I think they used Common Core math equations, so there's no problem ~wink wink~

hooman resources

Actually, your door didn't swing at all. Your history is all jacked up. Look at what party voted repeatedly against gay marriage, in fact look at your current sitting president who voted multiple times against gay marriage, then look at what party both instituted and fought to keep slavery and segregation, in fact look at your current sitting president who fought to keep segregation (he's on film for both, so no need to rely on propaganda.)

@MelanieHope - If that's what you got out of my post, then I must humbly observe that you missed the point. This wasn't a "your side is bad; my side is good," post, because I don't take sides. This is more of a "clean your own house before talking about how dirty someone else's is," post.

Now, if you take exception to the idea that you should be at least - if not more - critical of what you yourself do before being critical of others, then I can't help you.

@MelanieHope Democrats who fought to keep segregation = Conservatives, Republicans fighting for civil liberties = Progressives. Of course the parties had a re-alignment, and now Conservatives are Republicans and Progressives are Democrats. So let's move past party, and admit that Conservatives and Right-Wingers were pro-segregation.

As for the current sitting president... if I recall correctly, he was the catalyst for passing marriage equality, one of the biggest things that made me support him. Even Obama didn't fully support marriage equality publicly. It wasn't until a 2012 interview that Biden made a "gaffe" saying he supported marriage equality, that finally Obama and his administration started to publicly support it and lead to the monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. I will always praise him for that.

Either way I see no point in oversimplify.

While it is true that the American Revolution would never have happened if wealthy colonists had not been treated as third class nobility the principle of small central government and separation of power means that the founders recognized human frailty. Not only in others but in themselves. It represents a new level of consciousness for the human race or at least one not seen since the Greeks in a organized philosophy.

The Civil War is poorly understood. Slavery in the Americas has more to do with class than racism. The landed nobility you mentioned in your first point discovered that the serf system of Europe couldn't be transplanted to a frontier society with unlimited land to the west for the taking. The answer was a common one of creating an "untouchable" class. You have mistaken who represents the slave owners in an analogy. The "your out-of-shape-middle-aged-ass-with-an-AR15 to stand up and lead them" resembles John Brown more than a Southern sympathizer. I suspect as a part of the new petite nobility you can't recognize your own position in the corporacy. A corporacy that is analogous to a plantation system. I recommend Charles Murray's "Coming Apart: The State of White America".

As an Atheist myself I understand how someone may find traditional values rooted in a Christian tradition disturbing. But it would be a mistake to assign the anti gay, anti women, and censorship of conservatives to the underlying philosophy of the U.S. constitution. All of these discriminations require "big government" even if at the local level. And no I'm not an anarchist. I'm also not an idealist. Having finally struck down the final vestiges of official Christendom the current intellectual class has unavoidably created a new secular religion of wokeness. It is a testament to the incompetence of that intellectual class that they didn't see it coming. And the shallowness of that class that they take no responsibility for it.

History is written by the victors, or at least the last ones standing. I don't think it is swinging doors except in the swinging trap door. More of a revolving door entering the building and the left keeps throwing you back outside not letting you into the building.

@wolfhnd - As I tried to explain - it would appear, poorly - in my first response to MelanieHope, the point I was attempting to make is that it's very easy to look at the thing you're against and be critical of the things that don't make sense, while ignoring your own such frailties.

That is, Edgework's post is full of examples of how the government is "lying" to us, and he frames each example in such a way that they are obviously lies that we are forced to accept. The examples I provided were equally ridiculous things that I've heard espoused by conservatives - the natural opponent of government overreach and control - except, I framed them in a way to make them look ridiculous. So for everyone responding to me that I'm oversimplifying or have the wrong of it...YES, that was the goal: to take a handful of commonly accepted "truisms" by conservatives and observe how there's nuance.

Again, my whole intention here was to point out the absurdity of calling out an entity when you're guilty of the same kind of behavior. I'm usually pretty good at getting my point across in writing, but this time, I failed to do so. They can't all be gems.

@Alysandir

I got your point. It isn't that it wasn't accurate it just isn't helpful to make an argument by equivocation. If you have the ability to write well then use it to discriminate.

It's not that I don't appreciate allegory and satire. What I dislike is the adolescent like qualities of our intellectual community. The hang over from the youth culture of the 60s has put tremendous strain on the social fabric and despite it's claim of wanting social justice has accomplished very little in practical terms. Civil rights and woman's rights were established by the old left and Northern conservatives not the youth culture. Youth culture snickers at the black preacher who said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.".

Youth culture has fully embraced the we believe in science cult and thus accepted by extension that freewill is an illusion primarily because it's responsibly that adolescents reject. That and the feeling of superiority that comes from being " modern".

@wolfhnd - "It isn't that it wasn't accurate it just isn't helpful to make an argument by equivocation."

I must respectfully disagree that this is what I was intentionally doing. As I said, usually I'm better at making my point and just delivered a dud in this instance. In my defense, I was hurrying to get out the door.

I am a strong believe in the use of examples and metaphors to make my point because writing is a poor medium for conveying nuance (or - if you prefer - I don't have the skill to convey nuance). If you are inclined to peruse my posts, you'll see that I use examples and metaphors extensively to 1) say what I mean, and then 2) give an example of what I mean. In my experience, if someone doesn't get the first point, rephrasing it as something that is familiar to most people (whether it be pop culture, myth, what have you) can sometimes bridge the gap of understanding.

But I'll take this for what it is, a deserved critique of my writing.

@Alysandir

Thanks for the curiosity of a reply. I'm unaccustomed to your style on the internet. It is probably why I dragged this out unnecessarily.

Come on! Hit me with your best shot!

@Edgework Oh Pat Bennetar was good

@RemiDallaire
She had a good voice, too