23 10 10 - 10:09Liberalism is what happens when the disenchanted get together. Life has failed them, or they've failed it, but either way, they feel like victims. So they agree that life is terrible, and something should be done that makes them feel included. In order to get their way, they make the ultimate fool's gamble: they demand the same "rights" for others, and demand that society first (a) consider everyone equal and (b) force them all to be equal, by hampering the strong and subsidizing the weak.
It's a simpleton's vision of peace and tranquility. One size fits all comes to the human species!
Of course, there's a problem with this vision. Equality of all people is an effect, or the result of an action, not an action you can take directly. So much of our modern activities involve acting directly, e.g. pouring gasoline on logs if they must burn, or installing an air conditioner if it's too hot outside. We're no longer familiar with the steps required to get to that point. So when our people want equality, they demand government do it directly, which is of course a path to failure because it's not the default order of humanity. It's like pounding square pegs in round holes every day to insist we have it.
But liberals don't exist until you have an advanced society. Only then are people rich enough, and lazy enough, to consider social banter a substitute for real action. It's like "hey, if I convince these idiots to do what I say, it'll happen because enough people depend on it happening." This is why as soon as liberalism emerges citizens get accustomed to having corrupt and insane leaders. You sometimes have insane kings; in democracy, the insanity of your leaders is a given. In addition, you cultivate a populace who cannot think clearly over the course of time. They can pick the better product off a shelf, or determine which political outcome is more "moral," but figure out how to make it happen -- there, you get only confusion.
This is why liberals even today have trouble reasoning through the consequences of their actions:
After all, "edgy" magazine spreads such as the Glee fiasco have become a rite of passage for young women in the entertainment world who want to make a splash. Agron and Michelle were following the same cookie-cutter trajectory that stars like Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears have taken: baring midriffs and pouting at the cameras to signal sophistication and availability.
As a result of this saturated media environment, a massive coalition of womenâs groups are launching a movement called SPARK, to âtake sexy backâ and encourage young women to critique and protest the way they are portrayed in the media and marketed to by advertisers. SPARK (âSexualization protest: action, resistance, knowledgeâ) held its kickoff summit on Friday at Hunter College in New York. A slew of big names riled up the crowd of women young and old, including actress Geena Davis, sex educator Amber Madison, and trailblazing filmmaker and writer Jean Kilbourne. Representatives from dozens of prominent womenâs organizations organized and attended the event, as did a large contingent of teenage girls. A livestream and chat broadcast speeches to viewers around the country. - Dubious News Source
Girls, girls... girls -- what were you thinking?
If you "liberate" something, you've made it a commodity. You can no longer regulate it. It's on the market. And liberating it, by the nature of liberation, means that everyone is going to oppose any restrictions or you trying to shape what's a "correct" direction. It's free now, baby! Free love! Free sex! And that means that men are going to take all they can get, manipulate the hell out of you, and then kick you to the curb.
Why shouldn't they?
Instead of getting a partner for life, they get a jaded slut who is going to confuse them with the other 168 dicks that have penetrated her in her life. Even more, she's used to using sex as a commodity to sell herself, both as work and in her personal life. So you now have not only a jaded slut, but a cynical manipulator in your life! No wonder men cast it aside when they're no longer interested. There's no incentive for them to keep her around, and they already know she's as faithless as a mosquito, so turnabout's fair play.
Ain't that so, ladies?
Well, you keep trying:
SPARK is not opposed to girls being sexual or having sex. In fact, Womenâs Media Centerâs Jamia Wilson had the audience repeat the mantra âwe are not anti-sexâ several times during her early-morning speech. Instead, the message is about rejecting a standardized, commercialized and denigrating take on what girls ought to do to be sexy: lose weight, purchase stilettos, or make out with other girls for male amusement, for instance. âSex and and sexuality are an important and vital part of life,â Wilson said. âSexy is not just a look, but a feeling.â
That's one for the Durrrrrr files right there. Sexy is a feeling? Sexy is a way of selling yourself. You're trading a promised reward for, well, something. It's not like marriage: a partnership. It's a direct swap, a transaction. This is what liberated means. You have detached sex from any other meaning or custom. That means people are going to use it just like they use any other ability you have. "Yeah, I can paint a wall. $50." What's different in selling you their mouths, vaginas or anuses? Or doing it on a billboard, or on a TV show?
Liberation means it can be for sale.
They keep telling me Geena Davis is smart, but after she signed on for this trainwreck, I wonder.
Girls, girls -- what are you going to do? Are you going to set up a government council for the Right Kind of Sexy, and ban advertisements? Great, you'll have to go full Soviet on us, because sex has always been used to sell. Or are you going to continue with pathetic tiny foundations like SPARK that few hear and fewer care?
I guess you've already written off the smart big people option which is to have social roles, customs and a sense of social darwinism. Under a social darwinist system, you don't slut around because you know that reduces your value and makes you only suitable for being someone's blown-out old hag concubine (which is effectively what happens now, anyway, once a woman hits 35 and she's no longer fun in that "I want to ejaculate in her and then forget her name" kind of way that makes her the perfect commodity).
But you'd probably view that as oppression. So instead you're out there, rather guiltily trying to tame the beast you unleashed on all of us with sexual "freedom" that translates into universal prostitution. Can't slam the barn door hard enough as you see the horse crest a hill in the distance. Like most liberals, you're really good with slogans and are always shocked by the "unintended" consequences of your actions.