Charlie Kirk shot at an event in Utah

[Ignorant]

Lmao liberalism is is a death cult, what a load of crap.

Frankly it you can't see that for what it is, sensationalist non sense, you're too far gone.

[sahgwa]

Lmao liberalism is is a death cult, what a load of crap.

Frankly it you can't see that for what it is, sensationalist non sense, you're too far gone.

So you disagree that progressive policies have lead to more destruction of the nuclear family, aloneness, and disease?

[Martin75]

Lmao liberalism is is a death cult, what a load of crap.

Frankly it you can't see that for what it is, sensationalist non sense, you're too far gone.

When Brian Thompson was gunned down in NY for being a successful healthcare CEO, the left cheered
When Charlie Kirk as gunned down in Utah for successfully engaging our youth, the left cheered


But we are too far gone?  

[Kwaka]

At 11 min, Kim Iversen shows the results of an audio analysis of the shooting. The results are that the shot came from the right side of Charlie, consistent with the neck injury being an exit wound. Not from the position in front of Charlie where suspect Tyler was.

[Ignorant]

So you disagree that progressive policies have lead to more destruction of the nuclear family, aloneness, and disease?

What policies are you thinking of exactly?

The "destruction" of the nuclear family, to the extent that's a real thing (it's actually still the norm, on both sides of the political spectrum) is a natural consequence of women gaining agency. They have the option to pursue a career now, and many choose to. Would you take that option away from them, then? I think that position is morally reprehensible.

[Ignorant]

When Brian Thompson was gunned down in NY for being a successful healthcare CEO, the left cheered
When Charlie Kirk as gunned down in Utah for successfully engaging our youth, the left cheered


But we are too far gone?  

Some people cheer when someone they don't like dies. It's in bad taste, sure. But it doesn't represent the left or liberalism.

The reason I say you're far gone is that you have apparently lost the ability to see people as individuals and will conveniently ascribe to the entire left the position that you find most morally appalling. This allows you to write off a huge group of people who didn't cheer, and even liberalism itself, the core values of which you almost certainly believe in yourself. You do this because it validates your existing beliefs and makes you feel good about yourself. You are believing things not because they are true but because they make you feel good.

You are, therefore, letting your emotions control you. It makes you unable to talk to the "other side" (because you think they're crazy) and feeds political polarization. I think it's your duty as a politically active citizen to rise above this.

[putnam6]

What policies are you thinking of exactly?

The "destruction" of the nuclear family, to the extent that's a real thing (it's actually still the norm, on both sides of the political spectrum) is a natural consequence of women gaining agency. They have the option to pursue a career now, and many choose to. Would you take that option away from them, then? I think that position is morally reprehensible.

I took nuclear family as a nod to the two-parent family, the rising divorce rate, and the abundance of single-parent homes 

not the women's suffrage movement.

Women working is the norm in the modern interpretation of the nuclear family and has been for a while.

Thats not going away, and it's disengenuous to suggest it is

[Ignorant]

I took nuclear family as a nod to the two-parent family, the rising divorce rate, and the abundance of single-parent homes 

not the women's suffrage movement.

Women working is the norm in the modern interpretation of the nuclear family and has been for a while.

Thats not going away, and it's disengenuous to suggest it is

I didn't suggest that it was going away, I was asking if the person I replied to thinks it should.

Divorce rates go up when women have financial independence. This is because a woman with a career can leave her marriage and still be okay, whereas a SAHM is, to an extent, stuck in it.

So, again, is it bad that women have agency now? I don't think so. And to say liberalism is a death cult because it gave women agency is obviously insane.

For the record, I'm not at all against the nuclear family (I'm in one) or against the concept of a stay at home mom (my wife is one). I just support women's right to choose, and so should we all, even if higher divorce rates are the consequence.

[sahgwa]

I didn't suggest that it was going away, I was asking if the person I replied to thinks it should.

Divorce rates go up when women have financial independence. This is because a woman with a career can leave her marriage and still be okay, whereas a SAHM is, to an extent, stuck in it.

So, again, is it bad that women have agency now? I don't think so. And to say liberalism is a death cult because it gave women agency is obviously insane.

For the record, I'm not at all against the nuclear family (I'm in one) or against the concept of a stay at home mom (my wife is one). I just support women's right to choose, and so should we all, even if higher divorce rates are the consequence.

No one was railing against women's independence and choice, they were pointing out that Progressive liberalism has obviously led to a breakdown in societal cohesion and mental and physical health.  Just look at the news and this thread. 

You asked which policies, even ignoring abortion, how about DEI for starters? You dont think that creates an us vs them mindset and values racist qualities like skin colour over quality of work?

[sahgwa]

I will wait for someone to touch the above related to 'societal cohesion', and not use emotional or straw man arguments and not mention a political figure. That is not good discussion form.
Then we can move onto the other cogent points, like physical and mental health. If people want. 




Meanwhile here is another blurb from Torba I largely agree with (the parts about reclaiming masculinity, and pride in Western civlisation) , and I ain't even Christian. (they are so demonised these days arent they?)  Do I want to live in a theocracy? no. But it is much more natural to live in a society that recognises a divine force exists, and harmony with Universe and divine laws are to be sought, than try to 'conquer the atom' and poison and pervert our very genetic structures and Nature. 

Culture war makes strange bedfellows.
 'Our response cannot be mere political opposition. It must be a total and profound rejection of their entire worldview. We must be the unequivocal champions of life. We must build large, faithful families. We must create beautiful and lasting things. We must reaffirm our connection to God, to our people, and to the land. We must be so generative, so life-affirming, and so filled with purpose that their culture of death simply withers in the shadow of our vitality.
They celebrate the darkness because they have forgotten what the light looks like. It is our duty to shine it so brightly that they are forced to remember, or to look away.
The spirit of the age does not knock politely at the Church’s door; it slithers in directly from the pulpit. The same death cult that celebrates murder in the streets and glorifies mutilation in the classroom has found a comfortable home within the compromised walls of modern Christianity. It has exchanged the robust, world-conquering faith of our fathers for a weak, effeminate, and apologetic social club, a chaplaincy to the very regime that seeks our destruction.
This infiltration is a betrayal of our entire history. Look to the men who built Christendom. They were not managers of decline. They were not anxious pleasers of the world. They were conquerors. They were kings, knights, saints, and martyrs who carved civilization out of wilderness and darkness with the sword of truth and the shield of faith. They understood that the Gospel was not a suggestion; it was a mandate to reclaim every inch of creation for Christ the King.
This was a masculine Christianity. It spoke of order, justice, duty, and victory. It built cathedrals that scraped the heavens, universities that pursued divine wisdom, and legal systems based on eternal law. It tamed empires and baptized cultures. It did not ask for permission from the world; it commanded the world to bend the knee.'