Mods, feel free to move this to politics if you think that's where it belongs.  This has been mentioned in several threads but I think it deserves its own thread.

I think a huge part of the culture of the mid 2010s is the extreme tension between progressive social justice warriors and conservative anti-social justice warriors.  There is an anger and a tension in our culture right now that is unlike anything I've experienced my entire life.  Everybody is offended by everything, from Caitlyn Jenner to Cecil the Lion to the Confederate flag to red Starbucks cups. Question is, how did we get here and where do we go from here?  Does it escalate in 2016?

I believe the current tension is related to significant cultural changes that have been brewing for decades finally being realized and conservative resistance to them.

When 2015 started, things were getting more tense but it was still more easy-going than today.  The fast escalating tension began when Bruce Jenner announced he would become Caitlyn.  Soon after that, there was the Confederate Flag controversy that resulted in South Carolina lowering the flag.  Then a couple of weeks later there was the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  June was a terrible month for social conservatives.

Since then, it seems like everyone is offended and angry all the time.  That is why Donald Trump is so popular right now.  While this post is bordering on political, I think its appropriate for the broader discussion of 2010s culture because I think when we look back on the '10s this will be what is remembered.

Does anybody think there is any hope of tensions easing going into the late 2010s?

All of the trends you've described drive home a point that I've made before but only becomes more real with time:  sociopolitical lay, the 2010s are the early 21st century equivalent to the 1960s.  The advent of new technology (television in the buildup to the 60s; social media for the 2010s) has bred a huge wave of socially progressive movements that had been developing for the previous decade and a half, but which peaked in the subsequent decade.  The previous decade had been socially conservative and hyper-patriotic, which promulgated major social protest in the following years.  In both cases, the legiative and societal gains were ginormous, but due to their fast-paced, extreme nature at the time, they ultimately led to a growing backlash that called for a return to an orderly status quo.  Donald Trump is basically the current equivalent to Richard Nixon, although Nixon wasn't nearly as critical of the Johnson administration as Trump was of the Obama presidency.  I think around the beginning of the 2020s, hipsters and social protests will start to lose steam as backlash against social protests become completely dominant, akin to how social movement backlash started to really take off in 1970.

I think it will get even more intense next year. Don't know about the 2020s though.

All this social ruckus is very ruckusy!  :D  :D  :D

All of the trends you've described drive home a point that I've made before but only becomes more real with time:  sociopolitical lay, the 2010s are the early 21st century equivalent to the 1960s.  The advent of new technology (television in the buildup to the 60s; social media for the 2010s) has bred a huge wave of socially progressive movements that had been developing for the previous decade and a half, but which peaked in the subsequent decade.  The previous decade had been socially conservative and hyper-patriotic, which promulgated major social protest in the following years.  In both cases, the legiative and societal gains were ginormous, but due to their fast-paced, extreme nature at the time, they ultimately led to a growing backlash that called for a return to an orderly status quo.  Donald Trump is basically the current equivalent to Richard Nixon, although Nixon wasn't nearly as critical of the Johnson administration as Trump was of the Obama presidency.  I think around the beginning of the 2020s, hipsters and social protests will start to lose steam as backlash against social protests become completely dominant, akin to how social movement backlash started to really take off in 1970.


Great points.  There are definitely parallels between the 2010s and the 1960s.  I didn't live through the sixties but from what I know it was a turbulent time with a lot of cultural tension that ultimately led to a harsh reaction during the 1970s that gave us Richard Nixon and the Jesus movement (which led to the Moral Majority during the 1980s).  The more fun, easygoing atmosphere of the 1950s and early 1960s was replaced by an atmosphere of fear, anger, and hate, not too different from what we have today.

If a widespread backlash happens, I don't know if it will even take until the 2020s.  The SCOTUS decision and Caitlyn Jenner have awakened social conservatives and they will be going to the polls, likely in greater numbers than any recent election in 2016.  This election will be the test to see if the backlash is strong enough to swing the overall national pendulum back in the other direction.

I think it will get even more intense next year. Don't know about the 2020s though.


I agree.  Next year, with the Presidential election and the fact many state legislatures in conservative states will likely try to ban gay marriage despite the SCOTUS ruling, I think the tension could reach its peak.  The outcome of the election will be a test of where the country is at and should determine where we go from here.

I agree.  Next year, with the Presidential election and the fact many state legislatures in conservative states will likely try to ban gay marriage despite the SCOTUS ruling, I think the tension could reach its peak.  The outcome of the election will be a test of where the country is at and should determine where we go from here.


It's an intensity bomb next year! The news should be interesting next year!  :(

I agree.  Next year, with the Presidential election and the fact many state legislatures in conservative states will likely try to ban gay marriage despite the SCOTUS ruling, I think the tension could reach its peak.  The outcome of the election will be a test of where the country is at and should determine where we go from here.


I don't think conservative states are going to be successful in their attempts to nullify federal law over gay marriage because public opinion has been consistently trending in favor of gay marriage over the past decade within the Republican Party, which is now pretty divided over the issue, compared to the 2012 Election, when pretty much all of the presidential candidates were full-on anti-gay rights and didn't receive ginormous applause at a debate by stating they would accept their child if he/she were gay.  There are definitely still conservative leaders who are full-on enemies of the LGBT movement (Ted Cruz...*vomits*), but they're basically the equivalent to what George Wallace was in the 1968 Election, aside from not running a third-party campaign.  Nixon was not explicitly racist and supported lots of social programs like affirmative action, even though his platform of law and order resonated with social conservatives who opposed the social movements of the day.  The same type of logic applies with a lot of the current Republican candidates like Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, who are willing to tolerate the gay marriage decision and take moderate stances on other social issues, but still appeal primarily to those sick of the relentlessly liberal culture that has emerged since Obama took office.  Even Donald Trump, shameless as he is of his prejudices against latinos, is still primarily running a campaign against the political correctness and institutionalization of the United States, rather than actively promoting violence and discrimination against social minorities; in many ways, he's the most Nixonian candidate of all.

I don't think conservative states are going to be successful in their attempts to nullify federal law over gay marriage because public opinion has been consistently trending in favor of gay marriage over the past decade within the Republican Party, which is now pretty divided over the issue, compared to the 2012 Election, when pretty much all of the presidential candidates were full-on anti-gay rights and didn't receive ginormous applause at a debate by stating they would accept their child if he/she were gay.  There are definitely still conservative leaders who are full-on enemies of the LGBT movement (Ted Cruz...*vomits*), but they're basically the equivalent to what George Wallace was in the 1968 Election, aside from not running a third-party campaign.  Nixon was not explicitly racist and supported lots of social programs like affirmative action, even though his platform of law and order resonated with social conservatives who opposed the social movements of the day.  The same type of logic applies with a lot of the current Republican candidates like Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, who are willing to tolerate the gay marriage decision and take moderate stances on other social issues, but still appeal primarily to those sick of the relentlessly liberal culture that has emerged since Obama took office.  Even Donald Trump, shameless as he is of his prejudices against latinos, is still primarily running a campaign against the political correctness and institutionalization of the United States, rather than actively promoting violence and discrimination against social minorities; in many ways, he's the most Nixonian candidate of all.


I understand what you are saying and public opinion is radically shifting in favor of gay marriage, but we aren't quite to the point where its a non-issue.  Many Republican candidates like Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson are actively campaigning against it and have promised a constitutional amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision.  It's even worse in the state legislatures.  I am certain that in certain states they will try to nullify marriage equality in 2016. They have already filed a bill to do just that in Tennessee.  A handful of other states will likely follow.  They will not be successful though.  The federal government will have to step in like they did in Alabama earlier this year when they refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the ruling.  What effect that will have, I don't know.  States where this ends up happening could see it as further overreach by the federal government and it could even further escalate tensions.  I live in a small town in one of the most conservative states in the union, and many people where I live would go as far as to secede from the Union over gay marriage.

There is a lot of anger right now among social conservatives concerning the SCOTUS decision and the GOP is going to really try to exploit that this next year to drive voter turnout.

I think 2016 will be the last election where gay marriage is a defining issue.  In four more years, most of the country will have accepted it and be ready to move on.  There will probably still be a minority trying to make an issue of it but it won't be a big enough minority to be significant.

I understand what you are saying and public opinion is radically shifting in favor of gay marriage, but we aren't quite to the point where its a non-issue.  Many Republican candidates like Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson are actively campaigning against it and have promised a constitutional amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision.  It's even worse in the state legislatures.  I am certain that in certain states they will try to nullify marriage equality in 2016. They have already filed a bill to do just that in Tennessee.  A handful of other states will likely follow.  They will not be successful though.  The federal government will have to step in like they did in Alabama earlier this year when they refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the ruling.  What effect that will have, I don't know.  States where this ends up happening could see it as further overreach by the federal government and it could even further escalate tensions.  I live in a small town in one of the most conservative states in the union, and many people where I live would go as far as to secede from the Union over gay marriage.

There is a lot of anger right now among social conservatives concerning the SCOTUS decision and the GOP is going to really try to exploit that this next year to drive voter turnout.

I think 2016 will be the last election where gay marriage is a defining issue.  In four more years, most of the country will have accepted it and be ready to move on.  There will probably still be a minority trying to make an issue of it but it won't be a big enough minority to be significant.


The Bible Belt states are a strange case, as people there are still not comfortable with older social topics like racial integration, even half a century after the 60s civil rights movements.  Like I stated, though, the Republican Party has finally started to become increasingly accepting of gay marriage, or at least tolerant of it (as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are).  Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee are basically this generation's George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, representative of the still hateful Dixie states, but not nearly as popular on a national level as more pragmatic Republicans.  Actively campaigning against gay marriage would be just as unpopular now as overturning civil rights legislation for blacks in the 60s, and it represents perfectly just how fractured the Republican Party has become in recent years.  My guess is that racial, women's, and LGBT rights movements will lose momentum around the turn of the 2020s, but particularly as a result of the traditional movement coalitions splintering and legislation becoming more relegated to local politics instead of federal politics.  I agree that the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party will be unsuccessful in nullifying the SCOTUS gay marriage decision; even in 2004/2005, Republicans weren't able to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Even with the 60s backlash during the 70s and eventual rise of Reagan conservatism in the 80s, black, women's, and gay civil rights didn't really regress so much as they slowed down and encountered new challenges.

Apparently now Marco Rubio wants to overturn the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.  The guy has now completely lost my support as the potential Republican candidate, as until this point he seemed like the less scary alternative to a Ted Cruz in that ruining marriage quality was not part of his presidential agenda (I may have overlooked previous comments he made in-between the decision in June and now, but he didn't originally come off as a George Wallace-type).  He doesn't understand the difference between popular vote and protection of civil liberties; we wouldn't have a Supreme Court in the first place if every state-level public vote was defended against nationwide rulings.

Apparently now Marco Rubio wants to overturn the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.  The guy has now completely lost my support as the potential Republican candidate, as until this point he seemed like the less scary alternative to a Ted Cruz in that ruining marriage quality was not part of his presidential agenda (I may have overlooked previous comments he made in-between the decision in June and now, but he didn't originally come off as a George Wallace-type).  He doesn't understand the difference between popular vote and protection of civil liberties; we wouldn't have a Supreme Court in the first place if every state-level public vote was defended against nationwide rulings.


Gay marriage, gun rights, and Islamic immigration are the three biggest issues for social conservatives, who are base voters in the GOP primary.  The candidate has to tow the party line and tow it hard on those issues to have a chance at getting the nomination.  In fact, he could kiss winning the Bible Belt goodbye if he took a passive stance on the SCOTUS ruling, most of whom view as the worst decision since Dred Scott if not the worst in US history.

I think the anti-gay platform still has more legs today than segregation did when George Wallace ran in 1968.  If you don't live in the Bible Belt, its difficult to comprehend the level of hatred, almost to Hitleresque levels, that people have for the LGBT community.

I read one version of the Bible, and there was no homosexual sex in the chapter/section about Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps I read a different version?

The impression I got from that early chapter of the bible was that the people were just too proud or something. Mean, snippy. I got nothing about gay sex, or sodomy. :.shrugs shoulders:.

The only social justice cause I can say I'm "actively' a part of is the Black Lives Matter one. Because I am a Black woman and it just upsets me to think that if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, I could be the next hashtag on Twitter. I have several male friends, Black, heavyset. All very sweet, but someone with a narrow mind might consider them a "threat" or "intimidating" and I'm having to buy a black dress. I don't like it. It's not fair. It's bad that even if I don't show it, in the back of my mind I'm worried that some cop will harm me. It's already enough to worry about some strange man trying to catcall me , but then the one who's supposed to protect you?

I don't know I just wish it would stop. And then there's the media coverage of it. They even painted that 12 year old, Tamir Rice as some kind of outlaw--a CHILD. I kind of wonder what will be said about me should something like that happen. There's no "bad" pictures of me available. I don't have any strikes against me other than 2 suspensions in junior year in high school. I've never broken the law. I made a few to the left remarks about a certain pop star but that's about it. It just all worries me and scares me.

I think the anti-gay platform still has more legs today than segregation did when George Wallace ran in 1968.  If you don't live in the Bible Belt, its difficult to comprehend the level of hatred, almost to Hitleresque levels, that people have for the LGBT community.


Good lord, I can't imagine the Republican Party as a whole being worse than the Dixiecrats were in 1948 and 1968.  There are definitely hateful extremists in the coalition, but "almost to Hitleresque levels" is an exaggeration because that would practically imply most Republicans openly embrace the Ku Klux Klan and hope for an outright genocide or imprisonment of all LGBT Americans, as opposed to just making bullsheesh "tradition" and "family values" arguments against protective legislation.  As a transgendered lesbian living in Northern San Diego, which has far more registered Republicans than Democrats, I never feel scared for my life and feel tolerated or accepted by almost everyone, even my mom's ultra-Christian friend from Fallbrook.  Granted, I still present myself very femininely (as opposed to dressing butch or having rainbow accessories all over my purse), not to mention I pass well enough as a woman that people never confuse me for a man and never question whether I'm really female, but there are still plenty of Republicans I know who are completely cool with my being queer, including those at my mom's presbyterian church.  The majority opinion in the GOP these days is basically opposition to gay marriage, but still respect to the LGBT community in general.  You living in a small Missouri town has clearly biased your perception of Republicans as a whole.

Mods, feel free to move this to politics if you think that's where it belongs.  This has been mentioned in several threads but I think it deserves its own thread.

I think a huge part of the culture of the mid 2010s is the extreme tension between progressive social justice warriors and conservative anti-social justice warriors.  There is an anger and a tension in our culture right now that is unlike anything I've experienced my entire life.  Everybody is offended by everything, from Caitlyn Jenner to Cecil the Lion to the Confederate flag to red Starbucks cups. Question is, how did we get here and where do we go from here?  Does it escalate in 2016?

I believe the current tension is related to significant cultural changes that have been brewing for decades finally being realized and conservative resistance to them.

When 2015 started, things were getting more tense but it was still more easy-going than today.  The fast escalating tension began when Bruce Jenner announced he would become Caitlyn.  Soon after that, there was the Confederate Flag controversy that resulted in South Carolina lowering the flag.  Then a couple of weeks later there was the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  June was a terrible month for social conservatives.

Since then, it seems like everyone is offended and angry all the time.  That is why Donald Trump is so popular right now.  While this post is bordering on political, I think its appropriate for the broader discussion of 2010s culture because I think when we look back on the '10s this will be what is remembered.

Does anybody think there is any hope of tensions easing going into the late 2010s?



To be honest, I really don't know. It could get worse in the late 2010s, or it could get better. It's really up in the air. It's possible that it'll peak around 2016, but whatever. Though I'm curious as to why you think the anti-social justice warriors are automatically conservatives. Now it depends on your definition of SJWs, but I consider myself a moderate liberal, yet I think both progressive (personally I don't consider progressive to be synonymous with liberal) and conservative extremists are acting crazy. What we're seeing with the whole outrage culture are two extreme sides of the spectrum.

On the progressive side, there was the whole fiasco at Netroots Nation where protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement were pissed off at Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, which is ironic, because both of them are supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. On the other hand, we have the conservatives who are pissed at the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. Then there's the confederate flag where both sides were offended for different reasons.

To be honest, I really don't know. It could get worse in the late 2010s, or it could get better. It's really up in the air. It's possible that it'll peak around 2016, but whatever. Though I'm curious as to why you think the anti-social justice warriors are automatically conservatives. Now it depends on your definition of SJWs, but I consider myself a moderate liberal, yet I think both progressive (personally I don't consider progressive synonymous with liberal) and conservative extremists are acting crazy. What we're seeing with the whole outrage culture are two extreme sides of the spectrum.

On the progressive side, there was the whole fiasco at Netroots Nation where protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement were pissed off at Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, which is ironic, because both of them are supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. On the other hand, we have the conservatives who are pissed at the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. Then there's the confederate flag where both sides were offended for different reasons.


I feel the same way about the current SJW movement, even though I'm a double-minority (triple, if you also factor in my isolated interests and experiences from most LGBT people).  As much as I want everybody to have fair and respectful treatment, immune from violence and discrimination, current liberals seem to take the whole thing to an uncomfortable extreme that makes it all too easy to be vilified in spite of your pure intentions.  I see the trend of progress as a very gradual thing, one in which people in general start to learn about minorities in ways they hadn't in the past, but not as a battlefield of distrust and violence.  Social media has caused our current generation, especially, to become abnormally impatient about transforming complex institutions that don't topple smoothly through direct confrontation alone.

I feel the same way about the current SJW movement, even though I'm a double-minority (triple, if you also factor in my isolated interests and experiences from most LGBT people).  As much as I want everybody to have fair and respectful treatment, immune from violence and discrimination, current liberals seem to take the whole thing to an uncomfortable extreme that makes it all too easy to be vilified in spite of your pure intentions.  I see the trend of progress as a very gradual thing, one in which people in general start to learn about minorities in ways they hadn't in the past, but not as a battlefield of distrust and violence.  Social media has caused our current generation, especially, to become abnormally impatient about transforming complex institutions that don't topple smoothly through direct confrontation alone.


Yeah I know what you mean. I'm also a minority (Asian-Indian), and yet I don't feel comfortable around SJWs, especially when they try to speak for me. There's something almost robotic in their world view.

I don't know why do people became social justice warriors in the first place? I don't really pay that much attention over this decade's culture, since it's filled with overrated stuff from everything that I see nowadays.

I don't know why do people became social justice warriors in the first place? I don't really pay that much attention over this decade's culture, since it's filled with overrated stuff from everything that I see nowadays.


The echo chamber of social media has a lot to do with it.  It has pushed both sides to the extreme on cultural issues and has made them unable to empathize with the other side.

The echo chamber of social media has a lot to do with it.  It has pushed both sides to the extreme on cultural issues and has made them unable to empathize with the other side.


I guess that can explain why SJWs exist a little bit. I still don't know who made it popular besides Tumblr members.

So I've been spending the mid-2010s in Japan, where social justice warrior culture doesn't even exist.  It was around back when I left the country in 2013, but it seems to blown up in the couple years since.  Or, at least, so the internet and tv news from America tells me.  Is it really as big as these outlets make it out to be or is it much ado about nothing?  Because, from afar, it looks like America is in a New 60s and is heading towards 1968.  But since I'm not actually in America, it's hard for me to really say anything.

Yeah I agree with all of this, it's almost as if we're in a new 60's

So I've been spending the mid-2010s in Japan, where social justice warrior culture doesn't even exist.  It was around back when I left the country in 2013, but it seems to blown up in the couple years since.  Or, at least, so the internet and tv news from America tells me.  Is it really as big as these outlets make it out to be or is it much ado about nothing?  Because, from afar, it looks like America is in a New 60s and is heading towards 1968.  But since I'm not actually in America, it's hard for me to really say anything.


I have a question, since your in Japan is it true that Japan, especially big cities like Tokyo, are cutting edge and more liberal than American cities and such? Because I hear mixed reviews from a lot of people.

Some claim Japan is very conservative especially with their culture, religion, ethics, etc.

However others believe Japan is very Liberal, with some of the reason I already laid out based on what I heard from others.

Also what is Japan's current viewpoint of Americans?

All of the trends you've described drive home a point that I've made before but only becomes more real with time:  sociopolitical lay, the 2010s are the early 21st century equivalent to the 1960s.  The advent of new technology (television in the buildup to the 60s; social media for the 2010s) has bred a huge wave of socially progressive movements that had been developing for the previous decade and a half, but which peaked in the subsequent decade.  The previous decade had been socially conservative and hyper-patriotic, which promulgated major social protest in the following years.  In both cases, the legiative and societal gains were ginormous, but due to their fast-paced, extreme nature at the time, they ultimately led to a growing backlash that called for a return to an orderly status quo.  Donald Trump is basically the current equivalent to Richard Nixon, although Nixon wasn't nearly as critical of the Johnson administration as Trump was of the Obama presidency.  I think around the beginning of the 2020s, hipsters and social protests will start to lose steam as backlash against social protests become completely dominant, akin to how social movement backlash started to really take off in 1970.


That's a great comparison. I've seen so many people comparing Donald Trump's campaign to George Wallace's independent run in 1968, but to me, the way in which Trump is exploiting the conservative backlash against "political correctness" and 2010's socials movements is also very reminiscent of the way Nixon exploited white working class anger over inner city rioting and anti-Vietnam protests in '68. The way in which Trump promises to easily fix problems like ISIS and corruption in government is also similar to the way Nixon promised "peace with honor" in Vietnam and a return to "law and order" domestically.

Also, the '50s and '00s do have some similarities now that I think about it. Both were more conservatively slanted decades, Bush was basically Ike for a few years with his sky-high approval ratings and the '00s kinda had it's own version of the "red scare" (with terrorists replacing communists).

I feel the same way about the current SJW movement, even though I'm a double-minority (triple, if you also factor in my isolated interests and experiences from most LGBT people).  As much as I want everybody to have fair and respectful treatment, immune from violence and discrimination, current liberals seem to take the whole thing to an uncomfortable extreme that makes it all too easy to be vilified in spite of your pure intentions.  I see the trend of progress as a very gradual thing, one in which people in general start to learn about minorities in ways they hadn't in the past, but not as a battlefield of distrust and violence.  Social media has caused our current generation, especially, to become abnormally impatient about transforming complex institutions that don't topple smoothly through direct confrontation alone.


Preach to the choir, please! Preach, preach!

http://feistythoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/images-147.jpeg

I may be Asian/Vietnamese, but I would hate it if some of my white friends become vilified because they have different points of views, or were taken out of context.
I'm quite aware that racism still exists and is more subtle/hidden these days, but that's another thread/subject for another day.

I think these Social Justice Warriors have great intentions, but their execution is terrible and only breeds more fire, and not the good kind of fire either.

That's a great comparison. I've seen so many people comparing Donald Trump's campaign to George Wallace's independent run in 1968, but to me, the way in which Trump is exploiting the conservative backlash against "political correctness" and 2010's socials movements is also very reminiscent of the way Nixon exploited white working class anger over inner city rioting and anti-Vietnam protests in '68. The way in which Trump promises to easily fix problems like ISIS and corruption in government is also similar to the way Nixon promised "peace with honor" in Vietnam and a return to "law and order" domestically.

Also, the '50s and '00s do have some similarities now that I think about it. Both were more conservatively slanted decades, Bush was basically Ike for a few years with his sky-high approval ratings and the '00s kinda had it's own version of the "red scare" (with terrorists replacing communists).y

You're comparing Bush to Eisnehower? Looking back on the 2000s, I don't see how they were similar to the 50s. 2000s were not THAT conservative.

You're comparing Bush to Eisnehower? Looking back on the 2000s, I don't see how they were similar to the 50s. 2000s were not THAT conservative.


Actually, Eisenhower was pretty socially conservative.  He was unabashedly anti-gay and endorsed anti-Communist policies throughout his administration despite abstaining from armed conflict as much as possible.  He did send federal troops to resolve the Little Rock conflict, but otherwise he was far less of a black civil rights activist than FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon were.

The thing about the 50s is that it was primarily a socially conservative decade but pretty moderate on fiscal issues, in contrast to the 80s, which were only truly conservative on the economic side but far more mixed in terms of its social environment.  The 50s were an atrocious time to be a minority because even the slightest suspicion of cultural deviance could lead to interrogation by the FBI, but on the other hand, they upheld the post-New Deal socioeconomic policies and emphasized the middle class far more than big business, not to mention the gigantic Highway Act was issued during the decade as well.  As for the 80s, despite the rise of televangelists and conservative talk radio, that decade saw much more of a liberalization of social expression than a contraction, thanks to eccentric MTV personalities like Cyndi Lauper and Madonna, as well as tv shows like The Cosby Show); its conservatism was far more rooted in the strong opposition to federal involvement in daily lives, as well as the desire to restore strength in the United States as a world leader after a long string of embarrassments in the 70s.  The backlash against 60s progressivism had already occurred in the 1970s, but the 80s did far more to break boundaries and loosen the United States' social environment than send things backwards, even though this social liberalization would become even more pronounced in the 90s.

The 2000s was post civil-rights era and post-sexual revolution so of course it was not as conservative as the 1950s.  However, it was about as conservative as you can get post 1960s.  There was a heavy emphasis on social conformity and patriotism.  A majority of people still strongly opposed LGBT rights.  In the middle part of the decade to even question Bush and the Iraq war called your patriotism into question.  On fiscal issues, Bush wasn't really that conservative, much like Ike.  Unlike the '50s, the backlash in the 2000s which took our culture in a more liberal direction happened in the late '00s.  The '50s were pretty conservative and placid all the way through, with the social revolution not reaching a tipping point until the mid 60s.

I wouldn't really compare Trump as much to Wallace as I would to Nixon.  A true Wallace candidate would be if somebody like Mike Huckabee decided to run third party on an explicitly anti-gay platform.  I really think that is a possibility either in 2016 or 2020 and he will likely take a few Bible Belt states, handing the election decisively to the Democrats.

The 2000s was post civil-rights era and post-sexual revolution so of course it was not as conservative as the 1950s.  However, it was about as conservative as you can get post 1960s.  There was a heavy emphasis on social conformity and patriotism.  A majority of people still strongly opposed LGBT rights.  In the middle part of the decade to even question Bush and the Iraq war called your patriotism into question.  On fiscal issues, Bush wasn't really that conservative, much like Ike.  Unlike the '50s, the backlash in the 2000s which took our culture in a more liberal direction happened in the late '00s.  The '50s were pretty conservative and placid all the way through, with the social revolution not reaching a tipping point until the mid 60s.

I wouldn't really compare Trump as much to Wallace as I would to Nixon.  A true Wallace candidate would be if somebody like Mike Huckabee decided to run third party on an explicitly anti-gay platform.  I really think that is a possibility either in 2016 or 2020 and he will likely take a few Bible Belt states, handing the election decisively to the Democrats.


Were the 1980's conservative?  ???

Preach to the choir, please! Preach, preach!

http://feistythoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/images-147.jpeg

I may be Asian/Vietnamese, but I would hate it if some of my white friends become vilified because they have different points of views, or were taken out of context.
I'm quite aware that racism still exists and is more subtle/hidden these days, but that's another thread/subject for another day.

I think these Social Justice Warriors have great intentions, but their execution is terrible and only breeds more fire, and not the good kind of fire either.


I think SJWs truly believe they are making the world a better place, but they are so convinced by everything their political science/sociology/liberal arts professors feed them, that they are kind of out of touch with reality. They all have the exact same opinion on things, and go on a crusade on anyone with even a slightly different opinion. These are the same people who call themselves "progressive". Yeah right.

I think SJWs truly believe they are making the world a better place, but they are so convinced by everything their political science/sociology/liberal arts professors feed them, that they are kind of out of touch with reality. They all have the exact same opinion on things, and go on a crusade on anyone with even a slightly different opinion. These are the same people who call themselves "progressive". Yeah right.


Some feminists and social justice warriors are okay. A lot of Left leaning people are okay. I did have a bad run-in with a Social justice warrior roughly four years ago, in College. She was really, really, aggressive and didn't like to listen. Not all are like her, but it made me not want to listen to her viewpoints, and this was after three chances with her. I didn't dismiss her presence right off the bat. I was in a bad place in my life, and she didn't seem to want to listen that I was not in a good place, mentally and emotionally, to argue, or have a diplomatic debate with her.

You'd be surprised that some feminists have quite a good sense of humor, and aren't as politically correct as we'd like to think. But yes, sometimes the shadow side of these SJW are a bit scary. :.ducks:.

Some feminists and social justice warriors are okay. A lot of Left leaning people are okay. I did have a bad run-in with a Social justice warrior roughly four years ago, in College. She was really, really, aggressive and didn't like to listen. Not all are like her, but it made me not want to listen to her viewpoints, and this was after three chances with her. I didn't dismiss her presence right off the bat. I was in a bad place in my life, and she didn't seem to want to listen that I was not in a good place, mentally and emotionally, to argue, or have a diplomatic debate with her.

You'd be surprised that some feminists have quite a good sense of humor, and aren't as politically correct as we'd like to think. But yes, sometimes the shadow side of these SJW are a bit scary. :.ducks:.


I agree, I'm actually perfectly fine with the moderate feminists. I mostly have issues with the extreme feminists who perpetuate weird theories and buzzwords like "rape culture" and "patriarchy", and who use phrases like "check your privileges".

I agree, I'm actually perfectly fine with the moderate feminists. I mostly have issues with the extreme feminists who perpetuate weird theories and buzzwords like "rape culture" and "patriarchy", and who use phrases like "check your privileges".


At the core of it, they're really just against the idea that men are so entitled to women that social standards indirectly lead them to grow aggressive when they're turned down.  It makes reasonable sense when you examine things that actively endorse this behavior, like Ne-Yo's rotten 2006 hit When You're Mad, but you start to feel like you're unfairly stepping on eggshells when almost any casual representation of female sexuality is perceived as promoting this "rape culture."  Honestly, if the standards are that strict, it just infuriates sexually frustrated men more, furthering the idea that they have to destroy a bulwark of resistance so that they can get their sexual relief.  I definitely believe there's a lot society can do to tone down the media's obsession with sex, but I feel there should at least be some freedom for people to express lust, so long as the intentions are truly positive and not for the sake of dehumanizing women.  Striking the balance between free speech and a culture of respect is a much more complicated task, but the cynical extremes to which the most prominent feminists and social justice warriors take the issue is certainly not effective.

At the core of it, they're really just against the idea that men are so entitled to women that social standards indirectly lead them to grow aggressive when they're turned down.  It makes reasonable sense when you examine things that actively endorse this behavior, like Ne-Yo's rotten 2006 hit When You're Mad, but you start to feel like you're unfairly stepping on eggshells when almost any casual representation of female sexuality is perceived as promoting this "rape culture."  Honestly, if the standards are that strict, it just infuriates sexually frustrated men more, furthering the idea that they have to destroy a bulwark of resistance so that they can get their sexual relief.  I definitely believe there's a lot society can do to tone down the media's obsession with sex, but I feel there should at least be some freedom for people to express lust, so long as the intentions are truly positive and not for the sake of dehumanizing women.  Striking the balance between free speech and a culture of respect is a much more complicated task, but the cynical extremes to which the most prominent feminists and social justice warriors take the issue is certainly not effective.


I agree, we do need to strive for a more balanced society. Unfortunately it's probably not something that we will be able to achieve any time soon, given the current situation (it's possible that this "culture war" is going to get even more intense in the late 2010s), but it's certainly not impossible.

Gay marriage, gun rights, and Islamic immigration are the three biggest issues for social conservatives, who are base voters in the GOP primary.  The candidate has to tow the party line and tow it hard on those issues to have a chance at getting the nomination.  In fact, he could kiss winning the Bible Belt goodbye if he took a passive stance on the SCOTUS ruling, most of whom view as the worst decision since Dred Scott if not the worst in US history.

I think the anti-gay platform still has more legs today than segregation did when George Wallace ran in 1968.  If you don't live in the Bible Belt, its difficult to comprehend the level of hatred, almost to Hitleresque levels, that people have for the LGBT community.
I do think Gun Rights and Islamic Immigration are important to Republican Voters nationally but Gay Marriage? Gay Marriage may just be a "Bible Belt Issue" and not an issue revelant to Republican Primary Voters in the rest of the country but the "Bible Belt".

Mods, feel free to move this to politics if you think that's where it belongs.  This has been mentioned in several threads but I think it deserves its own thread.

I think a huge part of the culture of the mid 2010s is the extreme tension between progressive social justice warriors and conservative anti-social justice warriors.  There is an anger and a tension in our culture right now that is unlike anything I've experienced my entire life.  Everybody is offended by everything, from Caitlyn Jenner to Cecil the Lion to the Confederate flag to red Starbucks cups. Question is, how did we get here and where do we go from here?  Does it escalate in 2016?

I believe the current tension is related to significant cultural changes that have been brewing for decades finally being realized and conservative resistance to them.

When 2015 started, things were getting more tense but it was still more easy-going than today.  The fast escalating tension began when Bruce Jenner announced he would become Caitlyn.  Soon after that, there was the Confederate Flag controversy that resulted in South Carolina lowering the flag.  Then a couple of weeks later there was the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. June was a terrible month for social conservatives.

Since then, it seems like everyone is offended and angry all the time.  That is why Donald Trump is so popular right now. While this post is bordering on political, I think its appropriate for the broader discussion of 2010s culture because I think when we look back on the '10s this will be what is remembered.

Does anybody think there is any hope of tensions easing going into the late 2010s?
The lowering of the Confederate Flag happened in Mississippi and Virginia too not just in South Carolina.

The reason why Donald Trump is because Republicans didn't like the Bush W. Presidency and totally dislike the Obama Presidency.

The 2000s was post civil-rights era and post-sexual revolution so of course it was not as conservative as the 1950s.  However, it was about as conservative as you can get post 1960s.  There was a heavy emphasis on social conformity and patriotism.  A majority of people still strongly opposed LGBT rights.  In the middle part of the decade to even question Bush and the Iraq war called your patriotism into question.  On fiscal issues, Bush wasn't really that conservative, much like Ike.  Unlike the '50s, the backlash in the 2000s which took our culture in a more liberal direction happened in the late '00s.  The '50s were pretty conservative and placid all the way through, with the social revolution not reaching a tipping point until the mid 60s.

I wouldn't really compare Trump as much to Wallace as I would to Nixon.  A true Wallace candidate would be if somebody like Mike Huckabee decided to run third party on an explicitly anti-gay platform.  I really think that is a possibility either in 2016 or 2020 and he will likely take a few Bible Belt states, handing the election decisively to the Democrats.
Mike Huckabee has ran for President twice now he didn't win the nomination in 2008 because he didn't have the appeal of John McCain to Republican Primary Voters. He is pretty much a non-factor in this years Republican Field. He looks like an also-ran in this years Republican Presidential Primary Cycle. He is not even in the main debate stage anymore he is being kicked back to the "Kiddie Pool Debate".

The Bible Belt states are a strange case, as people there are still not comfortable with older social topics like racial integration, even half a century after the 60s civil rights movements.  Like I stated, though, the Republican Party has finally started to become increasingly accepting of gay marriage, or at least tolerant of it (as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are).  Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee are basically this generation's George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, representative of the still hateful Dixie states, but not nearly as popular on a national level as more pragmatic Republicans.  Actively campaigning against gay marriage would be just as unpopular now as overturning civil rights legislation for blacks in the 60s, and it represents perfectly just how fractured the Republican Party has become in recent years. My guess is that racial, women's, and LGBT rights movements will lose momentum around the turn of the 2020s, but particularly as a result of the traditional movement coalitions splintering and legislation becoming more relegated to local politics instead of federal politics.  I agree that the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party will be unsuccessful in nullifying the SCOTUS gay marriage decision; even in 2004/2005, Republicans weren't able to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Even with the 60s backlash during the 70s and eventual rise of Reagan conservatism in the 80s, black, women's, and gay civil rights didn't really regress so much as they slowed down and encountered new challenges.
Santorum-Weird you say that since Santorum is not a Southerner he is from "The Pittsburgh Suburbs in  Pennsylvania". Cruz on social issues doesn't bother me its his too conservative views on economic issues that bug me that's why I would go for Rubio.

The Republican Party is more fractured in terms of what wing of the party will control the fiscal agenda and over immigration reform than it is over gay marriage. The gay marriage issue might affect the election I'm not sure.

I've noticed that ever since the rise of the "SJW" culture, the Internet seems to have taken a far-right bent, especially those on the comments of YouTube or political sites ("Dark pigment is the reason blacks commit more crime", "Women are manipulative ice queens who destroy good men", "Being transgender is a mental illness", "Muslims are scum", "Jews control everything", etc.)

Of course, these people have always been around, but it seems that ever since sites like Tumblr went crazy, they usually fall back on "Shut up, SJW" or "Sorry, did I trigger/oppress you?" as retorts.

I've noticed that ever since the rise of the "SJW" culture, the Internet seems to have taken a far-right bent, especially those on the comments of YouTube or political sites ("Dark pigment is the reason blacks commit more crime", "Women are manipulative ice queens who destroy good men", "Being transgender is a mental illness", "Muslims are scum", "Jews control everything", etc.)

Of course, these people have always been around, but it seems that ever since sites like Tumblr went crazy, they usually fall back on "Shut up, SJW" or "Sorry, did I trigger/oppress you?" as retorts.


I do see those comments on Youtube, and used to thumb them down when you still could thumb them down. They're really offensive. I don't go on political forums, so I don't know. I do see some anti-SJW sites though.

I've noticed that ever since the rise of the "SJW" culture, the Internet seems to have taken a far-right bent, especially those on the comments of YouTube or political sites ("Dark pigment is the reason blacks commit more crime", "Women are manipulative ice queens who destroy good men", "Being transgender is a mental illness", "Muslims are scum", "Jews control everything", etc.)

Of course, these people have always been around, but it seems that ever since sites like Tumblr went crazy, they usually fall back on "Shut up, SJW" or "Sorry, did I trigger/oppress you?" as retorts.


YouTube and news comments were always terrible. They're both age extremes really. On YouTube it is mostly 9-15 year old kids who're trolling and have nothing better to do. On news sites it's mostly retired 65+ year olds who watch so much news all day that their perception of reality has become really warped.

At the core of it, they're really just against the idea that men are so entitled to women that social standards indirectly lead them to grow aggressive when they're turned down.  It makes reasonable sense when you examine things that actively endorse this behavior, like Ne-Yo's rotten 2006 hit When You're Mad, but you start to feel like you're unfairly stepping on eggshells when almost any casual representation of female sexuality is perceived as promoting this "rape culture."  Honestly, if the standards are that strict, it just infuriates sexually frustrated men more, furthering the idea that they have to destroy a bulwark of resistance so that they can get their sexual relief.  I definitely believe there's a lot society can do to tone down the media's obsession with sex, but I feel there should at least be some freedom for people to express lust, so long as the intentions are truly positive and not for the sake of dehumanizing women.  Striking the balance between free speech and a culture of respect is a much more complicated task, but the cynical extremes to which the most prominent feminists and social justice warriors take the issue is certainly not effective.


I agree. Because I remember being EIGHT and wearing a shorts set at school my mom had bought me and the shorts rode up while I was doing something, but my teacher told me to pull them back in place cause "the boys would get the wrong idea" I was EIGHT. But I literally I don't know how its going to be changed because this is a male-dominant society....

I've noticed that ever since the rise of the "SJW" culture, the Internet seems to have taken a far-right bent, especially those on the comments of YouTube or political sites ("Dark pigment is the reason blacks commit more crime", "Women are manipulative ice queens who destroy good men", "Being transgender is a mental illness", "Muslims are scum", "Jews control everything", etc.)


Depends on the site.  Places like Reddit are pretty left-leaning.  YouTube and local media sites are the same.  Facebook is an echo chamber so if you are liberal and have liberal friends, you will see left-wing extremist memes and if you are conservative with right wing friends, you will see memes about guns, Obama being muslim, gays going to hell, etc.  City-Data forums used to be very left-leaning but now it leans to the right.

Depends on the site.  Places like Reddit are pretty left-leaning.  YouTube and local media sites are the same.  Facebook is an echo chamber so if you are liberal and have liberal friends, you will see left-wing extremist memes and if you are conservative with right wing friends, you will see memes about guns, Obama being muslim, gays going to hell, etc.  City-Data forums used to be very left-leaning but now it leans to the right.


Also, there are a lot of commentators on Youtube like TL;DR and Sargon of Akkad, whom are both liberal (or at least left leaning).

Also, there are a lot of commentators on Youtube like TL;DR and Sargon of Akkad, whom are both liberal (or at least left leaning).


Are we talking commentators as in people who use the comment section, or people with a YouTube channel commenting on things? Because those are two rather different things haha ;D

Preach to the choir, please! Preach, preach!

http://feistythoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/images-147.jpeg

I may be Asian/Vietnamese, but I would hate it if some of my white friends become vilified because they have different points of views, or were taken out of context.
I'm quite aware that racism still exists and is more subtle/hidden these days, but that's another thread/subject for another day.

I think these Social Justice Warriors have great intentions, but their execution is terrible and only breeds more fire, and not the good kind of fire either.

Social justice warriors are ironically racist themselves when they blame everything on white people and generalize all of them to be part of the problem and origin of the world's ills. They ignore the fact this is nothing new to societies all over the world no matter how remote. All their guilt tripping and blame upsets people who otherwise might listen to what they had to say were it not said accusingly.


Some feminists and social justice warriors are okay. A lot of Left leaning people are okay. I did have a bad run-in with a Social justice warrior roughly four years ago, in College. She was really, really, aggressive and didn't like to listen. Not all are like her, but it made me not want to listen to her viewpoints, and this was after three chances with her. I didn't dismiss her presence right off the bat. I was in a bad place in my life, and she didn't seem to want to listen that I was not in a good place, mentally and emotionally, to argue, or have a diplomatic debate with her.

You'd be surprised that some feminists have quite a good sense of humor, and aren't as politically correct as we'd like to think. But yes, sometimes the shadow side of these SJW are a bit scary. :.ducks:.

There's a difference between left leaning and going to extremes. The latter has gone off the deep and and can't be reasoned with.


I've noticed that ever since the rise of the "SJW" culture, the Internet seems to have taken a far-right bent, especially those on the comments of YouTube or political sites ("Dark pigment is the reason blacks commit more crime", "Women are manipulative ice queens who destroy good men", "Being transgender is a mental illness", "Muslims are scum", "Jews control everything", etc.)

Of course, these people have always been around, but it seems that ever since sites like Tumblr went crazy, they usually fall back on "Shut up, SJW" or "Sorry, did I trigger/oppress you?" as retorts.

The whole triggering thing is to not have to face reality and just hide in a comfort zone as much as possible. I think it's generational, with today's college age people. The polar opposite on the right tend to be older and are equally ignorant people who can't tolerate anything less than 100% agreeing with them or they become "triggered" as well. Out of all the outrageousness they spout, they ignore things like history, human nature, and how it all works. And that's both ends of the spectrum. One side tries to silence the other, and that causes them to lash out. "Your rights end where my feelings begin" is exactly what sums up the way some people think now.


I agree, I'm actually perfectly fine with the moderate feminists. I mostly have issues with the extreme feminists who perpetuate weird theories and buzzwords like "rape culture" and "patriarchy", and who use phrases like "check your privileges".

"Check your privilege" is a phrase used to shut down a debate. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears so to speak. I have a problem with the term privilege being thrown around so freely because if you listen to what they're saying, it becomes clear it's just a case of sour grapes. Male privelege, thin privelege, cis privelege, etc.


At the core of it, they're really just against the idea that men are so entitled to women that social standards indirectly lead them to grow aggressive when they're turned down.  It makes reasonable sense when you examine things that actively endorse this behavior, like Ne-Yo's rotten 2006 hit When You're Mad, but you start to feel like you're unfairly stepping on eggshells when almost any casual representation of female sexuality is perceived as promoting this "rape culture."  Honestly, if the standards are that strict, it just infuriates sexually frustrated men more, furthering the idea that they have to destroy a bulwark of resistance so that they can get their sexual relief.  I definitely believe there's a lot society can do to tone down the media's obsession with sex, but I feel there should at least be some freedom for people to express lust, so long as the intentions are truly positive and not for the sake of dehumanizing women.  Striking the balance between free speech and a culture of respect is a much more complicated task, but the cynical extremes to which the most prominent feminists and social justice warriors take the issue is certainly not effective.

The loveshies and MRA groups are the male equivalent of Tumblr SJW feminists. They all pass the blame on others for "oppressing" them when they can't get away with something. Men don't need to be taught not to rape. People in their right mind know that such things are wrong and don't have an urge to go out and commit a heinous crime. Third wave feminists play the perpetual victim and mens rights activists feel entitled to women. And you know what both have in common? They all feel inadequate in some way and offline they tend to be socially awkward people who are bitter at the world without trying to fix their problems first. Trouble getting noticed by the opposite sex isn't the main problem. Outside of Tumblr or the forum that has become their hugbox many of them tend not to have much interaction with people. SJW's think they should be accepted as is without self improvement (health at any size and so forth, while donning outrageous styles) and men are shallow if they don't like it. MRA guys blame feminists for when women are put off by their crass behavior and how they come onto and objectify women, (rating scale, FTW?) when in reality so called "beta males" are just boys and men who were raised right and act like one should among people. Loveshies hate the very thing they want the most, and who would fall for someone who hates them? Then the whole matter of the sex thing fuels it all and boils down to this: you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


I agree. Because I remember being EIGHT and wearing a shorts set at school my mom had bought me and the shorts rode up while I was doing something, but my teacher told me to pull them back in place cause "the boys would get the wrong idea" I was EIGHT. But I literally I don't know how its going to be changed because this is a male-dominant society....

The good old days of school dress codes!  :o Every forbidden fashion statement was so because it was a "distraction." I get the fact you should look presentable, but kids need the freedom to express themselves too before they're in a work setting and can't. I'm talking more teenage years here as opposed to grade school, but still. Out and about you see people of all kinds and they're not a "distraction" from going about the day. My school allowed piercings and colored hair, but girls couldn't wear tank tops with skinny straps or spandex pants. No one could wear t-shirts with offensive sayings, but it seemed at any school more of the clothing rules picked on what girls wore.

The only social justice cause I can say I'm "actively' a part of is the Black Lives Matter one. Because I am a Black woman and it just upsets me to think that if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, I could be the next hashtag on Twitter. I have several male friends, Black, heavyset. All very sweet, but someone with a narrow mind might consider them a "threat" or "intimidating" and I'm having to buy a black dress. I don't like it. It's not fair. It's bad that even if I don't show it, in the back of my mind I'm worried that some cop will harm me. It's already enough to worry about some strange man trying to catcall me , but then the one who's supposed to protect you?

I don't know I just wish it would stop. And then there's the media coverage of it. They even painted that 12 year old, Tamir Rice as some kind of outlaw--a CHILD. I kind of wonder what will be said about me should something like that happen. There's no "bad" pictures of me available. I don't have any strikes against me other than 2 suspensions in junior year in high school. I've never broken the law. I made a few to the left remarks about a certain pop star but that's about it. It just all worries me and scares me.

Very much this.

Social justice warriors are ironically racist themselves when they blame everything on white people and generalize all of them to be part of the problem and origin of the world's ills. They ignore the fact this is nothing new to societies all over the world no matter how remote. All their guilt tripping and blame upsets people who otherwise might listen to what they had to say were it not said accusingly.
There's a difference between left leaning and going to extremes. The latter has gone off the deep and and can't be reasoned with.
The whole triggering thing is to not have to face reality and just hide in a comfort zone as much as possible. I think it's generational, with today's college age people. The polar opposite on the right tend to be older and are equally ignorant people who can't tolerate anything less than 100% agreeing with them or they become "triggered" as well. Out of all the outrageousness they spout, they ignore things like history, human nature, and how it all works. And that's both ends of the spectrum. One side tries to silence the other, and that causes them to lash out. "Your rights end where my feelings begin" is exactly what sums up the way some people think now.
"Check your privilege" is a phrase used to shut down a debate. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears so to speak. I have a problem with the term privilege being thrown around so freely because if you listen to what they're saying, it becomes clear it's just a case of sour grapes. Male privelege, thin privelege, cis privelege, etc.
The loveshies and MRA groups are the male equivalent of Tumblr SJW feminists. They all pass the blame on others for "oppressing" them when they can't get away with something. Men don't need to be taught not to rape. People in their right mind know that such things are wrong and don't have an urge to go out and commit a heinous crime. Third wave feminists play the perpetual victim and mens rights activists feel entitled to women. And you know what both have in common? They all feel inadequate in some way and offline they tend to be socially awkward people who are bitter at the world without trying to fix their problems first. Trouble getting noticed by the opposite sex isn't the main problem. Outside of Tumblr or the forum that has become their hugbox many of them tend not to have much interaction with people. SJW's think they should be accepted as is without self improvement (health at any size and so forth, while donning outrageous styles) and men are shallow if they don't like it. MRA guys blame feminists for when women are put off by their crass behavior and how they come onto and objectify women, (rating scale, FTW?) when in reality so called "beta males" are just boys and men who were raised right and act like one should among people. Loveshies hate the very thing they want the most, and who would fall for someone who hates them? Then the whole matter of the sex thing fuels it all and boils down to this: you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
The good old days of school dress codes!  :o Every forbidden fashion statement was so because it was a "distraction." I get the fact you should look presentable, but kids need the freedom to express themselves too before they're in a work setting and can't. I'm talking more teenage years here as opposed to grade school, but still. Out and about you see people of all kinds and they're not a "distraction" from going about the day. My school allowed piercings and colored hair, but girls couldn't wear tank tops with skinny straps or spandex pants. No one could wear t-shirts with offensive sayings, but it seemed at any school more of the clothing rules picked on what girls wore.


I understand that there are a lot of racist police officers out there that treat minorities like dirt, especially black men. It's just sooooooo unfair. They even kill these black men, and other minorities.

But yeah, a lot of these social justice warriors, maybe even most, lack debate and communication skills. I really do think a lot of them have their hearts in the right place. But being a great communicator is imperative.

I understand that there are a lot of racist police officers out there that treat minorities like dirt, especially black men. It's just sooooooo unfair. They even kill these black men, and other minorities.

But yeah, a lot of these social justice warriors, maybe even most, lack debate and communication skills. I really do think a lot of them have their hearts in the right place. But being a great communicator is imperative.

That's true about the profiling and it's not something new, just something coming to light more. Times have come a ways from what they were, but they're still not perfectly fair. Part of it I see class factoring into the matter and not just race alone. It's a problem that can't be swept under the rug, the fact some people who abuse the power they have. This isn't Nazi Germany and we're supposed to be living in more enlightened times.

World events are sparking alot of bitterness and bringing prejudice people out of the woodwork too, more so when you've got people who stir them up.

Social Justice Warriors concerns are valid, but they take them to such wild extremes they can't be taken seriously, especially when they refuse to discuss anything if you have a different opinion. They'll make mountains out of molehills. LGBTQ issues are real, but ranting on about misgendering people like everyone's supposed to be a mind reader, or that otherkin are a valid thing jut because they think themselves to be so makes them look nuts! DIE CIS SCUM!!! Makes enemies rather than allies. Then you've got the fat acceptance movement who demand people to accomodate them while insisting they're perfectly healthy being morbidly obese and shame  their average sized counterparts makes it clear they're not so confident or happy with themselves as they put on. The way they attack other people for anything just indicates their problems are their own first. Hearing privelege this and privelege that doesn't make me want to sympathize with anyone for the reason it's akin to sticking a finger in someone's face in an accusatory manner.

An honest moment here. I hate to admit it, or do I? I'll just admit it, but without hate. Some types of jokes, or things, I said or believed when I was a child or teenager, were funny at the time, but I just find them offensive and stupid now. Most of it was more mental illness or ignorance, than pure rebellion or arrogance. It's strange, as I grow up I found my past self offensive and even ignorant. I'm not putting myself down, just an observation.

I'm not a fan of how these social justice warriors treat some people or the way they display their beliefs, but they are right about a lot of things. Right is right, even if it's from someone I feel annoyed by.

Oh, and Donald Trump is an idiot.

An honest moment here. I hate to admit it, or do I? I'll just admit it, but without hate. Some types of jokes, or things, I said or believed when I was a child or teenager, were funny at the time, but I just find them offensive and stupid now. Most of it was more mental illness or ignorance, than pure rebellion or arrogance. It's strange, as I grow up I found my past self offensive and even ignorant. I'm not putting myself down, just an observation.


Yeah people have become more socially accepting now which IMO is a step in the right direction! The problem is that some of us (especially the far left and far right) wan't to shove their ideologies down people's throats. This has become so vile that many people on the polar opposite sides of the political spectrum now wan't to censor people for having different opinions. I understand that in some cases an offensive racial/sexist, or any other demeaning slurs are totally uncalled for, but to criminalize and or censor someone from having that alternative viewpoint (even if its generally unpopular or common) is not true Democracy! That's something the extreme right wing TeaPartiers and the extreme left wing SJWs need to understand, especially since they act like hypocrites and claim they are 'True Americans'.

Rant Over...


Oh, and Donald Trump is an idiot.


I'm not a huge Trump fan myself, but I think its fair to say that he's not a joke anymore, he actually has a great shot at being the Republican Presidential Nominee

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/opinions/donald-trump-republican-party-stanley/index.html

An honest moment here. I hate to admit it, or do I? I'll just admit it, but without hate. Some types of jokes, or things, I said or believed when I was a child or teenager, were funny at the time, but I just find them offensive and stupid now. Most of it was more mental illness or ignorance, than pure rebellion or arrogance. It's strange, as I grow up I found my past self offensive and even ignorant. I'm not putting myself down, just an observation.

I'm not a fan of how these social justice warriors treat some people or the way they display their beliefs, but they are right about a lot of things. Right is right, even if it's from someone I feel annoyed by.

Oh, and Donald Trump is an idiot.


Really? Personally I don't care if anyone is offended by jokes. If I find them funny, I'll find them funny. I'm not going to pretend that I don't find it funny, just to appease a group or an individual who found it offensive. I'm sick of people feeling the need to "apologize" because some whiny groups got their feelings hurt. There are joke that I don't find funny, but I don't throw a hissy fit about it. I just move on. And society doesn't need to censor itself just to appease these oversensitive individuals. Jokes are jokes. Period. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. That's life.

I'm now moderate myself, former liberal. I definitely understand why some people support Trump, he's basically giving the finger to the PC media which I sorta like. Political correctness and this social justice crap that this topic talks about has indeed gone too far lately. I don't think he's actually serious about some of the things he says, it's more just the piss the media and the far left off and get a rise out of his base.

I agree. Because I remember being EIGHT and wearing a shorts set at school my mom had bought me and the shorts rode up while I was doing something, but my teacher told me to pull them back in place cause "the boys would get the wrong idea" I was EIGHT. But I literally I don't know how its going to be changed because this is a male-dominant society....


That's debatable.

Really? Personally I don't care if anyone is offended by jokes. If I find them funny, I'll find them funny. I'm not going to pretend that I don't find it funny, just to appease a group or an individual who found it offensive. I'm sick of people feeling the need to "apologize" because some whiny groups got their feelings hurt. There are joke that I don't find funny, but I don't throw a hissy fit about it. I just move on. And society doesn't need to censor itself just to appease these oversensitive individuals. Jokes are jokes. Period. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. That's life.


I think sometimes I went too far. I tell jokes to my friends whomever I feel I am safe to tell them too. The other whiny folks will just have to delete me (social media), or throw a hissy fit!!  :D  :D

I'm not saying I will become a saint.  ;D However, I realize when something goes too far, or is offensive. That can be too far on the spectrum too.

I'm now moderate myself, former liberal. I definitely understand why some people support Trump, he's basically giving the finger to the PC media which I sorta like. Political correctness and this social justice crap that this topic talks about has indeed gone too far lately. I don't think he's actually serious about some of the things he says, it's more just the piss the media and the far left off and get a rise out of his base.


I think this PC thingy got big around 1990. I think it's been around 26 years, so yeah, a lot of people are kind of annoyed by a lot of the word police brigade too.

I don't like Trump, I believe he's dangerous, but I do like that he doesn't apologize to the whiny crowd!

Yeah people have become more socially accepting now which IMO is a step in the right direction! The problem is that some of us (especially the far left and far right) wan't to shove their ideologies down people's throats. This has become so vile that many people on the polar opposite sides of the political spectrum now wan't to censor people for having different opinions. I understand that in some cases an offensive racial/sexist, or any other demeaning slurs are totally uncalled for, but to criminalize and or censor someone from having that alternative viewpoint (even if its generally unpopular or common) is not true Democracy! That's something the extreme right wing TeaPartiers and the extreme left wing SJWs need to understand, especially since they act like hypocrites and claim they are 'True Americans'.

Rant Over...



I'm not a huge Trump fan myself, but I think its fair to say that he's not a joke anymore, he actually has a great shot at being the Republican Presidential Nominee

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/opinions/donald-trump-republican-party-stanley/index.html


Yup, I agree!

Yeah people have become more socially accepting now which IMO is a step in the right direction! The problem is that some of us (especially the far left and far right) wan't to shove their ideologies down people's throats. This has become so vile that many people on the polar opposite sides of the political spectrum now wan't to censor people for having different opinions. I understand that in some cases an offensive racial/sexist, or any other demeaning slurs are totally uncalled for, but to criminalize and or censor someone from having that alternative viewpoint (even if its generally unpopular or common) is not true Democracy! That's something the extreme right wing TeaPartiers and the extreme left wing SJWs need to understand, especially since they act like hypocrites and claim they are 'True Americans'.

Rant Over...



I'm not a huge Trump fan myself, but I think its fair to say that he's not a joke anymore, he actually has a great shot at being the Republican Presidential Nominee

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/opinions/donald-trump-republican-party-stanley/index.html


Yeah, by around December or January, I'm like, yeah it's for real now!

I'm surprised there isn't more backlash against Ted Cruz and not just Donald Trump.  Cruz's views on LGBT issues, among other things, are downright terrifying.

I'm surprised there isn't more backlash against Ted Cruz and not just Donald Trump.  Cruz's views on LGBT issues, among other things, are downright terrifying.


True I feel like Ted Cruz would be a worst president because he actually has the mental capacity and experience in politics to carry out his surreal policies. Trump is just talk, Cruz is action!

True I feel like Ted Cruz would be a worst president because he actually has the mental capacity and experience in politics to carry out his surreal policies. Trump is just talk, Cruz is action!


Marco Rubio (or "Marcosoft Rubio" as people call him now  ;D) was always scarier to me, because he can actually win. Thankfully Chris Christie did the Lord's work and took him down with him.

http://www.metalgearinformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MGS3-Salute.jpg

edit: sorry guys. As you can tell, I'm unabashedly left-wing. >_> <_< *hides*

Marco Rubio (or "Marcosoft Rubio" as people call him now  ;D) was always scarier to me, because he can actually win. Thankfully Chris Christie did the Lord's work and took him down with him.

http://www.metalgearinformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MGS3-Salute.jpg

edit: sorry guys. As you can tell, I'm unabashedly left-wing. >_> <_< *hides*


I wonder if Marcosoft can sell Rubies 10 to me. lol

I am slightly right wing here (*also hides to* :) ) and if I could vote in an election this year, I would vote for Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio (or "Marcosoft Rubio" as people call him now  ;D) was always scarier to me, because he can actually win. Thankfully Chris Christie did the Lord's work and took him down with him.

http://www.metalgearinformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MGS3-Salute.jpg

edit: sorry guys. As you can tell, I'm unabashedly left-wing. >_> <_< *hides*

Christie committed poltitical suicide going against him, and while it may have hurt Rubio in NH, he has alot of support in South Carolina. I know one thing though, Jeb! needs to drop out, hes gone already and while he may have finished ahead of Rubio in NH, he is not a good candidate at all. Christie worked with Bush to take Rubio down and while it may have worked in New Hampshire, it will not work with Christie out of the race, Jeb does not know how to attack other candidates good and as Trump said in the last debate, a lot of Jebs donors were in the audience so thats why Trump got booed. I think Rubio is the best bet for a non incompetent republican to take the white house.

I am slightly right wing here (*also hides to* :) ) and if I could vote in an election this year, I would vote for Marco Rubio.Christie committed poltitical suicide going against him, and while it may have hurt Rubio in NH, he has alot of support in South Carolina. I know one thing though, Jeb! needs to drop out, hes gone already and while he may have finished ahead of Rubio in NH, he is not a good candidate at all. Christie worked with Bush to take Rubio down and while it may have worked in New Hampshire, it will not work with Christie out of the race, Jeb does not know how to attack other candidates good and as Trump said in the last debate, a lot of Jebs donors were in the audience so thats why Trump got booed. I think Rubio is the best bet for a non incompetent republican to take the white house.


Haha, yeah, Marco Rubio is the only one who can actually win, he ticks off all the right boxes and doesn't have foot in mouth syndrome like the others. So as a left winger I'm really hoping he loses the primary ;D

I heard El ¡Jeb! asked his brother to campaign for him in South Carolina.

https://blog-blogmediainc.netdna-ssl.com/upload/SportsBlogcom/4359963/0870175001445445436_filepicker.png

George Bush actually has a high approval rating in South Carolina so it might actually help him. If that doesn't work it might be time for Jeb Bush to implement plan Alpha or whatever comes after Plan Z.

George W. Bush has mixed views around here.... definitely not as popular, even among conservatives. My parents who are staunch republicans think he made a lot of mistakes. I think he was handed a hot potato by Clinton. He was given an economy sliding into a recession(which while started under Bush in March 2001, he couldn't have done anything about it.) after the Dot.Com Bubble burst in 2000, Osama Bin Laden could have been captured if the US really wanted to put in the effort in the late 90s but Clinton chose not to. The housing bubble had its roots back to Clinton with the repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act in 1999 which allowed the dangerous financial products in the Great Financial Crisis. He also significantly loosened housing loan standards. My parents who bought their first house in 1996 had to go through a huge inquisition type thing with them going through literally everything my parents had ever done financially. When my parents then bought our second house in late 2001 and closed on it in January 2002 they got their loan like that with no questions asked which was surprising to them.

My defense of Geroge W. Bush ends their though. He did nothing to stop the Financial Crisis from happening. He accelerated the loose housing standard that would lead to those horrible No Income No Job No Assets Subprime home loans.  He lead us into a war that we could not win in Iraq which should have ended right when we toppled Saddam but it did not and we incorrectly tried to push democracy down peoples throats who did not want it.The first phase of the Iraq War in 2003 was a success and should have ended their with all of our troops going home. But it didn't and he incorrectly underestimated the insurgency that would arise form American Rule in Iraq. His response to Katrina was horrible and he should have coordinated a better effort to help those in need. And to think about that Hurricane, it could have been worse..... a 185 MPH Category 5 at landfall but weakened to a low end Category 4/High End Category 3 Hurricane due to a Eye Wall Replacement Cycle. He destroyed our budget by ruining Clintons 5 trillion dollar budget surplus into a deficit by 2002. He was not a fiscal conservative at all. He ran up debt by 4 trillion dollars, however Obama has run it up by 8 trillion dollars, but still for a republican president who is supposed to be fiscally conservative not good at all.

Sorry for that long paragraph thats just my opinion of Bush.

I sentementalize with those in Black Lives Matter somewhat as what Marco Rubio said about it, racial targeting by the police happens all the time(Ill put the link up for that interview about what he thinks about it, pretty good for a republican!) http://video.foxnews.com/v/4420357069001/sen-marco-rubio-talks-black-lives-matter-movement/?#sp=show-clips

However I cannot support those who want to suppress the right of Free Speech on our College Campuses. I cannot believe 10,000 college students signed a petition to get rid of the first amendment. That is just sick. Censorship should not be tolerated. While racial slurs and such are bad and should not be defended, everyone has the right to free speech.

I don't exactly think everything should be controversy and thats the thing I find the most annoying about SJWs. I can sentimentalize with some of their movements, but please stop making everything a controversy that does not need to be one(Red Starbucks Cups??).

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Games+will+make+you+gay_fa98a5_5351065.png
How funny.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Games+will+make+you+gay_fa98a5_5351065.png
How funny.


What were the 2000's? I'm assuming violence since it was post Columbine & 9/11 and many parents felt weary of the violence

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Games+will+make+you+gay_fa98a5_5351065.png
How funny.


I guess the 2000s were violent.

George W. Bush has mixed views around here.... definitely not as popular, even among conservatives. My parents who are staunch republicans think he made a lot of mistakes. I think he was handed a hot potato by Clinton. He was given an economy sliding into a recession(which while started under Bush in March 2001, he couldn't have done anything about it.) after the Dot.Com Bubble burst in 2000, Osama Bin Laden could have been captured if the US really wanted to put in the effort in the late 90s but Clinton chose not to. The housing bubble had its roots back to Clinton with the repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act in 1999 which allowed the dangerous financial products in the Great Financial Crisis. He also significantly loosened housing loan standards. My parents who bought their first house in 1996 had to go through a huge inquisition type thing with them going through literally everything my parents had ever done financially. When my parents then bought our second house in late 2001 and closed on it in January 2002 they got their loan like that with no questions asked which was surprising to them.

My defense of Geroge W. Bush ends their though. He did nothing to stop the Financial Crisis from happening. He accelerated the loose housing standard that would lead to those horrible No Income No Job No Assets Subprime home loans.  He lead us into a war that we could not win in Iraq which should have ended right when we toppled Saddam but it did not and we incorrectly tried to push democracy down peoples throats who did not want it.The first phase of the Iraq War in 2003 was a success and should have ended their with all of our troops going home. But it didn't and he incorrectly underestimated the insurgency that would arise form American Rule in Iraq. His response to Katrina was horrible and he should have coordinated a better effort to help those in need. And to think about that Hurricane, it could have been worse..... a 185 MPH Category 5 at landfall but weakened to a low end Category 4/High End Category 3 Hurricane due to a Eye Wall Replacement Cycle. He destroyed our budget by ruining Clintons 5 trillion dollar budget surplus into a deficit by 2002. He was not a fiscal conservative at all. He ran up debt by 4 trillion dollars, however Obama has run it up by 8 trillion dollars, but still for a republican president who is supposed to be fiscally conservative not good at all.

Sorry for that long paragraph thats just my opinion of Bush.

I sentementalize with those in Black Lives Matter somewhat as what Marco Rubio said about it, racial targeting by the police happens all the time(Ill put the link up for that interview about what he thinks about it, pretty good for a republican!) http://video.foxnews.com/v/4420357069001/sen-marco-rubio-talks-black-lives-matter-movement/?#sp=show-clips

However I cannot support those who want to suppress the right of Free Speech on our College Campuses. I cannot believe 10,000 college students signed a petition to get rid of the first amendment. That is just sick. Censorship should not be tolerated. While racial slurs and such are bad and should not be defended, everyone has the right to free speech.

I don't exactly think everything should be controversy and thats the thing I find the most annoying about SJWs. I can sentimentalize with some of their movements, but please stop making everything a controversy that does not need to be one(Red Starbucks Cups??).


I agree with all of this! I was never that fond of Bush (or any Republican Presidents post Reagan in general) but I do agree that he gets too much slack. A lot of the systematic problems that caused the Great Recession in the Late 2000's occurred well before Dubya was elected.

You might disagree with me, which is fine, but a lot of the systematic problems started to arise around the Reagan administration. His policy of Trickle Down Economics was relatively new to Americans as The U.S was experiencing an era of massive regulation from the 1930's-1970's. Many Americans were desperate for change, especially since the economic slump of the 70's, however 'Reaganomics' was a Ponzi scheme. Yes, the country did experience a great deal of prosperity in the 80's, because the markets were not regulated it caused the deficit to rise significantly and markets eventually declined in or around 1987.

In the 1990's, Clinton, was actually just as bad as Reagan when it came to this false economic pretense. He drafted NAFTA, which outsourced most of our jobs overseas, he continued the Reagan/Bush tax cuts for a few years, and he repealed Glass Steagall, which was a massive mistake, because it made it legal for banks to gamble with people's money (which arguably is one of the biggest reasons the Great Recession occurred).

So combined with over two decades of growing income inequality, massive deregulation, and growing deficits; and the EXTREMELY insane amount of deregulation in the Bush 43' years led to a Massive decline in the markets, that 7-8 years later we are still reaping the consequences.

I don't think Obama has done enough to solve this issue either as income inequality has actually increased immensely in his tenure, and he's now lobbying for the TPP as we speak.

What were the 2000's? I'm assuming violence since it was post Columbine & 9/11 and many parents felt weary of the violence


I guess the 2000s were violent.


I guess the 2000s aren't mentioned in that pic due to just continuing on with the "dangers" of 1990s gaming. 1990s was considered "violent" and in the 2000s that just continued on. I don't think Columbine/911 had much connection with video games being seen as violent. Rather we just had people who saw video games as violent. The 1990s was when the ESRB rating came to be due to the violence in video games. The 2000s just continued the trend of "violent" games. Nowadays the problem seems to be misogyny or  something  (although you'll still have the few complaining that video games are too "violent).

I guess the 2000s aren't mentioned in that pic due to just continuing on with the "dangers" of 1990s gaming. 1990s was considered "violent" and in the 2000s that just continued on. I don't think Columbine/911 had much connection with video games being seen as violent. Rather we just had people who saw video games as violent. The 1990s was when the ESRB rating came to be due to the violence in video games. The 2000s just continued the trend of "violent" games. Nowadays the problem seems to be misogyny or  something  (although you'll still have the few complaining that video games are too "violent).


The misogyny issue first became a huge issue in the 2000s due to the rise of online console gaming, which gave bigoted rats a free space to roam, scaring minorities away from the industry.  In addition to this, the industry started skewing towards bros more than ever before; the gaming industry had pretty much always primarily targeted boys in the first place, but with the over saturation of FPS's and increasingly mature content in games, gender inclusive titles became more obscure than ever.  As a woman, I feel the gaming community simply doesn't want to welcome people like me, since it has turned into such a rat race of manliness.  Of course, Gamergate in 2014 took the problem of prejudice against women in gaming to new levels of awareness, but things had already been a complete mess for several years before that.

I would also argue that Grand Theft Auto raised a lot of new eyebrows in the 2000s because in addition to its excessive violence and swearing, the franchise had nihilistic overtones to a lot of detractors.

https://twitter.com/momsagainstgam

By far my favourite Twitter account.

The misogyny issue first became a huge issue in the 2000s due to the rise of online console gaming, which gave bigoted rats a free space to roam, scaring minorities away from the industry.  In addition to this, the industry started skewing towards bros more than ever before; the gaming industry had pretty much always primarily targeted boys in the first place, but with the over saturation of FPS's and increasingly mature content in games, gender inclusive titles became more obscure than ever.  As a woman, I feel the gaming community simply doesn't want to welcome people like me, since it has turned into such a rat race of manliness.  Of course, Gamergate in 2014 took the problem of prejudice against women in gaming to new levels of awareness, but things had already been a complete mess for several years before that.

I would also argue that Grand Theft Auto raised a lot of new eyebrows in the 2000s because in addition to its excessive violence and swearing, the franchise had nihilistic overtones to a lot of detractors.


Online gaming can be seen as starting the issue (although due to how big online gaming is I doubt it'd ever go away). Things have gotten bad to the point where you'd even find 12 year olds acting like idiots towards the minority (I've seen this happen during my older online gaming days..). Not just to women, but to anyone who isn't a "straight white male". Nowadays people are tired of game developing companies treating the minority as if they don't exist or just ignore them for the "straight white male" crowd. Grand Theft Auto can be seen as an issue due to its violence, but as I said before the 2000s in gaming just continued the trend of violence from the 1990s. The oversaturation of FPS and the increase of online gaming in the late 2000s pretty much set things for the way that they are today. And I'm sure we've all heard of how minorities aren't represented well in video games. Stereotypes and token characters annoy me.

I'm not the biggest social justice warriors fan, but I don't agree with the mistreatment of minorities. And People shouldn't be scared to do online gaming of all things.

Online gaming can be seen as starting the issue (although due to how big online gaming is I doubt it'd ever go away). Things have gotten bad to the point where you'd even find 12 year olds acting like idiots towards the minority (I've seen this happen during my older online gaming days..). Not just to women, but to anyone who isn't a "straight white male". Nowadays people are tired of game developing companies treating the minority as if they don't exist or just ignore them for the "straight white male" crowd.

Yes, exactly, the gaming industry isn't just closing its doors to women, but also African Americans, gays, Hispanics, Jews, and pretty much any other minority that doesn't conform to white bro culture.  I'm incredibly sick of browsing YouTube for gaming videos that I'm curious about, and 98% of the time, the host is a white straight male.  I think there was one channel I discovered that was by a woman, while pretty much everything else is stuck either in the socially awkward male nerd category or is just a bunch of alpha males getting their competitive fix on and making frequent comments about sexy chicks or beer or something like that.  I know that sounds like generalizing, and I still adore the Angry Video Game Nerd (well, not the physical potty humor bits of it), but it still devastates me that the video game industry hasn't grown into something more diverse as the 21st century has unfolded.

Grand Theft Auto can be seen as an issue due to its violence, but as I said before the 2000s in gaming just continued the trend of violence from the 1990s.

I think Grand Theft Auto broke new grounds of controversy though because it basically glorified crime and wasn't just confined to a tournament fighter setting.  It doesn't help, either, that Grand Theft Auto III came out around the same time as 9/11.

The oversaturation of FPS and the increase of online gaming in the late 2000s pretty much set things for the way that they are today. And I'm sure we've all heard of how minorities aren't represented well in video games. Stereotypes and token characters annoy me.

I'm not the biggest social justice warriors fan, but I don't agree with the mistreatment of minorities. And People shouldn't be scared to do online gaming of all things.


Ugh, I feel your pain.  The industry is still stuck in this broken mindset that only straight white males can be truly heroic, while everybody else is either just subservient to him or, in the case of the few female characters, a love interest.  Why can't a dreamy, beautiful, confident, intelligent woman be just as much of a main protagonist as the cookie cutter young white male hero archetype?  Oh well, I guess I'm just speaking as a serious minority, being a lipstick lesbian.

Yes, exactly, the gaming industry isn't just closing its doors to women, but also African Americans, gays, Hispanics, Jews, and pretty much any other minority that doesn't conform to white bro culture.  I'm incredibly sick of browsing YouTube for gaming videos that I'm curious about, and 98% of the time, the host is a white straight male.  I think there was one channel I discovered that was by a woman, while pretty much everything else is stuck either in the socially awkward male nerd category or is just a bunch of alpha males getting their competitive fix on and making frequent comments about sexy chicks or beer or something like that.  I know that sounds like generalizing, and I still adore the Angry Video Game Nerd (well, not the physical potty humor bits of it), but it still devastates me that the video game industry hasn't grown into something more diverse as the 21st century has unfolded.


I don't think YouTube gives a sh*t. YouTube would only have people be amused to anybody who does f*cking games. Although, there are some blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities that probably do live streams towards video games.

I think Grand Theft Auto broke new grounds of controversy though because it basically glorified crime and wasn't just confined to a tournament fighter setting.  It doesn't help, either, that Grand Theft Auto III came out around the same time as 9/11.


Well, they tried to make GTA III more modern because of 9/11. In fact, if you seen the planes in Liberty City, they would go alternate directions because Rockstar didn't want people to be worried over them crashing through skyscrapers.

I don't think YouTube gives a sh*t. YouTube would only have people be amused to anybody who does f*cking games. Although, there are some blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities that probably do live streams towards video games.

Then why is there such a deficit of let's plays, talk shows, or review channels hosted by females and minorities compared to straight, white males?

Then why is there such a deficit of let's plays, talk shows, or review channels hosted by females and minorities compared to straight, white males?


The f*ck if I know. I don't even pay attention to the gaming community unless it's something related to Undertale. I could say there should be more minorities live streaming, but I'm not going to support the movement.

This kind of stark divide is mostly an American phenomenon. Gay rights and 'Black Lives Matter' might be big things in the US but they're not here. There is no equivalent to the Bible Belt or the GOP here - certainly no reactionary Donald Trump's or downright evil Ted Cruz's. I'm a gay man, and I would have probably killed myself a long time ago if I grew up in some sh*thole like Mississippi or Texas. Conversely, I feel safe and content in England and have never felt like my life was under threat.

But anyway, 'Social Just Warriors' are incredibly annoying, but the reactionary right-wing Republicans are much worse. The former are annoying and get offended too easily, but they don't actually seek to punish or deny rights to groups of people. Most Republicans certainly dislike who I am and many hate me so much they want me dead. America could be on track for a 21st century civil ideological war - and I hope the conservatives lose. The greatest thing about the past 10 years is the remarkable progress in social attitudes - even in 2006 the majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage but now more than 60% support it. If it wasn't for redneck southern states it'd be even higher.

This kind of stark divide is mostly an American phenomenon. Gay rights and 'Black Lives Matter' might be big things in the US but they're not here. There is no equivalent to the Bible Belt or the GOP here - certainly no reactionary Donald Trump's or downright evil Ted Cruz's. I'm a gay man, and I would have probably killed myself a long time ago if I grew up in some sh*thole like Mississippi or Texas. Conversely, I feel safe and content in England and have never felt like my life was under threat.

But anyway, 'Social Just Warriors' are incredibly annoying, but the reactionary right-wing Republicans are much worse. The former are annoying and get offended too easily, but they don't actually seek to punish or deny rights to groups of people. Most Republicans certainly dislike who I am and many hate me so much they want me dead. America could be on track for a 21st century civil ideological war - and I hope the conservatives lose. The greatest thing about the past 10 years is the remarkable progress in social attitudes - even in 2006 the majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage but now more than 60% support it. If it wasn't for redneck southern states it'd be even higher.


As an apolitical (though support left-wing political beliefs), don't go to the Southern United States. They basically hate anybody who's either a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. It would be worse if you lived near them.

I agree with all of this! I was never that fond of Bush (or any Republican Presidents post Reagan in general) but I do agree that he gets too much slack. A lot of the systematic problems that caused the Great Recession in the Late 2000's occurred well before Dubya was elected.

You might disagree with me, which is fine, but a lot of the systematic problems started to arise around the Reagan administration. His policy of Trickle Down Economics was relatively new to Americans as The U.S was experiencing an era of massive regulation from the 1930's-1970's. Many Americans were desperate for change, especially since the economic slump of the 70's, however 'Reaganomics' was a Ponzi scheme. Yes, the country did experience a great deal of prosperity in the 80's, because the markets were not regulated it caused the deficit to rise significantly and markets eventually declined in or around 1987.

In the 1990's, Clinton, was actually just as bad as Reagan when it came to this false economic pretense. He drafted NAFTA, which outsourced most of our jobs overseas, he continued the Reagan/Bush tax cuts for a few years, and he repealed Glass Steagall, which was a massive mistake, because it made it legal for banks to gamble with people's money (which arguably is one of the biggest reasons the Great Recession occurred).


So combined with over two decades of growing income inequality, massive deregulation, and growing deficits; and the EXTREMELY insane amount of deregulation in the Bush 43' years led to a Massive decline in the markets, that 7-8 years later we are still reaping the consequences.

I don't think Obama has done enough to solve this issue either as income inequality has actually increased immensely in his tenure, and he's now lobbying for the TPP as we speak.


Suprisingly deregulation and such started under Carter, which I didnt believe at first but looking at it it started under him but Reagon accelerated it. I think while Reagonomics was heavily favoring the rich and that was what started the growing income equality, it did trickle down somewhat as the 1980s was the last time the Middle Class's income rose. I think a modern republican president would need to do Reagonomics except it would favor the lower and middle classes more instead of the rich. Reagon could have done WAY more to balance the budget which I think if we were not in a huge buildup and overspending in the Military he would have achieved that. I favor some deregulation but when it becomes dangerous to our country and our economy like repealing the Glass Stegal Act and having bad standards for mortgages and auto loans, thats when it goes too far.

The Economy in my book can be sepreated into this super long timeline/chart since the Reagon Presidency started.

January 1980-November 1982 The Carter/Reagon Recession, caused by Paul Volcker's shock therapy of interest rates to 20% to end the Stagflation Era of the 1970s, it worked but it was an extremely sharp recession that made Reagon very unpopular in his first term.

December 1982 - August 1987 Significant HUGE economic growth caused by lowering of interest rates after it was seen inflation was under control and by massive deregulation. Oil Prices finally collapsed in 1986 to normal levels, the economy was gaining steam and there was prosperity for all but it favored the rich significantly.

September 1987- June 1990. The 1987 Stock Market Crash, caused by the debt and bubble through August 1987 slows down the economy significantly. However by some miracle even though many were predicting a Recession in 1988, the economy trudged along with relatively moderate growth through early 1990. The S&L Crisis worsens in 1989 due to failures of many large S&Ls. However by January of 1990 signs of Recession were popping up. Economic growth was slowing even more compared to 1988 and 1989 due to The Federal Reserve hiking interest rates up to 12%. The Gulf War collapsed Consumer Confidence due to the surge in Oil Prices in the Summer of 1990 and effectively put the US in Recession.

July 1990- June 1991 The Early 90s Recession which was relatively shallow compared to other Recessions like the Early 80s and Mid 70s Recession was still pretty bad. The refusal by the Federal Reserve to stop hiking and instead lower interest rates until December 1990 caused even further tightened credit. George HW Bush blamed the Federal Reserves lateness on lowering interest rates for his reelection loss. Unemployment Rate jumps from 5%. There is a cylical bear market in early 1991 but not enough to stop the bull market that started in 1983.

July 1991- December 1993. This period saw slow modest growth which was exasperated by the high unemployment rate which peaked at 7.8% in October 1992. The economy was recovering but it was not fast enough and with the jobless recovery caused George HW Bush not to be relected and Bill Clinton to win in 1992. The deficit spending from the Gulf War and Recession caused debt to increase dramtically but Bush 41 started to cap spending in 1992 which was the beginning of a nine year period of decreased/stablizing government spending. Bush had to make taxes higher which made him further unpopular. Clinton started with a stagnate economy but by the end of 1993 the economy was gaining speed.

January 1994 - December 1995 the US Economy grows expedintially in 1994 caused by the Federal rEserve lwoering interest rates to 3% in mid 1993. The Economy grows at 4% this year and the US has its best jobs year ever with over 2 million jobs being created that year. However the Federal Reserve worried about inflation decides to hike interest rates expedinentially from 3% to 7%. This causes bond markets to crash and for a stock market correction in 1994. In 1995 growth slows significantly due to the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates even nearing zero growth territory in Q2 1995. However Alan Greenspan is ahead of the curve and stops hiking interest rates in March 1995. This was the first successful soft landing any world economy had ever had. Growth picks up in Late 1995 setting up for the dot com boom. However the weakest year of the 90s other than the recession at 2.7%. The Government Shutdown in 1995 slows down growth in the 4th quarter.

January 1996 - October 1997. Growth is huge and strong for these two years. The economy grows a 3.9% in 1996 and 4.5% in 1997. The economy is robust the consumer is strong and the dotcom bubble starts in May 1997 due to the lowering of the capital gains tax, this causes the Economy to accelerate in growth in mid-late 1997. The Asian Financial Crisis starts this year and causes a mini crash in October 1997. Many see this as the begining of the end of the boom of the 90s' but I think differenly.

November 1997- June 1999 The economy is resileient and strong even with the world economy having issues from 1997-1999. Consumer confidence dips in early 1998 and so does growth but an interest rate cut to 3.9% from 5% restores confidence and further makes the economy grow further. growth in the economy accelerates in the 3rd and 4th quarter despite the stock market crash in August-October 1998. With it growing 5.0% and 6.5% respectively. The economy grows at 4.8% this year overall. The Federal Reserve decides in April 1999 to start hiking interest rates again after seeing the the economy is slightly overheating. There is a slowdown in Q2 1999 at 2.9& but the economy gains steam and so does the dotcom bubble. The US has a budget surplus starting in 1998-2001.

July 1999- March 2000 This time period is when the US economy reaches its peak. It has huge growth in Q3 at 5.8% and grows at an astounding 7% in Q4 1999. The Y2k Bug comes into the publics eye and with the prospect of computers having to all be replaced, tech stocks increase EXPEDIENTIALLY. The NAsdaq goes from 2,800 in October 1999 all the way up to 5,100 in March 2000 a huge gain. The unemployment rate drops below 4% a huge achievement. 2000 hits and there is relatively no side effects from the Y2K Bug. The stock market peaks in March 2000 and heads down into a three year long bear market. Ending the 1983-2000 bull market. The Economy grows at 5.2% in 1999. Oil prices after dropping down from 30$ a barrel in 1996 down to 10$ a barrel in mid 1999 starts a huge new bull market that does not end until the Financial Crisis.

April 2000 - March 2003. The US Economy at first has no side effects from the dot com bubble bursting as it grows at 4.1% in 2000. However by late 2000 it is clear that the US is heading for recession and Alan greenspan starts cutting interest rates from 6.75% down to an astounding 1% in March 2003. Unemployement rate has its downward peak of 3.7% in December 2000. While the US does not enter recession under Clinton, he hands Bush a ticking timebomb of deregulation, Osama Bin Laden, recession and debt. The US enters a Recession in March 2001. This slowdown probably would not have been called a recession if 9.11 did not happen. 9/11 is what spiraled the US into Recession. The US Stock Market crashes further with the DJIA losing 680 points after 9/11. The US enters out of a Recession in December 2001 but the effects of it do not wear off easily as the unemployment rate only peaks about two years after the recession ended in September 2003. The US Economy is stagnate for a year and a half after the recession. Two huge bankruptcies happen during this time. Enron in December 2001 at 65 billion dollars and WorldCom at 84 billion dollars in September 2002.

April 2003 - December 2006. This is where the using bubble starts continues rises and by the end of it starts falling. The US economy grows at 3.8% in 2003. And 3.9% in 2004 3.1% in 2005 and 2.4% in 2006 Housing prices around the US start rising at a bubble rate. ARM(Adjustable Rate Mortgages), Home Equity Loans and Subprime Loans are fairly common. A housing building boom starts in the US. Banks are incompetent. People are greedy. Nobody realizes just how bad things will get Hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 dent the economy in the South and further make oil rise significantly. Housing prices start falling in late 2006.

January 2007 - July 2009 THE GREAT RECESSION. A systemic economic 9/11 happens and while most people know what happened it is still fairly bad. the unemployment rate goes from 4.4% in April 2008 up to 10.5% in October 2009. The Fed starts lowering rates in 2007 as the cracks start appearing in the world financial system. It does not really hit home until Bear Stearns has to be bought out by JP Morgan in March 2008. The Fed further cuts rates until its at 0% in December 2008, a rat ekept until December 2015. Lehman goes bankrupt in September AIG is nearly bankrupt and has to be saved. Washington Mutual goes bankrupt.. CitiBank nearly goes bankrupt. Merryl Lynch is bought out by Bank of America. The stock market crashes from DOW at 14,000 down to 6,675 in March 9th 2009. The World Economy is saved by the Central Banks taking decisive action. however this starts the world debt binge that has been in place since.

August 2009 - March 2015 The recovery years that have seen rollercoaster growth. We havent grown at 3% since 2005. The Fed launches QE1 QE2 and QE3. This helps the stock market bubble rise. The Us economy almost goes into recession in late 2012 but is saved by QE3. The stock market only has one sizable correction in August-November of 2011. The US Economy grows at 2.9% in 2010, 1.7% in 2011 1.6% in 2012, 2.7% in 2013 and 2.8% in 2014. The growth is pretty slow compared to where it was in the other recoveries.

April 2015 - present. I think the economy peaked and has strated going downhill since then, obviously you can tell with the the GDP numbers. I think we will be entering a recession in the next year or so. This is the beginning of a new era.

Clinton may be credited with a great economy until the last year of his term(2000; dot com bubble bursting and such) but it started under Reagon. The Federal Reserve I believe was more responsible than any other government agency, policy or president to have caused the three great bubbles of the last 25 years. Alan Greenspan caused the Dotcom bubble which accelerated in late 1998-early 2000 due to him lowering interest rates too much which caused the bubble to really accelerate and hiking the interest rates too late in mid 1999 caused the bubble to pop in 2000. Then they lowered interest rates to 1% 2 YEARS AFTER A RECESSION! This caused the housing bubble and they horrible subprime loans which then when the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates to 5.5% in 2006, again too late on the curve that again popped the bubble. I think we are at the begining stages of the end of our current bubble, what I call the Central Bank bubble with exessive credit, record low interest rates, quantitative easing, negative interest rates. I cannot believe they JUST hiked interest rates in December, they should have done it all the way back in early 2014!! With recent stock market trouble and signs of a Worldwide Recession looming, its safe to say this bubble is bursting.

This kind of stark divide is mostly an American phenomenon. Gay rights and 'Black Lives Matter' might be big things in the US but they're not here. There is no equivalent to the Bible Belt or the GOP here - certainly no reactionary Donald Trump's or downright evil Ted Cruz's. I'm a gay man, and I would have probably killed myself a long time ago if I grew up in some sh*thole like Mississippi or Texas. Conversely, I feel safe and content in England and have never felt like my life was under threat.

But anyway, 'Social Just Warriors' are incredibly annoying, but the reactionary right-wing Republicans are much worse. The former are annoying and get offended too easily, but they don't actually seek to punish or deny rights to groups of people. Most Republicans certainly dislike who I am and many hate me so much they want me dead. America could be on track for a 21st century civil ideological war - and I hope the conservatives lose. The greatest thing about the past 10 years is the remarkable progress in social attitudes - even in 2006 the majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage but now more than 60% support it. If it wasn't for redneck southern states it'd be even higher.


Yep same here in Canada. Actually during the 2015 election, a lot of pundits were complaining that the parties are too similar and that there is too much political consensus and not enough risk taking  ;D All parties try to out-centrist each other. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2003 and LGBT rights have been enshrined into the Bill of Rights (kind of like our constitution) since 2005. And police brutality isn't really a thing here (although the RCMP has a history of harassing aboriginal communities). Actually, over here the police unions themselves have lobbied to make police officers wear cameras while on duty. The Toronto and Ottawa police are already wearing body cams. I heard in the UK, a lot of police officers don't even have guns? You guys are ahead of us there :P

"Social justice warrior" may as well be a good thing here. Who the hell says no to social justice causes? In the 2014 provincial elections, the canditate who compaigned on being the "social justice premier" (her exact words) actually won the election with flying colours. She's the first elected woman and openly gay premier in Ontario. She's awful at her job and I didn't vote for her, but I'm still amazed at how much progress we've made so quickly  :)

I feel like I'm a lot less cynical about the 2010s than the American members on here exactly because the political situation isn't as bad over here. Actually, from my perspective, having Obama be president of the US is actually pretty damn awesome. Much much much better than Bush.

I seriously think the Bible Belt holds the US back big time. When I look at states like New York and Washington State, I don't feel they're different from Canada at all. But Texas and Mississippi may as well be on another planet.

Yes, exactly, the gaming industry isn't just closing its doors to women, but also African Americans, gays, Hispanics, Jews, and pretty much any other minority that doesn't conform to white bro culture.  I'm incredibly sick of browsing YouTube for gaming videos that I'm curious about, and 98% of the time, the host is a white straight male.  I think there was one channel I discovered that was by a woman, while pretty much everything else is stuck either in the socially awkward male nerd category or is just a bunch of alpha males getting their competitive fix on and making frequent comments about sexy chicks or beer or something like that.  I know that sounds like generalizing, and I still adore the Angry Video Game Nerd (well, not the physical potty humor bits of it), but it still devastates me that the video game industry hasn't grown into something more diverse as the 21st century has unfolded.

Yep, that's true alright. Mostly gaming channels (and nearly all the BIG gaming channels) usually are hosted by white males (not offense against white males as I'm just stating what I see on youtube). Even in the 21st century things haven't changed as much. Well while we are making progress we're mostly doing it with baby steps (or rather at a snail's pace) as issues like this could continue even by the start of the 22nd century. Usually if you want to make a difference nowadays you'd have to start a channel yourself. But it also matters on if your channel actually becomes big or not.

I think Grand Theft Auto broke new grounds of controversy though because it basically glorified crime and wasn't just confined to a tournament fighter setting.  It doesn't help, either, that Grand Theft Auto III came out around the same time as 9/11.
I can see how the controversy started because of the crime. And it's sad that 9/11 help in starting the controversy especially since GTA 3 was developed before the event happened.


Ugh, I feel your pain.  The industry is still stuck in this broken mindset that only straight white males can be truly heroic, while everybody else is either just subservient to him or, in the case of the few female characters, a love interest.  Why can't a dreamy, beautiful, confident, intelligent woman be just as much of a main protagonist as the cookie cutter young white male hero archetype?  Oh well, I guess I'm just speaking as a serious minority, being a lipstick lesbian.


Yep, if you do not fill the "straight white male" requirement than companies don't even think about you when making their product (hell companies are mostly ran by straight white males anyways....so it's easy to figure out why they think in such a way. Walk into a developing company and you'll that less than 10% are "Homosexual colored males/women". Look at all the latest big games coming out and you'll see that nearly none (if any) star a character who is of color, women, or has a non-straight sexual preference. Now we do have games that star female leads, but they aren't very common.

https://yourmomrocks.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/video-game-protagonists-kids-love-brown-haired-30-something-white-males.jpg

Yep same here in Canada. Actually during the 2015 election, a lot of pundits were complaining that the parties are too similar and that there is too much political consensus and not enough risk taking  ;D All parties try to out-centrist each other. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2003 and LGBT rights have been enshrined into the Bill of Rights (kind of like our constitution) since 2005. And police brutality isn't really a thing here (although the RCMP has a history of harassing aboriginal communities). Actually, over here the police unions themselves have lobbied to make police officers wear cameras while on duty. The Toronto and Ottawa police are already wearing body cams. I heard in the UK, a lot of police officers don't even have guns? You guys are ahead of us there :P

"Social justice warrior" may as well be a good thing here. Who the hell says no to social justice causes? In the 2014 provincial elections, the canditate who compaigned on being the "social justice premier" (her exact words) actually won the election with flying colours. She's the first elected woman and openly gay premier in Ontario. She's awful at her job and I didn't vote for her, but I'm still amazed at how much progress we've made so quickly  :)

I feel like I'm a lot less cynical about the 2010s than the American members on here exactly because the political situation isn't as bad over here. Actually, from my perspective, having Obama be president of the US is actually pretty damn awesome. Much much much better than Bush.

I seriously think the Bible Belt holds the US back big time. When I look at states like New York and Washington State, I don't feel they're different from Canada at all. But Texas and Mississippi may as well be on another planet.


Well, you're lucky that I live in New York.  I'm more proud of being part Canadian (because my grandpa was born there) than being an American citizen. Your country seems more nice than most Americans. I mean, if you've talked about politics and religion, it would become a battlezone.

Well, you're lucky that I live in New York.  I'm more proud of being part Canadian (because my grandpa was born there) than being an American citizen. Your country seems more nice than most Americans. I mean, if you've talked about politics and religion, it would become a battlezone.


I went to New York in 1999! I wish I stayed a bit longer, then I'd get to see the ball drop for Y2K! What a memory that would've been. I went to Times Square which was super crowded, and I went to Central Park. I rode the subway when it still looked apocalyptic  ;D

I went again in the summer of 2001, before 9/11. It was only the airport though. I played Rampage at the arcade in the airport and made a few friends over it in just the few hours I was there. New Yorkers are really nice people ;) Or at least the kids are.

I went to New York in 1999! I wish I stayed a bit longer, then I'd get to see the ball drop for Y2K! What a memory that would've been. I went to Times Square which was super crowded, and I went to Central Park. I rode the subway when it still looked apocalyptic  ;D

I went again in the summer of 2001, before 9/11. It was only the airport though. I played Rampage at the arcade in the airport and made a few friends over it in just the few hours I was there. New Yorkers are really nice people ;) Or at least the kids are.


New Yorkers are actually really nice, even in 2016. There are a few conservatives, but the majority of them are liberals.

New Yorkers are actually really nice, even in 2016. There are a few conservatives, but the majority of them are liberals.


Haha, I don't think people being mean automatically makes them conservatives or vice versa  ;D

Haha, I don't think people being mean automatically makes them conservatives or vice versa  ;D


Well yeah. I do have a few Conservative friends, but I don't talk a lot about politics with them.

Suprisingly deregulation and such started under Carter, which I didnt believe at first but looking at it it started under him but Reagon accelerated it. I think while Reagonomics was heavily favoring the rich and that was what started the growing income equality, it did trickle down somewhat as the 1980s was the last time the Middle Class's income rose. I think a modern republican president would need to do Reagonomics except it would favor the lower and middle classes more instead of the rich. Reagon could have done WAY more to balance the budget which I think if we were not in a huge buildup and overspending in the Military he would have achieved that. I favor some deregulation but when it becomes dangerous to our country and our economy like repealing the Glass Stegal Act and having bad standards for mortgages and auto loans, thats when it goes too far.

The Economy in my book can be sepreated into this super long timeline/chart since the Reagon Presidency started.

January 1980-November 1982 The Carter/Reagon Recession, caused by Paul Volcker's shock therapy of interest rates to 20% to end the Stagflation Era of the 1970s, it worked but it was an extremely sharp recession that made Reagon very unpopular in his first term.

December 1982 - August 1987 Significant HUGE economic growth caused by lowering of interest rates after it was seen inflation was under control and by massive deregulation. Oil Prices finally collapsed in 1986 to normal levels, the economy was gaining steam and there was prosperity for all but it favored the rich significantly.

September 1987- June 1990. The 1987 Stock Market Crash, caused by the debt and bubble through August 1987 slows down the economy significantly. However by some miracle even though many were predicting a Recession in 1988, the economy trudged along with relatively moderate growth through early 1990. The S&L Crisis worsens in 1989 due to failures of many large S&Ls. However by January of 1990 signs of Recession were popping up. Economic growth was slowing even more compared to 1988 and 1989 due to The Federal Reserve hiking interest rates up to 12%. The Gulf War collapsed Consumer Confidence due to the surge in Oil Prices in the Summer of 1990 and effectively put the US in Recession.

July 1990- June 1991 The Early 90s Recession which was relatively shallow compared to other Recessions like the Early 80s and Mid 70s Recession was still pretty bad. The refusal by the Federal Reserve to stop hiking and instead lower interest rates until December 1990 caused even further tightened credit. George HW Bush blamed the Federal Reserves lateness on lowering interest rates for his reelection loss. Unemployment Rate jumps from 5%. There is a cylical bear market in early 1991 but not enough to stop the bull market that started in 1983.

July 1991- December 1993. This period saw slow modest growth which was exasperated by the high unemployment rate which peaked at 7.8% in October 1992. The economy was recovering but it was not fast enough and with the jobless recovery caused George HW Bush not to be relected and Bill Clinton to win in 1992. The deficit spending from the Gulf War and Recession caused debt to increase dramtically but Bush 41 started to cap spending in 1992 which was the beginning of a nine year period of decreased/stablizing government spending. Bush had to make taxes higher which made him further unpopular. Clinton started with a stagnate economy but by the end of 1993 the economy was gaining speed.

January 1994 - December 1995 the US Economy grows expedintially in 1994 caused by the Federal rEserve lwoering interest rates to 3% in mid 1993. The Economy grows at 4% this year and the US has its best jobs year ever with over 2 million jobs being created that year. However the Federal Reserve worried about inflation decides to hike interest rates expedinentially from 3% to 7%. This causes bond markets to crash and for a stock market correction in 1994. In 1995 growth slows significantly due to the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates even nearing zero growth territory in Q2 1995. However Alan Greenspan is ahead of the curve and stops hiking interest rates in March 1995. This was the first successful soft landing any world economy had ever had. Growth picks up in Late 1995 setting up for the dot com boom. However the weakest year of the 90s other than the recession at 2.7%. The Government Shutdown in 1995 slows down growth in the 4th quarter.

January 1996 - October 1997. Growth is huge and strong for these two years. The economy grows a 3.9% in 1996 and 4.5% in 1997. The economy is robust the consumer is strong and the dotcom bubble starts in May 1997 due to the lowering of the capital gains tax, this causes the Economy to accelerate in growth in mid-late 1997. The Asian Financial Crisis starts this year and causes a mini crash in October 1997. Many see this as the begining of the end of the boom of the 90s' but I think differenly.

November 1997- June 1999 The economy is resileient and strong even with the world economy having issues from 1997-1999. Consumer confidence dips in early 1998 and so does growth but an interest rate cut to 3.9% from 5% restores confidence and further makes the economy grow further. growth in the economy accelerates in the 3rd and 4th quarter despite the stock market crash in August-October 1998. With it growing 5.0% and 6.5% respectively. The economy grows at 4.8% this year overall. The Federal Reserve decides in April 1999 to start hiking interest rates again after seeing the the economy is slightly overheating. There is a slowdown in Q2 1999 at 2.9& but the economy gains steam and so does the dotcom bubble. The US has a budget surplus starting in 1998-2001.

July 1999- March 2000 This time period is when the US economy reaches its peak. It has huge growth in Q3 at 5.8% and grows at an astounding 7% in Q4 1999. The Y2k Bug comes into the publics eye and with the prospect of computers having to all be replaced, tech stocks increase EXPEDIENTIALLY. The NAsdaq goes from 2,800 in October 1999 all the way up to 5,100 in March 2000 a huge gain. The unemployment rate drops below 4% a huge achievement. 2000 hits and there is relatively no side effects from the Y2K Bug. The stock market peaks in March 2000 and heads down into a three year long bear market. Ending the 1983-2000 bull market. The Economy grows at 5.2% in 1999. Oil prices after dropping down from 30$ a barrel in 1996 down to 10$ a barrel in mid 1999 starts a huge new bull market that does not end until the Financial Crisis.

April 2000 - March 2003. The US Economy at first has no side effects from the dot com bubble bursting as it grows at 4.1% in 2000. However by late 2000 it is clear that the US is heading for recession and Alan greenspan starts cutting interest rates from 6.75% down to an astounding 1% in March 2003. Unemployement rate has its downward peak of 3.7% in December 2000. While the US does not enter recession under Clinton, he hands Bush a ticking timebomb of deregulation, Osama Bin Laden, recession and debt. The US enters a Recession in March 2001. This slowdown probably would not have been called a recession if 9.11 did not happen. 9/11 is what spiraled the US into Recession. The US Stock Market crashes further with the DJIA losing 680 points after 9/11. The US enters out of a Recession in December 2001 but the effects of it do not wear off easily as the unemployment rate only peaks about two years after the recession ended in September 2003. The US Economy is stagnate for a year and a half after the recession. Two huge bankruptcies happen during this time. Enron in December 2001 at 65 billion dollars and WorldCom at 84 billion dollars in September 2002.

April 2003 - December 2006. This is where the using bubble starts continues rises and by the end of it starts falling. The US economy grows at 3.8% in 2003. And 3.9% in 2004 3.1% in 2005 and 2.4% in 2006 Housing prices around the US start rising at a bubble rate. ARM(Adjustable Rate Mortgages), Home Equity Loans and Subprime Loans are fairly common. A housing building boom starts in the US. Banks are incompetent. People are greedy. Nobody realizes just how bad things will get Hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 dent the economy in the South and further make oil rise significantly. Housing prices start falling in late 2006.

January 2007 - July 2009 THE GREAT RECESSION. A systemic economic 9/11 happens and while most people know what happened it is still fairly bad. the unemployment rate goes from 4.4% in April 2008 up to 10.5% in October 2009. The Fed starts lowering rates in 2007 as the cracks start appearing in the world financial system. It does not really hit home until Bear Stearns has to be bought out by JP Morgan in March 2008. The Fed further cuts rates until its at 0% in December 2008, a rat ekept until December 2015. Lehman goes bankrupt in September AIG is nearly bankrupt and has to be saved. Washington Mutual goes bankrupt.. CitiBank nearly goes bankrupt. Merryl Lynch is bought out by Bank of America. The stock market crashes from DOW at 14,000 down to 6,675 in March 9th 2009. The World Economy is saved by the Central Banks taking decisive action. however this starts the world debt binge that has been in place since.

August 2009 - March 2015 The recovery years that have seen rollercoaster growth. We havent grown at 3% since 2005. The Fed launches QE1 QE2 and QE3. This helps the stock market bubble rise. The Us economy almost goes into recession in late 2012 but is saved by QE3. The stock market only has one sizable correction in August-November of 2011. The US Economy grows at 2.9% in 2010, 1.7% in 2011 1.6% in 2012, 2.7% in 2013 and 2.8% in 2014. The growth is pretty slow compared to where it was in the other recoveries.

April 2015 - present. I think the economy peaked and has strated going downhill since then, obviously you can tell with the the GDP numbers. I think we will be entering a recession in the next year or so. This is the beginning of a new era.

Clinton may be credited with a great economy until the last year of his term(2000; dot com bubble bursting and such) but it started under Reagon. The Federal Reserve I believe was more responsible than any other government agency, policy or president to have caused the three great bubbles of the last 25 years. Alan Greenspan caused the Dotcom bubble which accelerated in late 1998-early 2000 due to him lowering interest rates too much which caused the bubble to really accelerate and hiking the interest rates too late in mid 1999 caused the bubble to pop in 2000. Then they lowered interest rates to 1% 2 YEARS AFTER A RECESSION! This caused the housing bubble and they horrible subprime loans which then when the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates to 5.5% in 2006, again too late on the curve that again popped the bubble. I think we are at the begining stages of the end of our current bubble, what I call the Central Bank bubble with exessive credit, record low interest rates, quantitative easing, negative interest rates. I cannot believe they JUST hiked interest rates in December, they should have done it all the way back in early 2014!! With recent stock market trouble and signs of a Worldwide Recession looming, its safe to say this bubble is bursting.


Good anaylsis, I agree with you for the most part



Yep same here in Canada. Actually during the 2015 election, a lot of pundits were complaining that the parties are too similar and that there is too much political consensus and not enough risk taking  ;D All parties try to out-centrist each other. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2003 and LGBT rights have been enshrined into the Bill of Rights (kind of like our constitution) since 2005. And police brutality isn't really a thing here (although the RCMP has a history of harassing aboriginal communities). Actually, over here the police unions themselves have lobbied to make police officers wear cameras while on duty. The Toronto and Ottawa police are already wearing body cams. I heard in the UK, a lot of police officers don't even have guns? You guys are ahead of us there :P

"Social justice warrior" may as well be a good thing here. Who the hell says no to social justice causes? In the 2014 provincial elections, the canditate who compaigned on being the "social justice premier" (her exact words) actually won the election with flying colours. She's the first elected woman and openly gay premier in Ontario. She's awful at her job and I didn't vote for her, but I'm still amazed at how much progress we've made so quickly  :)

I feel like I'm a lot less cynical about the 2010s than the American members on here exactly because the political situation isn't as bad over here. Actually, from my perspective, having Obama be president of the US is actually pretty damn awesome. Much much much better than Bush.

I seriously think the Bible Belt holds the US back big time. When I look at states like New York and Washington State, I don't feel they're different from Canada at all. But Texas and Mississippi may as well be on another planet.


Personally my major complaint with Obama is that he talked big about 'Change' and 'Hope', but didn't deliver. It was incramental change at best. I prefer Obama over Bush any day of the week, but anyone who understands politics would know that Obama was literally just a modern day Clinton, meaning preserving Status Quo, and having very Centrist policies (sometimes leaning left, while other times leaning right). However, that said I would say Obama is a decent president overall, not bad but not great either, he's made some change that has helped Americans, but many systematic problems were never fully fixed. America is definetly in a better state now then we were 7 years ago when Bush was in office, and Obama's presidency awakened a new Liberal revolution in America, with Liberalism now starting to win the culture war especially most recently with the SCOTUS Decision in 2015 to Nationally Legalize Gay Marriage.

Now if Hillary Clinton becomes president, expect to see the same old sheesh we've been seeing for decades, small change, but fundamental problems like income inequality and corrupt politics to continue. Hopefully Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic Nomination and becomes President, if you look him up on YouTube or wherever, you'd see that his policies are very similar to your Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Also as someone who lives in New Jersey, I totally agree. Heck the town where I live, it's considered center-right by NJ standards, typically higher income families, decent amount of farmland, SOME religous folks. But compare my average suburbian town to your average 'small town' in the Midwest or South, and my town would be seen as EXTREMELY LEFT WING in comparison ;D



I went to New York in 1999! I wish I stayed a bit longer, then I'd get to see the ball drop for Y2K! What a memory that would've been. I went to Times Square which was super crowded, and I went to Central Park. I rode the subway when it still looked apocalyptic  ;D

I went again in the summer of 2001, before 9/11. It was only the airport though. I played Rampage at the arcade in the airport and made a few friends over it in just the few hours I was there. New Yorkers are really nice people ;) Or at least the kids are.


As someone who was living in NY in 2001, Brooklyn to be exact, Summer of 2001 is a summer I get very nostalgic with. Going to the park to ride my bike, ride the swings, playing on the jungle gyms, watching Kids WB & ABC OSM, Playing my Gameboy Color & PS1, going down south to visit family in Georgia & Myrtle Beach, etc.



New Yorkers are actually really nice, even in 2016. There are a few conservatives, but the majority of them are liberals.


But in all honesty your average NY/NJ style conservative is only ideologically linked because of the notion of 'less government' & 'lower taxes'. They are nowhere near as insane as the conservatives in the South & Midwest, trust me on that one!

Yep, that's true alright. Mostly gaming channels (and nearly all the BIG gaming channels) usually are hosted by white males (not offense against white males as I'm just stating what I see on youtube). Even in the 21st century things haven't changed as much. Well while we are making progress we're mostly doing it with baby steps (or rather at a snail's pace) as issues like this could continue even by the start of the 22nd century. Usually if you want to make a difference nowadays you'd have to start a channel yourself. But it also matters on if your channel actually becomes big or not.
I can see how the controversy started because of the crime. And it's sad that 9/11 help in starting the controversy especially since GTA 3 was developed before the event happened.

Yep, if you do not fill the "straight white male" requirement than companies don't even think about you when making their product (hell companies are mostly ran by straight white males anyways....so it's easy to figure out why they think in such a way. Walk into a developing company and you'll that less than 10% are "Homosexual colored males/women". Look at all the latest big games coming out and you'll see that nearly none (if any) star a character who is of color, women, or has a non-straight sexual preference. Now we do have games that star female leads, but they aren't very common.

https://yourmomrocks.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/video-game-protagonists-kids-love-brown-haired-30-something-white-males.jpg


Look, I'm not even white, I really don't care about the race, gender, or orientation of the character. All I want is for the gameplay and story to be good. I'm not a huge fps guy in the first place, so whether the characters are "straight white males" makes no difference to me. Heck I play games with characters that are of a completely different species, and I still enjoy myself.

Personally, I'm more concerned about diversity in terms of gameplay and story/setting, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. That's more of a pressing issue, to me. Whether there's diversity in terms of race, gender, orientation, really makes no difference to me. Now I do agree that video games have been feeling repetitive lately, but I doubt whether the character's black or white, straight or gay, will really make a difference. I mean, I'm not saying that's a bad idea, I just don't really see it as a priority. I mean, the main character could be a freaking squirrel, and the game could be a hit. It's funny that when people talk about diversity in characters they mostly refer to color, but they forget about diversity in terms of species. It's a fantasy world for goodness sake, the possibilities are endless.

I also don't care whether youtube gaming channels are mostly hosted by white males. As long as they bring out good content, that's all that matters. Besides, there's only one gaming channel that I actually like, which is HellfireComms. All the other channels just feel too similar to each other, in my opinion.

Yep, if you do not fill the "straight white male" requirement than companies don't even think about you when making their product (hell companies are mostly ran by straight white males anyways....so it's easy to figure out why they think in such a way. Walk into a developing company and you'll that less than 10% are "Homosexual colored males/women". Look at all the latest big games coming out and you'll see that nearly none (if any) star a character who is of color, women, or has a non-straight sexual preference. Now we do have games that star female leads, but they aren't very common.

https://yourmomrocks.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/video-game-protagonists-kids-love-brown-haired-30-something-white-males.jpg


I've heard arguments from gamers before that the whole point of a video game is to make you feel "empowered," as if everybody's natural instinct is to become a macho man.  I'd rather feel like a confident, glamorous lady than some roided-out jock, or at least enter the shoes of somebody whose perspective I want to empathize with.


Look, I'm not even white, I really don't care about the race, gender, or orientation of the character. All I want is for the gameplay and story to be good. I'm not a huge fps guy in the first place, so whether the characters are "straight white males" makes no difference to me. Heck I play games with characters that are of a completely different species, and I still enjoy myself.

Personally, I'm more concerned about diversity in terms of gameplay and story/setting, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. That's more of a pressing issue, to me. Whether there's diversity in terms of race, gender, orientation, really makes no difference to me. Now I do agree that video games have been feeling repetitive lately, but I doubt whether the character's black or white, straight or gay, will really make a difference. I mean, I'm not saying that's a bad idea, I just don't really see it as a priority. I mean, the main character could be a freaking squirrel, and the game could be a hit. It's funny that when people talk about diversity in characters they mostly refer to color, but they forget about diversity in terms of species. It's a fantasy world for goodness sake, the possibilities are endless.

I also don't care whether youtube gaming channels are mostly hosted by white males. As long as they bring out good content, that's all that matters. Besides, there's only one gaming channel that I actually like, which is HellfireComms. All the other channels just feel too similar to each other, in my opinion.


Unfortunately, I think the lack of gameplay diversity in today's world is contingent with the regressive cultural diversity in the gaming community.  The industry primarily targets people whose gaming tastes pertain far less to innovation and more towards thrilling storylines and accessible means of anger release.  Boundary-breaking titles like Ocarina of Time, Dance Dance Revolution, and The Sims just aren't seeing the light of day anymore.

I've heard arguments from gamers before that the whole point of a video game is to make you feel "empowered," as if everybody's natural instinct is to become a macho man.  I'd rather feel like a confident, glamorous lady than some roided-out jock, or at least enter the shoes of somebody whose perspective I want to empathize with.

Unfortunately, I think the lack of gameplay diversity in today's world is contingent with the regressive cultural diversity in the gaming community.  The industry primarily targets people whose gaming tastes pertain far less to innovation and more towards thrilling storylines and accessible means of anger release.  Boundary-breaking titles like Ocarina of Time, Dance Dance Revolution, and The Sims just aren't seeing the light of day anymore.


I get what you're saying. I'm not the biggest follower of the current wave of games, but there could very well be a connection between the lack of cultural diversity and gameplay diversity. Though I really don't think the social justice warriors are helping the situation at all. There needs to be some middle ground that allows for everyone's tastes to be met.