Are most far-right trolls unemployed?

Post Reply New Topic

How is what they report not real? I'll remind you that Fox's Shepard Smith, who just reports the news and nothing else, is much more in line with CNN and MSNBC than with Hannity and Fox and Friends on his own network. Seems reality has a liberal bias.
As for the right being more pro-woman - uh-huh. That's why historically the right has been so pro-women's rights. Next thing, you'll be telling us that the right is actually pro-labor, and that it's been unions that have been holding the working class back. Or that it was the right that was pro-civil rights. That sort of assertions are what's called revisionist history. The right was never pro-women, encouraging women to achieve instead of being victims, because the right had always dictated that women take a secondary, traditional role in society.

Cnn does outright lies all the time and never ever correct them. They give scripts to people so they say exactly what cnn wants said and when. They just s deomcrparty propgranda machine nothing more. Following Nazi idea of if you tell a lie enough people will think it’s true.

I totally agree with these statements----especially the emphasized part, which reminds me of a conversation I had recently, with someone.....

I was telling him about the old adage: "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; TEACH a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime". I was saying that this was originally coined to herald teachers, but that, IMO, there's even MORE meaning in these words. If, one day, one gives another a fish, what happens the next day? He'll be back for another fish, right? And the Liberal will be all-too-happy to provide it, because what he is "saying"----whether he verbalizes it, or not----is: "And don't forget me, in November". The Liberals, generally speaking, aren't going to teach anybody, ANYTHING----or, like Rho said, are not going to "offer a way out"----because, then, no one would continue to return to them, for another handout.

The conservatives, generally, offer ways for someone to make it, on their own----thus, gaining self-esteem, knowledge, security, etc.----but taking a "free" handout, is easier.

Wonder how long before someone comes along and calls you a bully or a troll.

CNN corrects mistakes when they make them. It's Fox that does not.
If anything, Fox has become the government news outlet under Trump. In fact, Trump watches Fox, or reads Breitbart (when he does read anything), and then he bases (attempted) policy on it. For instance, the baseless claim that Obama had spied on Trump Tower was a fiction invented by Breitbart, Which Trump took as the gospel truth, despite what his own law enforcement and intelligence agencies told him. Or how Trump believes the caravan of desperate refugees from Latin America is an invasion by criminal "brown people" just because Fox said they were.

Problem is quite a few of them believe if a person can’t make it own their own that person should just die.
I’ll side with the democrats on welfare.

No they do not. They lie about guns all the time and never correct their “mistakes”
They keep saying a shooter used a ar15 even after the police announced they shooter didn’t. So they make up s**t like “ar15shotgun” they call ar15 and Glock handguns assault rifles, which they aren’t so it’s a lie, they don’t correct that either.
Cnn is the single most worse news media in the planet. State sponsored North Korean news is probably better. Atleast everyone knows they lying.

In my experience, most red state conservatives I have encountered are only pro women when women conform to traditional gender stereotypes. Though it's not any different than those radical feminists who only support a woman's agency when it alignes with their ideologies.

You just brought up something I have no shortage of words on.

Excellent point, although I would say one person’s stereotypes are another person’s social norms. Meh...toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAW-toe. Whatever.

My opinion is conservatives have dropped the ball on feminism, and they aren’t gaining ground on post-feminism, either. Where is the outrage when #metoo snags another media star? The left is basically eating their own at this point, and conservatives aren’t doing anything to lead the charge. Instead, we tend to back off and watch the destruction at a distance so we don’t get hurt, and even after we do nothing to clean up the mess. We should be gaining support of feminists, taking up their cause without abandoning principle, and taking control of the narrative.

What does that look like, exactly? Waaaaaay back in the day, and I mean pre-WWI, attitudes towards women were that women had to be protected. From what, exactly? Other men. Poverty. Moral turpitude, like, say, resorting to prostitution to support a family. And so men tended to wall off women in such a way that women could be housewives or take jobs that allowed them to balance work with family. A career woman COULD ALWAYS be a career woman. But this came at the expense of the family, and it put women past a certain age at being single for life.

Women were free, in other words, but that freedom came at a cost.

Frontier school morality is another example. IIRC, married women were not allowed to teach. Since all grade levels met in single rooms, teachers were always at risk of being preyed upon by teenage boys. Now, older boys most likely dropped out early to work on the farm. My own grandfather in the early 1900’s didn’t attend school past 8th grade, just to show how recent this kind of thing was. A single woman as a school teacher MIGHT have sex with teenage boys, but it’s always his word against hers. She could just accuse a boy of rape. Or gang rape, even, and nobody would really be surprised by that.

They’re always going to protect the women. Consent? Whatever. If she consented, she was tricked into consenting. The outrage would have been against the STUDENTS, and something really perverse would have to be in play for something to stick against the teacher. Don’t forget that teachers then were very young and no more qualified to teach than they simply graduated from that school. There would be no shock or surprise if a former student dropped out to work on the farm and she quit her job to marry him.

Now? The student would go bragging to his friends how he banged his teacher while she would get prison time. When I was a kid (1980’s-1990’s) it was a “public secret” that certain female teachers were hooking up with kids. Heck, men and women were all guilty of this. What got lampooned in the movies of the time wasn’t too far off from reality. Except in this century women are going to jail for it when, in my opinion, it’s really the boys that are putting the pressure on young, female teachers that’s really the problem.

On a side note, this demonstrates how feminism is failing women and driving the movement even further into irrelevance. Where is the outrage? Where is the re-education for young men (boys) to keep their hands the fcuk OFF women so they can do their job? The left throws the women under the bus every single time under some version of fake “morality” when they need to be tougher on kids’ behavior.

Leftist feminism wants to have the cake and eat it, too. They want women to be free to do what they want, to have their “agency,” to have men directly accountable for elevating their status, and no consequences or cost—the cost being that woman’s freedom will always be limited by how much she is protected. When you look at teenage boys and ignore the fact they have urges and want to dominate women—and the older the game, the bigger the prize—you put women at a disadvantage. You put them out there in the classroom with targets on their heads. But to change the status quo would mean, for some, that you’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to ward off attacks from students. It would also mean, for some, that you’re enacting “blame the victim” policies against, well, children.

I’m using that example because I’m in the teaching profession and I hear the talk. Teachers are largely in denial. But...see, this applies across the board. Workplace dynamics. Politics. Media. You drop a woman in the newsroom in the middle of a bunch of horny men and then you act all surprised when she gets assaulted in some way? But if a woman is actually SUCCESSFUL, she must be doing something wrong. She slept her way to the top. She wears skimpy clothes on TV. She “conforms to a stereotype.”

Now...you want a consistent conservative policy that allows women upward mobility?

Begin with the understanding that women are inherently at a disadvantage and admit they need to be protected. A woman will be promoted based on performance and merit, same as men. You’re going to adopt a “hands off” workplace policy that establishes boundaries without isolation. You’re going to establish and ENFORCE a strict “buddy system” policy that groups people in 2’s or 3’s so that at no time is anyone out of sight from someone else except for, y’know, obvious reasons (restroom breaks). At all times coworkers are responsible not just for themselves but for each other. If someone tries to isolate a coworker, it is reported IMMEDIATELY and that person is held accountable as soon as it happens. Everyone agrees to, holds, and holds others to the same moral code. WITHIN those boundaries you are free. Once you leave those boundaries, your coworkers cannot help you.

This means men AND women are ALWAYS under surveilance. There need not be a sense of paranoia, and it strengthens solidarity in the workplace when because people HAVE to share information and stay visible while working together as a team.

The left? WHAT moral code? WHAT accountability? Can’t I just do my job? Why do I have to answer to someone? Isn’t this just another glass ceiling? Once you remove accountability and protection, you are vulnerable. If you want a better status for women, you must accept the rules that are in place that protect you. Those rules are there to allow you the freedom to do your job to the best of your ability without fear.

My classroom has a window across one wall, a smaller window by the door, and they stay uncovered. Anyone can watch me do my job at any time. If I have to see a student alone about classroom behavior, ANYONE can walk by and see that I’m alone with a student. If I communicate with parents via phone or email, I IMMEDIATELY email my principal about the incident and forward him all emails I send out. There is never a question of whether I behave improperly because everyone can see everything I do and judge for themselves.

By bringing everyone out in the open, keeping people out of isolation, and enacting transparency policies, conservatives can create an atmosphere that promotes the status of women while still giving everyone creative freedom, allowing the free exchange of ideas, and appropriately rewarding performance.

Liberal policies place women in danger.

Conservatives are just kinda standing by watching libs burn the place down.

We are in a position to proactively take up women’s issues and succeed where leftists are destroying themselves. If we can get what remains of feminism on board, we can win this thing together.

AngelRho, the protection thing, though I’ve never thought about it in that depth before, it makes sense to me. The way I’m interpreting it is as, “We’re women and we’re strong and can fend for ourselves, anyone who says otherwise is sexist” yet those women make themselves vulnerable by saying they don’t need protection against the very real stuff that happens to women like sexual assault and rape etc. I mean, the furthest I’ve ever thought about the lack of traditional roles is that women and men now expect women to do both work and childcare, or they’re “lazy”, even seemingly reasonable people think this. But yeh, thanks for making me think about the protective side of things, it makes a lot of sense to me. Whether women are strong or not they are always going to be targets.

At the same time, it’s not going to help anything when different cultures are allowed to get away with treating women as less than men. It would be a wonderful world of that aspect was just eliminated and women could truly be free.

I find the whole independence thing and fending for oneself though to be cold and harsh, lefties at least support the vulnerable by paying out benefits and housing people, both major, major things, and obvious stuff like the NHS.

If you say so. I don't know anything about guns, nor do I want to.

Awesome post, smudge!

Yes, exactly. I’ll try to explain my views on some things you mentioned and will make every effort to make this my last lecture for a while.

Conservatism is not about abandoning the vulnerable. I’m not a Randian objectivist, but I do enjoy arguing objectivist points.

I believe that hope for humanity lies in how much people value each other.

The ideal altruist doesn’t have values. He sacrifices himself for the sake its own virtue. If he wants to sacrifice himself, then he has placed value in the sacrificial act and is acting in his own self-interest. It’s no longer altruism because even if he gives his life for something, what he gets out of it or what he saves in the process is more more valuable to him than what he gives up.

Which is why altruists are always down on everybody. There is always somebody who has something they don’t, or other people are surrounded by friends giving them stuff or helping them while they have nothing. But, you being the good altruist...you can’t actually SAY anything about it, or you’re being “selfish.” So the only thing you can do is join with the rest of the altruistic downtrodden and complain about how the world is run by greedy oligarchs and the 1% billionaires. Poor people in collectivist societies are often resentful and suspicious of each other, and that’s why. If there’s no value in altruism, why all the concern for the poor, the sick, and the elderly? Shouldn’t they just wait their turn just like everyone else, especially in a system based on equality?

Western conservatism is heavily influenced by objectivist thinking. People tend to care about each other. They take ownership of their friends and others in whom they see potential. You don’t want to see gramma languishing in a rundown house or a roach-infested nursing home where they wheel her out in the middle of the hallway and forget about her until mealtime or bedtime. No...you love her more than that, so you take her in or you help her get into a good assisted living unit. Or you see every widow, every Down’s kid, every cancer patient, every poor person who just needs a break and you say, “heck yeah I want my tax money to help these people through government programs.”

Conservatives see inherent value in each individual. If you look at the Southeastern United States, you find proportionally much more money given in charity than you do in the liberal North. It’s because Southern society has traditionally maintained a sense of solidarity and concern for each other. We want to make sure our money is going to causes we believe in. We want to see the human condition improved, and when our money doesn’t support people we know who need support, it upsets us.

Altruistic, leftist, government programs create a cycle of dependency. Some people cannot help dependency, which even conservatives will acknowledge. Leftist policies expand that dependency to include more people. The more people trapped in dependency, the wider their power base. Do NOT believe these people are well-intentioned. These people are bitter. They are entirely politically motivated. They will never admit it, but they are selfish. Some of them are wealthy, but make no mistake—they never work a single day of their lives for it. Their money is made on the backs of an ever-expanding pool of impoverished people who keep them in power while they write books that are largely fictional and self-promoting and charge exorbitant fees to speak at colleges and universities that are mostly supported through taxpayer money and student loans. Oh, sure, they’re beautiful Cinderella stories that appeal to the poor, but they never actually do anything to break the cycle of dependency. The poor adore these people but never question the source of their wealth.

Conservatives give people, even poor people, more credit than that and seek to create a world in which everyone CAN win. Leftists seek to create a world in which people only see the worst in others. To the left, success is a zero sum game that plays favorites.

Feminists are attracted to leftist ideology because leftists pretend to level the playing field. MEN are responsible for all the ills of women. Women cannot be held accountable for their status. In reality, if you level the playing field so that there are no losers, then you create a situation in which there are no winners. If you cannot win, it’s unreasonable to even play the game. So why even HAVE a game? Feminism holds that women’s issues are the only ones that mean anything. Women are entitled to anything they want, and men have to give it to them all in the name of equality. Feminists completely ignore that this creates gender inequality. They cannot possibly be hypocrites because they are WOMEN.

So...it’s no wonder they are attracted to the left.

The sad part is that conservatism actually does create much more opportunity, even and especially for women. All leftist feminism does is find something new to complain about.

I want to see the right reaching out to women who are out there reaching people with positive messages. I sometimes suspect Oprah Winfrey is an in-the-closet conservative, and I don’t care what her record is. I strongly dislike her New Age tendencies. But she is so positive, encouraging, and empowering. Conservatives desperately need that kind of message and those kinds of people to reach voters. Especially when it comes to women’s issues.

IMHO, women are smart and independent; therefore, responsible for their own sh_t.

Doesn't make me popular in liberal circles.

That's all well and good for you. I think you're probably a good person, and believes everything you posted. That said, you are in a distinct minority in conservative circles. All I ever hear from the right is how there are no classes, just individuals, and that we are all autonomous individuals rather than a society where all are dependant on one another. They claim the poor are poor entirely due to their own bad choices and laziness, while the rich - even those born into money - have been able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are the sort who say, "I'll help you by not helping you." Sure, liberalism is hardly perfect, but at least they try helping others. All that talk about liberalism causing dependency on government handouts doesn't take into account how the people in rural areas as well as inner cities have been deserted by business, and so there are no jobs to be had. The reason why Detroit look like the Mad Max world now is because the auto industry, after squeezing numerous concessions out of their workers, left those same loyal workers high and dry for greener pastures where they could get away with paying starvation wages with no benefits. And from there, there was a ripple effect, where businesses dependant on the auto industry and their workers with big paychecks suddenly found no more money coming in, and became destitute, too. Now, if the captains of the auto industry were the sort of conservatives as you, they would have been content being millionaires instead of billionaires, and still have more money than they could ever hope to spend.

LOL Oh, well----at least I'll be in good company!! (wink)