Distracted Boyfriend

Gen Z aren't conservative as they are libertarian, as their economic awareness is higher than that of millennials. In 2016, surveys stated that the majority support same-sex marriage, transgender rights, and gender equality.

Where did you get your information? May I see it please because according to my research, Generation Z is the most conservative generation since WWII (the war that was started by left wing nationalists, (aka the National Socialist Party, aka the Nazis, aka real/true fascists) and ended by the socialist hating, freedom loving Allies (who were mostly conservative, and by today's standards all conservative)).

Found it off of wikipedia. Wikipedia says that they tend to be more economically conservative, yet socially liberal.

Okay, I'll agree that Wikipedia said that, and it can be true, probably is, but Wikipedia can also say that Gen Z are a bunch of bioluminescent lizards with self healing mammalian skin to blend into the rest of humanity. What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia can be a good source of information but should be avoided because information can be changed or altered by anyone at anytime. When I was in school if a student sighted Wikipedia as a source for some, if not all, of their information the paper would be returned with deducted marks or a big fat zero, or the student would be told to do the paper again. Wikipedia can be used as a source for information, just not in an academic setting (which does say something (at least I think it says something) about using Wikipedia in other settings). I use it myself a lot. The information is possibly good on Wikipedia & for that reason one has to be vigilant & double check said information just to be certain.

Are you saying ending segregation was idiocy?

Also there is a difference between Leftism and Liberalism. The hippies of the 60s became the Marxist professors and teachers of today, indoctrinating students into their ideology. In the 60s their Leftist idiocy was a mild jalapeno when compared to the full blown ghost pepper Leftist idiocy of today.

Segregation was started by the Democratic Party (in 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election). After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles during the Civil Rights Movement and federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.

I would not describe the pre-1960's democratic party as a bastion of liberal thought would you?

I don't think that we can describe the modern democratic party, and the political left, as a bastion of liberal thought. Segregating people because of their race is not right, which is why I think that it's a travesty when I see black students demanding segregated "safe spaces" from white students (https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-students-demand-segregated-spaces-white-students/). These kids do not have a clue as to what their forefathers and foremothers went through to get rid of segregation, to paraphrase Candice Owens, " 'Blacks are oppressed! 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow Laws!', none of you have lived through that, your grandparents did & it's embarrassing that you utilize their history & get into a situation having more emotion than they ever had when they were living through it. You are not living through anything right now. You're overly privileged Americans!" (here is where paraphrased her quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od-lPjG4D0c ) And people can say that this segregation isn't like the old segregation. This segregation is meant to provide a safe space for the black students who might get assaulted by the racist bigoted white students! One, the thought that an entire race of people are so helpless (similar to babies and children) that they can't defend themselves and need to be placed in a separate area to protect them is highly offensive. Two, segregation is still segregation, a little sugarcoating to make it sound as if it is for the benefit of a race does not change that fact. Finally three, if there are so many black students that are under threat from aggressive racist bigoted white students (or if there is any other reason why the black students need a segregated space from white students) then why have we not heard about this more, or at all? After all if a white person(s) assaults a black person(s) the media will talk about it. In fact it would be hard to get them to shut up about it.

To answer you question more directly hi10101, no I would not describe the pre-1960's democratic party as a bastion of liberal thought. The same goes for pre-1960's republican party. I think that we can extend this to just about every single political party in history. Why? Because political parties are made up of people and in every large group of people, especially groups of powerful people (in any size) there will always be those who are going to look after themselves regardless of who suffers in the process. No one is perfect. Perfection is something that should be strived for while also keeping in mind that it will never be attained. In other words, work to be your best and to do your best. The instant a person has standards of any kind is the moment that they will eventually become a hypocrite.

He distorted actual facts he posted as he posted them to support his lie.

You just lied, or did your deliberate contradictions truly bypass you?

Truman, a Democrat, supported civil rights, and thus Southern Democrats split off the DNC in 1948 to form the Dixiecrat Party.

Johnson, a Democrat, supported civil rights also, so said Dixiecrats and their Southern racist minions opted to vote for Goldwater, a Republican, instead, since he opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Johnson with the (Northern) Democrat controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

Me: Segregation was started by the Democratic Party (in 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election). After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles during the Civil Rights Movement and federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.

You: Truman, a Democrat, supported civil rights, and thus Southern Democrats split off the DNC in 1948 to form the Dixiecrat Party.
Johnson, a Democrat, supported civil rights also, so said Dixiecrats and their Southern racist minions opted to vote for Goldwater, a Republican, instead, since he opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Johnson with the (Northern) Democrat controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

As you can see, I specifically stated SOUTHERN Democrats and did not generalize ALL Democrats. Nothing you have stated has contradicted my statement (above). You just added information on the the Democratic Party IN GENERAL, whist I stated that segregation was started by the Democratic Party (a fact that you did not challenge at all) and later in my comment focused on (and specified to ensure that people would know that I wasn't talking about ALL of the Democratic Party (notice that I mentioned that Democrats in the Deep South rejected Truman (a Democrat as highlighted by you)) (also my efforts to ensure that people would know that I wasn't generalizing seemed to have been in vain (because if they weren't then I wouldn't be writing this comment))) the faction of the Democratic Party that fought the preserve segregation (aka the Southern Democrats).

Fun fact! Were you aware that the Klu Klux Klan was first started by the Democrats in 1865 for the purpose of overthrowing the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era, especially by using violence against African-American leaders.

No.
The KKK was started by former Confederates in December 1965, months after the War ended. The Confedaracy had no political parties.

Such bs does not make reading your wall of text more appetizing.

After the election of Abraham Lincoln, Southern Democrats led the charge to secede from the Union and form the Confederate States of America. The Union Congress was dominated by Republicans, save for Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, the only senator from a state in rebellion to reject secession.

Six Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee created the original Ku Klux Klan on December 24, 1865, during the Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War.

It seems pretty cut & dry, at least to me. Southern Democrats formed the Confederates (meaning that the political party that represented them was the Democrats (Southern)), & the Confederates formed the Klan. Meaning the Klan was formed by people who were a part of the Democratic Party.

DUDE, STOP! You're making feel bad.

ADVICE: No one is going to read those wall of texts. I've already seen you twist your own words to fit your narrative. We actually agree on things, only diverting when you try to retrofit them for a lie.

Plus you redid your last one twice? And I'm not going to read it once.
All I said is easily verifiable. Like I said, you basically agre with it. So there's no need, none.

Don't get me wrong, look at my comment history, I just posted another wall of text myself. But pragraphs make them more digestible.

I redid some of my comments because I saw some grammatical and/or spelling errors and there is no edit function for these comments. Also when typing these comments, only just enough space for 3 lines of text is shown, making it easier to make mistakes when typing. That is why I chose to redo some of my comments.

agree*

paragraphs*

4:40am and the melatonin is kicking in.

There's no chance that generation z is majority conservative

are u rarted there are no libtards in the 60s whhaaaaat

I know that I'm going to sound like a grammar Nazi for stating this but it is spelled retarded, not "rarted". It's ironic that the one calling me a retard can't spell correctly nor use spell check (hint: it's right mouse click, scroll through the short list of correct options that the program could generate, & then left mouse click to select).

The libtard, SJW, snowflake, regressive leftist problems that we have today started in the 60s with the hippies and with time the problems grew and multiplied (and the fact that those hippies eventually got jobs as professors in colleges and universities to teach their ideologies to students (aka brainwashing) and paved the way for social science courses like gender/women's studies as well as pressuring the powers that be to make said stupid courses mandatory did not help in the slightest), getting worse with each generation. I could go on but I think I made my point.

i dont think gender studies is mandatory, but you probably havent been to college in a while so you wouldn't have known what courses were mandatory or not.

I did not say that gender studies were mandatory. I said, & I quote, "...paved the way for social science courses like gender/women's studies as well as pressuring the powers that be to make said stupid courses mandatory..." Please reread my reply. These people want to make these courses mandatory so that they can brainwash as many people as they can. There are even efforts to start the Leftist brainwashing as early as elementary school, maybe even younger. Want proof? Look up The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press which published the book Communism for Kids in March of 2017. I'm not lying, check the link & while you're there I recommend that you read this book's endorsement (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids). Also watch this video that talks about this book (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLI-RxLBnVU).

About your suppposed anti-regressive stance...

Or do you always contradict yourself midsentence for the sake of your party hack lies?

Please point out exactly where, and how many times, I have lied VagabondSouffle.

Conservatives, by defintion, are regressive.

Progeressives, by defintion, are the opposite of regressive.

The Hippies turned Disco in the late 70s then Yuppies in the 80s and that was that.
It's ok, you can go back outside now.

Yuppie - a young person with a well-paid job and a fashionable lifestyle.

The Hippies of the 1960's were mostly composed of Caucasian teenagers & young adults between the ages of 15 and 25. The difference between 80 and 60 is 20 & the difference between 80 and 69 is 11. With these numbers in mind if a young Hippy is 15 in 1969 then they would be 26 in 1980 (if my mental math is correct) at the start of the Yuppie decade. That is the youngest a Hippy could possibly be in 1980. The oldest would be 45. The age criteria for a Hippy to become a Yuppie is arguable (at best), but what I think is more unlikely for the Hippy turned Yuppie is the fact that said Hippies would have to get jobs and probably stop taking all of those drugs, if not most of them. This is also discounting the entire decade in between the 60's & 80's, the 70's also known as the Disco Era (as you admitted), the decade when lots of people were doing lots of drugs, drinking and partying on a regular basis. In short I find it extremely doubtful that the Hippies, after making a name for themselves & establishing characteristics for their culture in the 60's, living through the 70's Disco/Party Era, only to turn over a new leaf and become a decade defining group of young people with well-paid jobs, living a fashionable lifestyle.

I'm also ignoring the Youth International Party (whose members were commonly called Yippies), which was founded on December 31, 1967. The YIP was late 60's equivalent of our Antifa. An Antifa Light if you will, whose ideologies were Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Green Anarchism & Free Love. Their flag was also a red 5-pointed star with a marijuana leaf over it with a black background. With this group and the Hippies existing and possibly, if not probably, intermixing I don't understand how a person can think that the Hippies of the 60's became the Yuppies of the 80's. I just doesn't make sense to me

I have not met a conservative that has ever claimed to be progressive. Progressives are always saying that they are progressive, hence the title that they give themselves. Yet if you look at what Progressives advocate for you'd see that they are, ironically, RE-gressive. For example, modern feminists idolizing the hijab to the point were it has been made into a symbol of the feminist movement and encouraging other "women of all religions & backgrounds to wear and experience the hijab" (Muslim Student Association at UCF on January 28 concerning World Hijab Day (btw there was a female student at UCF who chose not to wear a hijab and she was almost expelled because the SJWs threw a tantrum)) is equivalent to driving the "Feminist-mobile", slamming its brakes, wrenching the gearshift to R (reverse) and flooring the accelerator. Why do I say this? Because in the 1920s, with the rise of secular states in Egypt & Iran, Muslim women began to organize in pursuit of their rights. In 1922, these activists, led by Huda Shaarawi, founded the Egyptian Feminist Union, & DISCARDED THEIR VEILS! Within a decade, countless women followed suit, & slowly, they forced their way to the Egyptian academe. Eventually Iran & Turkey forced women to de-veil as official policy. But the tide turned with the growth of fundamentalist Islam, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Real Feminist burn hijabs and burkas, fake feminists fetishize (verb - second definition - have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something)) them. In 2018 Iranian women are now doing the same thing that their predecessors did almost a century ago and they are being beaten for it in the streets. SO PROGRESSIVE! There are police squads paroling the streets in the Middle East that are tasked with ensuring that females (girls and women alike) are properly wearing their hijabs. If they catch a violator, said violator will be lashed (This happens on a daily basis). There was an Islamic father, Jafar Hussain, who was arrested for 'beating his four-year-old daughter to death' because she hadn't noticed her headscarf slip while she ate lunch. When her mother attempted to intervene, she was also beaten (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260315/Islamic-father-arrested-beating-four-year-old-daughter-death-did-not-cover-head-ate-lunch.html). I can list more I.e. on different subjects about how Progressives are actually regressive so if you want me to continue then by all means reply. I can't wait.