houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

And I have not even touched on how this madness is being done at the expense of our own wellbeing. Like the characters in the story, we are seeing a lot of effort and resources being put in place to push progressive values worldwide, including gay marriage. Are we really willing to put ourselves on the brink of collapse in the name of equality? Not necessarily, but those who are in charge appear to be. So we go further into collapse trying to push for values that won't be there once things break

So when you are forcing others to accept something at the point of a gun, you are not pro-freedom in the slightest. Even if in your mind having gay marriage be legalized is one aspect of freedom, we are not doing goodwill in the world by telling the world they need to tow the line with more "tolerance." As mentioned previously, it does not end simply at letting gay people marry. The slippery slope is no fallacy, but rather a reality. More will be demanded.

Now look at the world today, as those in charge push for their progressive ideology to be forced upon the world. Are we better off by forcing other countries to embrace homosexuality at gunpoint?

"But houseoftolstoy, allowing for gay marriage does not mean you have to embrace anything! It is just letting consenting adults being free to marry!"

I will not take that line of logic when we also see businesses being taken to court by homosexuals for not wanting to make a gay wedding cake.

Might be a fake story, but it is entertaining.

Even if it is a silly story, it actually is quite reflective of some people's political perspective. As in, they will consider gay marriage to be THE litmus test for what they call freedom.

"If gay people can marry, then you have freedom! Never mind all the other obtrusive laws that actually restrict freedom, homosexuality is the only thing that matters! So who cares if you can get arrest for hate speech, gay marriage!"

I know this is old news and that Twitter is not real life, but it is important to know that normies are receiving this messaging. Hard to know how much direction such people are taking from higher ups to push some narrative, but it would not shock me to find out that they also do not see any inconsistency in their messaging. Though the 180 degree turn makes me think that this sort of thing is done by committee.

Also, I think most "popular" Twitter users have some bots padding the numbers too.

And perhaps many cases of SIDS are just carelessness with laying infants down to sleep, where they either suffocate due to their sleeping position or have a blanket that falls over the baby's face. These cases most certainly would not be murder, but if so, then the PSA should be more about infant suffocation rather than some "mysterious" death.

Assuming the very likely possibility that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is just a cover for mothers killing their own babies, think about the implications of all the PSAs telling mothers to be on high alert for SIDS. It means that we are scaring the hell out innocent to provide cover for the guilty.

Reminder that there are people who are stupid enough to think that they can take on an elephant in a fight. Sure, many of the other categories are also ridiculous such as a gorilla or a grizzly bear, but at least they are closer to the size of a human. An elephant? Just what do these people think they can do to harm an elephant bear handed? There is a reason that elephant guns are a thing, and it just might have something to do with the fact that regular guns don't do jack shit to an elephant.

Unfortunately, with a mixed economy that is neither purely free market nor purely communist, we are always stuck fighting over how far we attempt each of these opposing plans. Obviously a pure communist approach will fail, but in theory should fail quickly enough, which gives people a chance to realize it won't work. The split the baby approach gives commies enough plausible deniability to just blame capitalism for the failings of their plans. You know this because we see them do it every time.

A less political example is the goal of reaching a million dollars in net worth. One approach is to go all in on a get rich quick scheme. This will most likely not work and just make you poor. But if it does work once, you will reach the goal.

The slow and steady approach is far more likely to succeed, but it is slow. Not only that, but the very implementation of that plan simply cannot work alongside a get rich quick scheme, as you are unable to make such risks.

For example, those who want to have a more free market system as a means to attain prosperity are going to be at odds with those who want to have an expansive welfare system to attempt to reach that same goal. You cannot just agree to try and reach the same goal if you are going in opposite directions in your prescriptions to fix the issues.

Apply this principle to other end goals, and you should see that attempting solutions that clash with each other will just not work.

"We want to achieve the same goal," is not a good basis for establishing common ground. This is a mistake I see when opposing political sides try to find unity. It is not the end goals that are in contention, but rather the means to those goals that lead to fighting.

Who would argue against a society where everyone is well off enough not to struggle financially? No one, really. But different attempts to reach that goal often conflict with one another.

A few days late and unfortunately a paywall again, but here it is. If I was Taiwan, I would not be feeling so confident with the mixed messaging going on.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-us-forces-will-defend-taiwan-from-invasion-by-communist-china_4739793.html

For anyone who wants marriage and family in their future, I have some advice:

Don't marry wrong. If that means not marrying at all, so be it.

It is indeed better to not marry at all than to make the wrong choice on who to marry. I will never tell any man that they have an obligation to get married, because in spite of the fact that I am married myself, I understand that my path is not one that can or should be prescribed to all other men.