Making what is "bad" not bad?

[Reaganfan]

Today I learned that we should criminalize drug use because its not good for you, and that wearing certain clothes should be looked down upon by society because of stereotypes and a possible "thug culture". And by doing these things is like letting violent criminals out of jail. Thanks for the lesson, Reaganfan!

No my point was to say that liberals seem more concerned about the emotions of guilty parties than the actual things those people are guilty of.

Personally, I don't care about their emotions as much as not wanting to ruin their lives by sending them to jail at my expense, after which it'll be much harder for them to get a job (as if the never-ending sea of regulations and licensing requirements didn't make that hard enough), and they're likely to end up on welfare (again at my expense).

Point well taken. I believe we need massive lessening of rules and regulations at businesses. Of course, that conflicts with my views on business owners having the freedom to run their businesses the way they see fit.

[SteveRogers]

Today I learned that we should criminalize drug use because its not good for you, and that wearing certain clothes should be looked down upon by society because of stereotypes and a possible "thug culture". And by doing these things is like letting violent criminals out of jail. Thanks for the lesson, Reaganfan!

No my point was to say that liberals seem more concerned about the emotions of guilty parties than the actual things those people are guilty of.

What are people who wear hoodies and baggy pants guilty of?

[Reaganfan]

Today I learned that we should criminalize drug use because its not good for you, and that wearing certain clothes should be looked down upon by society because of stereotypes and a possible "thug culture". And by doing these things is like letting violent criminals out of jail. Thanks for the lesson, Reaganfan!

No my point was to say that liberals seem more concerned about the emotions of guilty parties than the actual things those people are guilty of.

What are people who wear hoodies and baggy pants guilty of?

They are guilty of causing more harm than good. If you know something will cause you to stand out in a negative context...why do it?

[patrick1]

He's got a gun!!!!!

[Torie]

Congrats Naso for hosting well an interesting thread. Keep up the good work! 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What in God's name do you have against hoodies? They're qute utilitarian, something every American should appreciate. Shaming people for wearing them because someone happened to get shot while in them is downright absurd, and I recommend getting a quick checkup at the nearest mental institution.

hoodies are for thugs

look, he's even in detention

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'm a nerdy, skinny white dude from the suburbs, and I wore a hoodie and baggy pants throughout high school and college. Believe me, I am the furthest thing from a thug. People wear hoodies because they are functional and utilitarian.

[KCDem]

Spend less time trying to remember what my avatar looked like five years ago, and more time concentrating on where it all went wrong in your life.

This X 100000000000000

[Mr. Morden]

Clearly, this man needs to be locked up:

[MaxQue]

What in God's name do you have against hoodies?

They aren't from the 80's.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clearly, this man needs to be locked up:

Is that Emperor Palpatine?

But on topic... I have three hoodies, they're comfortable and easy to wear if you just need to relaxed.

But as usual, Naso fixates on the superficial, ignoring the realities and decides that, somehow, he understands all the great issues facing America. Reagan is dead and it's not 1987.

Get a grip, get a life and realise that you've been far more often than you've been right. Your world view is ****ed and you've got a lot of actual living to do.

[tik 🪀✨]

I think I've unlocked the secret of what liberals seem to be up to in America. They are trying to take things considered "bad" and make them seem okay.

Everyone makes excuses for their "bad" behaviors and decisions. It's a necessary part of pretending to be an adult. That isn't itself an excuse for anything, but I would like to point out that conservatives are arguably doing exactly the same by justifying for different "bad" behaviors that are of a scope much more detrimental to society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am enjoying your take on yourself doing a take on yourself, by the way. Do you ever surpass the speed limit while driving? Perhaps you do so frequently. God knows many people do (for the record, I do not most of the time). You might have noticed that, although you are breaking the law and putting yourself at greater risk of injury or death to yourself and others, the great majority of the time nothing of consequence happens at all. I am trying desperately to draw a parallel to that with drugs (as though they are all the same) and why perhaps sometimes laws restricting "bad" behavior are arbitrary or wrong but I guess I am so fried from my history of drug abuse that I can't think of anything. You're on top of stuff though, so I'm sure you can work it in somehow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The level of association there is so insanely shallow that I think we should stop speaking in English because of its now apparent property of being utilized by halfwits. Aqqan, agjhir hoti giowj han poogae nooooajf, kjioee ZVOUIX RAIM!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We need to now ask the question: Does murder hurt people and society? Studies have found conclusively that probably. I haven't found any studies about whether wearing baggy pants and hoodies or smoking a joint after work is comparably detrimental to society as is murder, unfortunately. That might be because every scientist willing to carry out those essential studies was killed by stoned hoodlums, as we often hear in the news today. They are a blight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do you think social changes occur? Convenience? A very large subset of the population won't take to figurative arms to plead for a change because they want to justify bad behavior for convenience. That's way too much work if it's not worth it. They do it because the consequences of keeping the status quo are unjustifiably bad. That is, the status quo is worse in its effects for punishing or limiting the "bad" behavior than is the actual bad effects of the "bad" behavior to begin with.

"Doing drugs" (an absurd generalisation akin to saying "eating food" as though all food is equally as nutritious or unhealthy) seems not to make an impact on the lives of the users and their families that approaches the impact of fines, prison, etc. To put it frankly, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Enough people have done the crime of "doing drugs" to realise that its punishment is ridiculous (depending on the drug, of course) that now society is beginning to look at the behavior differently.

To use the speeding example from earlier, what if speeding resulted in life imprisonment? Or if a speeding fine prevented you from landing a good job, or from traveling to America? What if just being in the car of someone who was speeding landed you in jail? People would be in an uproar. But only a tiny fringe would advocate abolishing any speed limit whatsoever. Most people would want either a rise in the allowable speed limit so that reasonable speeds were now legal and/or changes so that the punishments for speeding reflected the relative danger of the crime more accurately.

You, by the way, would not own a car. You would look out at the freeway and tremble, terrified of taking the effort to participate in the real world. You'd hark back to a day when there were only horses, and the greatest steed was that under Ronald Reagan. Back then you weren't even aware that people were terrified of AIDS, that hard drugs were rampant, violent crime was a plague on American cities, and rock bands were androgynous sex-worshiping hedonists. Ugh, that sounds bad! Society was only a simpler place because your awareness of its complex problems was nonexistent. Your positive associations are towards a childhood where you could legitimately feel happy because of youthful ignorance and the creepy way you attribute broad moods during time periods in your personal life to who the President of the United States was at the time. Your lack of critical thinking and empathy are seriously "bad" behaviors, Naso, and I hope you won't justify that like some whiny liberal.

[Torie]

What in God's name do you have against hoodies? They're qute utilitarian, something every American should appreciate. Shaming people for wearing them because someone happened to get shot while in them is downright absurd, and I recommend getting a quick checkup at the nearest mental institution.

FTR, I wear a hoodie all the time when there is a bit of chill in the air.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What in God's name do you have against hoodies? They're qute utilitarian, something every American should appreciate. Shaming people for wearing them because someone happened to get shot while in them is downright absurd, and I recommend getting a quick checkup at the nearest mental institution.

FTR, I wear a hoodie all the time when there is a bit of chill in the air.

There you have it... Torie is part of the problem

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What in God's name do you have against hoodies? They're qute utilitarian, something every American should appreciate. Shaming people for wearing them because someone happened to get shot while in them is downright absurd, and I recommend getting a quick checkup at the nearest mental institution.

FTR, I wear a hoodie all the time when there is a bit of chill in the air.

There you have it... Torie is part of the problem

I think that has more to do with his choice of smoking material than his choice of clothing material.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think I've unlocked the secret of what liberals seem to be up to in America. They are trying to take things considered "bad" and make them seem okay.

For example, drugs. Growing up in a post-Reagan America with things such as "Just Say No" and "D.A.R.E." and films and TV shows showing how bad drugs were and how they could only lead to trouble, liberals often complain that so many people are in prison due to drugs. So instead of trying to stop drug use and enforce against it, they want to make it so that the bad thing people are doing is actually legal.

The recent Trayvon Martin shooting and Michael Brown situation ongoing are more examples. Many people began mentioning how hoodies are associated with a "thug" culture. This is true. Hoodies, baggy pants, ect. So instead of thinking, "Gee maybe we shouldn't wear these things so associated with negative culture" what do liberals do? They show "solidarity" by wearing the hoodies.

Basically it's like the bad stuff makes people realize they're not behaving and are becoming socially undesired by society so instead of changing, they are embracing the bad. It's the same as the analogy of saying, "There are so many murderers in jail, so let's make murder not be a crime anymore so that those people won't be shunned or looked down upon or feel shame, ect ect."

I think it's a terrifying road to go down.

Your post sounds like it's straight out of 1994 when people would actually buy into this authoritarianism. Sounds like my high school right after the 'Footloose' era.

[Reaganfan]

I think I've unlocked the secret of what liberals seem to be up to in America. They are trying to take things considered "bad" and make them seem okay.

For example, drugs. Growing up in a post-Reagan America with things such as "Just Say No" and "D.A.R.E." and films and TV shows showing how bad drugs were and how they could only lead to trouble, liberals often complain that so many people are in prison due to drugs. So instead of trying to stop drug use and enforce against it, they want to make it so that the bad thing people are doing is actually legal.

The recent Trayvon Martin shooting and Michael Brown situation ongoing are more examples. Many people began mentioning how hoodies are associated with a "thug" culture. This is true. Hoodies, baggy pants, ect. So instead of thinking, "Gee maybe we shouldn't wear these things so associated with negative culture" what do liberals do? They show "solidarity" by wearing the hoodies.

Basically it's like the bad stuff makes people realize they're not behaving and are becoming socially undesired by society so instead of changing, they are embracing the bad. It's the same as the analogy of saying, "There are so many murderers in jail, so let's make murder not be a crime anymore so that those people won't be shunned or looked down upon or feel shame, ect ect."

I think it's a terrifying road to go down.

Your post sounds like it's straight out of 1994 when people would actually buy into this authoritarianism. Sounds like my high school right after the 'Footloose' era.

I don't know what you're talking about. 2014 is nothing like 1994. It's not like Full House will be on TV or Dumb and Dumber in theaters. Or the Republicans might win back the Senate.

[King]

Full House isn't coming back until 2015, Naso.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm a nerdy, skinny white dude from the suburbs, and I wore a hoodie and baggy pants throughout high school and college. Believe me, I am the furthest thing from a thug. People wear hoodies because they are functional and utilitarian.

That doesn't explain the baggy pants.

[patrick1]

The crazy thing about this is that Reaganfan laments a time that never existed, one that only exists in the nostaglia of the bitter. There were more murders under Reagan, more homelessness, a crack cocaine epidemic, more teen pregnancies.  The morning in America motif was all a rhetorical device. 

Simply put, the Reaganfans of the world would rather condemn "bad" people than get people the help that they need. Theyve built a poweful American myth that everyone can simply pull themselves up out of the more by their bootstraps and get ahead. This is simply not true. Real Christianity and a moral policy calls for providing a boost when our society fails. 

It is the hypocrisy of it all that gets to me. The Reaganfan archtype lament the social ills of our society out of one corner of the mouth, while cutting programs that actually help in the other- in the name of fiscal responsibility of course.  If you are ok with that fine, but don't pretend that you actually care. 

[Brittain33]

I think I've unlocked the secret of what liberals seem to be up to in America. They are trying to take things considered "bad" and make them seem okay.

Nope, that happened in the 80s.

[Reaganfan]

The crazy thing about this is that Reaganfan laments a time that never existed, one that only exists in the nostaglia of the bitter. There were more murders under Reagan, more homelessness, a crack cocaine epidemic, more teen pregnancies.  The morning in America motif was all a rhetorical device. 

Simply put, the Reaganfans of the world would rather condemn "bad" people than get people the help that they need. Theyve built a poweful American myth that everyone can simply pull themselves up out of the more by their bootstraps and get ahead. This is simply not true. Real Christianity and a moral policy calls for providing a boost when our society fails. 

It is the hypocrisy of it all that gets to me. The Reaganfan archtype lament the social ills of our society out of one corner of the mouth, while cutting programs that actually help in the other- in the name of fiscal responsibility of course.  If you are ok with that fine, but don't pretend that you actually care. 

Okay, I'll concede that these things shouldn't be vilified, if you will concede they shouldn't be happily justified.

[King]

The myth of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is especially strange, considering the saying itself originated in the 19th century as a way to describe an impossible task yet in the late 20th century it morphed into something that is supposedly very possible.

[Reaganfan]

The myth of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is especially strange, considering the saying itself originated in the 19th century as a way to describe an impossible task yet in the late 20th century it morphed into something that is supposedly very possible.

Considering the vast Government aid programs created under President Roosevelt, it became much more possible, IMO.

[badgate]

The fact that you answered me in the way you did is very telling.

Telling of what?

How sheltered you are.