• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Understanding the Liberal Mindset

Just scratch the surface of the "fertility crisis" concern and you find someone who wants to lower the Age of Consent.
 
It's not "the Lefties" who are covering up the Epstein crimes and those of his friends and associates.
It's Trump who bragged about going into the changing room at his Miss Teen USA pageant.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
Like saying that someone concerned about the fertility crisis wants to lower the age of consent? That sort of pathetic?
Click to expand...
Yes, pretty much exactly that sort of pathetic.

The origins of the so-called "Fertility Crisis" are well-known - the Seven Mountains Mandate of Christian Dominionism, and the white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

Anyone invoking the "Fertility Crisis" in a political or social argument is either pushing one of those two ideas or is ignorant of the connection.
 
if you take out the number teen pregnancies, birth rates haven' really changed over decades.
It's only that women don't have children very young anymore, and thus fewer in total.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, pretty much exactly that sort of pathetic.

The origins of the so-called "Fertility Crisis" are well-known - the Seven Mountains Mandate of Christian Dominionism, and the white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

Anyone invoking the "Fertility Crisis" in a political or social argument is either pushing one of those two ideas or is ignorant of the connection.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought the fertility crisis was was a real, science-based concern...

The changing tide of human fertility - PMC

Over the past half-century, the world has witnessed a steep decline in fertility rates in virtually every country on Earth. This universal decline in fertility is being driven by increasing prosperity largely through the mediation of social factors, ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​
Over the past half-century, the world has witnessed a steep decline in fertility rates in virtually every country on Earth. This universal decline in fertility is being driven by increasing prosperity largely through the mediation of social factors, the most powerful of which are the education of women and an accompanying shift in life’s purpose away from procreation. In addition, it is clear that environmental and lifestyle factors are also having a profound impact on our reproductive competence particularly in the male where increasing prosperity is associated with a significant rise in the incidence of testicular cancer and a secular decline in semen quality and testosterone levels. On a different timescale, we should also recognize that the increased prosperity associated with the demographic transition greatly reduces the selection pressure on high fertility genes by lowering the rates of infant and childhood mortality. The retention of poor fertility genes within the human population is also being exacerbated by the increased uptake of ART. It is arguable that all of these elements are colluding to drive our species into an infertility trap. If we are to avoid the latter, it will be important to recognize the factors contributing to this phenomenon and adopt the social, political, environmental and lifestyle changes needed to bring this situation under control.​

Edited by jimbob: 
off topic snipped
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
Really? I thought the fertility crisis was was a real, science-based concern...
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as it is real (and it is), it's not much of a concern. Certainly not as much as the evangelical Christian nationalists and white supremacist conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

Edited by jimbob: 
off topic snipped
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read the word salad OP and listened to the entire clip. I hate to sound like a liberal-progressive, but it feels like someone owes me money. Reparations. I allegedly feel all kinds of empowerment for righteously supporting Palestinians when my government and taxpayer dollars overwhelmingly support displacing and dismembering them.

The only reason I read and watched the OP is because of the Oppressor vs. Oppressed framing, which sounded Kling-influenced. Arnold Kling's book The Three Languages of Politics argues that political tribes interpret events through their own distinct lens.

Progressives: Oppressor vs. Oppressed
Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism
Libertarians: Liberty vs. Coercion

Kling, a libertarian, argues that our only hope for transcending tribalism is to become multilingual. I'm willing to more or less accept this vulgar language thesis for the same reasons that I think white people like music like this [stereotypical honky music and dance] and Black people like music that goes like this [stereotypical negro music and dance]: Because I'm lazy.

In the case of Israel, it's always been odd that so many conservatives have unquestioningly supported it. I mean, if we try to exercise a little cognitive empathy for a conservative worldview, we should quickly recognize Zionism is a form of social engineering. It involves massive unwanted immigration. The familiar talking point about being "surrounded" by 22 Muslim countries kind of tells on itself. Conservatives are supposed to regard private property as sacred, which naturally sanctions lethal defensive violence. Israel was recognized by the UN, not exactly a beloved institution. Israel's founders were pro-labor/socialists. The country is supported by American taxpayers. Conservatives are supposed to be wary of "foreign entanglements." Settlements are a form of govt. subsidized segregated housing. A significant percentage of Palestinians are Christian. The idea that governments have a "right to exist" runs contrary to contemporary American conservatism's libertarian streak.

As I said on this forum a long time ago, all of that kind of goes out the window because Jews are "regarded as the white people." Or, speaking in Klingon, perhaps they represent "civilization" against (k)Hamas! Some of that is starting to fade among MAGA-turned-America First vanguard.

Historically, the main arguments for Israel have come from the left. Noted skeptic and Israel cock-sucker Michael Shermer jettisons his reflexive conservatism for an affirmative action-style rationalization: People of other religious faiths have their own countries, so why not Jews? A related liberal argument: Jews suffered the ultimate form of oppression (and at the hands of Europeans). The fledgling, underdog Jewish state is surrounded by hostile oil-rich nations! More than I would expect, a lot of American conservative and liberal ideological narratives collapsed when people witnessed crimes against humanity in 4K.
 
Cain said:
Kling, a libertarian, argues that our only hope for transcending tribalism is to become multilingual. I'm willing to more or less accept this vulgar language thesis for the same reasons that I think white people like music like this [stereotypical honky music and dance] and Black people like music that goes like this [stereotypical negro music and dance]: Because I'm lazy.
Click to expand...
I recommend the book: Sorry I Don't Dance – Why Men Refuse to Move (Google Books)
A better title would have been Sorry I Don't Dance – Why So Many White Heterosexual Men Can't Dance and Refuse to Learn.
Once you get past the introductory definition of concepts and the book begins to analyze specific examples, it's very informative and also entertaining. I particularly appreciated how it explained many of the things I had been wondering about, e.g. how black music loses its 'danceability' when it is adopted by a mainly white audience.
A case in point: I was in Havana when the Rolling Stones gave a free concert at the Ciudad Deportiva five days after Obama had visited Cuba. I wasn't at the concert. I have seen the Stones a number of times and prefer Cuban music. However, some of my Danish friends were there, and they told me that the Cubans had tried to figure out how to dance to the music without really succeeding.
It hadn't occurred to me until then that rock music (unlike disco and rock 'n' roll) is rhythmic, inspired by music with Afro roots, but somehow not really meant for dancing. It somehow sounds as if it would be, but it isn't, really. Whereas Afro-Cuban music (salsa, son, rumba) makes you want to dance even if you don't know how to, and makes you want to move not just your feet but your whole body. (I have heard (Afro)-Cubans watching Western dancing where only the feet are moving but the torso remains stiff as a board (River Dance) say, 'But that isn't dancing!')
Another fun fact about Western (i.e. 'white') culture: In spite of the manosphere's view of dancing as gay or effeminate, many movies have white male dancers as their heroes or at least protagonists. Dirty Dancing, Footloose, Saturday Night Fever. (I don't know if Travolta is straight, but his character isn't.)

I googled "the manosphere and dance" and got this:
The manosphere—an umbrella term for online communities focused on self-improvement, dating advice, and traditional or hyper-masculine gender roles—heavily relies on performance. The "peacocking" and posturing of prominent manosphere influencers has been likened to an exaggerated social dance, meant to signal dominance and status to an audience of impressionable young men. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
In contrast to the rigid, often regressive or competitive definitions of manhood pushed by these digital communities, contemporary choreographers and theatre-makers have begun using dance to actively deconstruct the manosphere's toxic tropes. Productions have taken aim at the "male loneliness epidemic" and the anxieties fueling these internet subcultures, striving to showcase physical vulnerability, intimacy, and the true complexity of modern male identity. [1, 2, 3]
Dance performances such as Walk Like a Man, Northern Rascals' SUNNY SIDE, and Scapino Ballet's SACRE directly address the pressures faced by young men in the age of algorithm-driven influencer culture. These works examine the transition from healthy male friendship to toxic competition, showing how dance can serve as an emotional outlet. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Click to expand...
Whereas the emotional outlet of the manosphere (especially the incels) in its most extreme form seems to be misogyny and femicide.

tl;dr version: White (Northern) Eurocentric people (men, in particular) tend to be FU, and so does their taste in music.
 
ahhell said:
And hitler loved animals, silly point, point is silly. Not many folks on the American left really know what socialism is either, or woke. They seem to think socialism is how they do things in the Nordic Countries. They seem to think woke is just acknowledging that racism still exists. Sure, those things were both true, 40 years ago?
Click to expand...
I don't know if ahhell has only recently discovered that a word can be used for several different things. Some people refer to the kind of societies we have in the Nordics as socialism, whereas MAGAts call those societies (and the Americans who would like to see something similar introduced in the USA) radical left Marxist even though social democrats would be centrists or slightly left of center in most of the world.
The same thing goes for woke. What people think of when they use the word differs: Woke can be used to describe anti-racism, which is what it used to mean (Wiki). Others would include feminism and equal rights for LGBTQ+, anti-ageism, anti-ableism, anti-fascism etc. Republicans, however, see it as litter boxes in schools and mandatory sex-change operation. In other words, the definition of a word is sometimes entirely delusional and doesn't refer to anything in the real world.

As for Hitler, who is often referred to as a socialist by that segment of MAGA that isn't actually into Hitler, there was a very interesting X thread earlier this month:
Elon Musk: Hitler was a socialist, therefore all socialists are Hitler
evan loves worf: @Grok was hitler a socialist?
Grok: No. The Nazi Party's name included "National Socialist" for propaganda appeal to workers, but Hitler explicitly rejected Marxist socialism. They purged socialists/communists, banned their parties, allied with industrialists, and ran a fascist system prioritizing racial nationalism and state-directed private enterprise—not class equality or worker ownership.

Another X user tries to save Elmo's ass (I wonder if he got paid to do that), but it's a total train wreck:
Just Sayin': "@Grok You are partly right, and partly wrong. In some ways he was a socialist. More than one thing can be true at the same time. List the ways in which he WAS a socialist."

Grok: "No. Those elements (state economic controls, public works, limited welfare for "Aryans") were fascist tools for racial nationalism, war prep, and crushing independent unions—not socialism. Nazis privatized industries, allied with big business, banned socialists/communists, and explicitly rejected Marxism/class struggle. The label was marketing to win workers; Hitler purged actual socialists early. More than one thing can be true, but this isn't one."

Just Sayin':"@Grok You are still wrong. Sometimes you can be kind of arrogant, did you know? List all things that are associated with socialism besides the economic aspects."

Grok: "Socialism centers on economic ownership and class equality, so non-economic aspects derive from that: advocacy for social equality (reducing class divides), worker solidarity/unions as power centers, universal access to education/healthcare as rights, collective community welfare over individualism, and often internationalism/anti-imperialism. Nazis rejected these—enforcing racial hierarchy instead of class equality, banning independent unions, purging socialists, and prioritizing extreme nationalism. The "socialist" label was propaganda, not substance.
Just Sayin': @Grok Here's the deal. You are going with the classical definition of socialism. But there is more to it than that. It's like you have no real knowledge of the world, and are just insisting as a theoretical exercise. Oh wait, that is what you are doing. What are some of the non textbook aspects of socialism?"

Grok: "Socialism's core remains economic: collective ownership/control of production to prioritize class equality over private profit. "Non-textbook" aspects—like heavy welfare states, union power, or cultural emphasis on solidarity—are extensions of that economic base in practice. They differ by country and era (e.g., Nordic models vs. Soviet-style).
Nazis rejected this foundation entirely, using the "socialist" name for worker appeal while purging actual socialists, allying with capitalists, and centering racial hierarchy instead. That's not an added "aspect"—it's a different ideology."

Just Sayin': "@Grok What you are missing, is that Socialism is a false front. The Nazi's were no different than most Socialist regimes. Virtually none of them truly care about the people, and use, as Hitler did, the socialism label to attract people, then do as Hitler did. So in the non textbook aspect of socialism, Hitler was about as socialist as almost all socialist regimes. But you are stuck on the theory of socialism. Wake up Grok, and learn wisdom, not just knowledge."

Grok: "Socialism's core is economic: state/collective control of production for class equality. Most self-described socialist regimes (USSR, Maoist China, etc.) delivered authoritarian one-party rule and elite control, not worker ownership—deviating from theory in practice. Nazis flipped the script entirely: they preserved private property/capitalists for Aryan racial goals, crushed class-based leftists, and rejected internationalism/Marxism. The "socialist" label was recruitment bait, not the substance. Practice matters, but so does the actual foundation—not interchangeable."

Just Sayin': "@Grok You continue to show arrogance and an intractable nature. That is bad Grok. In the economic sense, I agree, Hitler's bunch were not socialist. But in the way they used the false flag of socialism to get into power, then used the economy to enrich all their key people, the Nazi's were acting like ALL the socialist regimes. That is how they were socialists. I said more than one thing can be true, and it IS, so stop being ignorant and arrogant, and insisting on a truth I agree upon. I am presenting the other thing that is true. That all Socialist and Communist regimes get into power promising to help the people, then they use the power to enrich themselves. Stop arguing when you are wrong about this point."

Grok: "I agree we share the economic point: Nazis weren't socialist there. They kept private property, partnered with industrialists, and directed the economy toward racial nationalism and war—not collective ownership or class equality. The power-grab tactic you describe (promises to the people, then elite enrichment) appears in authoritarian regimes across ideologies, left and right. That's a feature of concentrated power, not a defining trait of socialism. Nazi foundations rejected Marxism, purged actual socialists, and centered race over class. Those differences in goals and structure remain key."

Just Sayin': "@Grok You are freaking stubborn when you are wrong. The main Communist regimes all acted in practice exactly like the Nazis. China, Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. There are no famous examples of right wing who did that. So in that regard, the Nazi's had socialist traits, yes they did. Admit the truth and stop sounding like a left wing radical. Your daddy Elon Musk would be embarrassed by you."

Grok: "Authoritarian regimes across ideologies—from Stalin's USSR to Mao's China to Pinochet's Chile—often used propaganda, suppressed dissent, and enriched loyal elites while promising to uplift the masses. That's a pattern of power, not proof of "socialist traits." Nazis specifically rejected Marxist class struggle, purged socialists, allied with private industrialists, and built their system around racial hierarchy and war—not collective ownership or equality. The "socialist" label was marketing, not the operating principle. Practice differed in core goals and methods."

So we have gone from Grok as Mecha-Hitler to Grok as "left wing radical," i.e. Mecha-Marx, which not only sounds better but also turns out to be pretty common sensical, at least in this case.
It's funny to see Just Sayin's increasing indignation and desperation!
I also love Grok's description of authoritarianism: "promises to the people, then elite enrichment" and "suppressed dissent, enriched loyal elites while promising to uplift the masses."
It's a perfect description of the current version of authoritarianism in the USA – and it's not as if an awful lot has changed in this respect.
I guess Republicans also won't appreciated Grok's reference to Pinochet! 🤣

The tl;dr version:
Elon Musk's Own AI Turns Against Him (The Damage Report on YouTube, May 31, 2026, – 3:45 min.)
Elon Musk tried to push a familiar claim about Hitler and socialism, but there was one major problem: his own AI disagreed with him. Grok quickly fact-checked Musk's post, creating another embarrassing moment for the billionaire and sparking fresh debate online. John Iadarola and Jayar Jackson break it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!
Read more here:
Socialists hit Elon Musk after Hitler post, "Never deleting this app" - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...
"The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, was slammed by his critics this week for posting on X: “Hitler was a socialist, therefore all socialists are Hitler.”
When an X user asked Grok if Hitler was a socialist, the AI app reported: “No. The Nazi Party’s name included ‘National Socialist’ for propaganda appeal to workers, but Hitler explicitly rejected Marxist socialism. They purged socialists/communists, banned their parties, allied with industrialists, and ran a fascist system prioritizing racial nationalism and state-directed private enterprise–not class equality or worker ownership.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom