California

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

Remember that time like 3 days ago when you said a single thing that indicated a capacity for critical thought and have since gone back to being completely retarded when you realized I agreed with the smart thing?

Sorry agenda-boy, but you're talking about yourself again

[shiva2999]

 

[ICRockets2]

2 hours ago, HipKat said:

LOL! You're so naive.

Find black communities that aren't shitholes.

Here's a hint, overlook Detroit and Chicago

Tulsa, Oklahoma was quite nice prior to June 1921, but I understand if you'd rather not talk about that.

[HipKat]

5 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Tulsa, Oklahoma was quite nice prior to June 1921, but I understand if you'd rather not talk about that.

Nah, you don't cherry pick.

1921, huh??? lol.. Off by about 100 years, dude

[ICRockets2]

On 3/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, jc856 said:

if I was to listen to you, the country is turning against the gay community, and are enacting laws to remove them from society.

This is objectively true.  Anti-drag laws are being passed in multiple states.  The Texas AG has said he will enthusiastically enforce anti-sodomy laws if Lawrence v. Texas is overturned.  

If we broaden it to anti-trans laws, you only need to look at the sorts of things Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles are saying.  They're making it clear that they want to ban trans people from public life entirely.  Who do you think has more pull with GOP lawmakers- you or prominent figures in right-wing media?  

 

On 3/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, jc856 said:

the other side sees things (mostly) in a morality based on religious doctrine (mostly) the Bible.

Yep.  I see things in a morality based (mostly) on consequentialism and utilitarianism.

 

On 3/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, jc856 said:

I’m just not sure whether it’s always legitimate to listen to a child when they say they feel like they are different sexually. 

Legitimate in what way?  That they'll always end up queer or trans if things trend that way at any time?  No, absolutely not.  Plenty of kids will play around with different hairstyles, different clothes, some even a different name, and then grow out of it in a month or a year or whatever.  I think there's nothing wrong with letting them explore.  That's what childhood should be about.  

 

On 3/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, jc856 said:

I’m still processing the gender/sex construct thingy.

Here are a couple ways to think about it that might help:

1. Is it hardwired in our DNA that men wear suits to formal events and women wear dresses?  Of course not.  That's a social norm.  Hence, it's an expression of one's gender rather than an expression of one's sex.

2. Imagine a religious town in the deep south, where like 90% of the population is Christian.  Now imagine a really progressive place like Beverly Hills.  Let's say we do like that show Wife Swap and transplant one devout Christian family to Beverly Hills and one progressive family to the deep south conservative town.  Both families have girls who are in their senior year of high school.  Do you think if you went to each high school you'd have good odds to pick the transplant out of a lineup?  Probably could, right?  But there's nothing GENETICALLY distinct about them.  It's a matter of cultural differences.  If you asked each family what they think it means to "act like a girl" there would likely be some overlap, sure, but there would also be some important differences.  If you're feminine in Beverly Hills, you may have a valley girl accent and be obsessed with shopping.  If you're feminine in deep south Jesusville, you may be demure and obsessed with...I don't know, baking?  They're both "girly" stereotypes, you know?  But neither is intrinsically MORE girly, because there's no single correct way to express femininity. 
 

On 3/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, jc856 said:

one thing I do know, with two sides so diametrically opposed, one side is wrong. Or mostly wrong.

amirite?

At least one side would seemingly HAVE to be wrong.  It's certainly possible both are!  In order to figure out who's more correct, we have to develop some sort of truth-identifying methodology and apply it to each.  For me, I like looking at data, research, studies, meta-analyses, that kind of thing.  When you do so, it's clear that the science overwhelmingly validates trans identities.

Now....what do I mean by that?  Take this for example:

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

This is a meta-analysis of about 55 studies, spanning decades and the globe, that land SUPER hard on the side of gender-affirming care consistently improving mental health outcomes for trans people.  I don't believe that would be possible across so many studies in so many countries if the category of "trans people" was illegitimate.  If there was in fact no such thing as a trans person, then we'd see a lot more variance in their experiences with having that identity affirmed.  

Like....say we didn't know what red green color blindness was yet.  How would we figure it out?  We'd do tests, we'd look at a number of studies, and we'd find there is a commonly recurring trend among kids with difficulty identifying colors in early childhood and elementary school.  It wouldn't make sense to deny that "red green color blindness" was a thing if we could observe precisely such a trend establishing itself in front of us.  Likewise, I think the science about trans people demonstrates a similar trend.  

  


 

[ICRockets2]

39 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Nah, you don't cherry pick.

1921, huh??? lol.. Off by about 100 years, dude

What happened in Tulsa in 1921?  Anything noteworthy?

[Thebowflexbody]

10 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

What happened in Tulsa in 1921?  Anything noteworthy?

Nope

[Thebowflexbody]

California: the land of fruits and nuts.  Fact.

[ICRockets2]

16 minutes ago, Thebowflexbody said:

Nope

Demonstrably incorrect.

[HipKat]

3 hours ago, ICRockets2 said:

What happened in Tulsa in 1921?  Anything noteworthy?

Nothing to do with the question. 

Again, do you deny that when black people take over communities that were once white, they turn into social failure shitholes?

[ICRockets2]

12 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Nothing to do with the question. 

Again, do you deny that when black people take over communities that were once white, they turn into social failure shitholes?

Of course I deny that.  That's literally the most racist thing you could possibly believe.  

You're telling me that you think a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class white people would be cleaner than a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class black people?  

[HipKat]

7 hours ago, ICRockets2 said:

Of course I deny that.  That's literally the most racist thing you could possibly believe.  

You're telling me that you think a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class white people would be cleaner than a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class black people?  

First, find me an Upper Middle-class neighborhood made up of mostly Black people - that aren't Rappers or Pro-Athletes.

Second, there is a neighborhood here in Peoria that not the typical inner-city, urban nightmare that every city has, but is more outward. Single family homes, a lot of Split-levels (Which infest this area) - typical quiet. blue-collar neighborhood. That over the years has become mostly all Black residents. Many of those homes are owned but a good number have become rentals which is the first step in destroying a neighborhood.

And as time goes on, that neighborhood turns more and more into a dump.

Most inner-city black neighborhoods were once mostly white neighborhoods. Now, they're shitholes because of an attitude of irresponsibility that's passed on generation to generation. 

You're outright lying when you say this isn't.

How are the parts of Cheektowaga that have become mostly Black? 

[ICRockets2]

20 minutes ago, HipKat said:

First, find me an Upper Middle-class neighborhood made up of mostly Black people - that aren't Rappers or Pro-Athletes.

Second, there is a neighborhood here in Peoria that not the typical inner-city, urban nightmare that every city has, but is more outward. Single family homes, a lot of Split-levels (Which infest this area) - typical quiet. blue-collar neighborhood. That over the years has become mostly all Black residents. Many of those homes are owned but a good number have become rentals which is the first step in destroying a neighborhood.

And as time goes on, that neighborhood turns more and more into a dump.

Most inner-city black neighborhoods were once mostly white neighborhoods. Now, they're shitholes because of an attitude of irresponsibility that's passed on generation to generation. 

You're outright lying when you say this isn't.

How are the parts of Cheektowaga that have become mostly Black? 

None of this answers the question I asked.  

You're telling me that you think a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class white people would be cleaner than a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class black people?  

[shiva2999]

 

[HipKat]

37 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

None of this answers the question I asked.  

You're telling me that you think a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class white people would be cleaner than a suburban neighborhood comprised of upper-middle-class black people?  

Umm, I asked the question. You're moving the goal posts

[ICRockets2]

16 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Umm, I asked the question. You're moving the goal posts

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine.  

[HipKat]

8 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine.  

You did NOT answer my question - as usual, as you do when you know you're wrong, you used it to accuse me of being a racist.

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, HipKat said:

You did NOT answer my question - as usual, as you do when you know you're wrong, you used it to accuse me of being a racist.

I answered your question repeatedly.  My answer was yes, I strenuously deny your assertion that- all else being equal- black neighborhoods are dirtier than white neighborhoods.  

Now answer mine: do you truly believe a white upper-middle-class suburb would be cleaner than a black upper-middle-class neighborhood?

[HipKat]

14 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

I answered your question repeatedly.  My answer was yes, I strenuously deny your assertion that- all else being equal- black neighborhoods are dirtier than white neighborhoods.  

Now answer mine: do you truly believe a white upper-middle-class suburb would be cleaner than a black upper-middle-class neighborhood?

Since I've never seen an upper Middle-Class black neighborhood, I have nothing to go by. No way to form an opinion.

Now, prove your answer. Show me where all black middle and lower class neighborhoods are NOT shit holes or I just assume you're lying to, again, hide the fact that you're wrong

[ICRockets2]

11 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Since I've never seen an upper Middle-Class black neighborhood, I have nothing to go by. No way to form an opinion.

You have your prejudices to go by.  Go on.  Tell me what they're saying your answer is.

[HipKat]

5 hours ago, ICRockets2 said:

You have your prejudices to go by.  Go on.  Tell me what they're saying your answer is.

OK, my guess is that if there was an upper middle class neighborhood that was all Black people it would not be the same kind of a shit hole that black neighborhoods are in lower class neighborhoods. Which is all just fantasy because I still haven’t seen an all black, upper middle class neighborhood

[ICRockets2]

31 minutes ago, HipKat said:

OK, my guess is that if there was an upper middle class neighborhood that was all Black people it would not be the same kind of a shit hole that black neighborhoods are in lower class neighborhoods.

I completely agree!  

It's almost as if the defining characteristic of the lower class neighborhoods isn't race after all.

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

I completely agree!  

It's almost as if the defining characteristic of the lower class neighborhoods isn't race after all.

Being poor doesn't mean you have to be a fucking dirt bag living like a fucking rat. 

[Greg]

[Greg]

So much for California dreaming.

Column: California's population is on the decline, and high-income earners have joined the exodus (msn.com)