FastPace
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,842
- Reaction score
- 243
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Full article: Oregon becomes first state to allow "not specified" gender on driver's license - CBS News
There is an old socio-political maxim: "Today's conservative is yesterday's liberal."
The meaning of the maxim is this: That conservatives inevitably shift their position leftward.
For myself, militant, rigid construct of "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative" are inherently problematic anyways. The rigid constructs of both seem to at some point reject truth.
What I mean by that is this: liberals always seek revolt, destruction, and change and conservatives always seek to conserve the current order, to reject change.
The irony of course is that conservatives always do eventually cave in and champion the liberal position. Always. It is merely and issue of how fast they cave.
The liberal on the other hand must always seek to revolt against the parameters the conservatives have then chosen to accept. They must destroy more of the norms of society to remain liberal. If liberals were analogous to a city fire or forest fire they must always seek to keep the burning and destruction going, otherwise they cease to be "liberal" or that is to say cease being a city of forest fire.
So, remember when gay marriage first became an issue (prior to that in the '70s the LGB's claimed they did not want to invade the institution of marriage, they just wanted to be left alone by others), and the LGBT (the Q had not been attached to the end yet) and liberal Democrats claimed they didn't want to change other structures of society, they only wanted to let saintly homosexuals marry?
A lot of conservatives eventually caved into that. And while I'm not a conservative I knew that claim of the LGBT was a lie. Why? For a number of reasons but primarily I had already figured out by then that to be a liberal, to militantly and rigidly view yourself that way, you can only understand yourself, who you are, in relation to *contrasting* yourself from conservatives. So, a liberals must always seek a new revolution, more destruction. Kind of like a heroin addict builds up a tolerance to x amount of heroin and needs a greater amount to reach the same level of high.
So, conservatives will complain and reject. Until that is they cave and accept.
The other alternative is civil war. Or Islam which will restore order as it often has in history, but even with that they may only accomplish that by low intensity civil war in the US taking one city at a time, till they gain a state, etc.
(Future police warning to the public about serial rapist on the loose or a violent escaped prisoner: "A creature of unknown species with non-factual appearances within hue spectrum is on loose, known to harm children, the public ought be on the look out.") :lol:
There is an old socio-political maxim: "Today's conservative is yesterday's liberal."
The meaning of the maxim is this: That conservatives inevitably shift their position leftward.
For myself, militant, rigid construct of "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative" are inherently problematic anyways. The rigid constructs of both seem to at some point reject truth.
What I mean by that is this: liberals always seek revolt, destruction, and change and conservatives always seek to conserve the current order, to reject change.
The irony of course is that conservatives always do eventually cave in and champion the liberal position. Always. It is merely and issue of how fast they cave.
The liberal on the other hand must always seek to revolt against the parameters the conservatives have then chosen to accept. They must destroy more of the norms of society to remain liberal. If liberals were analogous to a city fire or forest fire they must always seek to keep the burning and destruction going, otherwise they cease to be "liberal" or that is to say cease being a city of forest fire.
So, remember when gay marriage first became an issue (prior to that in the '70s the LGB's claimed they did not want to invade the institution of marriage, they just wanted to be left alone by others), and the LGBT (the Q had not been attached to the end yet) and liberal Democrats claimed they didn't want to change other structures of society, they only wanted to let saintly homosexuals marry?
A lot of conservatives eventually caved into that. And while I'm not a conservative I knew that claim of the LGBT was a lie. Why? For a number of reasons but primarily I had already figured out by then that to be a liberal, to militantly and rigidly view yourself that way, you can only understand yourself, who you are, in relation to *contrasting* yourself from conservatives. So, a liberals must always seek a new revolution, more destruction. Kind of like a heroin addict builds up a tolerance to x amount of heroin and needs a greater amount to reach the same level of high.
So, conservatives will complain and reject. Until that is they cave and accept.
The other alternative is civil war. Or Islam which will restore order as it often has in history, but even with that they may only accomplish that by low intensity civil war in the US taking one city at a time, till they gain a state, etc.
(Future police warning to the public about serial rapist on the loose or a violent escaped prisoner: "A creature of unknown species with non-factual appearances within hue spectrum is on loose, known to harm children, the public ought be on the look out.") :lol:
