cival wars of ideology are vicious. Both sides will be “of principle”, as they see it.

            I am not talking about a revolution to replace the US government. That could never happen unless the heads of the military joined the revolution (will never happen).
            I am not talking about a war in the true sense of the word. I am talking about those on the right taking up arms against those on the left. Extended periods of arned violence in the streets in civil war fashion.

            The “morality of political violence” is a matter of perception….

          • Jim__L

            I just don’t see things being that bad. I can get along perfectly well with people on the “other side” of this, as long as we don’t talk about politics. That tells me there’s still room for Liberty to be the solution — just everyone staying out of discussions they want to stay out of. All it will take is the Federal Government butting out, and allowing things to be handled at the state, local, family, or individual level.

            No violence necessary.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The right being in power at all is the result of working people who have formed a circular firing squad to execute themselves financially for the long term. This will be proven in spades. See you in five years.

          • CosmotKat

            The left in power is a march toward totalitarian rule and I would submit another holocaust. The hate that permeates your thinking is the result of a belief in a fantasy ideology that is driven by the passions of self-righteousness, hubris and a hatred toward those with whom you disagree.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Congratulations. You just became the sixth attack dog on this site who I have blocked from view. Tired of being harassed, lied to, lied about. Find another victim. It ain’t me. Bye.

          • CosmotKat

            Cowards like you always run from the truth it’s why you hate.

          • Jim__L

            I think we’re a ways from another Holocaust, although we’ve taken the first few steps on the road to white guys being the “new Jews”, so to speak.

            I mean, I have about as much in common with Wall Street CEOs as the average Eastern European Jewish peasant had in common with the Rothschilds. Yet, white guys as a group are being demonized by a new ideology for having too much, wealth, shadowy power, and “privilege”, whatever that means today…. and people are saying we need to pay for that, whatever that means.

            I’m not saying things are anywhere near as bad, but this is something that we really should nip in the bud.

    • America’s idea of “progressivism” may not necessarily match that of the rest of the world in any case.

    • CosmotKat

      Years of indoctrination and they want to call it winning the war of ideas? I don’t think so. You made a very good point, well said.

    • alp

      I’d say that Gen Z is going to be more “conservative” than Millennials when it comes to fiscal policy and government intervention, but it depends on who’s definition of “conservative” you’re using and that also does not mean they’ll be voting “Republican”. If you’re defining “conservative” as the pre-Trump, more Reagan conservatism of free markets and rising tides raising all boats, then yes. If, however, you’re defining “conservative” as “Trumpism” then, no, Gen Z does not fit that mold at all, neither fiscally nor socially nor culturally.

      Gen Z has a very entrepreneurial spirit and they are MUCH more socially liberal that the Republican party’s platform, especially under Trump/Ryan/McConnel et al. They are overall extremely worried about climate change (liberal), but they don’t necessarily think government solutions are the right ones and feel private sector solutions are better (conservative). They are VERY pro-Education, especially higher education (liberal), but they are not averse to education reform that may include more school choice (conservative).

      I’d say if I had to label Gen Z, they are Left Libertarians. They are very focused on egalitarianism but feel that we the people are the better stewards to provide the equality they seek. They seem to want to focus on having us, the people, solve problems as much as possible instead of relying on the government. But at the same time they have grown up in a system that for decades has allocated more and more wealth to the very top and nothing for them. So they seem to very much support programs that level the playing field at the root cause. Not by overtaxing the rich, but by providing services that give them the tools and skills necessary to succeed on their own.

      This is why I say in many ways, yes, Gen Z is more “conservative” than Millenials but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote “Republican”. Remember, Gen Z has grown up with an even more diverse, multi color, multi gender, multi ethnic set of friends and family than even the Millennials. That does not mix well with Trump’s GOP. And polls have shown time and time again that Trump’s GOP is shockingly UNpopular with the Gen Zs that are now of voting age.

      And since Trump has essentially set the tone for the GOP for the next 20 yrs minimum with his antics, Republicans of the future will need to be EXTREMELY anti-Trump and push a very socially “liberal” agenda to win over Gen Z. And even THAT might not be enough given the damage Trump has done to the brand already. The GOP will need to do something very drastic to Trump if they want to cleanse themselves of his stench because once the Boomers are gone, every remaining voters only memory of the GOP will be Trump’s GOP, not Reagan, not Bush, not even Rubio.

      That said, Democrats will need to stop pushing government as the solution to everything to win these voters over as well. Again, Gen Z doesn’t want government butting in their lives to problems for them, whether that’s jobs, or climate change, or abortion, or marriage. They jive with the Dems on social issues (abortion/marriage), they agree with the science the Dems do on climate change, but they disagree with Dems on HOW to fix it. They have no patience for “soda taxes” and other BS intrusions on liberties but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be huge soda “drinkers” because they’ve learned the facts and they are making smart diet decisions on their own. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Coca Cola is making TONS of money on bottled water these days. They’re not dumb. They know that younger people are drinking less soda, tax or no tax. And it’s win-win. Coca cola makes a profit, young people drink less crap and more water.

      Final point, if you think because you’ve seen some “red pill” or alt-right videos on YouTube starring young people that Gen Z is not going to be mostly SJWs, you are in for probably a lot of disappointment. Gen Z, as I stated, is very diverse. Even more so than Millennials. They are more likely to have a friend circle of many races, multi gender, multi-sexuality, and multi-faith (or no faith) friends and family. And they WILL defend their friends and family. They may not have as much tolerance for government mandated hate speech laws and such, but make no mistake, socially speaking, they will see basically ALL of today’s GOP as a bunch of out of touch, sad, pathetic dinosaurs who couldn’t handle the 21st century. So if you’re hoping for a resurgence of kids who will want women back in the kitchen and non-whites begging for the scraps from white America, you are in for quite a shock. Yes, every generation will have some, but people referencing a handful of YouTube channels starring “red pill” Gen Z’ers as proof that Social Justice is dead are falling for the oldest trick in the book; sampling error.

      I think this article spells out my point better than I can:
      http://opportunitylives.com/how-the-next-generation-will-change-politics/

    • Jim__L

      Dictating what everyone else will do will always fail, because humans have free will. You can (and should) talk about what’s right and encourage others to do it too; you can (and should) punish egregious cases of what’s wrong to prevent damage to others. But there will always be cases where the efforts needed to stop the transgressions do more damage than the transgressions themselves.

      That said, the reality of moral hazard means that while it’s easier (and more tempting, to many) to err on the side of permissiveness, it’s vastly more helpful in the long run to err (to a limited extent) on the side of sternness. This is especially true of long-term issues whose consequences in the near-term are ambiguous.

  • ——————————

    Nothing has been “won”.
    Liberating culture is simple. Basic human nature is to seek pleasure, reduced effort, reduced time, less conflict, etc. Playing on those type of built-in behavioral tendencies is not ‘winning’ anything…it’s actually quite the opposite….

    • You lose some battles, you win others. The trick is knowing which fights to pick, and when and how.

  • D4x

    The last episode of “Lassie” aired in 1974. It has been downhill for the morality of telling the truth ever since. “the progressivists, aided by the decline of institutional religion” BUT, in what might be a chicken or egg argument, aided far more by ‘popular culture’ in the era of color TV, only temporarily disrupted by widespread fear of AIDS in the 1980’s.

    • ——————————

      A lot of the morality issues and other Liberal-inspired weirdness started ramping up in the early 60’s.

      I’m thinking more like the last episode of Leave It To Beaver….

      • D4x

        Yeah, white boy nicknamed Beaver… I stick with “Lassie”, because, every episode had three lessons: Always tell the truth, always be helpful, and always let Lassie save the day. Too bad the owner of the copyright legacy means those episodes can not be released on DVD.

        Mostly, Jason failed to even mention the shift in media. I think that is much greater influence than any decline in religion.

        • ——————————

          I was referring to the time period (LITB ended in ’63), not the level or quality of influence.

          Definitely the media always seeking to ‘push boundaries’ has done the most damage to morality….

          • Jim__L

            Pursuit of novelty is the curse of this age.

          • D4x

            They believe novelty is a conceptual framework. However, can you remember a major political party actively, through NGOs, modifying beliefs as the leaked emails, Oct 2016, showed regarding the Catholic Church?
            The reveal was when the polls shifted for Trump, and was part of his wins in PA, WI and MI.
            (I’m stuck on Henry VIII, but he had to create his own schism, and Church. And, not going Godwin.)

            The excerpted emails are here:
            https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/10/12/clinton-campaign-fire-critical-emails-catholic-church/

          • Jim__L

            So much for trying to bring America together. Hillary really was a piece of work, wasn’t she.

          • D4x

            Still “Is”, isn’t she?

            Anyway, too bad JW forgot to notice this political party attempt to influence the Catholic Church in order to make them more “liberal” on abortion, etc.

          • Jim__L

            I’m comfortable using “was” for a has-been like Hillary.

            They’re trying to change an organization that’s been going strong for almost two thousand years. Not going to happen. The closest anyone’s come was 500 years ago, when various Northern Europeans looked at Catholic teachings and said, “Hey, these aren’t Biblical enough!”, at which point the only way the Catholics survived was by a massive infusion of piety by St. Ignatius.

            No, what we’re seeing is a high-water mark for cultural Leftism. Trying to deny that boys and girls are different? That’s so far removed from reality that spotting the Emperor’s lack of clothes is easy for everyone. They’re going to break on that one.

          • D4x

            In re-reading this post, one can wonder if the DemParty positions changed so many Protestant denominations on the ‘issues’ with a deployed tactic as noted in the 2016 leaked emails re: Catholics; or if it was just organic, from members. The embrace of BDS against Israel seems too organized for everyone from Unitarians to Methodists, but am still wondering about late-term abortion. The Texas law that Wendy Davis filibustered in 2013 was more liberal than Sweden. At the time, I checked, and found Sweden requires adjudication by the National Board of Health and Welfare after 18 weeks. Yet, the 2016 Dem Platform went for full nine months. I doubt this 2017 Gallup poll captured that distinction, or perhaps it was buried in the cross-tabs.

            The Catholic Church survived the two great schisms. In both Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, the two key issues were allowing priests to marry, and use of the vernacular instead of Latin. (I might be wrong about Protestantism because reading about the issues was beyond me. Ditto for the schisms within Eastern Orthodoxy. )

            As for boys and girls? Try using the wrong pronoun in NYC – if you are a business and the employee gets upsets, the fine starts at $250,000! However, I did read somewhere that the LG part of LGBT was upset over the emphasis on T’s bathroom access. The donors rule.

          • Jim__L

            It being the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, you should read up on it. =) Luther’s 95 Theses are the obvious place to start.

            http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

            This touched off the whole Reformation, you see.

            If you’ll notice, it’s a somewhat intricate discussion of the theology of repentance and God’s grace. (And some of it’s pretty incendiary) Ultimately it is a declaration that an individual reader of the Bible can be correct and the Pope can be wrong. Luther, threatened with excommunication (by the pope) and outlawry (by secular authorities), defended his observations on theology (contra the Church) in front the Holy Roman Emperor, who also pressured him to recant. “Unless
            I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the
            authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each
            other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will
            not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor
            safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!”

            So many foundational principles of Western philosophy and law trace back to this event — The Rule of Law, Freedom of Conscience, transparency, individual auditing of authority figures according to an immutable standard — it all came to a point here. This is the first glimmering of Enlightenment philosophy as well — that one is to throw off the old “guardians of the intellect” and understand the source for yourself.

            (Ultimately, Hillary represented papist-style authority — she could change things around however she liked for political expediency’s sake, ignoring fundamental principles as she liked, and everyone had to toe the line because she said so. It’s such a relief that she lost.)

            For Eastern Orthodoxy as well, it’s the authority of the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the Pope) that was a major sticking point. Although in their cases, he’s kind of a johnny-come-lately compared to the old Eastern Mediterranean diocese — the fact that St. Peter himself ended up in Rome doesn’t impress them much.

            The use of the vernacular is a deeply practical point rather than an aesthetic one — so long as the Gospel is not presented in a language people understand, the real meaning can be forgotten (or never known, or known only to authority figures). Opponents of Vatican II who argue that so long as the meaning IS known, the aesthetics of the Latin masses are acceptable, have a more valid point than those who dogmatically reject Latin.

            The celibacy of the clergy is also an incidental point in all of this, only important insofar as it illuminates deeper principles. Paul says that celibacy is superior to being sexually active (I can understand in some ways, considering the innate irrationality of such passions), but Timothy (Paul’s student) says that to hold a position of authority in the church one should be “the husband of one wife”, i.e., the faithful head of what we’d call a nuclear household. The fact that Rome pushed the first over the second was just one example of the common theme — Rome overstepping the bounds of Scripture and putting its own spin on things, then insisting everyone toe the line or be damned. (Literally.)

            Well, enough rambling for one evening. I hope you have a chance this year — the 500th anniversary of Luther’s little pre-Internet flame war — to get to know the Protestant point of view a bit better. =)

            It’s fundamental to understanding the development of Western philosophy and law, and has profound lessons for today.

          • D4x

            TY, will consider this summer. Just now absorbing this (must be my paternal line Mongol dna):

            http://stories.cnas.org/the-return-of-marco-polos-world-and-the-u-s-military-response

            “The Return of Marco Polo’s World and the U.S. Military
            Response” by Robert D. Kaplan

            Released CNAS May 12, 2017
            (America’s culture wars can continue without me!)

        • Boritz

          I wish that people, at least Lassie’s family, would not have wasted time every single episode with “What is it girl? Is something wrong? Do you think she’s trying to tell us something?” It’s almost as bad as Scully (X-Files) staunchly denying the possibility of an unconventional explanation time after time as she is nearly taken out by vampires one week and space aliens another.
          I think it was Johan Goldberg who said that the automobile did more to facilitate a loosening of morality than all of Nietzsche’s writings, and you’re onto something with media vs. religion.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Lassie is now playing on syndicated Cozi TV over the air in much of the USA. Saw an episode yesterday. See:
      http://www.cozitv.com/shows/weekday/Lassie-181042981.html

      This link will get you listings plus a map of the affiliated stations broadcasting Lassie and many other old shows. We also have ME TV broadcasting over much of the country. Between the two of these you can get Leave it to Beaver, Andy Griffith with Opie and Barney, Little House on the Prairie, My Three Sons—–virtually all of the old “family-friendly” fare.

      • Jim__L

        Has anyone else ever heard of “Cozi TV” before this? I haven’t, I’m just wondering what others have seen.

      • D4x

        TY, but you misunderstood my comment. The children (GenX and Millenials) who did NOT get to watch “Lassie” lost the valuable lessons of the importance of honesty and being a good neighbor. These lessons have nothing to do with “family-friendly” fare in general, but were very specific to “Lassie”, 1954 – 1974.
        As an adult, I prefer “NCIS”: Semper Fi. As an adult, I also prefer the two Lassie films that have Lassie fighting the Nazis in Norway: “Son of Lassie” 1945; and the Japanese in the Aleutians: “Courage of Lassie” 1946. TCM runs them often enough, no need to buy the dvds.
        FG: The sole reason I do not engage with you here is you always seem to misunderstand what I write. Most people do, so self-isolation is my cognitive approach since 2012.
        While I appreciate your helpfulness here, I have known about Cozitv since 2012.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Sometimes comments intended to fly above the average reader are best expanded by us simpletons. My personal recommendation would have been for all adults to re-focus their entertainment hours to Lassie and the genre of aged TV at the first moment they were widely available. Thanks to the switch to digital TV, spectrum is available to broadcast these niches and both Cozi and ME TV are performing a national service by keeping however many eyes off of far more corrosive pastimes. (Never mind that they are in business mostly sell us oldsters reverse mortgages, burial insurance and Depends.)

          I am old enough to have watched the original Lassie TV shows most of the time they were originally on—-and we did. If they were good for me as a kid, they’re still good for me as an old guy. You too, of course.

          • D4x

            Never mind two generations have grown up believing it is cool to lie and steal…and threaten anyone who disagrees with death threats.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13d8100411cc3251b74c8639e75ed176475812120942ad0aba2b34b7ae8d7eb5.jpg

            “Courage of Lassie” 1946

            When Lassie develops Post-Traumatic Stress in the Aleutian Islands.

            Please stop replying to me. You have abused me here too many times.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have “abused” you here exactly zero times—-BUT—-Disqus has a dandy blocking feature which I would highly recommend to you. It can absolutely, positively keep you from seeing anything I ever write to you or to anyone else. I have four of the greater nut cases here on “block” from my view right now—a much more peaceful TAI life for me. Try it, you’ll like it.

          • D4x

            Getting Damir to delete my comments. and worse. I can not get the Disqus blocking feature to work Snowflake.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It works fine. How do I know? I just blocked you. Bye.

          • D4x
          • Jim__L

            And the bubble gets just that much thicker.

  • Anthony

    An observation: what’s really being inferred here is an American public moral culture, perhaps implying even a reconciling of values deemed essential to democratic self-governing. To that end, the following may also provide ongoing context:

    “American public moral culture will mean recognizing that what is often described as a decline or abandonment of democratic values (culture wars) is in fact the decline and abandonment of the truths about the human person that are essential to democratic governance.

    Among the most important for the healing of a deeply wounded political culture is the truth that each of us has an inherent dignity and value that is not ascribed by government but that is built into us – a dignity and value that Thomas Jefferson would have called unalienable.

    And the truth that recognizing this built in dignity and value discloses certain moral obligations and responsibilities, including the obligation to contribute to the common good and the responsibility of living in solidarity with others, especially those who find living their obligations and responsibilities difficult.

    And the truth that to think of ourselves and others as twitching bundles of commensurable and morally inconsequential desires is not an act of tolerance, but an exercise in self-debasement that reduces us to an infantilism lethal to democratic self-governance.” (A New Awakening)

    • Fat_Man

      “the responsibility of living in solidarity with others, especially those who find living their obligations and responsibilities difficult.”

      Yes we must all join the Borg and do as our overlords say.

    • Jim__L

      Living in solidarity with others does not mean ignoring “their obligations and responsibilities” when they are difficult.

      It’s the difference between categorizing gender dysphoria as a mental illness in need to treatment — and treating it is the REAL solidarity with these fellow flawed human beings — and categorizing gender dysphoria as something to be celebrated. It’s the difference between supporting a couple who is having marital problems, to the point that they can reconcile, and encouraging “easy” divorce. It’s the difference between adoption and abortion.

      As human beings, we need both the Law and the Gospel. The Left’s answer — simply ignoring the Law — is nothing but destructive.

  • Pait

    On the other hand, permissive liberals elected a church going family man as president, whom moralistic conservatives hated, preferring an shameless pervert who spent his life in debauch. Go figure.

    • Dale Fayda

      A church going family man? An openly anti-white black liberation church with a racist pastor, which Obama had to condemn and disavow? That church?

      • Pait

        A church going family man who condemned and disavowed bigotry even if it happened within his own church, I might have added.

        • Dale Fayda

          After (20!) years of faithful attendance and of listening to Rev. Wright’s anti-white and anti-American rants and then ONLY because this came out while he was running for office. Obama called Rev. Wright his spiritual mentor, sat in his church for 20 years and never made a peep about his alleged “indignation” at the blatant racism spouted there on a weekly basis.

          Shouldn’t have opened this can of worms, ha? When it comes to perversion and immorality in presidential politics, liberals are in a different, untouchable league.

  • Boritz

    The culture wars aren’t over. We may not even be half-way to what will be considered acceptable. Ask a progressive if they are in the least satisfied with the current state of culture.

    • Jim__L

      They’ll never be satisfied.

      Partly because they’re crazy, but mostly because they’re not going to get what they want. =)

  • Fat_Man

    The culture war is not over. It will never end, until the eloi have destroyed utterly the ability of the morlocks to ever chalange their absolute rule. Abortion, divorce, same sex marriage are all skirmishes in the war to destroy the institution of the family among the morlocks. Did they stop at any of these? No. They will never stop. After same sex marriage, they invented transsexualism. They will fight that battle until they are victorious. The end will only come when they have reduced the morlocks into tiny enclaves of drug addicted, demoralized, crime ridden ghettos. Then we will love big brother.

    • Jim__L

      The Culture War will not end, because it’s a fight between self-destructive and societally-destructive pleasure-seeking (on the Left), and practical wisdom that takes into account biological, financial, and social reality (on the Right).

      We’ll always have pleasure-seekers, so the Left will always exist. But Leftist subcultures will destroy themselves, and the cultures that practice the wisdom of the Conservative side of the culture war will survive, and sometimes even gain ascendancy.

      There is no “win” condition for the Left. All the Right has to do is survive — and survive we do, because it’s just as much in humans to do what we need to do to survive as it is to seek pleasure — and the pendulum will swing back again.

      • MyWord245

        I too am very optimistic — I think and hope/pray that new generation of kids are more level headed than the popular culture would have us believe (I don’t think 10% are Gays as often repeated in the news). Having said that, GOP/right is not the guardian of social propriety either.

        • Jim__L

          Trump’s GOP? Certainly not. Does Trump set the tone, or do his kids, though?

          As an aside, look at the numbers for same-sex “marriage” in Canada. Less than 0.1% of Canadians are participating, after 10 years. Either homosexuality is far rarer than Lefties assume, homosexuals are far less likely to form lasting attachments suitable for stable families than heterosexuals, or both. It also suggests that there was no massive migration of US citizens northward to redress some deeply felt injustice. In any case, it’s a marginal issue, one that will probably fall out of fashion before too long.

          As for kids today — some will be level-headed, some won’t, and some will only learn with time and (painful) experience. The best thing to do is make sure they all hear sensible, traditional (religious!) morals that are compatible with both biology and Natural Law. If they have sensible adults pointing out to them exactly what the practical drawbacks of Leftist social positions are, they’ll have a lot more chance of learning without the painful lessons their less-fortunate peers will require.

          • D4x

            The five Trump children should be setting the tone, which reflects so well on (all) their parents.

      • Oneironaut

        Oh no, pleasure! MOST human endeavors are based on pleasure. We aren’t dumb animals or biological machines who should only be concerned with survival.

        Worshipping god gives most religious people pleasure, even if they downplay it with righteousness. Bottom line is they worship their gods because it makes them feel good.

        Eating, engaging in the arts, being creative, and many other things are largely done for pleasure. You just don’t like OTHER PEOPLE’S pleasure.

        And, I hate to break it to you, but fighting for the rights of disenfranchised people is not a matter of mere pleasure. Certainly fighting for the right to legally protect your family is way beyond mere pleasure. In fact, if pleasure if your goal, marriage is the last thing you’d want.

        • Jim__L

          Humans are at their dumbest when pursuing pleasure, typically. That’s why morality is there — not for the pleasure of moralizing (which is really pretty rarefied), but for avoiding the individual, family, and societal rot (or outright disaster) brought on by not paying attention to the good sense that traditional morals codify.

          I don’t think you either understand, or have any standing to speak for, why people hold religion and morality sacred.

          Listen and learn.

          • Oneironaut

            Trust me, I’ve had religion crammed down my throat my entire life, and I’ve studied all the world religions. And I see that religion brings people pleasure, however righteously they want to dress it up… they basically feel good praying to an imaginary avenger that watches out for them.

            But pleasure has brought us some of the world’s greatest works of art and science. People don’t perform art or become passionate about something out of a sense of duty. They are responding to their own gifts, the things that bring them peace and pleasure.

          • Jim__L

            … And the practical aspects of morality slide right on by yet again.

            Never mind that with the ascendancy of Leftist social agenda that leaves childbearing completely out of the picture when people talk about normative families, America fell below replacement birthrate for the first time. There couldn’t possibly be any drawback to attempting to redefine marriage.

            The deep and rich irony of the Darwinists are winning… their own awards.

            All for the sake of passions and pleasures — that leave humans, as I said, at their dumbest.

          • Oneironaut

            How is it anyone else’s fault if you aren’t having kids?

          • Jim__L

            Who says I’m not?

            I’m saying that a culture that doesn’t associate family with having kids is a culture that is going to die, and either be immediately replaced by one that does associate family with childbearing, or die in really ugly ways as the working population ages into helplessness.

            That’s why it’s good for a society to be heteronormative.

            I don’t want my culture to be a dying culture. If that means sticking with the wisdom of past ages instead of the fads of the last fifteen minutes, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

          • Oneironaut

            That’s why I said IF you’re not having kids. Don’t deflect. How is it gay people’s fault if any straight person doesn’t have kids?

            Homosexual behavior has been observed in just about every creature on earth, including humans, since time immemorial and it has not once endangered any species or society. Here in MA, straight people aren’t being outnumbered by gay people. Straight people are still marrying and having kids. You can relax. It’s basically the same wherever gay marriage has been legalized.

            Besides, gay people ARE raising families, often picking up the slack for neglectful straight parents, and doing a perfectly fine job of it. Their families matter too.

            Some people just aren’t suited to have kids, and that’s fine too. It’s better they know that than to have them anyway only to do a crap job of it. At least gay people have to deliberate and take a little consideration in their decision to have kids. Straight people can have them at the drop of the hat without any regard whatsoever, and they do.

            Those who don’t want kids still have reason to be married. They still fall in love and want to commit to each other for life and protect themselves legally. That’s why NONE of our civil marriage laws require anyone to be able or willing to have kids. There are other beneficial aspects of civil marriage. Procreation is not elevated or encouraged in any way. It’s been this way for generations yet suddenly you’re worried about it now that gay people can marry.

    • Oneironaut

      Really? How has letting gay Americans legally and equally protect their relationships, families and households destroyed “the family”? Whose family, exactly? I’m still seeing plenty of families when I go walking around the city.

      Abortion? Well, despite being legal, abortion rates are at an ALL TIME LOW. Doesn’t sound like anything is being destroyed to me.

      And it may shock you to learn that transgender people have ALWAYS existed, and have been a part of the gay rights movement for decades. Hardly anything recently “invented”.

      If you’re gonna complain about something, you should at least make sure it actually exists.

  • f1b0nacc1

    If the last 5 years are any example, the next step after the Left winning the culture wars will be them (the Left) wandering across the battlefield shooting the wounded

    • Jeff77450

      That’s already happening with Christian bakers, florists and wedding photographers who don’t want to support blatant perversion that their faith proscribes.

      • Jim__L

        Bystanders (and even some on the Left) are realizing that they’re the a**holes when they target people like that.

        The Right isn’t so “wounded” as anyone thinks.

        • Jeff77450

          I would love for that to be true but I’m not sure to what degree it is. Time will tell.

          • Jim__L

            Keep up hope. You’ll see it happen. =)

    • Jim__L

      It’s absurd to lose hope. Divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, declining birthrates — these are slow-motion social catastrophes that do real damage to real people.

      They can’t be swept under the rug forever, and they can’t be solved by Leftist palliatives.

      Take heart. Remember the Victorian Era? The one that followed hard on the heels of the Regency, which had social mores similar to our own. Have a look at Regency figure Charles James Fox — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Fox — he was on the “right side of history” on the controversies of his day — the American Revolution, the French Revolution, abolitionism, even gender fluidity (see “Maccaroni”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroni_(fashion) ) — but his social views and therefore his personal life was such an absolute disaster, that when the Victorians rolled into town, he was a fine example of what NOT to do.

      F1b, you know that the Right side of the culture war is a set of ideas more powerful and useful than those on the Left, or you wouldn’t be backing it. The Left can only win this fight in the short term; in the long term, they’ll lose; in the medium term, all the problems that are inherent in Leftist social ideas are too serious to ignore, and the backlash will build.

      The Left may try to shoot the wounded; they may even cause some serious discomfort to some. But in the end, their ideas are not only morally bankrupt, but practically bankrupt as well.

      The pendulum swings back and forth. The Right is fighting against the a powerful cocktail of self-destructive pleasure seeking often referred to as “sinful human nature”, and so loses from time to time. But the Left is fighting FOR something inherently self-destructive. The only side that can possibly win is the Right; if the Left “wins”, the species dies.

      And I don’t believe that will happen. Since obviously, only the cultures under Leftist domination will die, and those cultures that recognize that truths of Natural Law and the wisdom of Biblical morals will replace them. =)

      So don’t give up hope. The realities of biology are on our side, and always will be.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Actually I tend to agree with you. Kipling’s “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” makes your point quite well. In the long run, the Left’s silliness will lose. With that said, however, they will try to take as many of us with them as they can….

      • CosmotKat

        Interesting take on the culture war (I dislike that term) by Daniel Greenfield over at Frontpage. He sees the mindset of Snowflakes marching toward totalitarianism. The Progressives have brought back Jim Crow and segregation is en vogue. You’ve got separate proms taking place and identity specific group dorms, and whites are ostracized. This is sheer madness based on progressive hate. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266631/college-blueprint-totalitarian-america-daniel-greenfield

        • Jim__L

          Yep, that’s what the Left is going for.

          But we can push back, and we push back successfully. The Middlebury rioters are facing consequences for their actions. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/

          The simple fact is that people are noticing that Leftists are the a**holes here. I don’t expect that the consequences faced by the Middlebury rioters will be quite enough to solve the Leftist’s totalitarian problem (not by a long shot), but it shows that the idea of Liberty still has some traction in the academy — and that’s all we need to turn things around.

    • D4x

      Shooting the wounded with paintballs? because…gun control.

  • cestusdei

    We know what it will look like. We’ve seen it before over the last 2000 years. Persecution is nothing new.

    • Jim__L

      But persecution ends, and the new day dawns when the Word can be heard and taught in its fullness to people who will benefit from it even as they suffered from the world’s lies.

    • Oneironaut

      Being disagreed with or disregarded is not being persecuted. Persecution is running the risk of being fired, arrested, beaten or even killed just for being who you are.

      • Jim__L

        Like someone who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a ceremony they think is immoral?

        What moral high ground you ever had is going, going, gone…

        • Oneironaut

          A person might also think an interfaith couple or an interracial couple is immoral, but he can’t legally discriminate against them.

          If your business is making cakes, then you make cakes. If you don’t want to write anything on it, then say you won’t write anything on it. As long as your rules apply equally, do business as you like.

          • Jim__L

            The bakers in question invited the couple to buy whatever cake they wanted… they just wouldn’t make a custom cake for them. Same with the florists. Buy off the shelf if you like, but they wouldn’t let themselves be personally forced to take part in the celebration.

            Forcing people to do that, against their conscience, makes you the a**hole. Putting them out of business for it, same thing. Especially when you can walk across the street and get what you wanted. That’s cramming things down people’s throats, and you don’t even see it.

          • Oneironaut

            Again, if your business is making custom cakes, you can’t deny that to any segment of the population. If the “no custom cakes” rule applied to EVERYONE, then no problem. Was that the case?

          • Jim__L

            Nope. If your conscience is violated by being asked to participate in celebrating something you think is wrong, it’s a nasty, nasty thing for someone to try to put you out of business for refusing to do it.

            Leftists are being the a**holes here, forcing their morals on people. Not only that, they’re being hypocritical a**holes about it.

          • Oneironaut

            You’re not being asked to celebrate anything. You’re being asked to do your job in accordance with the laws that govern businesses, including our constitutional equal protection laws. A baker is no more celebrating a wedding he makes a cake for than a gun retailer is participating in the hunting the buyer will be doing. Just do your job fairly. If you can’t follow the law, then you shouldn’t be in business.

            You know what’s truly nasty? The only medical center in town denying treatment to gay residents because of their “religious objection”. Like our other liberties, your freedom ends where others’ begins. You’re complaining about having to adhere to the law while the basic freedoms of actual American citizens are at stake.

            A business does not have the same rights as a citizen. Our personal freedoms are always more important than those of businesses.

      • cestusdei

        Being attacked, threatened, losing ones job, bullying…that is all persecution. That has happened to us over the last 8 years.

        • Oneironaut

          No, you’ve simply been held accountable for following our nation’s public accommodations and equal protection laws, just as you’ve always been. It’s ALREADY BEEN illegal for a business to deny service to single moms, interfaith couples or anyone else their religion may deem “immoral”. If we could just hide behind “religious freedom” to get out of following laws we don’t like, there’d be chaos. Our civil laws apply to EVERYONE.

          • cestusdei

            No, we are being forced to violate our right of free speech and conscience. No one was denied service, just a product that contained a message they did not agree with or they did not offer. No homosexual sign maker would make signs for an anti-homosexual group. We have always respected reasonable accommodation of religion. That’s why Amish kids stop school after 8th grade and don’t serve in the army. Chaos is when homosexual groups decide to impose their will on others.

          • Oneironaut

            If a gay sign maker makes political signs, then yes, he can’t discriminate based on RELIGION. He is certainly free to not make signs with political messages, so long as the rules are applied equally.

            And yes, a business provides SERVICES and when they discriminate they are denying that service, whether it’s providing medication or baking cakes. You don’t get to choose when you will or won’t follow the law.

          • cestusdei

            So your guy would not have to make the sign, but a Christian is forced too. Some people are more equal then others. You discriminate against religious people and get away with it. You are a bigot.

          • Oneironaut

            No, actually I said the exact opposite. You might need to read my response again.

          • cestusdei

            What we need is simple tolerance. No one should be forced to bake a cake for something that is offensive to them or paint a sign. Just smile and find another baker.

          • Oneironaut

            Being held accountable for following our nation’s public accommodation and equal protection laws is not forcing anything on anyone except justice and equality.

            It’s easy to say “just find another business” when you are in the majority. But if you are a gay parent living in a small town with one homophobic pharmacy, you shouldn’t have to travel miles or hours out of your way just find a pharmacist to give you the same service everyone else gets in your town.

            Your religion might think that interracial marriages or interfaith marriages are wrong, but if your job is to bake wedding cakes, you can’t hid behind your religion to get out of following our secular civil laws.

          • cestusdei

            And accommodation of conscience? We have always had that, until 5 minutes ago. Of course this is about forcing people to accept your ideology. Don’t lie. Don’t be Christophobic. Homosexuality is not a race, but you would force a black man to bake a cake in honor of the Klan. That makes YOU a racist. You hide behind your hate to persecute us. That’s why so many voted for Trump. You simply want to make your persecution legal. You are a bigot.

          • Oneironaut

            A cake for a wedding and a cake for a hate group are totally different things. A business can always decide it doesn’t want to make any hateful or violent messages, as long as his rule is applied equally to all customers. I don’t know what you’re not getting about this.

            But if you’re gonna cry “racist” or “bigot”, let me ask you this: should a business whose religious beliefs disagree with interracial marriage be able to deny an interracial couple service?

            I don’t need a business to accept ANYTHING but the law. I don’t care if you hate me or celebrate me. I just want to get my prescription filled or buy my groceries the same as everyone else.

          • cestusdei

            No, they are not. You are imposing your views on others. No one should have to bake a cake for a cause they find repulsive. We find your message hateful, we find homosexuality to be hateful. If you don’t agree then too bad. You don’t get to decide for others. This is why you are intolerant.

            Homosexuality is not a race. It is a behavior. Black people find your reasoning racist. I do wish you guys would at least try to use logic.

            No, you want to force others to accept your ideology. You can buy a cookie at the bakery, none of them denied service to homosexuals. But you can’t always get the product you want, such as ham at a Jewish deli. The problem here is that you want to use the law to persecute those who disagree with you. In Indonesia they just flogged 2 men for homosexuality. That is the LAW. You would say they are using the LAW to persecute homosexuals, just like you want to use it against us. You are JUST LIKE THEM. So be tolerant, like you always used to scream. But you won’t. You hate us too much.

          • Oneironaut

            Our equal protection laws cover many behaviors and lifestyle choices. Interfaith marriages are a matter of behavior and choice. Being a single mother is a matter of choice. Your political affiliation is a matter of choice. And it is still wrong and illegal for businesses to discriminate against people of those lifestyle choices.

            Doing your job for someone you don’t like is not being forced to accept an ideology. As a caterer and server in my younger years, I served at many a wedding and private celebration. At no time did I feel I was being forced to accept or celebrate anything; I was just there to do my job. Even though I found some of those people to be awful, I still had a job to do.

            Equal protection doesn’t mean making a business do something they aren’t in the business of doing. No one can make a Jewish deli sell ham if selling ham isn’t in their business, just as they can’t be forced to sell furniture or provide tech support if someone wants it. It just means that if your deli does serve ham it must serve it everyone equally. You can’t serve it to one group of people and not another, certainly not based on your religion.

            Bottom line, a business is NOT a citizen and is held to totally different legal obligations, whether you like it or not. And it’s the THINKING behind laws that make them different.

            You never answered my question:

            Should a business be able to deny service to an interfaith couple based on their religious beliefs? If a Catholic/Jewish married couple comes into a restaurant for dinner, should the restaurant owner refuse them service if he finds interfaith marriages to be sinful?

          • cestusdei

            Reasonable accommodation for religion and conscience also covers many lifestyles and behaviors. Nowadays political and religious views can get you fired. Ask Eich.

            It’s your CHOICE as a caterer. Others make other choices. I doubt you would have catered a neo-Nazi party, esp. if you were Jewish. That is the kind of insanity your logic leads too.

            In fact you do force us. Christian bakeries do not sell wedding cakes for same sex “weddings.” The ONLY reason you force it is because you KNOW it makes them complicit. It is pure hate and bigotry on your part. Is is persecution. Don’t lie.

            Bottom line, citizens own businesses and have always been reasonably accommodated for reasons of conscience. Muslims still get a break, they don’t have to bake that cake. But Christians are singled out and you KNOW it. Be an honest persecutor. On the bright side that’s why so many voted for Trump out of FEAR. If you had been tolerant the results would have been different.

            I did answer. No one denied service to anyone. They only denied a certain product that they did not offer. Just like a homosexual sign maker would not make signs for Westboro Baptist church. Be TOLERANT and leave us the hell alone. Even Andrew Sullivan said that.

          • Oneironaut

            A caterer has no more a say in whether or not he should do his job than anyone else.

            And now you’ll tell me what I think? I don’t think so. I just got done telling you that the whole point of pressing this matter is that doing your job DOESN’T make you complicit in anything. It’s your place of business, not a church or a private club. We are pressing the point that your religion doesn’t put you above our secular civil laws. ALL of our rights come with conditions. You have free speech but there are still libel laws to adhere to. You have the freedom to have kids, but you don’t have the freedom to abuse them. And you have the freedom to have a business but you don’t have the right to flout the law.

            NO ONE gets a break. Even Muslim businesses must serve their customers without regard to their personal SUBJECTIVE religious BELIEFS. The law doesn’t care about your religious opinion. It cares that you adhere to the laws that govern business, which are NOT the same ones that govern ACTUAL CITIZENS.

            Whether it’s one product or not, it’s still denying equal service. If your restaurant serves the families of straight people, it must serve the families of gay people, atheists, Buddhists and any number of people they may find “immoral”.

            You never answered my question:

            Do you think it’s right for a Muslim pharmacist to deny service to a Jew? Do you think that Jew should have to travel three towns over to find a pharmacist that will give him the same service that everyone else gets in his own town?

          • cestusdei

            Only in a dictatorship. In a democracy a businessman does have a say in what he does and how he does it. But thanks for proving my point.

            Yes it does. That’s why homosexuals persecute us. They KNOW it makes a difference. It is an expression of their hate and intolerance. Even Andrew Sullivan thinks so. Your sexual preference does not put you above the 1st amendment. You can’t impose your views on us. You simply want to make the persecution legal and end all conscience rights.

            In fact a guy went to Muslim bakeries with the same demand. None baked the cake. None suffered any repercussions. So apparently the law and liberals do care about which religion. Some are more equal then others.

            No, that is false. They got served, but they can’t get just any product they demand. That’s the crux of the matter.

            Do you think it is right for a Muslim deli owner to be forced to serve ham? Do you think a Jewish baker should have to bake a cake for a Nazi rally with a swastika and gas chamber on it? Do you think a black baker should have to make a cake with a picture of a black man being lynched for the Klan? Or are we going to be TOLERANT and sane?

          • cestusdei

            Just saw this:
            ” As a headline in the Daily Mail announced, “Ben & Jerry’s BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until Australia legalizes gay marriage.”

            That’s right. If you want two scoops of New York Super Fudge Chocolate on your ice cream cone, you can’t have it. You’ll have to settle for just one scoop or mix in another flavor.”

            In other words they are saying they have the right to deny serving you 2 scoops of the same flavor. They will serve you, but you can’t get that particular product/service. Liberals are swooning with joy. None see the irony that this undermines the very thing they do to Christian bakers, florists etc. They want to do what they deny others the right to do. You are hypocrites.

          • Oneironaut

            Wow, you really don’t get it do you?

            A business can have whatever rules about its services that it wants. Those rules simply must be applied equally to all citizens. A business must provide their services/products, etc equally to all members of the public and it can’t use religion as an excuse to get around that.

            If Ben and Jerry’s was saying they were ONLY going to give 2 scoops of ice cream to those who support gay marriage and refuse double scoops to those who don’t, THAT would be unConstitutional. But their rule is being applied to everyone. Christian businesses have the same right to impose any rules they want (we won’t do weddings, we won’t inscribe political messages, etc), they just have to apply them equally. Sorry, that’s just how it works.

            This isn’t about making a business do something they’re not in the business of doing. It’s about making businesses provide what they ARE in the business for to all citizens.

          • cestusdei

            YOU don’t get it. Ben and Jerry are doing exactly what you condemn. They would use MY argument to defend their action.

            So a Christian business has RULES, as you say, so the customer must abide by them.

            In fact you make my point. You now admit it IS about what someone believes and THAT is what counts. So you want to IMPOSE your beliefs on others. It is exactly about making a business, if it’s Christian, to do something they are not in the business of doing. You just lost the argument.

          • Oneironaut

            Like I said, a Christian business can have as many rules as they like… they just have to be applied equally to all members of the public.

            You seem to be hung up on the “denying service” part instead of what the real problem is: denying service to a CLASS of people. That is simply against the law no matter what your religious beliefs. This works to your advantage too. If that paranoid Christian fantasy ever came true and they became a persecuted minority in this country, this would assure that an atheist or Muslim could not deny them equal accommodation either. It works both ways, you just don’t want it to.

            But whine all you want, snowflake. These “religious freedom” cases keep getting thrown out soon, just as with gay marriage bans, “religious freedom” bills will fail.

          • cestusdei

            You seem to be hung up on forcing people to violate their conscience when reasonable accommodation has always been respected, till now. You just want to make such persecution legal, but it is still persecution. In the old USSR they said you had the right to “worship” which is ironically Obama’s favorite phrase on the issue. But you had to worship in a church. Then they closed all the churches, so you could not exercise the “right.” It was all legal and it was persecution. You are a bully and bigot. Whine all you want and I will say it to your face.

            I am sure that you will get judges that will carefully eviscerate religious liberty. As you admit religious freedom will fail. That’s what you want. How many of us will you kill to get it? If there was only one Christian left living in a cave you would hunt him down to force him to agree with you. One of your philosphers once said ” If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” But 2+2=4 no matter what you think.

          • Oneironaut

            Well if that’s you believe, then go ahead and let it continue filling you with bitterness and hatred. I rest well knowing that gay Americans all over this country are enjoying their equality and liberty right this moment, despite your anger over it, and will only continue to do so.

            Enjoy your day!

          • cestusdei

            No, it is your side that it bitter and hateful. That’s why you keep this up. You won’t stop till that boot crushes our faces. You enjoy that. Eventually as society collapses we will be the last ones standing. We’ve been thru this before over the last 2000 years. We will win in the end.

          • Oneironaut

            Well, people have been saying that here in MA where we’ve had SSM for almost 15 years and gay acceptance even longer than that, and society hasn’t even comes close to collapsing.

            But if bitterly wishing for the end of society so you can feel right helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out. The rest of society will continue to evolve, as the increasing acceptance of gay rights has already shown.

          • cestusdei

            Oh it’s fine for you in the bubble. Not so much in the rest of the country. One reason Trumps numbers went up when he was not PC is that so many of the rest of us are sick and tired of it. Grown men claiming to be women and wanting to shower with our little girls? Fear of saying the wrong thing and getting fired by the office lesbian? Death threats to florists, like you can’t find a gay florist? It’s already falling, but you just close your eyes and smile.

            We want to save society, but you will not let us. I am sure in Germany in the 30’s they thought they were evolving too. But you can’t kill us all. In the end we will still be here and we will win.

          • Oneironaut

            Yeah yeah, always with the Nazis.

            You know how many transgender people have been arrested for improper conduct in a public bathroom? ZERO. There have been more Republicans arrested for that. You should be more worried about kids being in showers or bathrooms with Republicans.

            You’re only fired for “saying the wrong thing” if what you’re saying is bigoted or otherwise not conducive to a harmonious working environment.

            Again, it isn’t just about florists. “Religious freedom” bills would apply to ALL businesses. And if it’s a small town and there is only one florist/pharmacist/grocery store in town, NO ONE should have to travel miles or hours out of their way to get the same service everyone else does. That’s precisely why our public accommodations laws exist.

            Our society is doing fine. People are basically the same wherever you go, and clearly people are capable of learning to accept gay people and (gasp!) even get along with them on a daily basis without feeling like they’re being attacked. Gay and straight people get along just fine here, so it’s not impossible. You just CHOOSE to find reasons to vilify other human beings. Luckily, a growing majority of Americans support gay rights. Just keep that in mind while you fantasize about Nazis.

          • Oneironaut

            And please, enough with your paranoid fantasies. The Westboro Baptist Church says far more horrible things about gay people than anyone else, and gays aren’t calling for them to be arrested or executed. No boots are in anyone’s faces.

            You don’t have to accept any part of who I am, and in your private life and in your religious life, you can say and believe whatever you like and I’ll support your right to say it. But your religious freedom ENDS where the rights of others begin. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religious, and both are equally important in a free society. When it comes to businesses, they must adhere to that ideal, which is why these laws exist in the first place. Nothing is being enforced except the Constitution.

  • Eurydice

    I suppose it depends on what is meant by “liberal” and “conservative”. If liberal means accepting change and conservative means rejecting change, then yes. If it’s Democrats vs Republicans, then no. Human cultures and societies evolve over time, language and habits evolve and, eventually, their organizational structures evolve to reflect those changes. It doesn’t happen the other way around, because governments and political parties, whatever they call themselves, are inherently conservative institutions.

  • Angel Martin

    Before conceding defeat, let’s see how all this cultural permissiveness and decadence looks like after the next economic downturn.

    Politics in the Anglosphere has always taken a strong culturally conservative turn in times of acute economic distress. We are almost 90 years out since the start of the last depression, and they occur at about an interval of a human lifespan.

    Severity of a depression increases with debt levels. Given current record debt levels, the next one is liable to be particularly bad.

    Ray Dalio now seems to agree about the social and cultural fallout of the next downturn.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-12/ray-dalio-goes-dr-doom-when-next-downturn-comes-it’s-going-be-bad

    • ——————————

      The link shows Page Not Found

      But Zerohedge is one of my top reads anyway….

    • CosmotKat

      The fourth turning…………

      • Angel Martin

        I actually got the idea from a book published in the 1990’s called:
        https://www.amazon.ca/Great-Reckoning-Protecting-Yourself-Depression/dp/0671885286

        They have a section in that book on past depressions and deflation. Typically, in the lead up to the start of a depression, there is a commodity price and real estate boom caused by a war. After commodity prices peak, there is a 9-11 year period of disinflation/deflation accompanied by a stock and bond market boom. Then the stock market crashes and a depression starts.

        The authors were predicting that the depression in 90’s Japan would generalize to the entire world.

        But I thought the pattern fits the aftermath of the second Iraq war much better.

  • honestynow

    “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
    “Never, never, never give up.”

    ― Winston Churchill

  • Jeff77450

    The Left’s message of “If it feels good, do it” has more innate appeal (and more readily lends itself to pop-culture) than the Right’s message of “Take responsibility for yourself and restrain the worst of your impulses.” If you ask a fifteen-year-old, “Which would you rather have for dinner, pizza & a hot fudge sundae or liver & spinach?” which are they going to choose?

    • FriendlyGoat

      When we go to the Gallup link in article, we learn that the top “culture war” issue they polled is birth control, now apparently approved by 91% of respondents. It’s fair to say from that large number that “take responsibility” has gone mainstream on that one.
      But conservatives didn’t exactly lead the movement even though most of them now agree with the idea. (For a bit of levity, I wonder if “Proper Mom and Dad” know that spinach is one of the top foods for sexual function when they serve it to the fifteen-year-olds. I have also wondered if the creators of Popeye, the cartoon, knew this. See: http://health.infoniac.com/top_viagra_like_foods.html

      • FriendlyGoat

        Seriously, old Popeye singing “I’m strong to the “finach”, ’cause I eats me spinach” is a historical gem in the hindsight of nutritional science, no?

    • MyWord245

      I’m nearly sixty. I still can’t eat liver and spinach. I diverge!

      • Jim__L

        Kidney stones aren’t fun. Oxylates in spinach, you know.

        Liver? It just needs to be cooked right, and it’s like eating meat-flavored chocolate.

    • Jim__L

      If I set out a plate of broccoli out for my kids as an after-school snack (OK, plus some Ranch dressing to dip it in) they’ll have finished it before I get any.

      I’m as baffled as you are, but I’m not going to tell them this isn’t normal.

      Maybe it’s because I only get fresh veggies – not frozen, or heaven forbid canned. I dunno. It works, and I’m not going to push the issue.

      (Before you worry too much about the kids, my littlest asks for Oreos on a regular basis. He’s also learning that authority figures often say “no” to self-indulgences like that.)

    • I think they adopt this mindset as an automatic response to the sometimes “black-and-white” worldview of extreme conservatism. However, their resulting perspective is often one based heavily in “grey thinking”, that there are no real higher principles, that anything goes, nothing is truly right or wrong in the long term, etc.

    • Oneironaut

      Wanting equal rights is not the same as eating something just because it feels good. This just shows how out of touch you are with your fellow human beings.

  • CosmotKat

    Is it winning the war of ideas or winning the hearts and minds by years of radical indoctrination beginning in kindergarten and soon to be pre-K and pre-pre-K? I’d say the latter.

    • Oneironaut

      You can’t bamboozle people in caring for others. It can only happen when they are exposed to reality, and reality is the last thing conservative moralists are interested in.

      My family does not love and accept me unconditionally because someone forced them to. They do it because they realize that my sexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with who I am as a person and a citizen.

      • CosmotKat

        Yet most progressives like you seem to feel pretending to care is the same as actually caring. Reality is that most caring people tend to be conservatives and it’s been proven over and over. To wit:

        “What are those facts?

        People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

        It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. [snip]

        Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

        According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html

        Your sexuality is your own business, but I submit there are just as many Conservative Americans (perhaps more) who openly embrace those whose sexuality is different from theirs they just need to broadcast it to make themselves feel better. You seem pretty closed minded and really demonstrate a passion for hate than compassion.

        • Oneironaut

          Not living like a spy in your own country and choosing instead to live openly and honestly is not broadcasting anything. At least no more than a straight person who chooses not to hide their spouse or family is.

          Actually, an MIT study showed that liberals and conservatives give about equally. The main difference is that conservatives tend to feel obligated to donate a certain percentage of their incomes to their own churches. Here is the peer-reviewed research paper containing all the raw data:

          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

          To be honest, I’d rather someone donate to a cause they genuinely believe in and which helps all kinds of people, not someone who believes they will be punished by an imaginary being if they don’t give money to a church that mainly helps the church itself.

          If you really think people are PRETENDING to care about the rights and basic human dignity of their gay, poor or black loved ones, it says way more about you than about anyone else.

          • CosmotKat

            Oh please, you continue to make arguments that are of a single issue variety. Your gay, that’s your business and I don’t care. I don’t thin people pretend to care I believe PROGRESSIVES pretend to care and it’s been proven over and over. You think Progressives are the only people accepting you then you have become what you accuse others of and that’s bigotry.

          • Oneironaut

            And how many progressives do you actually know?

          • CosmotKat

            Are you dumb or just really naive?

          • Oneironaut

            So, no actual answer to my very simple, direct question? That’s all you had to say.

          • CosmotKat

            So, no actual answer to my simple, but direct question….are you dumb or just really naive? You asked a really stupid question.

  • Stephen

    Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret.
    –Horace

    • Jim__L

      Google translate still needs work. “Nature fork drive the mistress” isn’t as useful as, “Drive Nature out with a pitchfork, she’ll come right back”.

      Great quote!

  • WRP5

    We have seen for the last few years how wrong polls are I don’t beileve this given elections results and how people talk about these issues.

    • Oneironaut

      Really? Because the polls showed a steady increase in the acceptance of gay marriage, and it’s clear that it actually is being accepted, or else the Right wouldn’t be bitching and moaning about it so much.

      • Jim__L

        But do pollsters ever ask the question, “Are you more likely to lie to pollsters on this topic than you were 25 years ago?”

        • Oneironaut

          So basically, the polls are right when they favor your opinion, but absolutely false when they don’t. Got it.

          • Jim__L

            Well, when Prop 8 passed, that was the poll that mattered, wasn’t it?

            Except Leftists can’t have the actual population weighing in, can they…

          • Oneironaut

            No, because it makes no sense to let a potentially biased majority decide on the civil liberties of those in the minority. That’s part of what our judicial system exists for; to ensure that justice is served free of subjective public opinions.

          • Jim__L

            A man has the right to marry any woman that will have him. A woman has the right to marry any man that will have her.

            Whatever the relationship is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, it isn’t a marriage.

            No one’s civil rights are being violated by that simple, biologically-based truth.

          • Oneironaut

            Yes, and a black person had the same right to marry someone of the same race that white people did. You sound like Henry Ford: you can have it any color, as long as it’s black. That is not true equality.

            Gay people previously did NOT have the same right to legally and equally protect their relationships, families and households that opposite sexed couples had under our SECULAR CIVIL MARRIAGE LAWS, none of which mention anything about biology. It is simply a contract making two people legally and socially responsible for one another, giving them certain rights, protections and responsibilities. The government is not there to tell us what kinds of relationships we must have within our marriages. A citizen’s biology is NO ONE ELSE’S business.

            You seem confused as to what secular civil marriage is.

  • Ulysses4033

    The test of collective morality is whether it contributes to the emergence of the better angels of our nature, not whether it feels good or is popular. It is obviously far too soon to conclude whether the shift noted in the article is to the good of mankind. History suggests it is not, but perhaps we have arrived at the point where we can escape our history by sheer determination to ignore it.

    • Oneironaut

      Wanting equal rights and to be treated as full-fledged citizen is not a matter of feeling good. It’s our right as American citizens and as humans.

      • Ulysses4033

        Indeed. Not sure what your point is, though. My comment is about collective morality, not rights. “Wanting” is distantly related–perhaps–to the formulation of a moral code, but again, still must pass the test of whether it serves human betterment in the long run.

        It appears to me much of the “liberal outlook on what is morally acceptable” derives more from virtue signaling and wanting to be in the in crowd than from a deep and powerful evolution of our collective experience and drive toward self-improvement. But who really knows? That is why I assert that it is “far too soon to conclude whether the shift noted in the article is to the good of mankind.”

        • Oneironaut

          My point is that you’re wrong that any of the things liberals champion have anything to do with how good it feels or how popular it is. Just because someone else doesn’t share your opinion doesn’t mean they don’t know their own.

          Believing that your fellow citizens don’t deserve to be treated differently on account of their sexuality or ethnicity or poverty has nothing to do with popularity or making yourself feel good. It’s all about basic human empathy, which conservatives often reject in favor of a “I got mine, to hell with you” mentality.

          • Ulysses4033

            Again, you are responding to something I did not write. What I wrote was that the test of a moral stance cannot be found in whether holding it feels good to the holder, or is popular among a large number of folks.

            Your assertion of what you believe “conservatives often reject” reveals your own belief system about someone who (apparently) “doesn’t share your opinion.” Fine. Nowhere in my comment, however, do I offer any opposition to your straw man argument. It would be nice if you would comment on what I actually wrote, not what you assume I believe beyond those words.

            Cheers!

          • Fred

            Methinks we have a Mott and Bailey argument here. See here .

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service