The Weird Rise of the ‘Post-Left’

[GeneticBlueprint]

14 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Was it? It was pretty much mainstream republican stuff since forever, just covered up better I guess. But it’s pretty much all standard fare.

 

13 minutes ago, stepee said:

Any repression from some big anti sex movement or whatever would work itself out anyway as the type of contrarian pushing that would no longer be interested if it got too popular and the next generation would just push back against 

 

I don’t think Trumpism is standard conservatism though it compliments some areas social areas for sure. But I’m more referring to his cult of personality that absolutely started as a little niche thing and then dominated the entire party. And because of that a large group of women in this country don’t have access to abortion and other life saving procedures. I can envision some other nightmare scenario if some of these weirdos start organizing. 

[stepee]

7 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

 

I don’t think Trumpism is standard conservatism though it compliments some areas social areas for sure. But I’m more referring to his cult of personality that absolutely started as a little niche thing and then dominated the entire party. And because of that a large group of women in this country don’t have access to abortion and other life saving procedures. I can envision some other nightmare scenario if some of these weirdos start organizing. 

 

 

I mean, anything is possible :P

 

But I’m not seeing, say the foreshadowing equivalent of the tea party for draconian anti-sex laws. Any weird online social media craze could become some larger problem, but if you went around fretting over all of them you’d probably need an IV filled of whisky.

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Also, Dolezal is basically the only case I’ve ever really heard of “transracial” identity, but it just seems pretty cringey with a white woman claiming to be Black and acting like she’s had the “Black experience.” Seems a bit too much like extreme cultural appropriation to me. 

 

I've heard it used by international adoptees who are trying to reconnect with the culture they were adopted from. 

[Fizzzzle]

Also, just because I apparently want to hijack every thread to talk about this (kidding, but I had a thought that was tangentially related to this topic and wanted to run with it), there's a legitimate argument that racism didn't cause slavery - slavery caused racism.

 

It's kind of a fascinating rabbit hole to jump down. The first enslaved Africans didn't arrive in America until 1619. For a while, most labor in the south was done by indentured servants with a few enslaved people here and there, but race isn't specifically mentioned. There's a common myth that the first person to own slaves in America was a black man, which is not true, but it did happen. In the most famous case, his name was Anthony Johnson, and the reason that we know about him is because of a court case involving a "laborer" of his who was allegedly set free and then Johnson tried to take him back. The courts ruled in Johnson's favor, which is one of the earliest incidences that we can point to to say "slavery must have been an accepted thing already since the courts already had precedence." Basically, we know that enslaved people came to Virginia in 1619, but specific laws about their treatment, status, etc. weren't a thing until decades later.

 

There's actually a lot we don't know about how Virginia and Maryland operated during the 17th century because records were lost and we've lost a bunch of context, but the first law that we know of that specifically mentions race was a law passed in Maryland 1664 that specifically equated blackness with slavery, essentially making it illegal to be a free black person in the colony. At the same time, they also made it illegal for white women to marry enslaved men (I suppose the theory was that if a white woman married a slave, there would be a case for his freedom, which could become a loophole).

 

It's important to note that these laws were NOT widely popular at the time. The most famous example of backlash would be Bacon's Rebellion in 1676-1677. Bacon's Rebellion could be considered to be America's first labor revolt and was comprised of indentured servants, slaves, and just people who wanted to fuck shit up in general (as an aside: these still aren't good people - part of the reason the rebellion started in the first place had to do with massacring native people and taking their land). People at the time could see what these laws were trying to do and weren't happy about it.

 

I say all that to say - part of the reason why our concept of "race" became a thing is a story of power and labor. "These are the people who perform labor, you can tell by the color of their skin," etc. It wasn't something that happened overnight; it took up to a century to develop.

 

 

... what were we talking about again?

[best3444]

11 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Also, just because I apparently want to hijack every thread to talk about this (kidding, but I had a thought that was tangentially related to this topic and wanted to run with it), there's a legitimate argument that racism didn't cause slavery - slavery caused racism.

 

It's kind of a fascinating rabbit hole to jump down. The first enslaved Africans didn't arrive in America until 1619. For a while, most labor in the south was done by indentured servants with a few enslaved people here and there, but race isn't specifically mentioned. There's a common myth that the first person to own slaves in America was a black man, which is not true, but it did happen. In the most famous case, his name was Anthony Johnson, and the reason that we know about him is because of a court case involving a "laborer" of his who was allegedly set free and then Johnson tried to take him back. The courts ruled in Johnson's favor, which is one of the earliest incidences that we can point to to say "slavery must have been an accepted thing already since the courts already had precedence." Basically, we know that enslaved people came to Virginia in 1619, but specific laws about their treatment, status, etc. weren't a thing until decades later.

 

There's actually a lot we don't know about how Virginia and Maryland operated during the 17th century because records were lost and we've lost a bunch of context, but the first law that we know of that specifically mentions race was a law passed in Maryland 1664 that specifically equated blackness with slavery, essentially making it illegal to be a free black person in the colony. At the same time, they also made it illegal for white women to marry enslaved men (I suppose the theory was that if a white woman married a slave, there would be a case for his freedom, which could become a loophole).

 

It's important to note that these laws were NOT widely popular at the time. The most famous example of backlash would be Bacon's Rebellion in 1676-1677. Bacon's Rebellion could be considered to be America's first labor revolt and was comprised of indentured servants, slaves, and just people who wanted to fuck shit up in general (as an aside: these still aren't good people - part of the reason the rebellion started in the first place had to do with massacring native people and taking their land). People at the time could see what these laws were trying to do and weren't happy about it.

 

I say all that to say - part of the reason why our concept of "race" became a thing is a story of power and labor. "These are the people who perform labor, you can tell by the color of their skin," etc. It wasn't something that happened overnight; it took up to a century to develop.

 

 

... what were we talking about again?

 

Why aren't you a history professor? You surprise me all the time with historical facts and interesting topics. 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, stepee said:

 

 

I mean, anything is possible :P

 

But I’m not seeing, say the foreshadowing equivalent of the tea party for draconian anti-sex laws. Any weird online social media craze could become some larger problem, but if you went around fretting over all of them you’d probably need an IV filled of whisky.

 

I'm not fretting, but mentioning a growing group on the left that fits this threads' subject of left to right pipelines politically. I'm not worried about sex being outlawed, but I am concerned with people trying to make our cultures less permissive - it's not just sex, but a lot of things potentially. I think you are downplaying this too much, I agree with @GeneticBlueprint that once upon a time everyone laughed at Trump initially running for president, and now we're all worried that he may get re-elected. These things grow in the shadows and suddenly its upon us, so I'd keep an eye out for what an entire generation(s) believes in culturally. 

[Reputator]

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Also, just because I apparently want to hijack every thread to talk about this (kidding, but I had a thought that was tangentially related to this topic and wanted to run with it), there's a legitimate argument that racism didn't cause slavery - slavery caused racism.

 

It's kind of a fascinating rabbit hole to jump down. The first enslaved Africans didn't arrive in America until 1619. For a while, most labor in the south was done by indentured servants with a few enslaved people here and there, but race isn't specifically mentioned. There's a common myth that the first person to own slaves in America was a black man, which is not true, but it did happen. In the most famous case, his name was Anthony Johnson, and the reason that we know about him is because of a court case involving a "laborer" of his who was allegedly set free and then Johnson tried to take him back. The courts ruled in Johnson's favor, which is one of the earliest incidences that we can point to to say "slavery must have been an accepted thing already since the courts already had precedence." Basically, we know that enslaved people came to Virginia in 1619, but specific laws about their treatment, status, etc. weren't a thing until decades later.

 

There's actually a lot we don't know about how Virginia and Maryland operated during the 17th century because records were lost and we've lost a bunch of context, but the first law that we know of that specifically mentions race was a law passed in Maryland 1664 that specifically equated blackness with slavery, essentially making it illegal to be a free black person in the colony. At the same time, they also made it illegal for white women to marry enslaved men (I suppose the theory was that if a white woman married a slave, there would be a case for his freedom, which could become a loophole).

 

It's important to note that these laws were NOT widely popular at the time. The most famous example of backlash would be Bacon's Rebellion in 1676-1677. Bacon's Rebellion could be considered to be America's first labor revolt and was comprised of indentured servants, slaves, and just people who wanted to fuck shit up in general (as an aside: these still aren't good people - part of the reason the rebellion started in the first place had to do with massacring native people and taking their land). People at the time could see what these laws were trying to do and weren't happy about it.

 

I say all that to say - part of the reason why our concept of "race" became a thing is a story of power and labor. "These are the people who perform labor, you can tell by the color of their skin," etc. It wasn't something that happened overnight; it took up to a century to develop.

 

 

... what were we talking about again?

 

Damn, that kinda turns a lot of what I knew on its head. Fascinating!

[Fizzzzle]

40 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Damn, that kinda turns a lot of what I knew on its head. Fascinating!

I encourage you to actually read about any of those things, not least because I massively oversimplified things and almost assuredly said something wrong. But the story of the beginnings of laws based on race and the story of Bacon's rebellion are fascinating and they do intertwine.

[Reputator]

Just now, Fizzzzle said:

I encourage you to actually read about any of those things, not least because I massively oversimplified things and almost assuredly said something wrong. But the story of the beginnings of laws based on race and the story of Bacon's rebellion are fascinating and they do intertwine.

 

I'm too ADHD for that but I appreciate your cliffnotes version!

[stepee]

Actually, I think I have found MY limit:

 

Linux is the only OS to support diagonal PC monitor mode — dev champions the case for 22-degree-rotation computing | Tom's Hardware

WWW.TOMSHARDWARE.COM

---

2024 could be the year of the Linux diagonal desktop.

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

7 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Also, just because I apparently want to hijack every thread to talk about this (kidding, but I had a thought that was tangentially related to this topic and wanted to run with it), there's a legitimate argument that racism didn't cause slavery - slavery caused racism.

 

It's kind of a fascinating rabbit hole to jump down. The first enslaved Africans didn't arrive in America until 1619. For a while, most labor in the south was done by indentured servants with a few enslaved people here and there, but race isn't specifically mentioned. There's a common myth that the first person to own slaves in America was a black man, which is not true, but it did happen. In the most famous case, his name was Anthony Johnson, and the reason that we know about him is because of a court case involving a "laborer" of his who was allegedly set free and then Johnson tried to take him back. The courts ruled in Johnson's favor, which is one of the earliest incidences that we can point to to say "slavery must have been an accepted thing already since the courts already had precedence." Basically, we know that enslaved people came to Virginia in 1619, but specific laws about their treatment, status, etc. weren't a thing until decades later.

 

There's actually a lot we don't know about how Virginia and Maryland operated during the 17th century because records were lost and we've lost a bunch of context, but the first law that we know of that specifically mentions race was a law passed in Maryland 1664 that specifically equated blackness with slavery, essentially making it illegal to be a free black person in the colony. At the same time, they also made it illegal for white women to marry enslaved men (I suppose the theory was that if a white woman married a slave, there would be a case for his freedom, which could become a loophole).

 

It's important to note that these laws were NOT widely popular at the time. The most famous example of backlash would be Bacon's Rebellion in 1676-1677. Bacon's Rebellion could be considered to be America's first labor revolt and was comprised of indentured servants, slaves, and just people who wanted to fuck shit up in general (as an aside: these still aren't good people - part of the reason the rebellion started in the first place had to do with massacring native people and taking their land). People at the time could see what these laws were trying to do and weren't happy about it.

 

I say all that to say - part of the reason why our concept of "race" became a thing is a story of power and labor. "These are the people who perform labor, you can tell by the color of their skin," etc. It wasn't something that happened overnight; it took up to a century to develop.

 

 

... what were we talking about again?

tldr

[Fizzzzle]

17 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

tldr

Idk I typed that in a fugue state.

[unogueen]

Anyways.  You're fighting a cult. It's not a demographic it's a cult.

[Xbob42]

See, an inherent issue with the ol' two party system is that if you feel alienated from your party, your only other choice is a party you're probably a hundred times more alienated by. I think folks just gotta accept that you don't need to slot neatly into your party, because it's not actually part of your identity. It's a choice you make based on your identity, but if you're looking to "fit in" to a huge generic conglomerate of half a nation, that's getting lost in the woods. "The Left" isn't a close-knit group of best buddies, it's just a lot of folks who happen to, at least at this point in time, align far more with progressive values than whatever the fuck "The Right" has been up to lately. Your party alignment isn't a glove, it's a blanket. It doesn't have to fit perfectly, it just has to get the job done.

 

Also;

 

[unogueen]

Maga is religious mesmerization  by Hollywood standards.

[TUFKAK]

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm not fretting, but mentioning a growing group on the left that fits this threads' subject of left to right pipelines politically. I'm not worried about sex being outlawed, but I am concerned with people trying to make our cultures less permissive - it's not just sex, but a lot of things potentially. I think you are downplaying this too much, I agree with @GeneticBlueprint that once upon a time everyone laughed at Trump initially running for president, and now we're all worried that he may get re-elected. These things grow in the shadows and suddenly its upon us, so I'd keep an eye out for what an entire generation(s) believes in culturally. 

I dismiss the movement because I’ve been hearing about them since I was a first year undergrad, “all sex is rape” is something I distinctly remember hearing in discussion once and it remains a fringe of the fringe.

 

The Roman’s also tried to legislate sexual morality and that worked out super well 😉

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I am so confused on this new gen stuff saying sex is bad. This is literally the first time I’ve heard of it. 
 

wtf 

[TUFKAK]

10 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I am so confused on this new gen stuff saying sex is bad. This is literally the first time I’ve heard of it. 
 

wtf 

To be fair the person in the above reference I shared was in my generation, they have just metastasized online now.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

Also;

 

SMN = “shoot me now”, or “suck my nipple”?

[Xbob42]

10 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

SMN = “shoot me now”, or “suck my nipple”?

Some More News, but I'm sure they've had a Suck My Nipple segment once or twice!

[Spork3245]

21 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Some More News, but I'm sure they've had a Suck My Nipple segment once or twice!

[Fizzzzle]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:39 AM, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I am so confused on this new gen stuff saying sex is bad. This is literally the first time I’ve heard of it. 
 

wtf 

I have also been confused by that. It's kind of concerning that there is an entire group of people that equate sex to power in any context. I feel like it's an overcorrection, not l but I suppose that's the way of things.

[TUFKAK]

4 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

I have also been confused by that. It's kind of concerning that there is an entire group of people that equate sex to power in any context. I feel like it's an overcorrection, not l but I suppose that's the way of things.

Good sex always contains a power dynamic imo, the issue is that some people see that as a negative.

[Fizzzzle]

Just now, TUFKAK said:

Good sex always contains a power dynamic imo, the issue is that some people see that as a negative.

Yeah, I suppose there's an ideal that the ultimate expression of sex is completely egalitarian, and if you've ever been in an relationship where you and your partner cum at the same time almost every single time, that is the ideal. But it takes time to get to that point and some/most people never get there. That doesn't make their sex invalid or abusive.

 

I DO agree with the younger people that we need more platonic relationships between sexes depicted in movies. That is absolutely a thing. But I fear that we're going too far into the demonization of sex because people can't separate sex from power dynamics. Those two things are a venn diagram, not a flow chart.

[TUFKAK]

3 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Yeah, I suppose there's an ideal that the ultimate expression of sex is completely egalitarian, and if you've ever been in an relationship where you and your partner cum at the same time almost every single time, that is the ideal. But it takes time to get to that point and some/most people never get there. That doesn't make their sex invalid or abusive.

 

I DO agree with the younger people that we need more platonic relationships between sexes depicted in movies. That is absolutely a thing. But I fear that we're going too far into the demonization of sex because people can't separate sex from power dynamics. Those two things are a venn diagram, not a flow chart.

And sometimes just being used by your partner is good sex too. I’ve legit gone down on my fiancé so I didn’t have to do the dishes, I fucking hate dishes. Mutual climax isn’t always a requirement, there are many times I’ve not gotten off, it didn’t make the sex less enjoyable I’d abusive.

 

I’m willing to bet there’s a lot of trauma underpinning these people who see it that way.

[SuperSpreader]

It also negates the women's movement and starts to put women back in a box or a particular role. It's a little "oh a woman having pleasure!? my goodness gracious!"

[elbobo]

On 12/31/2023 at 3:51 AM, TUFKAK said:

To be fair the person in the above reference I shared was in my generation, they have just metastasized online now.

 

Is a lot of gen Z like this though or is just the overly vocal terminally online 1% that makes a lot of noise but are really outliers like it is with a lot of groups?

 

I don't spend a lot of time with teenagers but at Christmas my 13 year old niece was bemoaning the fact that she doesn't have a boyfriend while most of her friends do.

 

In a fight between teenager's hormones and society induced prudishness I am taking hormones 99 out of 100 times

[TUFKAK]

1 minute ago, elbobo said:

 

Is a lot of gen Z like this though or is just the overly vocal terminally online 1% that makes a lot of noise but are really outliers like it is with a lot of groups?

 

I don't spend a lot of time with teenagers but at Christmas my 13 year old niece was bemoaning the fact that she doesn't have a boyfriend while most of her friends do.

 

In a fight between teenager's hormones and society induced prudishness I am taking hormones 99 out of 100 times

Oh it is 100% a fringe of a fringe. I have no doubts about this. Now, imagine it's even 500 thousand people, that's not even 1% of gen Z let alone our population as a whole. Social media just amplifies these peoples voices where it always existed, if you read some old school feminist literature there were even undercurrents then saying all sex is rape, it's not a new belief, it's just found a community online like incels have.