Fundamental change in adults is rare, we are the only group of thinkers who truly see both sides, I regularly question however if this is a blessing or a curse..
I watched the entire clip and 1985 and my own response was quite different. Keep in mind that all of this was quite before my time. The main thing that hit me was how different it was from televised debates now. Usually there will be a leftist that advocates something evil for evil reasons, like the gentile mutilation of children as part of an obscene revolt against nature, and then some limp-wristed conservative will try to find some excuse within the leftist moral paradigm with 'facts and logic' to object. This was more like an ancient Greek tragedy; a competition not between good and evil, but between different virtues. The old lady argued in favour of safety while the other side wanted freedom. Both are virtuous causes, though I must confess that my sympathy fell with the anticensorship side.
A homosexual in 1985 who weighed about 7 stone with evident muscle wastage? I doubt he survived 4 years, much less 40.
ZOG has controlled mainstream media for decades. Whether something is pushed or censored, and to what degree, depends on the degree to which it supports or contradicts The Agenda (white replacement, degeneracy, anti-natalism, feminism, etc - we all know the drill).
Leftists always oppose censorship when they are out of power and at risk of censorship. They always support censorship when the have power and can censor their opponents. They are not good faith actors. I don't give a damn if there are some genuine idealists on the left, the exceptions mean nothing.
The bloke on his left is also gay. The 80s was a bland, soulless transition decade in which yuppie materialism replaced 70s post-hippie culture. Even the metal bands were a fake corporate version of their 70s predecessors, even if technically superior. It ended with total cultural dominance of the left, most visible in the boss girl with shoulder pads archetype. 40 years is a short time and the left is engaged in perpetual revolution, so I think it is mostly option 4.
In relation to your last question, perhaps you admired people like this because the left always did like to appeal to the "yoof". In their effort to win over the young they present arguments in a way that is simple enough to understand, yet not sophisticated enough to overwhelm.
The right would never dream of trying to appeal to teenagers. They are to be talked over, talked about, never to. The right like to have grown-up conversations amongst themselves, whilst smoking pipes.
"On the contrary, he would boast about how he wants to debate them, because their arguments are facile and easily defeated."
The Left always set itself up as the judge of what was and wasn't a facile argument, what was and wasn't convincing evidence. You saw the same thing with the New Atheists. Getting into a debate where your opponent gets to decide whether you won or not has very predictable results.
Fundamental change in adults is rare, we are the only group of thinkers who truly see both sides, I regularly question however if this is a blessing or a curse..
I watched the entire clip and 1985 and my own response was quite different. Keep in mind that all of this was quite before my time. The main thing that hit me was how different it was from televised debates now. Usually there will be a leftist that advocates something evil for evil reasons, like the gentile mutilation of children as part of an obscene revolt against nature, and then some limp-wristed conservative will try to find some excuse within the leftist moral paradigm with 'facts and logic' to object. This was more like an ancient Greek tragedy; a competition not between good and evil, but between different virtues. The old lady argued in favour of safety while the other side wanted freedom. Both are virtuous causes, though I must confess that my sympathy fell with the anticensorship side.
A homosexual in 1985 who weighed about 7 stone with evident muscle wastage? I doubt he survived 4 years, much less 40.
ZOG has controlled mainstream media for decades. Whether something is pushed or censored, and to what degree, depends on the degree to which it supports or contradicts The Agenda (white replacement, degeneracy, anti-natalism, feminism, etc - we all know the drill).
Leftists always oppose censorship when they are out of power and at risk of censorship. They always support censorship when the have power and can censor their opponents. They are not good faith actors. I don't give a damn if there are some genuine idealists on the left, the exceptions mean nothing.
The bloke on his left is also gay. The 80s was a bland, soulless transition decade in which yuppie materialism replaced 70s post-hippie culture. Even the metal bands were a fake corporate version of their 70s predecessors, even if technically superior. It ended with total cultural dominance of the left, most visible in the boss girl with shoulder pads archetype. 40 years is a short time and the left is engaged in perpetual revolution, so I think it is mostly option 4.
Nice article, thanks.
In relation to your last question, perhaps you admired people like this because the left always did like to appeal to the "yoof". In their effort to win over the young they present arguments in a way that is simple enough to understand, yet not sophisticated enough to overwhelm.
The right would never dream of trying to appeal to teenagers. They are to be talked over, talked about, never to. The right like to have grown-up conversations amongst themselves, whilst smoking pipes.
This line struck me:
"On the contrary, he would boast about how he wants to debate them, because their arguments are facile and easily defeated."
The Left always set itself up as the judge of what was and wasn't a facile argument, what was and wasn't convincing evidence. You saw the same thing with the New Atheists. Getting into a debate where your opponent gets to decide whether you won or not has very predictable results.