Is there no progression in politics, but only transferences?
02 Jan 2022, 12:51 am
I feel that there is when it comes to progressive politics, there is no real progression it seems and whatever new thing progressives become open minded about, they will become close minded of something else all the time.
For example, gay relationships use to be frowned upon a lot more but age gap relationships were considered normal. But now it's flipped around instead of both being accepted with open minds.
Cannabis use to be frowned upon with tobacco being normal, now they are flipped instead of both being accepted.
The conservatives use to be pro-censorship when it comes to content, but now they really don't care much, but the liberals have now become pro-censorship and regressing to what conservatives use to be.
Or how white people segregating colored people use to be acceptable, but now colored people are having 'no whites allowed policies in certain places like certain University areas, etc.
These are just examples, but I feel like there is no real progression in politics and only transferences, and for every progression it seems, there is a regression. Unless I am wrong?
02 Jan 2022, 2:45 am
That's because both political parties decided they hate one another and can't agree on anything...other than that they hate one another. It's hard to get much done in a two-party system when that's the case. At most, steps will temporarily be made in one direction, then move back in the other direction, rinse and repeat. Americans decided that's what they want though, so they can deal with the consequences. 
Also, both sides are pro-censorship. You should hear Conservative people howl when they see a piece of media they don't like. It's also a bit of an overgeneralization to assume progressivism means throwing straight, white, and/or male individuals under the bus. Many people just want equality, not tipping the scales in another direction. If there are problems with progressive policies, there are problems with those specific policies, and they ought to be revised.
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
02 Jan 2022, 4:13 pm
A more evolved and progressive take isn't just one about accepting everything, such that you don't give rights to women as you think it is more okay for men to beat women. I think that it is missunderstanding a lot of topics to think or see them as zero sum games of making one thing acceptable but becoming discriminatory about something else.
ironpony wrote:
For example, gay relationships use to be frowned upon a lot more but age gap relationships were considered normal. But now it's flipped around instead of both being accepted with open minds.
Acceptance of gay relationships has been based a lot on ideas of things like informed consent, and it being perfectly natural and healthy for gay relationships. I don't think that there is a big frown for all age gap relationships as progressives can still think some a fine, what there is an issues with are the ones that might be based on an imbalance of power, where there is a strong chance for an abusive. Specifically where one partner might be particularly young and could have been manipulated into the relationship, by a person who might have formed it because they like one with an imbalance of power of being able to control someone who has not fully matured.
ironpony wrote:
Cannabis use to be frowned upon with tobacco being normal, now they are flipped instead of both being accepted.
The acceptance of cannabis is in the face of a history where it was treated as a big bogeyman, which on the record has been used by governments as an excuse to crack down on certain minority groups, specifically from a Nixon era staffer to target black people and hippies. The pro elements have been to counter all the propaganda. While the frowning to tobacco has been in the face of a long history of propaganda created by tobacco companies, which hid information of its ill effects, and also altered their cigarettes to be more addictive, which is predatory. The change of opinions is also a lot about consent, where an adult can choose to enjoy some cannabis alone, but also that people around someone using a cigarette are not consenting to have to breath in that cancer smoke, especially kids and workers.
ironpony wrote:
The conservatives use to be pro-censorship when it comes to content, but now they really don't care much, but the liberals have now become pro-censorship and regressing to what conservatives use to be.
I think that conservatives are still super pro-censorship, where they melt down over diversity and LGBT stuff. The difference you are seeing is the changing of what is seen as acceptable, such that acceptance of a minority does actually mean that you have to not allow discrimination against a minority, otherwise you hit a tolerance paradox. Those changes in looking like the conservatives have become less concerned over censorship while progressives become more concerned, is because the censorship that the conservative was more in favour of has fallen out of favour, such that it isn't cool for them to call for it anymore, while being more popular to fight against the problematic things they were for. Essentially it is conservatives dragging their feet on progressive change of society.
Ironically for your statement with liberals, liberals are actually a problem with this, not progressives, since they stay that middle ground of liberally accepting both sides of acceptance and discrimination and stunt further change of moving the political compass, and effectively act as conservative light.
ironpony wrote:
Or how white people segregating colored people use to be acceptable, but now colored people are having 'no whites allowed policies in certain places like certain University areas, etc.
I don't know what specific cases are, and I am sure there probably having been some bad takes in particular areas of misinformed or misguided ideas. Where you are either looking at safe spaces aiming to try and undo some level of people feeling like a minority anywhere else, or you are looking at some political stunt that is aiming to make some message, which maybe made more sense in their head rather than how outsiders might see it. But regardless progressives in general are against the ideas like ethnic states, regardless of what group it is, especially in the faces Right wing movements that can come out of minority groups. Such that you see people like white supremacists saying they might even be for "colored people" having their own ethnic states, so they can get theirs, while supremacists of any other colour are seen by progressives as really just that, the same thing of a different colour, and maybe a difference of historical significance.
Pretty much, that seeing these as zero sum games, are either a misinformed idea of what is actually being talked about, or a stretching liberal take of seeing acceptance and discrimination as the same thing.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
03 Jan 2022, 12:47 am
Bradleigh wrote:
A more evolved and progressive take isn't just one about accepting everything, such that you don't give rights to women as you think it is more okay for men to beat women. I think that it is missunderstanding a lot of topics to think or see them as zero sum games of making one thing acceptable but becoming discriminatory about something else.
Acceptance of gay relationships has been based a lot on ideas of things like informed consent, and it being perfectly natural and healthy for gay relationships. I don't think that there is a big frown for all age gap relationships as progressives can still think some a fine, what there is an issues with are the ones that might be based on an imbalance of power, where there is a strong chance for an abusive. Specifically where one partner might be particularly young and could have been manipulated into the relationship, by a person who might have formed it because they like one with an imbalance of power of being able to control someone who has not fully matured.
The acceptance of cannabis is in the face of a history where it was treated as a big bogeyman, which on the record has been used by governments as an excuse to crack down on certain minority groups, specifically from a Nixon era staffer to target black people and hippies. The pro elements have been to counter all the propaganda. While the frowning to tobacco has been in the face of a long history of propaganda created by tobacco companies, which hid information of its ill effects, and also altered their cigarettes to be more addictive, which is predatory. The change of opinions is also a lot about consent, where an adult can choose to enjoy some cannabis alone, but also that people around someone using a cigarette are not consenting to have to breath in that cancer smoke, especially kids and workers.
I think that conservatives are still super pro-censorship, where they melt down over diversity and LGBT stuff. The difference you are seeing is the changing of what is seen as acceptable, such that acceptance of a minority does actually mean that you have to not allow discrimination against a minority, otherwise you hit a tolerance paradox. Those changes in looking like the conservatives have become less concerned over censorship while progressives become more concerned, is because the censorship that the conservative was more in favour of has fallen out of favour, such that it isn't cool for them to call for it anymore, while being more popular to fight against the problematic things they were for. Essentially it is conservatives dragging their feet on progressive change of society.
Ironically for your statement with liberals, liberals are actually a problem with this, not progressives, since they stay that middle ground of liberally accepting both sides of acceptance and discrimination and stunt further change of moving the political compass, and effectively act as conservative light.
I don't know what specific cases are, and I am sure there probably having been some bad takes in particular areas of misinformed or misguided ideas. Where you are either looking at safe spaces aiming to try and undo some level of people feeling like a minority anywhere else, or you are looking at some political stunt that is aiming to make some message, which maybe made more sense in their head rather than how outsiders might see it. But regardless progressives in general are against the ideas like ethnic states, regardless of what group it is, especially in the faces Right wing movements that can come out of minority groups. Such that you see people like white supremacists saying they might even be for "colored people" having their own ethnic states, so they can get theirs, while supremacists of any other colour are seen by progressives as really just that, the same thing of a different colour, and maybe a difference of historical significance.
Pretty much, that seeing these as zero sum games, are either a misinformed idea of what is actually being talked about, or a stretching liberal take of seeing acceptance and discrimination as the same thing.
ironpony wrote:
For example, gay relationships use to be frowned upon a lot more but age gap relationships were considered normal. But now it's flipped around instead of both being accepted with open minds.
Acceptance of gay relationships has been based a lot on ideas of things like informed consent, and it being perfectly natural and healthy for gay relationships. I don't think that there is a big frown for all age gap relationships as progressives can still think some a fine, what there is an issues with are the ones that might be based on an imbalance of power, where there is a strong chance for an abusive. Specifically where one partner might be particularly young and could have been manipulated into the relationship, by a person who might have formed it because they like one with an imbalance of power of being able to control someone who has not fully matured.
ironpony wrote:
Cannabis use to be frowned upon with tobacco being normal, now they are flipped instead of both being accepted.
The acceptance of cannabis is in the face of a history where it was treated as a big bogeyman, which on the record has been used by governments as an excuse to crack down on certain minority groups, specifically from a Nixon era staffer to target black people and hippies. The pro elements have been to counter all the propaganda. While the frowning to tobacco has been in the face of a long history of propaganda created by tobacco companies, which hid information of its ill effects, and also altered their cigarettes to be more addictive, which is predatory. The change of opinions is also a lot about consent, where an adult can choose to enjoy some cannabis alone, but also that people around someone using a cigarette are not consenting to have to breath in that cancer smoke, especially kids and workers.
ironpony wrote:
The conservatives use to be pro-censorship when it comes to content, but now they really don't care much, but the liberals have now become pro-censorship and regressing to what conservatives use to be.
I think that conservatives are still super pro-censorship, where they melt down over diversity and LGBT stuff. The difference you are seeing is the changing of what is seen as acceptable, such that acceptance of a minority does actually mean that you have to not allow discrimination against a minority, otherwise you hit a tolerance paradox. Those changes in looking like the conservatives have become less concerned over censorship while progressives become more concerned, is because the censorship that the conservative was more in favour of has fallen out of favour, such that it isn't cool for them to call for it anymore, while being more popular to fight against the problematic things they were for. Essentially it is conservatives dragging their feet on progressive change of society.
Ironically for your statement with liberals, liberals are actually a problem with this, not progressives, since they stay that middle ground of liberally accepting both sides of acceptance and discrimination and stunt further change of moving the political compass, and effectively act as conservative light.
ironpony wrote:
Or how white people segregating colored people use to be acceptable, but now colored people are having 'no whites allowed policies in certain places like certain University areas, etc.
I don't know what specific cases are, and I am sure there probably having been some bad takes in particular areas of misinformed or misguided ideas. Where you are either looking at safe spaces aiming to try and undo some level of people feeling like a minority anywhere else, or you are looking at some political stunt that is aiming to make some message, which maybe made more sense in their head rather than how outsiders might see it. But regardless progressives in general are against the ideas like ethnic states, regardless of what group it is, especially in the faces Right wing movements that can come out of minority groups. Such that you see people like white supremacists saying they might even be for "colored people" having their own ethnic states, so they can get theirs, while supremacists of any other colour are seen by progressives as really just that, the same thing of a different colour, and maybe a difference of historical significance.
Pretty much, that seeing these as zero sum games, are either a misinformed idea of what is actually being talked about, or a stretching liberal take of seeing acceptance and discrimination as the same thing.
Oh okay I see. Well I never thought of outlawing Cannabis was targeted towards black people specifically though, because there were a lot of countries were Cannabis was outlawed, such as my country, Canada, where it was still outlawed, even though there is not near as much of a black population. Plus I know a lot of white people who smoked it so it didn't seem like it was a non-white thing here, before it was legalized recently.
As for age gaps having power imbalances, it seems to me that could be a case, but kind of an assumption that most are like that, compared to other relationships with power imbalances that do not have age gaps. Unless most age gaps relationships do that a power imbalance and were about manipulation?
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
03 Jan 2022, 2:28 am
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see. Well I never thought of outlawing Cannabis was targeted towards black people specifically though, because there were a lot of countries were Cannabis was outlawed, such as my country, Canada, where it was still outlawed, even though there is not near as much of a black population. Plus I know a lot of white people who smoked it so it didn't seem like it was a non-white thing here, before it was legalized recently.
As for age gaps having power imbalances, it seems to me that could be a case, but kind of an assumption that most are like that, compared to other relationships with power imbalances that do not have age gaps. Unless most age gaps relationships do that a power imbalance and were about manipulation?
As for age gaps having power imbalances, it seems to me that could be a case, but kind of an assumption that most are like that, compared to other relationships with power imbalances that do not have age gaps. Unless most age gaps relationships do that a power imbalance and were about manipulation?
The history is there for America to have focused demonization being a poor man's drug which could be used to attack certain enemies of conservative parties. And world wide fall for that propaganda in scapegoating, creating an enemy to rally against.
The power imbalance thing is not just a hard rule, rather a case by case. Such as that a 19 year old might be at great risk of manipulations from say a 35 year old, who could leverage their financial position as a bit older, their brain being underdeveloped in comparison, and might see the other person as an authority figure which could make them open to manipulations by being paid attention to. I would hope we should also acknowledge that this is especially at risk for underaged people, where say a 15 year old could be at risk from even an 18 year old, and yet a lot of conservative areas want to keep things like those child marriages.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
03 Jan 2022, 2:42 am
Bradleigh wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see. Well I never thought of outlawing Cannabis was targeted towards black people specifically though, because there were a lot of countries were Cannabis was outlawed, such as my country, Canada, where it was still outlawed, even though there is not near as much of a black population. Plus I know a lot of white people who smoked it so it didn't seem like it was a non-white thing here, before it was legalized recently.
As for age gaps having power imbalances, it seems to me that could be a case, but kind of an assumption that most are like that, compared to other relationships with power imbalances that do not have age gaps. Unless most age gaps relationships do that a power imbalance and were about manipulation?
As for age gaps having power imbalances, it seems to me that could be a case, but kind of an assumption that most are like that, compared to other relationships with power imbalances that do not have age gaps. Unless most age gaps relationships do that a power imbalance and were about manipulation?
The history is there for America to have focused demonization being a poor man's drug which could be used to attack certain enemies of conservative parties. And world wide fall for that propaganda in scapegoating, creating an enemy to rally against.
The power imbalance thing is not just a hard rule, rather a case by case. Such as that a 19 year old might be at great risk of manipulations from say a 35 year old, who could leverage their financial position as a bit older, their brain being underdeveloped in comparison, and might see the other person as an authority figure which could make them open to manipulations by being paid attention to. I would hope we should also acknowledge that this is especially at risk for underaged people, where say a 15 year old could be at risk from even an 18 year old, and yet a lot of conservative areas want to keep things like those child marriages.
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
03 Jan 2022, 4:46 am
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
03 Jan 2022, 9:40 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
Oh okay. I thought that Cannabis was illegal before Nixon was in office though, unless I'm wrong?
03 Jan 2022, 3:14 pm
ironpony wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
Oh okay. I thought that Cannabis was illegal before Nixon was in office though, unless I'm wrong?
Nope, outlawed in 1970, Nixon elected in 1969. It was regulated (taxed) before that, but Nixon was the one that made it illegal. Prior to that. cannabis was a fairly common ingredient in many "health tonics", not unlike cocaine and heroin, back in the day.
03 Jan 2022, 3:19 pm
Marijuana has been illegal since at least the 1930s.
But some of the ingredients in marijuana were and are legally sold.
I feel the OP should read up on Theodore Roosevelt. He was both a "progressive" and a Republican. He believed in many things which would be called "Woke" now. However, he was conservative in some aspects.
Under the administrations of both Roosevelts, much "progress" was made-----despite the reactionary tendencies of some (some of whom were Democrats).
Both right-wingers and left-wingers could be reactionary, by the way.
03 Jan 2022, 3:38 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
Marijuana has been illegal since at least the 1930s.
But some of the ingredients in marijuana were and are legally sold.
I feel the OP should read up on Theodore Roosevelt. He was both a "progressive" and a Republican. He believed in many things which would be called "Woke" now. However, he was conservative in some aspects.
Under the administrations of both Roosevelts, much "progress" was made-----despite the reactionary tendencies of some (some of whom were Democrats).
Both right-wingers and left-wingers could be reactionary, by the way.
But some of the ingredients in marijuana were and are legally sold.
I feel the OP should read up on Theodore Roosevelt. He was both a "progressive" and a Republican. He believed in many things which would be called "Woke" now. However, he was conservative in some aspects.
Under the administrations of both Roosevelts, much "progress" was made-----despite the reactionary tendencies of some (some of whom were Democrats).
Both right-wingers and left-wingers could be reactionary, by the way.
It became controlled in the 30's, it was not outright illegal until 1970. Between the 30's and 70's, it was still allowed to be used for medical and scientific use, not unlike the exceptions to alcohol prohibition. You just went to your local Doc, slipped him a few bills, and he'd write you a prescription for cannabis tonic. It wasn't until 1970 that it was outlawed entirely.
04 Jan 2022, 12:50 am
I don't think age gap couples (assuming they're both consenting adults) face the same kind of discrimination that same-sex couples faced in the past, or in some cases, still do in the present.
However, some views that are currently labelled as "progressive" on the internet strike me as extremely regressive, segregationist and racist.
I.e., the idea that race is the most important defining attribute of a person and that anybody who doesn't think so is racist.
Or that it's a good idea to make assumptions about people based on factors beyond their control (such as what race, gender or sexual identity they were born as) as long as you add the extra step of "I'm not judging them for their race, I'm judging their privilege" which I see as roughly equivalent to "I'm not judging people for being gay, I'm judging the gay lifestyle."
Or that culture and art should be divided up by race and that nobody should be allowed to admire/be inspired by artists of another race.
However, I think it's important to keep perspective that the people who believe these things don't necessarily have the power to actually enforce their views. It's more of an annoyance.
04 Jan 2022, 1:36 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
Oh okay. I thought that Cannabis was illegal before Nixon was in office though, unless I'm wrong?
Nope, outlawed in 1970, Nixon elected in 1969. It was regulated (taxed) before that, but Nixon was the one that made it illegal. Prior to that. cannabis was a fairly common ingredient in many "health tonics", not unlike cocaine and heroin, back in the day.
But when you say it was legal before Nixon were people allowed to buy it for smoking recreationally though?
04 Jan 2022, 1:55 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
Oh okay, but do other countries outlaw cannabis as means of fighting political opponents?
05 Jan 2022, 1:32 am
ironpony wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. but what about nations that outlaw cannabis where there do not seem to be minority groups. For example, I have a friend who is fillipino and she says it's outlawed in her country, but there are no minority groups to make enemies of there in the comparison to the US though. So it seems that a fair amount of nations hate cannabis and it's not about minority groups?
As for the age gap relationships, if it is such a bad thing, how come it was acceptable years ago and no one had a problem with it until now or what changed?
Most nations have minorities. They just look different. What would make you think that other nations don't have minorities? What would make you think the filipines don't have minorities? "Minority" just means you make up a smaller part of the whole than the rest. A catholic in daoist china. An iranian living in india. Being gay almost anywhere in africa. And you can be a political minority, as well.
In the case of cannabis use in america, it wasn't that minorities were targeted just cos they were minorities, and that seemed like the thing to do on a thursday night - they were also political opponents. Specifically, anti-war protesters against Nixon. He couldn't make it illegal to be a hippie, or to protest, but he noticed they tended to smoke the reefer, so we went after that as an excuse to go after his political opponents.
Many times, people will make decisions, and years later, think back on those decisions, and wonder if those decisions are still right. It's called reflection or re-evaluation. We also used to be ok with making kids work in coal mines all day, and not letting women vote or own property. But one day, we questioned those behaviors, and decide that maybe they weren't who we still wanted to be as a society after all. Well, some people might still want women to not own property, but society s a whole has decided that yes, we should in fact let women own property.
As for what changed, people live longer, and women have more rights. Getting married when you're 10 and having kids by 15 made more sense when the average life expectancy was 40, and marriage was mostly a means of consolidating property or gaining status. Men often did, and still oftendo, go their whole lives loving the single life, and then when they're old suddenly want an heir to carry on their mantle. So they get the hot young wife to rear the new Junior, now that daddy realizes he isn't going to live forever. But now we live to be 100, kids aren't expected to stop being kids until they're 18, or 21, and women don't need to get married to have access to property and prosperity, like they used to.
Times change. People change. The world changes. Things change.
Oh okay, but do other countries outlaw cannabis as means of fighting political opponents?
Yes. In fact, the Filipino government has been accused of using drug charges as an excuse to jail (or execute) political opponents.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Work politics and “playing the game” |
10 Mar 2024, 4:18 pm |
| Oath Keeper's Son Enters Politics |
25 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
