It’s pretty common where I live, especially for people who grow up in conservative families. You start out assuming the trusted adults in your life are right about everything (or at least I did), but once you’re exposed to the world outside your bubble, you gradually (or not) change your mind on a lot of things.
I get that that’s different from, say, an adult with fully formed beliefs one day changing their mind, and that probably is pretty rare. Still, out of all the badass lefties I know, most of them did have at least a few years of cringy hardcore conservatism. 🤷
And by conservatives you mean two random twitter accounts that, at least in the article screens, do not mention their political view at all, one random youtube commenter with no mention of political views, and one conservative sports website which is kind of a weird crossover.
Let’s keep it real here, that article is trying suuuuper hard to be edgy with nothing much to cling to. Conservatives stopped talking about gay people in the 90’s.
Sorry dude. I read the article and see the only cites of conservatives losing it are a couple social media comments from random noname people with no clear political view.
I don’t follow foreign politics so I have no clue what you’re trying to say, but in my country the older thinkers give zero fucks about people being gay.
Either way, do you think this article sincerely found conservatives freaking out about gay animals because I do not see that in this article. It does the world no favours manifesting polarization without substance.
Thomas is a Supreme Court justice and his legal ruling in a recent case advocated for banning gay marriage. Perhaps the situation is different elsewhere but in the US there is still a lot of prejudice against queer people among conservatives.
According to Wikipedia the overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage. It actually references the 90’s as the turning point which seems to support my original comment.
The majority of Americans arent conservative, so what the majority believe doesnt reflect what a minority of the population believe. As for the population of conservatives its about thirty percent, they just have undue influence due to fuckery and outdated governmental systems.
Yeah I think it is more of a loud minority but it is a strongly held belief for a not insignificant portion of the population, and they hold a lot of political power.
They literally send gay children to abusive camps to “pray the gay away”. You cannot say they don’t give a shit about gay people, they’re just harder to attack so they’re focusing on trans people now.
What the overwhelming majority of Americans believe doesn’t matter, because the US is not a direct democracy; it is a representative republic. The representatives are elected, and are massively corrupt. The corruption comes in many different forms, like gerrymandering, first past the post voting leading to a two party system, private monetary donations to political campaigns leading to representatives doing their donors’ bidding, revolving door politics, the owner class having ownership over the means of production leading to massive consolidation of wealth which then ties back into private money in politics and the revolving door, etc.
When looking at polling data, the American people are pretty solidly social democrats, but US policy does not reflect that at all; instead, it reflects the will of the corporations and wealthy donors, except for very rare situations where there is a form of direct democracy, like direct ballot initiatives, for example. When looking at bills that are signed into law outside of direct ballot initiatives, 99.99% of the time, it reflects the interests of the wealthy or fascists (since the wealthy prefers fascism over any semblence of socialism, since it keeps them in power).
Are we seriously doomed to have this stupid ass homophobia shoved down our throats by conservative bigots every 5-10 years because they keep getting mad about the same thing all over again? I’ve been listening to this shit for over 20 years now.
Also, he mentions 20 years, I have seen it going on much longer than 20 years, sadly. If they seize power via a Ronald McDonald presidency, they will make things far, far worse. I remember things being very hostile toward gays (trans, etc., didn’t really get a mention other than for comedy) at the height of the fear over AIDS. I think the boot lifted a bit from their neck during the 70s, a whole lot of people seemed to view the 80s as their comeuppance for daring to be who they are…
And anyone that votes for Republicans, and yet is not a fully white, xtian, far-right cishet male is absolutely kidding themselves. They’ll have you up against the wall eventually no matter how much Ronald McDonald regalia you might have purchased.
Just know that these asshats take extreme pride in their hate. They will subject people to it until the day they die. Christianity is an eternal well of hate and ignorance. And they want to make sure no one is ever happy, the miserable fucks!
Given their history, I’m thinking yes. And they have more plans than just poutrages on their alternative reality cinematic universe, they want to force their worldview of xtian Sharia Law on everyone.
I’ve watched decades of leftist get their heads kicked in by conservative police forces who have learned how to better kick in heads. Mean while leftists are showing up with a playbook that hasn’t been updated in 70 years. If anything the 70s probably had more effective playbook. Point is its fun to say but the left is not making a great case for learning and adapting.
Hell in Canada they have pretty much fucked us for a few decades pretty severely
We’ve been fed a story about non violent protest leading to change. They told us any non violence but intentionally left out the most important part about those protests. Those marches were to places where all those people were going to get in line to register to vote. They were out to achieve something and gum up the system. They were forcing their oppressors to contend with them.
Just showing up with signs and saying you think something is wrong is never going to do anything. They know we don’t like it, they don’t care.
You have to go inside, make a demand, and be followed by a thousand people who also make a demand. Prevent them from doing business until they deal with you. They will respond with violence. That is the point.
You go with a specific list of demands, you go in to the place you want to meet those demands, and you don’t leave until you’re forced to. You keep doing that until it becomes a national problem.
You cannot effectively protest non violently without disrupting business in concrete in measurable ways. You might as well just shout at a wall.
I agree for the most part except I disagree that the solution is violent in anyway.
View Society fundamentally as in group and then a million out groups. Its pop culture vs sub groups. The right wing represent popular culture in almost every country they are traditionalist. They are where every other group wants to be. They are blue jean letter jacket pop culture.
The left wing are always the rejects, both by choice and not by choice. They are various groups of skids and punks and poor and jobless and immigrants. Unified under this idea that they deserve the attention and same rules applied to the pop group.
Protests is a way the sub groups fight to gain equality with the pop group. Little by little it can succeed with violence but I don’t believe that’s effective. I think it does the opposite. I think a lot of these protests serve the people that are being protested more. That’s because a lot of modern protestors seem to have gone with this view that becoming a burden to everyone is the way to get movement?
Environmental activist deflate tires and stand in traffic. During morning commutes for example. If you look at life as groups all vying for popularity, these actions are unpopular and alienate these groups and their associated causes. Being violent also accomplishes this. Violence can get a lot done. Doesn’t mean its the most effective. I just cannot believe modern day protestors have never decided to make their cause appealing in a way to make their cause something that people would want to join. Why is it always being obnoxious and shouting and violent or a nuisance. I have a suspicion that large entities figured out long ago you can beat these protestors and kill their momentum by actually encouraging them. Not just encouraging them but finding the most radical and unappealing ones in the group and funding them so they become leaders.
Honestly, I’m a wonk, listening to an episode of KF right now, and that quote is so foreign to me because there’s so many other clips I’ve heard more often. Does that make me a hipster if “freaking frogs gay” is too mainstream?
I’m deeply sad that Alex jones got his hands on that one. There’s a potentially huge effect that birth control has on fish reproduction, but I suspect people dismiss it because Jones said libs were turning frogs gay
In high school, the conservative kids refused to accept homosexuality occurred in Greek culture. Then when they finally did accept it, said it was why God destroyed their civilization?
They are in violent and vehement denial about facts that are empirically documented and readily observable with ones own eyes.
They didn’t actually learn anything. It will be written off as some “degenerate liberuhl conspiracy”, as they do with every other fact that doesn’t align with their perverse totalitarian worldview.
I mean, that’s the entire conservative/right-wing M.O.
Pretty much. The intersection of gender and sexuality spectrum means romantic attraction, sexual attraction, and sexual interests can mix and match in a lot of ways.
“It’s unclear if there is an official Hierarchy of Victimhood for animals,” Outkick bleats. “There is for humans. Transgender persons sit atop. Straight white Christian men sit at the bottom, almost buried beneath the pyramid.”
Pfffft. What a hypocrite. Whining about trans people’s immense victimhood, while using the exact same metaphor to imply that, in fact, HE is the most victimized of all by not even being allowed to be the victim. By being “buried beneath the pyramid” of victimhood. Bahahahaha. The cognitive dissonance is incredible.
And buddy… That “Christian” part is apparently doing a lot of heavy lifting on your victim complex, my guy. Plenty of us straight white men get by without being under constant attack. If everyone around you seems like an asshole, maybe you’re the asshole. And maybe if you acted a little more Christ-like, you’d give people less reason to attack you and you’d make more friends with different kinds of people.
The problem in his view, as best I can tell, is that there is a natural hierarchy, that he belongs on top of telling everyone else what to do, and any upset of this natural hierarchy is oppressing him. He may not have thought this out in so many words, but it's a hypothesis that seems to make accurate predictions about what people in his reference class will do and say.
Oh, definitely. Conservatives are all about social hierarchies and how it’s the only ‘natural’ form of society. Anyone trying to ‘rise above their place’ or help someone do so is an enemy to be destroyed, lest they cause the collapse of society as we know it.
Straight white Christian men sit at the bottom, almost buried beneath the pyramid
Like a Pharaoh? Buried with concubines and unimaginable riches and feasts in an elaborate sarcophagus? Under a monument built on the backs of thousands of slaves and their suffering and death? Yeah, okay, that tracks.
Well the second argument is true, it’s just that being gay isn’t unethical. But talk to them about veganism and all of a sudden we can eat insane amounts of dead animals cause lions eat other animals too?
Varmaa siksi koska mä veikkaan et puhu mitään muuta kieltä, joten jos mä rupeen kirjottaa jollai muul kielel, ni sun pitää vaivautua itse kääntämään se (mikä ei tosin nykyään vaadi kun sen kaks klikkaust, sillonku mnää olin piän ni sullei ois ollu mitää tsänssiä).
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric they’re being. Guess it’s hard to see when you don’t have any other languages to think in.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does “animals don’t speak” somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
Of course people don’t fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
If you think that’s stupid, wait until you hear about the guy who said the same thing of animals.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognisable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, that’s another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
Anyway, for those actually interested in what the current research says about how much animals can use language, NativLang on YT has an awesome series on animal speech/grammar that goes into depth on the subject. Here’s the first video.
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric they’re being. Guess it’s hard to see when you don’t have any other languages to think in.
and it also probably helps when you’re classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument, where classifying humans as animals would only cause further problems.
Along with the fact that it’s arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others, but this isn’t relevant.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does “animals don’t speak” somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
are you actually genuinely mad at me for this? And yes, “animals don’t speak” doesn’t convey it properly, because animals literally do speak, they just don’t speak the same kind of interpreted languages that humans often do, though we have taught monke sign language a couple of times, so there’s that, which might count i guess. (though it’s not particularly fluent, or communicative)
But generally, for all intents and purposes, for this semantic argument, no, they don’t speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do “english” for example.
This is like being mad at someone for talking about transportation, and using cars as an example, because they like cars, or drive one all the time. It’s just the basic bias of existing as a human being, where being impartial to literally everything that ever exists, at any point in time, is quite literally impossible.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognizable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, that’s another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
regardless, my point was that animals have their own code of ethics, independent from the human concept of ethics, as defined in languages like english, which i used as the example, because i don’t know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language. I’m just using the system relevant to the words i’m speaking about. It’d be a little weird if i was using fucking C the programming language, as an example of language, wouldn’t it?
and it also probably helps when you’re classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument
Nice try but the implication of animals being distinct was quite clear. The point is that there was absolutely no need to add the extra “English” to the end of “animals don’t speak [English]”, and actually omitting it would’ve made the sentence more inclusive and less prescriptively wrong. Even less wrong would’ve been to say “animals don’t have language”, although we’re actually not a 100% on that, given that there are definite communications. We’re having a hard time defining what level we’re on ourself and where we came from to be able to understand a similar evolution happening on an entirely different branch of evolution.
Along with the fact that it’s arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others,
Is it? Is it really? Because I don’t think it is in any way, unless it’s explicitly hate speech that you’re doing in the context, and then anything in that context is hate speech. So you think no-one should ever refer to “Finnish people” for instance, because they would be doing a hate-speech on me, eh? Or that you can’t talk about the differences between European and American cultures, as you can’t refer to people separately without it being hate speech?
no, they don’t speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do “english” for example.
But see, they do. They do speak the same way, but language isn’t just about speech. Speech is only a part of language. You seem to be having trouble seeing those two concepts as different from each other. Animals can speak, ie remember and use words.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
See, this is sort of my core point that came out very strongly from just you having had to use “English” in your sentence. You’re ignorant, but you don’t like to think of yourself as ignorant. You’re intellectually lazy, but you don’t like thinking about yourself that way. So you pretend you’re not.
First off, I already gave you way more information on the subject, which clearly you didn’t even open let alone peruse although it’s a very in-depth dive to what properties of languages we’ve observed animals using and how much do we understand about how they understand their own understanding. And that sort of thing. Anyway, with just 30 secs in Google you’d find the most famous parrots on the matter:
Alex had a vocabulary of over 100 words,[17] but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly.[15] He could describe a key as a key no matter what its size or color, and could determine how the key was different from others.[7] Looking at a mirror, he said “what color”, and learned the word “grey” after being told “grey” six times.[18] This made him the first non-human animal to have ever asked a question, let alone an existential one (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question).[19]
Alex was said to have understood the turn-taking of communication and sometimes the syntax used in language.[14] He named an apple a “banerry” (pronounced as rhyming with some pronunciations of “canary”), which a linguist friend of Pepperberg’s thought to be a combination of “banana” and “cherry”, two fruits he was more familiar with.[18]
You were saying that " i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this."?
because i don’t know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
I’ve more than likely been using English for longer than you have, and I’m sorry to say you got it wrong again.
“Ethics” as word with the very same meaning it has today was spoken aloud long before English was a thing. It actually comes from Greek, through Latin.
late 14c., ethik “study of morals,” from Old French etique “ethics, moral philosophy” (13c.), from Late Latin ethica, from Greek ēthike philosophia “moral philosophy,” fem. of ēthikos “ethical, pertaining to character,” from ēthos “moral character,” related to ēthos “custom” (see ethos). Meaning “moral principles of a person or group” is attested from 1650s.
You make bold assumptions which I don’t see have much scientific basis in them. Like yes, animals have their “own” ethics and one could make the argument that all ethics are subjective and no such thing exists as objective ethics. However, saying they’re “wholly independent” might be a reach, since we know that we share some of our most fundamental concepts of what is “unfair” with some of our close cousins.
My point is that you should look question yourself a bit more and be open to other people actually knowing what your’e speaking about, and adding to it, instead of thinking everyone is always arguing against you.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language.
You’re repeating the age-old myth of “parrots just parrot, they don’t actually understand anything they parrot”.
This is decidedly untrue, and there’s heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie “wrong”.
ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
This is also just plain wrong. It’s a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That’s the video I linked in my very first reply.
You’re repeating the age-old myth of “parrots just parrot, they don’t actually understand anything they parrot”.
This is decidedly untrue, and there’s heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie “wrong”.
show me someone conversing with a parrot in a legible manner and i will believe you. I also handed you a much better example to use anyway.
This is also just plain wrong. It’s a Greek word that comes to English from Latin.
most prominent languages are based on latin, and latin is literally dead. Also technically if we’re being pedantic here, like you are, it’s not from latin, because latin isn’t the premiere progenitor of all language. Latin itself is actually a massive hodge podge of other various lingual devices, as are most languages.
But judging by your level of intellectual prowess, english isn’t a real language, because it steals words and grammar from other languages, often in non sensical mannerisms, that are inconsistent with it’s own grammatical constructions. Which is ironically, a fair statement, because english is a fucking mess.
Maybe bilingual people just don’t have a very multinational view of the world when it comes to history, and how it tends to play out, i don’t know though, because i follow history from time to time.
(See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
again this is like me getting into an older american car, to go somewhere, because it’s a car that i like and i drive it, because it’s reliable, only for you to inform me that i’m actually pretentious for using an american car because “there are other countries that manufacture cars” you keep acting like the one fucking statement that i made in passing is the arbiter of truth, solely defining every logical facet of the world. It’s not that deep, i’m just expressing my thoughts in a rather terse manner to get my point across without typing three fucking pages of text on the etymological history of every fucking word i’m using for fear that someone thinks i only understand english, and don’t understand the totality of all history ever, because otherwise “i would look like a dumbass”
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That’s the video I linked in my very first reply.
this is also literally what i re-iterated. I didn’t watch the video or click on any links, because unless you’re going to present it to me in a genuine manner that isn’t just trying to patronize me, i don’t really give a fuck to be honest. Maybe if you had read what i had written, you would understand this.
Can animals grammar? – introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
you know it’s funny that you mention this, because in the very first post that i made, i’m pretty sure i literally said “animals have methods of communication, it’s just not the same way that we do, I.E. english” or something along those lines. And i’m pretty fucking sure i reiterated that multiple times.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess you’re more interested in “winning” a conversation than actually having one.
it’s kind of interesting, and i’d like to discuss it, but it’s also hard to discuss something when literally everything you say is disputed for the purposes of “uhm nah actually ur wrong, because here’s a technicality where it’s actually kind of sort of wrong, and you should feel bad because i’m better than you” but maybe you don’t intend it that way, in which case, that’s how it fucking reads.
Am i brazen? Yes, i feel i’m being equally as brazen as you are though.
Edit lol replied to myself accidentally. Meant to put this at the bottom end of the thread.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language.
You’re repeating the age-old myth of “parrots just parrot, they don’t actually understand anything they parrot”.
This is decidedly untrue, and there’s heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie “wrong”.
ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
This is also just plain wrong. It’s a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That’s the video I linked in my very first reply.
I love that you specifically sad Peacock. It reminds me both of the rainbow-colored peacock logo of NBC in the 90s, as well as their PSA bumper “The more you know”.
Let’s now wait until they learn about shrimps and hermaphroditism in animals.
Northern shrimp, also commonly known as northern prawn, are a sequential hermaphrodite. This is a term used for animals that start their life as one sex and change to the other later in life. In the case of northern shrimp, they are born as males and become females at around four or five years of age.
In a group of anemonefish, a strict dominance hierarchy exists. The largest and most aggressive female is found at the top. Anemonefish are protandrous sequential hermaphrodites, meaning they develop into males first, and when they mature, they become females. If the female anemonefish is removed from the group, such as by death, one of the largest and most dominant males becomes a female.
And if they hear this information, they may stare blankly, refuse to take in the new information, then respond with a thought-terminating cliche like “God only made two genders.”
The conservative education system makes a special effort to misinform/occlude information about certain natural facts of life for generations of people. So every graduation cycle or two, you’ve got a fresh faced cohort of brainwashed kids who have to find out about the gay penguins from 1912 for the first time, ten years after they’ve cemented their bias against homosexuality on “rationalist” grounds.
We’ve been playing similar games with evolution since the fucking Stokes Monkey Trial. Identical debunked arguments showed up in The Panda’s Thumb over a century after they were ostensibly put to bed.
You’ll periodically see this show up in regards to phrenology and eugenics, as well. All sorts of inane long-dismissed claims about how physiognomy clues amateur race-sleuths in to someone’s criminal intent or intellectual fitness or breeding capacity.
Recycling pseudoscience and vaguely sourced gossip is also very popular in anti-abortion circles, giving us all sorts of zombie lies about pagan blood sacrifice of fetuses and elaborate plots to cull the white race.
The dogmatism of western bigotry is baked into conservative ideology. You can find people dredging up the same old tired lies from the 19th century in arguments made before the US Congress and the Supreme Court to this very day.
I remember Manny Pacquiao saying homosexuals are worst than animals because homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom. He was promptly educated.
“I’m sorry for hurting people by comparing homosexuals to animals. Please forgive me for those I’ve hurt. I still stand on my belief that I’m against same sex marriage because of what the Bible says, but I’m not condemning LGBT. I love you all with the love of the Lord. God Bless you all and I’m praying for you.”
Clearly not well enough. This is the old liberal-adjacent “Hate the sin, love the sinner” canard that moderate fundamentalists trot out, in order to exist in that gray “agree to disagree” space liberals love. Give it too much room to breath, and you’re going to be escorted to the Gay Conversion Therapy Camps with big rainbow colored “ordnen macht frei” signs over the entrance gate.
Add comment