How America Became Infatuated With a Cartoonish Idea of ‘Alpha Males’

[Odin]

Given some of the discussions in other threads I thought this was an interesting read.

Quote:Ever since there have been men, those men have looked at other men and said to themselves, I want what that guy has. It has always been the case that some men, by dint of noble birth or symmetric features or an effortless sense of humor, have had the most access to sex, resources, and society’s esteem.
It’s only been fairly recently, though, that we’ve come up with a tidy, sciencey-sounding taxonomy that can explain why some men — and for the purposes of a conversation that is about attracting women, we’re talking about straight ones — get what they want while others toil endlessly with little to show for it. “Alpha males” are the winners, and “betas” are always a step, if not several laps, behind. (And don’t even ask about omega males.) And while the alpha male/beta male model sometimes feels intuitively correct, and has influenced many, many internet-age kids, make no mistake: It’s dying, even if its adherents are louder than ever.

There are many definitions of “alpha male,” but the term, as it has most commonly been interpreted recently, involves a level of dominance: Alphas get their way because they know how to, because they know to not back down. To butcher the old expression, women respond to alphas’ strength by wanting them, men respond to it by wanting to be them. But a liaison, relationship, or friendship is only going to occur on the alpha’s terms: He has neither the inclination to compromise, nor any need to, since he can always get — let’s be honest, take — what he wants. Alphas offer few wasted words — you won’t see them sputtering some nonsense about their feelings, or begging others to like them. To the outside observer, everything comes easily to them.
The concept of the alpha male comes from the animal kingdom, and interest in the sorts of animal hierarchies led by alphas picked up greatly in the second half of the 20th century. Google Scholar can only provide a rough estimate, of course, but it returns 11 research mentions of “alpha male” between 1900 and 1950, and about 2,220 for the period between 1950 and 2000. Google Books shows a similar trend: The term barely existed in books until 1960 — though in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, first published in 1932, human beings were assigned, from fetushood on, to a caste ranging from alpha to epsilon — and since then has been on a mostly consistent upswing.

A solid chunk of that upswing comes from primatology research — researchers have long been fascinated by the complicated social structures of chimps, gorillas, and our other evolutionary cousins. The alpha chimp and the silverback gorilla, physically imposing as they often are (alpha chimps have been known to rip tree stumps out of the ground in terrifying displays of dominance), have come to symbolize in the public imagination a natural order that favors a single dominant male “winner.”

Even after discussion of alpha males was well established in various fields of animal behavior, though, the concept was rarely applied to humans. What changed that, at least in part, was the release of the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal’s book Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes in 1982. “I don’t think the term alpha male was in use outside of primatology when I wrote Chimpanzee Politics,” de Waal told me in an email.

Part of the appeal of de Waal’s best seller, which told the story of the six years he spent observing a colony of captive chimps in the Netherlands, was the idea that it could offer insights into human life, too, and naturally one of the messages that echoed the loudest had to do with alpha-chimp behavior. One Chicago Tribune article, for example, flipped back and forth between scenes from de Waal’s research and human scenarios from a real-life office, with a natural focus on males near the top of the hierarchy grappling for power. “The startling thing about chimpanzee corporate life is how much it resembles our own,” remarked the article’s author, Duncan Maxwell Anderson, in a sentence that only makes sense if you don’t think too hard about it. He also pointed out that “a Dutch consulting firm … ordered 100 copies [of Chimpanzee Politics] and gave them to all the firm’s clients and employees.” Indeed, the book’s promotional materials note that it was “acclaimed not only by primatologists for its scientific achievement but also by politicians, business leaders, and social psychologists for its remarkable insights into the most basic human needs and behaviors.”

Still, the concept of the human alpha didn’t quite break through to the mainstream — it took a couple more decades for that to happen. As late as the mid-1990s popular outlets wrote about alpha males in an introductory manner. “Take a powder, sensitive guy,” went a USA Today article from 1996. “The new ideal man — at least, if you believe the latest issue of Esquire — is a superior fellow the mag dubs the ‘alpha male.’ And he’s putting the ‘man’ back in manhood.” Naturally, there were instances of backlash too, with one 1998 article on Silicon Valley alphas in the San Jose Mercury News offering a cautionary note: “[B]eware, say researchers who specialize in the study of these so-called ‘alpha males’ — the business world’s top dogs. The same traits prized by their colleagues could just as easily undercut their personal lives, contributing to family stress, higher odds of infidelity, divorce and overwork.”

It was Al Gore, though, who really helped the idea of male alphas and betas blow up in the 1990s. In late 1999, Time magazine, reporting on Gore’s hiring of Naomi Wolf as a consultant, reported that “Wolf has argued internally that Gore is a ‘Beta male’ who needs to take on the ‘Alpha male’ in the Oval Office before the public will see him as the top dog.” This notion — that Gore was trying to step out of the hypermasculine shadow of Bill Clinton — proved irresistible to the media. “Can Gore Go Alpha?” wondered the Times in a 1999 article which then then offered some thoughts from experts on how Gore could achieve the alphaness he was seeking. One of those experts suggested that he was just too loyal a husband and father to be an alpha: “He stays with the same woman, he likes his kids. He’s photographed with the grandchild. He doesn’t hide his age, He’s perfectly decent, and real men aren’t perfectly decent.” Naturally, Wolf didn’t take well to the narrative that she was trying to turn Gore into an aggressive bulldog. “Naomi Wolf, the feminist writer turned feminist campaign consultant, disputes the notion that she has been giving Al Gore secret lessons in how to bare his teeth, growl and get elected leader of the pack,” led a Times story a few days days later — Wolf claimed she had only mentioned the term once.

So, by the dawn of the 21st century, a lot of people were aware, at least in passing, of the concept of a human alpha male. But it was still something of an abstraction; it still hadn’t quite taken hold as a goal that normal guys could reach for. In 2005, The Game, Neil Strauss’s mega-bestselling account of his time in the pickup-artist community, changed that — in the long run, it turned alphadom into a real-world, achievable goal for perhaps millions of men.
A big part of the reason it made such an epochal splash was that Strauss himself is very much a normal guy — a schlubby writer who never had much success with the ladies. But the adoption of some simple wisdom changes that. Early on in the book, Strauss recounts the lessons he learns from Mystery, a pickup artist famous for, among other things, encouraging his protégés to “peacock” by wearing garishly ridiculous clothing. Mystery explains to Strauss and the other would-be Casanovas what it means to be alpha: “Besides confidence and a smile, we learned [from Mystery], the other characteristics of an alpha male were being well-groomed, possessing a sense of humor, connecting with people, and being seen as the social center of a room,” Strauss writes. (Betas, on the other hand — and this definition seems consistent wherever you go — are frequently ignored or mocked by women, viewed by their peers as pushovers, and rarely get what they want, partly because they’re scared to truly go after it.)

Thanks in part to these lessons, Strauss is soon enjoying what what can only be described as a full-blown sexual extravaganza. This became the Ur-narrative of the alpha-male movement: Betas — even pathetic, helpless-seeming betas — can become alphas if they put enough time into it. Whether through neuro-linguistic programming or nutritional supplements or body-language training or whatever the other alpha-izing trick du jour is, there’s always something that can be done to improve the situation, and it always involves becoming more assertive and/or imposing and/or dominant.

This idea proved to be catnip for men hoping to achieve the level of success — sexual, career, etc., but mostly sexual — that seemed to come so agonizingly easily to other men. The notion of the alpha male took all sorts of different frustrations and dysfunctions and envies and swept them together into a simple binary. Either you’re alpha or you’re not, and if you aren’t, boy, is a lot of failure going to spring from that deficiency. The good news is that it can (usually) be fixed: “If you’ve read the traits and characteristics of a beta male and find that you fit the mold, understand that being a beta male is a choice,” notes one guide.

But how does one choose to break these patterns? What does it mean to become an alpha? Self-proclaimed experts have always disagreed about this, and that’s where the internet has stepped in. Over the last 20 years — but particularly since The Game’s release — a vast ecosystem of alpha-oriented online communities have popped up to teach men how to crawl out of the sad pit of their betadom. All draw on Strauss-style narratives of pathetic schlubs metamorphosing into sparkling alphas (sometimes, in the case of the attire Mystery favors, literally sparkling).

There’s endless appetite for this stuff: Young men desperately need to know whether they are alpha and, if not, what they can do to avert the slow-motion catastrophe of perpetual betadom. That’s why large segments of the internet have turned into a thick sludge of alpha-male content. A quick Google search for “How to be an alpha male” returns 16.5 million results where you can get you information on how to be an alpha male (from “The Attraction Institute”); read signs you’re not an alpha male (according to AskMen, non-alphas panic in a crisis, suck up to their superiors, and let women pick up the check); et cetera ad infinitum. Amazon’s book collection offers endless opportunities to improve your alpha game.

All this content has some breezy science affixed to it, of course — in 2016, what would a self-improvement plan be without some empirical-sounding buzzwords to throw around? In the case of alpha-dominance, the natural corresponding field is evolutionary psychology, or the study of how ancient evolutionary impulses forged millennia ago affect our behavior in the present day. It’s a real discipline with real insights to offer, but the version of it embraced by the alphateers is a bastardized, pseudoscientific strain wielded mostly by people seeking to reinforce traditional roles of masculinity and femininity, and the latter has fed into the former: Seek out a guide to alpha-maleness, and stories about how because something something something survival on the savannah millennia ago, women are drawn to physically and socially dominant men won’t be far behind.

These story lines, based as they are on misinterpretations and hysterical overextrapolations of our “natural” gender roles, feed rather fantastical visions of what it means to be a man, an adult, or both. Minutes after diving into the most alpha-obsessed pockets of the internet, you will come across stuff that reads as though the authors have rarely, if ever, interacted with other human adults in the real world: “Yes, you have to be dettached a bit [sic], put yourself first, cater to your own needs first, but an alpha is naturally a leader of a community, a leader of both men and women, and so he needs to have a certain level of empathy towards others,” goes a post entitled “Lessons from evolutionary psychology: traits of the alpha male” on TheRedPill, a rather infamous subreddit dedicated to “Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.” The poster continues: “He has always been the protector of others. He is the one who was in charge of ensuring their survival.” (Wait, remind me whether we’re talking about humans or chimps again?)
The appeals to nature and the wild show up again and again — a big chunk of being alpha, readers are told, has to do with dominating others. And to dominate others, it’s important not to come across as a pussy, because in those chimp colonies the pussy-apes always get punked. In his second rule for “How to Become a More Dominant Man,” Mike Cernovich, a well-known and rather acerbic manosphere presence with 45,000 Twitter followers, tells his readers to “Stop smiling so much, you goofs.” “Girls always tell me I need to smile more,” he writes. “Well if girls think I am so ugly with my Mr. Frowny Face, why are they always talking to me and grabbing my arms and telling me how great my back feels when they hug me? I smile when around my god daughters and my dog. Otherwise I don’t see any need to smile like some goof.”

Did you notice the mixed signals? Just a few paragraphs ago, Mystery told us to smile. Which is it? This sort of contradiction is a common theme in alpha-land. Should you smile, or no? Should you confidently approach women, or ignore them, making yourself out to be the center of the room until they come to you? How much empathy should you exhibit? Different peddlers of alpha offer different answers. These inconsistencies raise the question of just how rigorous and scientific the idea of an alpha male really is.

For most straight males who grew up in the internet age, at least some aspect of the alpha-male idea has become deeply internalized. And kids caught in the wrong place at the wrong time — those who don’t have access to a leavening view of masculinity, women, and so on — can end up tumbling pretty far down the rabbit hole — again, just go to TheRedPill on Reddit.

Luckily, some researchers have started debunking and complicating the concept of the alpha male in important ways. The best such dissection was written by the cognitive psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman a couple years ago. In his essay, Kaufman takes the reader through a small pile of the social-science literature on masculinity, relationships, and dominance, and comes to the conclusion that when you actually review the literature carefully, a much more nuanced, less Neanderthalic portrait of successful masculinity emerges:

Quote:The dominant male who is demanding, violent, and self-centered is not considered attractive to most women, whereas the dominant male who is assertive and confident is considered attractive. As the researchers suggest, “Men who dominate others because of leadership qualities and other superior abilities and who therefore are able and willing to provide for their families quite possibly will be preferred to potential partners who lack these attributes.”

Their results also suggest that sensitivity and assertiveness are not opposites. In fact, further research suggests that the combination of kindness and assertiveness might just be the most attractive pairing. Across three studies, Lauri Jensen-Campbell and colleagues found that it wasn’t dominance alone, but rather the interaction of dominance and pro-social behaviors, that women reported were particularly sexually attractive. In other words, dominance only increased sexual attraction when the person was already high in agreeableness and altruism.

The key insight here is that prestige matters — it shouldn’t surprise anyone that women are most attracted to men who carve out an impressive niche for themselves — but there are many routes to it. And anyone claiming that kindness is a bad move doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

This idea that masculine worth can only be earned through the demonstration and projection of strength isn’t new — it’s been around since the first time one Neanderthal bashed another Neanderthal’s head in with a third Neanderthal’s skull. What is new is the pseudoscientific packaging drawn from barely relevant animal studies, from misunderstandings of how hormones work (alpha-peddlers are obsessed with hormones, specifically testosterone), from overblown evo-psych claims.

On the one hand, it makes sense that boys are drawn to this oversimplified model, particularly because it feeds into so much of the ambient culture surrounding masculinity and femininity. But on the other hand, it’s a bit strange, simply because these days they are awash in alternative models: Michael Cera and Jesse Eisenberg and Seth Rogen are legitimate movie stars. Kendrick Lamar’s breakthrough album involved gang-banging, yes, but in many of the verses he adopted the persona not of an alpha gangster, but of an exhausted and scared kid traumatized by the gunfire around him. Drake and Kanye are frequently, openly — quite ostentatiously, in the latter’s case — vulnerable.

If the goal of being alpha is to get access to women, prestige, and money, it can’t be the case that these men aren’t alpha in any sense that could possibly matter. And they’re reflecting trends one can observe at every level of society, not just in the superstar outliers. Looking at the scope of American masculinity from Friday-night football heroics in Texas to art galleries in hipster districts, there’s probably never been a time when there were more ways to “win” as a male.

And yet the hardline alpha-worshippers are not only hanging on — if anything, they’re inflamed and emboldened. Online, they seem to be as loud and angry as ever. As Jonathan Chait wrote this week, Republicans have rediscovered the cult of masculinity thanks to Donald Trump. On Twitter, grown-man Trump supporters are unironically calling other men whom they perceive to be weak-kneed or effete “cucks” (naturally, not supporting Donald Trump is one of the primary symptoms of being a cuck).

Any time there’s a reconfiguration of gender roles, religion, or anything else viewed as a bedrock for how society is supposed to be organized, that reconfiguration is going to bring a backlash. That seems to be what’s going on now. Given that some of the ideas that drive the alpha-male archetype have been around for millenia, it’s unrealistic to expect they’ll go away anytime soon — there will always be men, and particularly frustrated young men seeking out a simple narrative to explain their failures, who are drawn to this idea. So the most likely outcome isn’t some mass enlightenment in which the world realizes all at once it has moved past the alpha male; it’s that the wannabe alpha will putter on eternally, puffed-up and nervous, stealing a quick glance at himself in the club mirror to make sure his smile isn’t too wide and therefore weak — while the rest of us ignore him and move on.

[pbrower2a]

Women now have the right to participate in the economy as if they were men almost without exception; same-sex marriage is lawful in all States. Heck, a woman is running for President! Is it any surprise that some men who have little with which to identify except for their masculinity find the times distressing.

[TnT]

On the old forum we had lengthy discussions about what it is to be "a man" in modern society. The characteristics and manifestations of maleness become increasingly more subjective.

Is there much of anything left that can be done these days that cannot be done by either gender (or any of the various gender descriptions)?

Even extremely physical strength tasks - if you put together a frequency distribution around, say, bench-pressing, I would imagine that the males and females distributions would overlap quite a bit. That is, the strongest females would be stronger than perhaps as many as 30-40% of all males.

And, femails always hold the trump card - they are the only ones with uteri. But even that may change sometime soon with the development of full-on nine month incubator.

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 07:37 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why don't we let men be what they feel is right for them and not shame them for doing so. It has actually gotten to the point where we are shaming those men for being assertive and what is considered masculine. When it is pushed onto others to be that way is where the problem arises. Live and let live.

Quite a reasonable attitude. But that is quite simply unacceptable to many of the ideologues around here. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that American culture is extremely prone to fundamentalism, particularly when the ideology in question is under constant attack by reality. Naturally of course part of this is due to the material conditions for some of these ideologies passed away in the 1970s and people have yet to catch up.

[Anthony '58]

And to think that "alpha male-ism" was once the exclusive property of 80% Democrat-voting G.I.s, in the 1930s.

How times change - and whose fault is it that this did change?

[Bob Butler 54]

I’d like to back off the time line some, and look not from the perspective of generations, but of ages.  I’ve long seen the Anglo-American series of crises as key transition points in the development from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial age.  I’ve been labeled a Whig, and I’ll accept that.  I favor democracy, human rights and equality.  I see a perpetual problem with those with economic, political and military power using it to maintain and extend such power at the expense of others.  Whether it is Kings or Robber barons who are sitting pretty at the top of the heap, I’d be in favor of the rabble underneath rising to do something about it, even if the rabble are often being manipulated by a new set of elites attempt to take the old elite’s place.

From this point of view, one can find stuff wrong with older stereotypes of the dominant male.  You can find the knight with shining armor and sword keeping the peasants in their place, or carving out new land by conquering his neighbors.  You can find it in the slave owner, whip in hand.  You can find it in the fat plantation or factory owner, strutting on the catwalk, watching the little people sweat.  You can find it in the street gang, keeping this minority or that in its place.  Some aspects of ‘masculinity’ include dominance, possession, territory and rule.

From the perspective of a Whig pushing equality and equal rights, there are aspects of the dominant possessive swagger that aren’t ideal.  Even if one doesn’t like every aspect and flavor of political correctness, it shouldn’t be hard to understand where it is coming from.

But even if it isn’t ideal, is it at times necessary and appropriate?

The GIs were no doubt about it masculine.  The Millenials, less so.  Whether you want to blame it on excessive Whig or not I don’t know, but there is a difference between those who worked their way through the Great Depression and those who were driven to soccer practice by their moms.  Part of the Millenial stereotype is working as a team and playing nice.  I’m not against these.  How can one be against these?  I mean Millenials make good kids.

But the GIs had that touch of Popeye in them.  “Enough is enough, and enough is too much!”  If they saw a problem, they would overwhelm it.  They weren’t inclined to let the status quo drift.  Their status quo was untenable.  They had a right to dominate, swagger, do and achieve, and damn the (expletive deleted) who got in their way.  As easy as it is to find faults in a society dominated by swaggering prejudiced ego driven brutes, they got things done.  They had a vastly exaggerated idea of how much they could achieve, and an annoying habit of achieving it anyway.

Now, I dislike stereotypes.  There are folks on the boards who will stereotype bash, people obsessed with irrational prejudices about Boomers or Xers, who enjoy voicing hate cause hate makes them feel good.  Is this a traditional ‘masculine’ trait?  Is prejudice and hate ‘masculine’?  If so, I don’t want to exercise such feelings with the Millenials.  In my youth, we would often describe certain GI adults as ‘male chauvinist pigs’.  In an age with black and white bathrooms and ceilings that were less glass than solid steel, the description is quite arguably apt.  It isn’t entirely bad that the Millenials aren’t male chauvinist pigs.

Is the notion that ‘enough is enough, and enough is too much’ masculine?  At some point are we supposed to stop taking it and do something about it?  Or should it be thought of as masculine?  Why should the ladies get less feed up later, and be any less expected to rebel?  If they want equal rights should they get just as mad and be just as active?

So I’m not apt to long for a disgusting past, unlikely to long for the bad old days when various races and genders were kept in their proper place.  There are male attributes and stereotypes which are appropriate and proper in the modern age, and equally proper regardless of the shape of one’s genitals.  There are old male attributes and stereotypes that were disgusting, and they are disgusting regardless of one’s chromosomes.

I for one would prefer not to talk about old cultures with old flaws.  I would rather not drop people into this bucket or that, by age, gender, race or culture.  Talk about the direction we ought to be moving, into the future, and let’s all move there together.

[Kinser79]

(05-24-2016, 05:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I for one would prefer not to talk about old cultures with old flaws.  I would rather not drop people into this bucket or that, by age, gender, race or culture.  Talk about the direction we ought to be moving, into the future, and let’s all move there together.

In order to do that you have to reject Regressive Left PC culture and adopt Enlightenment Classical Liberal Universalism.

(05-24-2016, 08:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: You seem to have an "Inner Civic." What a great post. Very much in the spirit of The Regeneracy. I'm tired of being divided and conquered. I'm tired of "go negative" politics even if it's by someone favorite "Daddy." What a steaming crock of shyte. We need real unity and principled leadership. Polity is noise, in these here times.

If you want principled leadership you're not going to get it from HRC.  In order to have principled leadership the supposed leader has to have principles first and past history indicates that the Clintons do not have principles apart from their own political and monetary gain.  Furthermore voting for any third party--including Libertarians would essentially be the same as voting for HRC because of the electoral college.

[Odin]

(05-25-2016, 12:07 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 08:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 05:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I’d like to back off the time line some, and look not from the perspective of generations, but of ages.  I’ve long seen the Anglo-American series of crises as key transition points in the development from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial age.  I’ve been labeled a Whig, and I’ll accept that.  I favor democracy, human rights and equality.  I see a perpetual problem with those with economic, political and military power using it to maintain and extend such power at the expense of others.  Whether it is Kings or Robber barons who are sitting pretty at the top of the heap, I’d be in favor of the rabble underneath rising to do something about it, even if the rabble are often being manipulated by a new set of elites attempt to take the old elite’s place.

From this point of view, one can find stuff wrong with older stereotypes of the dominant male.  You can find the knight with shining armor and sword keeping the peasants in their place, or carving out new land by conquering his neighbors.  You can find it in the slave owner, whip in hand.  You can find it in the fat plantation or factory owner, strutting on the catwalk, watching the little people sweat.  You can find it in the street gang, keeping this minority or that in its place.  Some aspects of ‘masculinity’ include dominance, possession, territory and rule.

From the perspective of a Whig pushing equality and equal rights, there are aspects of the dominant possessive swagger that aren’t ideal.  Even if one doesn’t like every aspect and flavor of political correctness, it shouldn’t be hard to understand where it is coming from.

But even if it isn’t ideal, is it at times necessary and appropriate?

The GIs were no doubt about it masculine.  The Millenials, less so.  Whether you want to blame it on excessive Whig or not I don’t know, but there is a difference between those who worked their way through the Great Depression and those who were driven to soccer practice by their moms.  Part of the Millenial stereotype is working as a team and playing nice.  I’m not against these.  How can one be against these?  I mean Millenials make good kids.

But the GIs had that touch of Popeye in them.  “Enough is enough, and enough is too much!”  If they saw a problem, they would overwhelm it.  They weren’t inclined to let the status quo drift.  Their status quo was untenable.  They had a right to dominate, swagger, do and achieve, and damn the (expletive deleted) who got in their way.  As easy as it is to find faults in a society dominated by swaggering prejudiced ego driven brutes, they got things done.  They had a vastly exaggerated idea of how much they could achieve, and an annoying habit of achieving it anyway.

Now, I dislike stereotypes.  There are folks on the boards who will stereotype bash, people obsessed with irrational prejudices about Boomers or Xers, who enjoy voicing hate cause hate makes them feel good.  Is this a traditional ‘masculine’ trait?  Is prejudice and hate ‘masculine’?  If so, I don’t want to exercise such feelings with the Millenials.  In my youth, we would often describe certain GI adults as ‘male chauvinist pigs’.  In an age with black and white bathrooms and ceilings that were less glass than solid steel, the description is quite arguably apt.  It isn’t entirely bad that the Millenials aren’t male chauvinist pigs.

Is the notion that ‘enough is enough, and enough is too much’ masculine?  At some point are we supposed to stop taking it and do something about it?  Or should it be thought of as masculine?  Why should the ladies get less feed up later, and be any less expected to rebel?  If they want equal rights should they get just as mad and be just as active?

So I’m not apt to long for a disgusting past, unlikely to long for the bad old days when various races and genders were kept in their proper place.  There are male attributes and stereotypes which are appropriate and proper in the modern age, and equally proper regardless of the shape of one’s genitals.  There are old male attributes and stereotypes that were disgusting, and they are disgusting regardless of one’s chromosomes.

I for one would prefer not to talk about old cultures with old flaws.  I would rather not drop people into this bucket or that, by age, gender, race or culture.  Talk about the direction we ought to be moving, into the future, and let’s all move there together.

You seem to have an "Inner Civic." What a great post. Very much in the spirit of The Regeneracy. I'm tired of being divided and conquered. I'm tired of "go negative" politics even if it's by someone favorite "Daddy." What a steaming crock of shyte. We need real unity and principled leadership. Polity is noise, in these here times.

This civic totally agrees.

This one, too.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-25-2016, 05:00 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-24-2016, 05:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I for one would prefer not to talk about old cultures with old flaws.  I would rather not drop people into this bucket or that, by age, gender, race or culture.  Talk about the direction we ought to be moving, into the future, and let’s all move there together.

In order to do that you have to reject Regressive Left PC culture and adopt Enlightenment Classical Liberal Universalism.

I'm not that concerned with labels.  I'm not here representing, say, the Communist Party or Donald Trump.  I'm not pushing anyone else's agenda, but speaking my mind.  

The above post is me.  It is coming from where I've always come from.  It says it with different emphasis as I'm focused on a different time and issue, but the core of it is from where I've been for quite some time.  It follows that I don't have to reject 'Regressive Left PC culture' because I've never stood for 'Regressive Left PC culture'.

Not that you would have noticed.

There is a common style of strawman argument where a contributor creates a vile parody of how is opponents think then repeatedly attacks the parody.  That's what I see when you go off on your 'Regressive Left PC culture' spiels.  As Reagan said, 'There you go again.'  I don't think that way.  

Of course, it might be easier for you to attack your strawman rather than to actually try to listen to what I actually believe in.

As for your father, I see him playing some classic 'masculine' roles: angry, assertive, tribal, combative, etc...  He's used some of that well.  He's gathering a following using those tools.  I just don't want the question to be if we want more or less masculine leaders.  As I indicated above, I see both good and bad aspects of the classic 'masculine' stereotype of years gone by.  I'd as soon pursue the good while disparaging the bad.  This means questioning rather than embracing the stereotype.

I see him as a divider, rather than a uniter, which to me isn't a positive.  I see him as confronting (at least in talk) the establishment, which to me is a positive.  I see an attacking angry style, which I wouldn't oppose entirely if he were attacking different things.  I see him attracting the Republican base by embracing many of the traditional Republican memes, which puts him on the wrong side of a lot of issues from my perspective.

But I'm going to decide (or rather have already decided) based on these issues rather than on the question of whether your father is more masculine than Hillary.  Rather than embrace stereotypes, I'd rather question them.

[Kinser79]

(05-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The above post is me.  It is coming from where I've always come from.  It says it with different emphasis as I'm focused on a different time and issue, but the core of it is from where I've been for quite some time.  It follows that I don't have to reject 'Regressive Left PC culture' because I've never stood for 'Regressive Left PC culture'.

Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other older posters. I know there has been a running debate on the need for PC euphemisms vs the non-need for them.

Quote:Not that you would have noticed.

Probably not. I have to tackle those who take absurd positions just in order to not have this place be a complete echo chamber.

Quote:There is a common style of strawman argument where a contributor creates a vile parody of how is opponents think then repeatedly attacks the parody.  That's what I see when you go off on your 'Regressive Left PC culture' spiels.  As Reagan said, 'There you go again.'  I don't think that way.  

Or perhaps you've not taken the time to investigate the cutting edge of the left these days. Seriously the Gavin McInnis clip is very similar to the situation I went through.

Quote:Of course, it might be easier for you to attack your strawman rather than to actually try to listen to what I actually believe in.

Or it might be easier if you didn't speak in riddles.

Quote:As for your father, I see him playing some classic 'masculine' roles: angry, assertive, tribal, combative, etc...  He's used some of that well.  He's gathering a following using those tools.  I just don't want the question to be if we want more or less masculine leaders.  As I indicated above, I see both good and bad aspects of the classic 'masculine' stereotype of years gone by.  I'd as soon pursue the good while disparaging the bad.  This means questioning rather than embracing the stereotype.

I think here that you're confusing my father with Daddy. The two are completely different, and honestly I like Daddy more than my on sperm donor, he never had coke fueled orgies in the basement. Has Daddy been angry, assertive, tribal and combative? Absolutely. Like it or not the country is in trouble and embracing those masculine virtues is precisely what we need.

Quote:I see him as a divider, rather than a uniter,

He's actually united a large number of people who wouldn't traditionally vote Republican to vote for him. We're talking record numbers of Blacks, Latinos and Women who are voting for Trump far more than George W. Bush managed and nearly twice as many as Romney.

What he's dividing is the Democrats from those groups they just assumed were in the bag.

Quote:I see him as confronting (at least in talk) the establishment, which to me is a positive.  I see an attacking angry style, which I wouldn't oppose entirely if he were attacking different things.  I see him attracting the Republican base by embracing many of the traditional Republican memes, which puts him on the wrong side of a lot of issues from my perspective.

I often think that those who like to speak about being on the wrong side of history don't seem to understand that history is written by the victors. I find that much of what he speaks about is on the right side, and he has done more than attract the GOP base, he's actually expanding it. Is his style angry? Yes it is. It has to be because the people themselves are angry, he is a reflection of that anger. If the people were not angry than anger would not play as well as it has been doing.

Quote:But I'm going to decide (or rather have already decided) based on these issues rather than on the question of whether your father is more masculine than Hillary.  Rather than embrace stereotypes, I'd rather question them.

Feel free to question them, but understand that for many of us, we understand the country is in trouble, deep trouble, and when one is in trouble they don't call mom (or Hillary in this case) but rather they call on Daddy.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-25-2016, 01:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Of course, it might be easier for you to attack your strawman rather than to actually try to listen to what I actually believe in.

Or it might be easier if you didn't speak in riddles.

You have that much trouble figuring other people out?  I'll try to keep it simple.  "'Regressive Left PC culture" seems to be one of your canned talking points.  When you can't or won't bother to figure out what someone is saying, you parrot your talking point regardless of whether it applies or not.  In this case, swing and a miss.

No, I'm not going to dumb it down further than that.

(05-25-2016, 01:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think here that you're confusing my father with Daddy.

Not confused.  Just thought one bit of silliness deserved another.

[pbrower2a]

(05-25-2016, 01:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The above post is me.  It is coming from where I've always come from.  It says it with different emphasis as I'm focused on a different time and issue, but the core of it is from where I've been for quite some time.  It follows that I don't have to reject 'Regressive Left PC culture' because I've never stood for 'Regressive Left PC culture'.

Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other older posters.  I know there has been a running debate on the need for PC euphemisms vs the non-need for them.

Quote:Not that you would have noticed.

Probably not.  I have to tackle those who take absurd positions just in order to not have this place be a complete echo chamber.

Quote:There is a common style of strawman argument where a contributor creates a vile parody of how is opponents think then repeatedly attacks the parody.  That's what I see when you go off on your 'Regressive Left PC culture' spiels.  As Reagan said, 'There you go again.'  I don't think that way.  

Or perhaps you've not taken the time to investigate the cutting edge of the left these days.  Seriously the Gavin McInnis clip is very similar to the situation I went through.

Quote:Of course, it might be easier for you to attack your strawman rather than to actually try to listen to what I actually believe in.

Or it might be easier if you didn't speak in riddles.

Quote:As for your father, I see him playing some classic 'masculine' roles: angry, assertive, tribal, combative, etc...  He's used some of that well.  He's gathering a following using those tools.  I just don't want the question to be if we want more or less masculine leaders.  As I indicated above, I see both good and bad aspects of the classic 'masculine' stereotype of years gone by.  I'd as soon pursue the good while disparaging the bad.  This means questioning rather than embracing the stereotype.

I think here that you're confusing my father with Daddy.  The two are completely different, and honestly I like Daddy more than my on sperm donor, he never had coke fueled orgies in the basement.  Has Daddy been angry, assertive, tribal and combative?  Absolutely.  Like it or not the country is in trouble and embracing those masculine virtues is precisely what we need.

Quote:I see him as a divider, rather than a uniter,

He's actually united a large number of people who wouldn't traditionally vote Republican to vote for him.  We're talking record numbers of Blacks, Latinos and Women who are voting for Trump far more than George W. Bush managed and nearly twice as many as Romney.

What he's dividing is the Democrats from those groups they just assumed were in the bag.

Quote:I see him as confronting (at least in talk) the establishment, which to me is a positive.  I see an attacking angry style, which I wouldn't oppose entirely if he were attacking different things.  I see him attracting the Republican base by embracing many of the traditional Republican memes, which puts him on the wrong side of a lot of issues from my perspective.

I often think that those who like to speak about being on the wrong side of history don't seem to understand that history is written by the victors.  I find that much of what he speaks about is on the right side, and he has done more than attract the GOP base, he's actually expanding it.  Is his style angry?  Yes it is.  It has to be because the people themselves are angry, he is a reflection of that anger.  If the people were not angry than anger would not play as well as it has been doing.

Quote:But I'm going to decide (or rather have already decided) based on these issues rather than on the question of whether your father is more masculine than Hillary.  Rather than embrace stereotypes, I'd rather question them.

Feel free to question them, but understand that for many of us, we understand the country is in trouble, deep trouble, and when one is in trouble they don't call mom (or Hillary in this case) but rather they call on Daddy.

1. "Regressive Left"? Who calls himself one?  You are just calling people an ugly name, much as anti-abortion extremists called those who would not go all the way with their agenda "baby-killers" .

2. Nice use, Bob, of a stock phrase of Ronald Reagan. "There you go again!"

3. So Donald Trump has suddenly become a father figure because you wish that you had him as a father instead of your deficient father?

It sounds something like someone we know.



Admit it. You would rather have a different father.

4. Donald Trump is already uniting -- Democrats against him. How effectively? At this stage the electoral prospect looks much like that of November 2012.

5. Masculine virtues? Better a sissy than a brute.

6. Anger is appropriate against evil-doers. Turning it against the innocent? That is evil.

[Kinser79]

Oh look. Pop psychoanalysis from the mentally deficient. This should be fun.

(05-25-2016, 07:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. "Regressive Left"? Who calls himself one?  You are just calling people an ugly name, much as anti-abortion extremists called those who would not go all the way with their agenda "baby-killers" .

The Regressive Left does not call itself Regressive. In all honestly I think they don't even understand that they are regressive (regress being the opposite of progress). They do not see that demanding special considerations on the basis of race is itself racist, that doing the same on the basis of sex is itself sexist and that furthermore both racism and sexism are dead in the West.

There is a reason that the word for 2016 has been "microagression". That reason is that these supposed aggression are so small you cannot see them. I would argue that one cannot see them because they do not exist. In a truly racist or truly sexist society no one in the race or sex from which the racism is supposedly emanating would not actually care about said racism or sexism.

Quote:3. So Donald Trump has suddenly become a father figure because you wish that you had him as a father instead of your deficient father?

Like a typical breeder you don't understand the word Daddy as I'm using it, Nor as Milo from whom I've stolen the meme from is using it. Perhaps one has to be gay to understand it. Since neither you or Bob are gay (so far as I know, seeing as Bob is confusing the concept of 'a daddy' with the concept of 'a father' I have every reason to believe that he is not a fag) because if he & you were you'd both understand what I mean immediately because that word has a certain connotation in "Gaylich".

To put it briefly a 'daddy' is an older male who is in a relationship with a typically younger male (often much younger but still an adult) who takes on a provider type role. As Milo has argued everyone has a daddy, Donald Trump is mine.

As for my father's deficiencies as a father, I'm pretty much over them. See unlike the vast majority of the Boomers here I actually managed to grow up. I like to think the Navy accomplished more in shaping me in seven years than my parents did in 18.

Quote:It sounds something like someone we know.

No, that person is what will probably be soon called Trans-racial. Rachel Dolezal is delusional. I am not delusional, I'm using a term of affection toward a political candidate--the only one that has a chance of putting this country back on track to maintaining and growing its power. There is a huge difference.

Quote:Admit it. You would rather have a different father.

Actually having a different father would have been interesting but would not have resulted in me. I am sorry PBR but projection doesn't work on me. Because I know for a fact that you'd prefer just about anyone else as your parents. You've said as much in the past.

Quote:4. Donald Trump is already uniting -- Democrats against him. How effectively? At this stage the electoral prospect looks much like that of November 2012.

LOL. Looks like someone doesn't see that he's in a dead heat with HRC and he's not even really started to work on her yet. Never mind that across the board HRCs negatives with men far outweigh his negatives with women. The only people united against Daddy are people who would never vote for any Republican ever and a few Cuckservatives. Everyone else is hopping on to the train.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/election-p...ald-trump/

Quote:5. Masculine virtues? Better a sissy than a brute.

You do understand that a 'sissy' is called such because he lacks all of the masculine virtues. The GOP ran a sissy last time in Romney. A sissy would lose to HRC, which is probably what you want, but not what anyone who understands that this country is on the wrong track wants.

That being said I'll take a brute over a crook any day.

Quote:6. Anger is appropriate against evil-doers. Turning it against the innocent? That is evil.

There are no innocents. Obama has not been enforcing the immigration laws which is itself evil. Allowing in those who want to blow up parts of the country is itself evil. Destroying the US' economic backbone is itself evil. Trump has arisen in response to evil, evil created and perpetuated by the so-called left.

[pbrower2a]

(05-26-2016, 05:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Oh look.  Pop psychoanalysis from the mentally deficient.  This should be fun.

(05-25-2016, 07:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. "Regressive Left"? Who calls himself one?  You are just calling people an ugly name, much as anti-abortion extremists called those who would not go all the way with their agenda "baby-killers" .

The Regressive Left does not call itself Regressive.  In all honestly I think they don't even understand that they are regressive (regress being the opposite of progress).  They do not see that demanding special considerations on the basis of race is itself racist, that doing the same on the basis of sex is itself sexist and that furthermore both racism and sexism are dead in the West.

There is a reason that the word for 2016 has been "microagression".  That reason is that these supposed aggression are so small you cannot see them.  I would argue that one cannot see them because they do not exist. In a truly racist or truly sexist society no one in the race or sex from which the racism is supposedly emanating would not actually care about said racism or sexism.

Admit it: you would rather be white.

Competent blacks have told me that they know well about the dirty looks that they get under certain circumstances -- like being watched closely when in the store in case they are shoplifters, or getting dirty looks if having a non-black spouse, date, or partner. Someone 'biracial' probably knows best the difference between white privilege and being seen as suspect. 

The worst may come from being seen as a 'racial traitor' -- being white but having a black spouse, child apparently one's own, or both. I have seen a young white woman (I knew that she was white because the spray-on tan did not quite reach her hair line) who made herself look significantly black so that she (so far as I could tell) would not be seen as a white woman with two biracial children, as if such were a great shame.

Quote:3. So Donald Trump has suddenly become a father figure because you wish that you had him as a father instead of your deficient father?

Like a typical breeder you don't understand the word Daddy as I'm using it, Nor as Milo from whom I've stolen the meme from is using it.  Perhaps one has to be gay to understand it.  Since neither you or Bob are gay (so far as I know, seeing as Bob is confusing the concept of 'a daddy' with the concept of 'a father' I have every reason to believe that he is not a fag) because if he & you were you'd both understand what I mean immediately because that word has a certain connotation in "Gaylich".

To put it briefly a 'daddy' is an older male who is in a relationship with a typically younger male (often much younger but still an adult) who takes on a provider type role.  As Milo has argued everyone has a daddy, Donald Trump is mine.

As for my father's deficiencies as a father, I'm pretty much over them.  See unlike the vast majority of the Boomers here I actually managed to grow up.  I like to think the Navy accomplished more in shaping me in seven years than my parents did in 18.[/quote]

Breeder? That is a nasty insult. We are the majority.

At least give me some credit for coming over to the side of homosexual rights, if for the conservative objective of law and order. I've been gay-bashed, and I recognized the appropriateness of doing everything possible to create a climate in which violence against gays and lesbians was unacceptable because such is inhuman.

I quit making and telling gay jokes. I started discussing the wrongness of gay-bashing violence to conservatives. The problem wasn't that the gay-basher thought that I was gay; the problem was that the gay-basher thought that it was acceptable to beat people for being gay.

Quote:It sounds something like someone we know.

No, that person is what will probably be soon called Trans-racial.  Rachel Dolezal is delusional.  I am not delusional, I'm using a term of affection toward a political candidate--the only one that has a chance of putting this country back on track to maintaining and growing its power. There is a huge difference.[/quote]

She would be hot if she weren't a messed-up liar. The racial identity is the least of it. Would I date someone 'black like Rachel Dolezal'? Heck, maybe I would do the spray tan myself and doll up my hair... and the spray tan would go0 all the way to my... you guessed it. If we were to have children aside from her biracial children I would have the explanation that two people with significant white ancestry can have a very white-looking child.

The stepchildren would destroy any residual loyalty that I ever had to the white race, an entity deserving no loyalty in view of its proclivity in the past to do horrible things to people that it does not deem white.

Quote:Admit it. You would rather have a different father.

Actually having a different father would have been interesting but would not have resulted in me.  I am sorry PBR but projection doesn't work on me.  Because I know for a fact that you'd prefer just about anyone else as your parents.  You've said as much in the past.

Quote:4. Donald Trump is already uniting -- Democrats against him. How effectively? At this stage the electoral prospect looks much like that of November 2012.

LOL. Looks like someone doesn't see that he's in a dead heat with HRC and he's not even really started to work on her yet.  Never mind that across the board HRCs negatives with men far outweigh his negatives with women.  The only people united against Daddy are people who would never vote for any Republican ever and a few Cuckservatives.  Everyone else is hopping on to the train.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/election-p...ald-trump/

Quote:5. Masculine virtues? Better a sissy than a brute.

You do understand that a 'sissy' is called such because he lacks all of the masculine virtues.  The GOP ran a sissy last time in Romney.  A sissy would lose to HRC, which is probably what you want, but not what anyone who understands that this country is on the wrong track wants.

That being said I'll take a brute over a crook any day.

Quote:6. Anger is appropriate against evil-doers. Turning it against the innocent? That is evil.

There are no innocents. Obama has not been enforcing the immigration laws which is itself evil.  Allowing in those who want to blow up parts of the country is itself evil.  Destroying the US' economic backbone is itself evil.  Trump has arisen in response to evil, evil created and perpetuated by the so-called left.[/quote]

What happened until recently was that Republicans had reservations about him as President. Now they have decided that Hillary Clinton is just as horrible as Barack Obama, and if Donald Trump won't fully deliver the Christian and Corporate State of their dreams, he will at least offer more than will Hillary Clinton.

I'd beware of the brute, especially if the brute is also a crook.

No innocent? Some kid who went over the border with his parents and knows nothing other than America is as innocent as his younger sibling born in America.

[Kinser79]

(05-27-2016, 05:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Admit it: you would rather be white.

Who wouldn't want to be white?  Whites run all the cool kid countries.  Whites are by far the richest race on earth.  Whites have produced the coolest stuff. Whites have produced the greatest civilization on earth, the Western Civilization--yes Virginia some cultures ARE better than others. And honestly white men are fucking gorgeous. I've slept with white men exclusively because they are so hot. 

That you would think I'd have a problem with admitting to such a thing is very interesting though.  You do know my Boyfriend of 10 years and my kid are white, right?  Indeed given the choice to associate with blacks or whites I prefer the company of whites.  You really should hear some the childish inane topics that many of "the brothers" think are so important.  

In before Odin blunders in and starts blathering about 'internalized racism'.  The facts are the facts.

Quote:Competent blacks

How can one be competently a race?  Are you implying that one can be incompetently black?  I mean yes I walked off the plantation years ago, and that probably burns your white liberal ass, but one's skin color doesn't have anything to do with their competence.  

Quote:have told me that they know well about the dirty looks that they get under certain circumstances -- like being watched closely when in the store in case they are shoplifters, or getting dirty looks if having a non-black spouse, date, or partner. Someone 'biracial' probably knows best the difference between white privilege and being seen as suspect. 

I've experienced all of that.  And you know what...that's the problem of the people doing the watching and giving the dirty looks.  If they don't like me because I'm black, then fuck them.  If they don't like me cause I'm gay, well fuck them.  I'm a 37 year old man, I ain't got time to worry about what other people think of me.  I'm busy living my life and if that bothers anyone that's their problem not mine. 

You know what bothers me more than those dirty looks and those people watching me to make sure I don't shoplift?  The perpetually offended, and the special snowflakes that compete in the oppression olympics.  Those of us who have been really oppressed because of our race or our orientation don't really want to think about our oppression if we don't have to.  The idea that victemhood is some sort of social capital is repugnant to us.

Quote:The worst may come from being seen as a 'racial traitor' -- being white but having a black spouse, child apparently one's own, or both. I have seen a young white woman (I knew that she was white because the spray-on tan did not quite reach her hair line) who made herself look significantly black so that she (so far as I could tell) would not be seen as a white woman with two biracial children, as if such were a great shame.

Oh yes.  My whole life I've heard shit principally from <I'll let you guess the word, it starts with an 'n'> about how I act so white.  About how I don't care for them.  Let me ask you what did they do for me?  Do they care for me?  Nothing and not at all.  If I have to act like some illiterate jungle rat to appease these people I want nothing to do with them. If I'm only a resource for them to get something they want why should I do anything for them? Why?  Because I'm an intelligent man who has some very strong opinions who also happens to be black and I feel no love for those people who happen to be racist either against myself or my White boyfriend or my white son.

I've received that very same treatment from my own sperm donor.  I've not spoken to him since because of that treatment, and I kinda do like him.

Quote:Breeder? That is a nasty insult. We are the majority.

A nasty insult for you perhaps.  Ever think you might have deserved it?  Ever think your inflated sense of entitlement for your dubious role in gay struggles might come off as incredibly insulting and offensive to those of us who are gay?  I bet that never crossed your straight mind.  But unlike the regressive I don't blame you for that because you're straight, or even white--that's their racist and hetrophobic gig not mine--I blame your inflated sense of entitlement because you think you suffered a taste of what I've suffered for my orientation that you are some how morally superior to every other ape on this YHWH forsaken rock.  I got news for you pal, you're not.  Get over yourself.

Quote:At least give me some credit for coming over to the side of homosexual rights, if for the conservative objective of law and order. I've been gay-bashed, and I recognized the appropriateness of doing everything possible to create a climate in which violence against gays and lesbians was unacceptable because such is inhuman.

What do you want?  A cookie?  A pat on the head?

I've been involved in the struggle for gay rights for a long time.  I've bashed and been bashed for those rights.  They were not handed to us by straights.  As I said on the old forum, blacks have civil rights because we took them.  Gays have rights because we took them.  Both did that on their own with minimal help from anyone.  So honestly I don't feel I owe you a damn thing.

Quote:I quit making and telling gay jokes. I started discussing the wrongness of gay-bashing violence to conservatives. The problem wasn't that the gay-basher thought that I was gay; the problem was that the gay-basher thought that it was acceptable to beat people for being gay.

Again what do you want a cookie?  And for your information people still think that way, and they will think that way 100 years from now.  But if anyone laid a finger on my man or my son I'd clean their clock good.  Why?  Because this faggot is a 'dangerous' alpha male who protects his family.  I'd do the same if they started anything with my uncles, my mother, my sister or her husband (though I kind expect him to take care of himself) and her kids too.

One does not deal with bullies by talking to them, by reasoning with them.  They don't understand reason, if they did they wouldn't be the way they are.  No, the solution is force.  But then again what do I know..I'm one of those K selected alpha males as Stefan Molyneux puts it.

Quote:She would be hot if she weren't a messed-up liar. The racial identity is the least of it. Would I date someone 'black like Rachel Dolezal'? Heck, maybe I would do the spray tan myself and doll up my hair... and the spray tan would go0 all the way to my... you guessed it. If we were to have children aside from her biracial children I would have the explanation that two people with significant white ancestry can have a very white-looking child.

She's not a liar, she's delusional.  She's mentally ill, which is what being delusional means. How can one 'feel' black?  Is that like one 'feeling' that they are an amputee in a whole body?

As to her being hot...I wouldn't know, I've never judged a woman as to hotness.

Quote:The stepchildren would destroy any residual loyalty that I ever had to the white race, an entity deserving no loyalty in view of its proclivity in the past to do horrible things to people that it does not deem white.

Look this is going to come as a shock to you but the fact is that all races have done terrible things.  All races are capable of terrible things.  If the basis of racial non-loyalty is predicated on a proclivity to do terrible things to those who are not deemed to be part of whatever race then I see no reason to be loyal to blackness.  Or whitness, or East-Asian-ness.

I said on the old forum that I didn't understand "white guilt".  I still don't.  I consider it to be a neurosis of some sort.  I feel no compunction to be proud to be black because some people who happened to be black did some great things and I feel no compunction to damn white people because some people who were white did some terrible things.  I believe first and foremost that we are one race--the human race--and within each of us is all the greatness that a human can aspire to and all the evil and depravity that anyone can descend into.

I am first and foremost an egalitarian.  Always have been.  I favor everyone having the same political rights and the same opportunities as anyone else.  What people do with those rights and those opportunities is on them.  This of course means that I have to accept that outcomes will not be the same.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:6. Anger is appropriate against evil-doers. Turning it against the innocent? That is evil.

There are no innocents. Obama has not been enforcing the immigration laws which is itself evil.  Allowing in those who want to blow up parts of the country is itself evil.  Destroying the US' economic backbone is itself evil.  Trump has arisen in response to evil, evil created and perpetuated by the so-called left.

What happened until recently was that Republicans had reservations about him as President. Now they have decided that Hillary Clinton is just as horrible as Barack Obama, and if Donald Trump won't fully deliver the Christian and Corporate State of their dreams, he will at least offer more than will Hillary Clinton.

I'd beware of the brute, especially if the brute is also a crook.

Hillary Clinton is just as bad because she's literally running as Obama's third term.  In short more of the same failed policies.

One has to prove that Trump is a crook first.  We already know Hillary is.

Quote:No innocent? Some kid who went over the border with his parents and knows nothing other than America is as innocent as his younger sibling born in America.

The younger sibling is a citizen but should be repatriated with his or her parents to their country of origin, as should the older sibling.  I'm by no means a racist of any stripe.  But I must say that limiting immigration would go a long way to addressing the current unemployment problem with have among those with low educations and few skills.  A demographic that is disproportionately black.  Call it enlightened self-interest if that makes you feel better, but that's the reality.

We need a wall and we need the trade fixed first and foremost Trump can do that even if he accomplishes nothing else it will set us up for a half-way decent 1T.

[Odin]

At least you admit to being a self-hating black guy.   

[Kinser79]

(05-27-2016, 10:22 PM)Odin Wrote: At least you admit to being a self-hating black guy.   

As usual Odin you're wrong.  I don't hate myself.  I do however hate <guess the word>s.  Unfortunately a large proportion of persons who happen to be black are <that word>s.





ETA: It is okay to laugh Odin. I won't tell.

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2016, 07:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Alpha males become targets for violence. No thanks!

They make themselves targets for violence by confronting other alpha males.

I don't want any involvement in bar-room brawls.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-29-2016, 07:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 07:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Alpha males become targets for violence. No thanks!

They make themselves targets for violence by confronting other alpha males.

I don't want any involvement in bar-room brawls.

What?  You don't enjoy pain or causing pain?  How do you expect to attract alpha females?

No wonder the species is going down hill.  [/cynical irony]

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2016, 01:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-29-2016, 07:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 07:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Alpha males become targets for violence. No thanks!

They make themselves targets for violence by confronting other alpha males.

I don't want any involvement in bar-room brawls.

What?  You don't enjoy pain or causing pain?  How do you expect to attract alpha females?

No wonder the species is going down hill.  [/cynical irony]

Is the alpha male even relevant any more? Do we really need the berserker when we need more emphasis on enterprise and innovation?

The best way to create a grossly-inequitable order is to make everything a fight while ensuring scarcity. Such fits some antiquated cultures.