It took you a whole 24 hours to come up with a copy/pasta reply that didn't address anything I wrote, and then you go off on a non-sequitur tangent doing exactly what I said you would do. Here's the obligatory "LOL" because you were too angry to comprehend anything I wrote.
So let me further humiliate you just so you can seethe some more in your next reply (and also because you're out of copy/pasta and I'm curious how your angsty, sweaty fingers will conjure up anything other than dismissals and fallacies.)
So first of all...
They did have diversity storytime, though. Did anyone do anything about that? No. Did anyone do anything about the drag queens? No.
There was nothing called "diversity story time", and teaching kids alphabets and how to count is a league removed from having drag queens and trannies on the show. Just as I said, you had nothing to refute this point, because in the 90s there were no trannies or fags being promoted on PBS or any of their shows.
Thanks for proving you're the angsty /pol/tard 20-something-year-old I said you were since you have no clue what was on PBS back in the 90s (you weren't even born yet. You were just a seething little speck in your dad's tiny sack, waiting to burst out into the world and rage against the machine on 4chan during the aughts).
They’re not huge, they’re not significant, and they’re not changes. They’re merely a continuation, of the same magnitude, of everything that was already happening. And which you’re inexplicably ignoring. And that’s interesting, but I’ll never get an explanation from you for that, so oh well.
They are huge and they are changes. Story time about numbers/letters > gay/trannies teaching kids about Rainbow Reich nonsense.
What you're talking about is called the slippery slope, son. It's been around for ages. What the OP wrote about -- and what you fail to grasp due to your low I.Q., -- is that he's saying the slippery slope has led us to a point where what's on today and what's being taught to kids today is worse than what was on in the 1990s.
Do. You. Understand. Now?
There has never not been a time where subversion or clandestine methods by power-seeking scoundrels were not being employed to direct and/or control the destiny of man. It's been happening since the dawn of mankind.
It's cute that you just learned about Machiavellian methods and how they disrupt social standards. You might want to read The Prince to better understand how this has been going on for far longer than 1913, though.
It still doesn't detract from the point that the slippery slope has led us to a point where things are objectively worse now (trannies on kids shows) than before (no trannies on kids shows).
In order for your fallacious statements to have any weight, the burden of proof is on you to objectively prove that there were trannies on kids shows (specifically PBS) back in the 1990s. You can't because you weren't born back then and the channel didn't allow for that kind of degeneracy back in the 1990s.
As I said before, the PBS example is an irrefutable fact. It just is.
Good thing no one questioned it, you illiterate fucking retard! No one said this, fuckstick. Learn how to fucking read.
Yes, you did. You said that things never changed. They have. If they didn't change then Blues Clues and Arthur and every other PBS show back in the 1990s would have featured globohomo content. They didn't.
You talk about learning how to read but you didn't even read OP's point about it being better in the 90s because degeneracy was not running rampant. The PBS example is proof of that.
Let me break it down for you because you seem to have a really tough time comprehending basic cause and effect.
PBS in the 1990s did not have globohomo propaganda.
PBS in the 2020s contains globohomo propaganda.
That feeds into the OP's point about the 90s being better.
Lol, “Black history month.” Again, you’re not reading my posts. At all. You have no idea that I’ve already bypassed the “argument” you’re trying to make here.
Non-sequitur. Black history month in the 1990s didn't promote gays and degeneracy all month long.
You're really racking up the logical fallacies, kid, all while proving me right about everything I said about you in my original comment.
I literally just mentioned the hippie movement.
That was the 1960s/1970s, ace. We're talking about the 1990s.
You're off on another tangent.
If this were a scorecard you would be in the negative zone by now with how many fallacies you're committing.
The years-long destruction of the civil rights movement, but sure, your single year of summertime niggery is totally “unprecedented” and has “never” happened before and things are “getting worse faster than ever”, no, see, it’s whatever you claim reality is like; ignore everything that happened before you were born.
Stay on topic, ace. We're talking about the 1990s, not the 1960s.
No one brought that up, no one mentioned the 1960 riots. We're talking about 1990s.
Do you understand? Can you comprehend the point the OP is making about today versus the 1990s and not the 1960s?
As I said, you need to stop being emotional like a 'groid. It's unbecoming to the conversation and sending you in wild directions like a feces-flinging ape.
Lol, sure thing; all those nonwhites all over the media totally didn’t exist.
Another non-sequitur. No one said non-whites were not in the movies. The statement I made is true: majority of films starred straight, white males in the 1990s.
It's another irrefutable fact. You could almost name on a hand or two how many mainstream blockbusters starred minorities back in the 1990s, and most were spread out over the course of the decade. I'll even help you out:
Independence Day - Will Smith
Men In Black - Will Smith
Rumble in the Bronx - Jackie Chan
Romeo Must Die - Jet Li
Passenger 57 - Wesley Snipes
Blade - Wesley Snipes
You're welcome. Now you'll be struggling to sift through the net to get more info about the 1990s because, as I said before, you weren't even one of the droplets that your dad spilled onto the floor during his youth at that point while he was jacking off to posters of Pamela Anderson while waiting for 50kb photos of Cindy Margolis to download on his 28.8kbps baud rate modem.
Clearly they did, though, since faggots got their legalization, just like their puppet masters wanted. You can’t make that claim, because it totally undermines the overarching argument you’re (failing) to make. Either no one took them seriously and faggots have no power… or you’re lying, because faggots have institutional power now.
They didn't get their major power grab until the aughts, ace.
We're talking about the 1990s. Keep up.
Right. That’s not even relevant to the topic.
Yes, it is. Because OP said the 1990s were better than the 2010s/2020s/[current year] and he's right. The video games prove his point and my point: gaming wasn't converged with Left-wing degeneracy at that point. Pop-culture saw gaming as a nerdy pastime filled with a lot of uber-masculine heroes and violent media, laced with tons of sexy ladies. That's an irrefutable fact.
Some Left-wing journalists still complain about the "sexism" and "toxic masculinity" from the yesteryears of gaming. It not only further proves my point, but also shows you have no grasp on past or recent history.
As I said before, NONE of that was common or promoted in wrestling back in the 1990s. The closest was Golddust, who was used as a sexually-themed villain, but even then he was married to Terri Runnels, and no one made it seem like it was supposed to be good to be a sexual deviant like Golddust.
Nice strawman.
Except you literally did an entire copy/pasta about it. Thanks again for proving me right.
How does it feel to know everything I predicted you would say, you said it without fail and then failed to say it in a way that didn't make you seem the least bit out of touch and ignorant about everything everyone else mentioned about the 1990s being better than the current era?
Oh wow, I guess that means all the problems they caused are solved, right? Because people are aware now? And, you know, not allowing it?
Talk about a strawman. People being aware =/= being doing something about it.
Mhmm, it didn’t. You didn’t read (can you read?) and so you keep repeating things that are irrelevant or false
Nope. Nothing I said was false. All backed up by facts. You on the other hand? Jeez, I could run the gamut of words to describe a lot of things about you but none of them would be pretty or helpful, so I just won't say anything at all about that.
It has nothing to do with “acceleration” or “being worse than before faster than before.” It’s a flat gradient.
First off, I never said that. You did. Second of all, it's called a slippery slope, and that's what's been happening for years.
It's a step-by-step process. We didn't go from gays/trannies attempting to get normalization in the 1980s to a year later gays getting married and trannies being foisted upon kids in children media. That would be a flat gradient (I suspect you picked this term up from some numbskull on /pol/ who was either having a go at you for being ignorant or you're just too daft to understand what a flat gradient is).
What we've seen transpire over the last 30 - 40 years has been gradual. There were decades between the attempt to have conversations about gays/trannies to actual gay marriage being forcibly legalized through the courts after the proposals were shot down on the legislative level. So no, it's not a flat gradient as evident by the process of time it took for them to reach this point. It took years, and a lot of boiling the frog techniques to get here, even against the wishes of the people, hence why they had to circumvent the democratic republic to attain their goals, because people were not okay with the slippery slope they saw being employed by the Rainbow Reich. We slid right on down that slope to where we are today, and it's a vastly different landscape than what it was in the 1990s.
That's why you couldn't refute any of my points and reverted to ad hominems, non-sequiturs, unessential tangents, and strawmen. Then you went and copy/pasta'd all over yourself like a typical /pol/pot.
Now go on and seethe like a raging child in your next reply, get angsty and start throwing up all sorts of memes or whatever it is you kids do when you lose an argument. I'll simply reply calmly and with facts, and end my comment like I said I would with a hearty "LOL".
It took you a whole 24 hours to come up with a copy/pasta reply that didn't address anything I wrote, and then you go off on a non-sequitur tangent doing exactly what I said you would do. Here's the obligatory "LOL" because you were too angry to comprehend anything I wrote.
So let me further humiliate you just so you can seethe some more in your next reply (and also because you're out of copy/pasta and I'm curious how your angsty, sweaty fingers will conjure up anything other than dismissals and fallacies.)
So first of all...
There was nothing called "diversity story time", and teaching kids alphabets and how to count is a league removed from having drag queens and trannies on the show. Just as I said, you had nothing to refute this point, because in the 90s there were no trannies or fags being promoted on PBS or any of their shows.
Thanks for proving you're the angsty /pol/tard 20-something-year-old I said you were since you have no clue what was on PBS back in the 90s (you weren't even born yet. You were just a seething little speck in your dad's tiny sack, waiting to burst out into the world and rage against the machine on 4chan during the aughts).
They are huge and they are changes. Story time about numbers/letters > gay/trannies teaching kids about Rainbow Reich nonsense.
What you're talking about is called the slippery slope, son. It's been around for ages. What the OP wrote about -- and what you fail to grasp due to your low I.Q., -- is that he's saying the slippery slope has led us to a point where what's on today and what's being taught to kids today is worse than what was on in the 1990s.
Do. You. Understand. Now?
There has never not been a time where subversion or clandestine methods by power-seeking scoundrels were not being employed to direct and/or control the destiny of man. It's been happening since the dawn of mankind.
It's cute that you just learned about Machiavellian methods and how they disrupt social standards. You might want to read The Prince to better understand how this has been going on for far longer than 1913, though.
It still doesn't detract from the point that the slippery slope has led us to a point where things are objectively worse now (trannies on kids shows) than before (no trannies on kids shows).
In order for your fallacious statements to have any weight, the burden of proof is on you to objectively prove that there were trannies on kids shows (specifically PBS) back in the 1990s. You can't because you weren't born back then and the channel didn't allow for that kind of degeneracy back in the 1990s.
As I said before, the PBS example is an irrefutable fact. It just is.
Yes, you did. You said that things never changed. They have. If they didn't change then Blues Clues and Arthur and every other PBS show back in the 1990s would have featured globohomo content. They didn't.
You talk about learning how to read but you didn't even read OP's point about it being better in the 90s because degeneracy was not running rampant. The PBS example is proof of that.
Let me break it down for you because you seem to have a really tough time comprehending basic cause and effect.
PBS in the 1990s did not have globohomo propaganda.
PBS in the 2020s contains globohomo propaganda.
That feeds into the OP's point about the 90s being better.
Non-sequitur. Black history month in the 1990s didn't promote gays and degeneracy all month long.
You're really racking up the logical fallacies, kid, all while proving me right about everything I said about you in my original comment.
That was the 1960s/1970s, ace. We're talking about the 1990s.
You're off on another tangent.
If this were a scorecard you would be in the negative zone by now with how many fallacies you're committing.
Stay on topic, ace. We're talking about the 1990s, not the 1960s.
No one brought that up, no one mentioned the 1960 riots. We're talking about 1990s.
Do you understand? Can you comprehend the point the OP is making about today versus the 1990s and not the 1960s?
As I said, you need to stop being emotional like a 'groid. It's unbecoming to the conversation and sending you in wild directions like a feces-flinging ape.
Another non-sequitur. No one said non-whites were not in the movies. The statement I made is true: majority of films starred straight, white males in the 1990s.
It's another irrefutable fact. You could almost name on a hand or two how many mainstream blockbusters starred minorities back in the 1990s, and most were spread out over the course of the decade. I'll even help you out: Independence Day - Will Smith Men In Black - Will Smith Rumble in the Bronx - Jackie Chan Romeo Must Die - Jet Li Passenger 57 - Wesley Snipes Blade - Wesley Snipes
You're welcome. Now you'll be struggling to sift through the net to get more info about the 1990s because, as I said before, you weren't even one of the droplets that your dad spilled onto the floor during his youth at that point while he was jacking off to posters of Pamela Anderson while waiting for 50kb photos of Cindy Margolis to download on his 28.8kbps baud rate modem.
They didn't get their major power grab until the aughts, ace.
We're talking about the 1990s. Keep up.
Yes, it is. Because OP said the 1990s were better than the 2010s/2020s/[current year] and he's right. The video games prove his point and my point: gaming wasn't converged with Left-wing degeneracy at that point. Pop-culture saw gaming as a nerdy pastime filled with a lot of uber-masculine heroes and violent media, laced with tons of sexy ladies. That's an irrefutable fact.
Some Left-wing journalists still complain about the "sexism" and "toxic masculinity" from the yesteryears of gaming. It not only further proves my point, but also shows you have no grasp on past or recent history.
As a matter of fact, they do: https://www.outsports.com/2019/7/17/20698098/sonny-kiss-gay-aew-fight-for-the-fallen
https://www.outsports.com/2020/6/9/21284641/sonya-deville-daddy-lgbt-wwe-lesbian-storyline-pride-wrestling-glaad
They even have -gasp- trannies wrestling and pretending to be women: https://www.si.com/wrestling/2019/06/18/aew-nyla-rose-transgender-wrestler-history
As I said before, NONE of that was common or promoted in wrestling back in the 1990s. The closest was Golddust, who was used as a sexually-themed villain, but even then he was married to Terri Runnels, and no one made it seem like it was supposed to be good to be a sexual deviant like Golddust.
Except you literally did an entire copy/pasta about it. Thanks again for proving me right.
How does it feel to know everything I predicted you would say, you said it without fail and then failed to say it in a way that didn't make you seem the least bit out of touch and ignorant about everything everyone else mentioned about the 1990s being better than the current era?
Talk about a strawman. People being aware =/= being doing something about it.
Nope. Nothing I said was false. All backed up by facts. You on the other hand? Jeez, I could run the gamut of words to describe a lot of things about you but none of them would be pretty or helpful, so I just won't say anything at all about that.
First off, I never said that. You did. Second of all, it's called a slippery slope, and that's what's been happening for years.
It's a step-by-step process. We didn't go from gays/trannies attempting to get normalization in the 1980s to a year later gays getting married and trannies being foisted upon kids in children media. That would be a flat gradient (I suspect you picked this term up from some numbskull on /pol/ who was either having a go at you for being ignorant or you're just too daft to understand what a flat gradient is).
What we've seen transpire over the last 30 - 40 years has been gradual. There were decades between the attempt to have conversations about gays/trannies to actual gay marriage being forcibly legalized through the courts after the proposals were shot down on the legislative level. So no, it's not a flat gradient as evident by the process of time it took for them to reach this point. It took years, and a lot of boiling the frog techniques to get here, even against the wishes of the people, hence why they had to circumvent the democratic republic to attain their goals, because people were not okay with the slippery slope they saw being employed by the Rainbow Reich. We slid right on down that slope to where we are today, and it's a vastly different landscape than what it was in the 1990s.
That's why you couldn't refute any of my points and reverted to ad hominems, non-sequiturs, unessential tangents, and strawmen. Then you went and copy/pasta'd all over yourself like a typical /pol/pot.
Now go on and seethe like a raging child in your next reply, get angsty and start throwing up all sorts of memes or whatever it is you kids do when you lose an argument. I'll simply reply calmly and with facts, and end my comment like I said I would with a hearty "LOL".
Comment Reported for: Other
I'm not seeing why I should remove this.
Wow, I don’t live here. Who’d a thunk. Later, dipshit. You’ve admitted everything I said is true.