Your Politics
- Thread starter Ensign
- Start date
Well, "boys will be boys" has been the go-to phrase to excuse terrible behaviors from boys and young men. Push a girl on the playground? Boys will be boys. Spray paint swear words on a neighbor's garage door? Boys will be boys. Get a girl drunk and try to sleep with her? Boys will be boys. So the slogan has a connection to bad behaviors that get excused over and over again based on the grounds that boys can't help doing these things. It demeans them, it makes them appear to be non-thinking, base animals who can't control their instincts. That leads to attitudes like Donald Trump, who thinks it's okay to sexually molest women because he's a rich guy. Boys will be boys, amiright?
So it's not some "hyper-PC" thing, it is a genuine and honest effort to reshape the way boys and young men think about who they are, and how they can be better than a slogan like "boys will be boys"
Ok, I've never heard the phrase "Boys will be boys" used as a defense for a Man raping a Women, In fact other than People who hate/dislike men and use the phrase as an insult, I've never found anything on Record where anyone has used that phrase to defend/justify being violent towards a woman. "Boys will be boys" is basically saying, "Oh, little Johnny got his shirt muddy while playing outside" So yeah, it is a hyper-PC thing in my opinion. Just like a Ton of other hyper-PC Orwellian wrong speak/think things out there.
It's like when people compare Trump to Hitler (No I didn't vote for Trump) You want to compare a Sleazy Businessman to someone who was directly responsible for the death of millions? Or saying any Person who simply wants a more secure border and tougher immigration laws is a Nazi, so people can make loose (and dangerous) statements like that but get "triggered" over not being called fley/flim/flir because thats what pronoun they decided they were this week? I have to disagree.
You must not have looked hard enough.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ana-sexual-assault-justice-department-report/
Sorry I don't usually cite hard left or hard right publications as factual. This is the same publication that runs non-partisan pieces such as this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/hillary-clinton-out-fucks/ correct? or even this?https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/donald-trump-wants-to-be-dictator-of-the-united-states/
Before anyone thinks I'm here defending Rape (because thats what passes for conversation between the left and right these days.) I AM NOT. I'm sure rapes do get covered up, and it saddens me honestly. I shouldn't have to say this, I agree that one rape is too many. but the solution is holding ourselves accountable as individuals, being responsible, fostering kindness to one another by being decent to each other while out and about, but not policing speech or thought.
Last edited:
It's citing a DOJ report from the US government, so what the fuck ever, dude.
You made a claim that the term had never been used "on record" to dismiss sexual assault, and he found a case where it was (not that that would be the sole example of the term being misused). Instead of questioning the bias of the source (and as Amaris demonstrated, Mother Jones is not the only source) why not either refute the claim with evidence of your own or simply admit that you were mistaken in that case and that you learned something new? Instead you use dishonest tactics to launch into an offensive rant over a post from almost a year and a half ago (yes, I know the thread was resurrected) in a thread where we're supposed to simply be posting the results of these silly political compass tests and not making bigoted remarks like this crap:
Infraction for trolling. Comments to PM.
Everyone else: Let's stick to posting the results and not get too far into the weeds with the color commentary. You can state where you stand politically without going on a rant about which group pisses you off this week or doesn't deserve to be treated with respect in your opinion.
This has to be amongst the most utterly and irredeemably wrong comments I've ever seen posted in here.
Sorry for jumping in after the fact @Locutus of Bored
Well, according to the 8 values one, I'm a social liberalism type
Economic Axis: Social
Equality 67.1% / 32.9% Markets
Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful
Nation 33% / 67% World
Civil Axis: Liberal
Liberty 61.9% / 38.1% Authority
Societal Axis: Progressive
Traditional 32.1% / 67.9% Progress
Economic Axis: Social
Equality 67.1% / 32.9% Markets
Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful
Nation 33% / 67% World
Civil Axis: Liberal
Liberty 61.9% / 38.1% Authority
Societal Axis: Progressive
Traditional 32.1% / 67.9% Progress
You are correct, and I was wrong to take it to the next level like I did, esp. for the final part of my last Post. I'm not going to explain myself, because at this point the direction I chose to go in the heat of the moment would pretty much make it moot. The last segment of my post went over the top, and I was wrong for it. I have stuff to think about it would seem. My apologies to everyone for the latter remark in my thread. CoporalCaptain and Amaris: Yep, I was wrong. I missed the top part of page 11 on the DOJ Report cited in the article, no excuse for it really, in this regard of me saying "There's nothing on record" I was clearly in the wrong, and you rebutted it. for what it's worth, I apologize.
Personally I wish more right leaning people posted here just to balance things out
I like you
Oh, that's a nice thing to say
Like you too!
Numerous questions make assumptions or don't let the participant put in nuances that might not be the underlying reason (the "why") behind them and in some questions it's very relevant, to prevent skewing. A person might agree or disagree for varying reasons rather than just the one being sought in order to put the dot on the graph. There's also no 'neutral' or 'yes (or no) if' options.
As it stands, I'm close to the center. A bit more authoritarian and slightly to the left. Sufficiently close to centrist.
As it stands, I'm close to the center. A bit more authoritarian and slightly to the left. Sufficiently close to centrist.
I'm surprised how left that is to be honest.
Center-left Neoliberalism was actually first developed in Australia in the early 80s and the version in Australia actually did have merit, privatisation would lead to more money to reinvest into newer infrastructure, superannuation (Government/Private joint funded 401ks) replacing pensions would ease the burden of aging on the budget.
Neoliberalism then went overseas to the UK and US, basically anything to do with re-investment was stripped out of it by Thatcher and Reagan. That form of Neoliberalism was the one further used by Blair and Clinton and it eventually came back to Australia in the mid-late 90s under the LNP.
Either way, I'm probably a Leftcom, though I think Socialism will be brought about by Capitalist technological development like Marx did. As soon as advanced automation and singularity occur, Capitalism is finished as a system and it couldn't come sooner with the Climate Crisis.
^^ Not on the spectrum, but I share that wish. 
Similar threads
