Your statement "Ginny has jungle fever." is utterly racist implying she married because of the size of his you-know-what.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there a fundamental difference of perspective between liberals and conservatives?
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Your statement "Ginny has jungle fever." is utterly racist implying she married because of the size of his you-know-what.
Ignoring that the problem is widespread in red as well as blue states because of the super rich getting super richers and the middle being pushed to lower class while the lower class gets pushed into the streets.
Ignoring solutions THAT WORK such proving housing-first treatment but the right will never go along with helping those on the bottom being social darwinists.
It is indeed a racist term.
I intend to remind people what the climate
was when SCOTUS acknowledged the
right of inter-racial marriage.
(I've used the term dozens of times on RF
recently. Only now you object? About time.)
I've used some other inflammatory terms in
this context too, eg, "buggery", "sodomy".
Let passions for civil rights be inspired.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I remember his own wife asking him what he thought about interracial marriage, and his response was essentially "I don't think about it much, I'm not concerned." Yet if it ever goes up to vote (and with this merry bar of fascists, who the hell knows) he's going to find himself sorely outnumbered. That issue keeps my wife and I up at night, on top of all the others.
I think much of it depends on the timeframe we're talking about. Liberalism tends more towards individual freedom, while conservativism focuses on the past and preserving tradition. Though in the U.S., preserving tradition also entails individual freedom, and conservatives claim to be supporters of freedom, while claiming liberals take away freedom.
In reality, both liberals and conservatives emphasize greater freedom in some areas, while restricting it in others. They don't seem to have any real consistent set of principles in practice.
Me own marriage might be at risk.
Single again...me?
My dating days are long over.
I'm sure inter-racial marriage will remain a right.
No justice would want to be accused of racism.
Last edited:
averageJOE
zombie
The difference between the two only exist on a social level. Like being For or Against things like abortion or gay marriage, things of that sort. But on a economic and foreign level, no...no difference. Both "sides" want us fighting amongst ourselves, remaining distracted, that way they can continue do the bidding of the oligarchs that really run this country. As long as Republicans and Democrats have us fighting amongst ourselves weather a transgender person should be playing sports, they will continue to give money to the corporate oligarchs.
I don't recall ever seeing definitions of "liberal"
& "conservative" used for the studies. European
definition...N Ameristanian...or other?
This would be useful. What do you know of it?
Most of those were specific to US politics and relied on self-identification. I would expect the results to be different in specifics in other countries.
I wonder....
Many liberals are set in their ways, & like
the liberal society they're in...even if it's
local rather than natural. This could be
seen as conservative.
Similarly, many conservatives want change,
even radical change in society...which isn't
conservative in the sense of preserving the
status quo.
Where would libertarians, ie, the lunatic
fringe, fit in?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
We were sure of Roe as well... And these "justices" swore - on oath - to leave it be. Technically they all should be sacked for perjury. But, still yet, if it came to that it wouldn't be them being racist, it'd be "State's Rights". And if it's the states voting well... We The People.
The difference is that society is split on abortion.
But there's far more acceptance of inter-racial
marriage. And there is great stigma imposed
by the accusation of racism.
So I'm sure my marriage is safe.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I truly hope you're right, and I hope it's not the whole nation over... but here in the Midwest and Upper South, interracial marriage is about as well received as gay marriage. Hell, "sunset towns" are still a thing in many places.
You live someplace very different.
I'm in the midwest.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I'm in Southern Missouri currently. The climate here is... yeah. As well a lot of the people that I've taken calls from in the Ohio area are on a whole different level of crazy, and are not shy about voicing their opinions while complaining about their phone bill.
But like I said, I really hope that my perception isn't broad enough, and that there's nothing to truly worry about. It is a road I do not want to see America go down.
But like I said, I really hope that my perception isn't broad enough, and that there's nothing to truly worry about. It is a road I do not want to see America go down.
I heard an explanation where conservatives feel more fear and have less trust in their socal interaction so are motivated to force compliance to show who is trustworthy. Those outsiders or rebels are naturally untrustworthy. Much of this is subconscious but the emotions project onto the conscious mind and inform attitudes and actions. This explains why bad candidates like Trump and Walker can be exposed but it only strengthens the committment because that is what a trustworthy conservative will do. It's like a secret handshake, and symbolizes who is in the tribe. That there might be negative consequences by bad candidates is not relevant. These can be dismissed, and generaly won't negatively affect conservatives anyway. Let the outsiders suffer the consequences of a Trump presidency. Even if some Trump policies will hurt conservatives they still benefit from the emotional cohesion they feel, and that security is more important.
Liberals are more free spirited, and this hurts them in a world that has many problems like inflation and an ongoing pandemic. Liberalism requires more balanced and emotionaly secure peole who trust themselves as a priority. They feel safe in their own heads and in their own network of friends who they can rely on if trouble brews.
I'd be interested in a study checking liberal vs liberal.
Like...classical liberal vs modern liberal, or however else you clumsily want to split it.
I had my own personal observations from my own extended family. On my mother's side, they were all liberal Democrats, although there were noticeable generational differences between my grandparents and my mother and aunt. It was like the old guard, traditional working class Democrats vs. the younger, more educated, more progressive "hippie" types.
They always had arguments all the time, and this was also reflected in the Democratic Party overall, which was often divided and riddled with internal squabbles of liberal vs. liberal.
In contrast, on my dad's side of the family, they were mostly conservative Republicans from the Midwest, and they never had any political arguments. They didn't avoid discussing it, although I just don't recall any real disagreements or arguments. They all agreed with each other.
Makes sense when you consider that the nature of conservatism in a macro sense is to reduce the overall rate of change, and have change happen more passively, than actively.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's because the US Overtone window has shifted so far to the right that the dems are now the conservatives and the reps have become regressive.
Where they always were, at the fringe and ignored by whichever party they collaborate with.