Is ''Hooters'' Degrading To Women?

[Distruzio]

Then why are you opposed to women working in environments like Hooters?

Look around. Did I ever say that? I said that the environments were hostile, with customers allowed to degrade these women and managers taking advantage of them. I did not say that I didn't want them to work where they wanted to.

Ah... I misunderstood your commentary then. Apologies.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As a Latin American myself I can guarantee you your assumption of us being puritan is bullshit.

Beyond that, none of us care if they were.
I'm an ultra-liberal as he calls me.

I'm also a no-sex before monogamous relationship, sneering social conservative in regards to my own life.
And none of that is contradictory to me.
If you want to go have gangbangs and rent prostitutes, take drugs, do all kinds of crazy shit, i'm going to advise you against it. I'm going to tell you it's a bad idea. And then if you do it anyway, i'm going to say "Well, it's your decision." And then i'm going to sneer and think you're a social deviant.
But i'm not actually going to do shit about it, because it's none of my damn business.

It is utterly irrelevant to me even if the vast majority don't want to engage in consensual cannibalism, or prostitution, or whatever. There are people who do.
His endless whining is the same justification used to ban homosexuality and such on the grounds of public decency and all that ridiculous shit. It's a complete fallacy used by nosey people who can't butt out of others lives and acknowledge that we should let adults control their own destinies. The empowerment of individuals to control their own lives is the major driving force of my ideology.
It's why i'm against strong government, but also against strong corporations.
I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

See, I agree with you on most of what you said (except the 7 billion utopias bit, we can work on that )

But, I mean, his stance that us Latin Americans, the ones who rent prostitutes in our teens, have a negative stereotype of cheating on our partners and being sexist, have lots of extramarital sex disregarding the church and at the same time the ones who ban abortions and let women use clothe hangers and battery acid to abort babies at the expense of their medical health or force them to marry the father, the ones who still are so ass-backwards as to not have lifted bans against homosexuality from our constitutions, the ones riddled with violence and drug trafficking, THAT Latin America that I know its flaws and virtues of Mexico and Central America in general (at least, of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), is the "bastion of purity and freedom" he proclaims. It's just bullshit. Plain and unadulterated bullshit.

It's also laughable to think that the U.S. will be better off with OUR social norms when most of us Latin Americans want to get the fuck OUT of those countries into the U.S.; shit, we even copy what the U.S. does over here in our systems to make them more progressive.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Oh, so you want regression back to 1965 levels of tolerance for sexual freedom, but none of the implications that come with it? Because sexual freedom doesn't mandate racial or gender or sexual equity? Christ.

What implications? Are you claiming that this "sexual freedom", as you call it, is somehow connected to racial equality, or gender equality? As in, if we don't allow everyone to perform any kind of sexual act they please with anyone they please, we'll somehow end up with racial segregation again...? How does that work, exactly? And what's the connection with gender equality? Men and women can't have the same legal rights and duties, they can't get equal wages for equal work, they can't have the same opportunities and so on... unless we allow porn and prostitution...?

Does. Not. Compute.

And no, "sexual freedom", when it means women having sex for money (prostitution) or having sex on camera for money (porn) or licking a plate with their hands tied behind their back (like in that incident at Hooters) does not "mandate racial or gender or sexual equity" by any wild stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it obviously promotes sexism, it obviously degrades women, and I'm still not sure if those of you who continue to deny this are genuinely blind to the obvious or somehow lying to themselves or to me.

I first started posting in this thread because of how outrageous the opinions here seemed. To suggest that ''Hooters'' is not degrading to women is like suggesting that water is dry. I am still standing here in disbelief, wondering if I fell through a wormhole into some weird alternate reality or something. Please understand, I am being entirely honest with you when I say that your argument here looks to me like someone pointing to a white piece of paper and repeatedly telling me that it is black.

Neo-liberalism and liberalism aren't derived from the same core, liberalism in the pejorative American sense is all about caring for people and making equality and positive outcomes available to everyone where neo-liberalism is all about "economic freedom", a completely contradictory line.

Yes they are derived from the same source, as any historian of political thought can tell you. They are both derived from classical liberalism, with its emphasis on individual autonomy and its elevation of contracts and the law of exchange as the supposed foundation of all ethical human interaction. Social-liberalism (i.e. "liberalism in the American sense") and neo-liberalism both rest upon the view that the ideal society is one which maximizes individual choice, and the social good is simply whatever satisfies individual desires. They both deny the possibility that individual desires may be wrong or mistaken (social-liberalism denies that consensual acts between adults can ever be morally wrong, neo-liberalism denies that something you choose to buy might need to be regulated or banned because it's objectively bad for you). They both oppose the idea that some external entity should teach individuals what is good and what is evil (they don't want the state to legislate morality, in the bedroom or in the marketplace). And they both express their goals in terms of giving people more opportunities/choices.

You mean Muslim extremists stoning adulterers and Sub-Saharan stone-age homophobic genital mutilators? If you want to lump yourself in with them, go for it.

Oooh, another crispy straw man! Is it my birthday?

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

Allowing people to use their bodies, be free with who they are doesn't mandate openness? Sexuality is innate in humanity and quashing it is horrible. Going back to puritanical ideas of just how much sexuality is acceptable absolutely carries with it ACTUAL sexist notions, actual implications that who you are, what you are, and what your body is is shameful, that it's wrong to be a sexual being. Nothing objectifies women like refusing to let women express their sexuality as they will, letting them be wrapped products for only the men they marry to consume.

I'm not really arguing against the notion that Hooters is degrading as much as I am with your "we need to go back to sexual 1965" line. Don't act like that's what I was arguing. Truth be told, I don't really care if a restaurant chain wants to sell itself on the sexual attractiveness of its waitresses, I think it's pointless and not at all enticing, but that's not really what I'm on about here.

I'd also like to point out that prostitution is a service industry where the sex, not necessarily the person, is the product. I don't think that it necessarily degrades or objectifies the people it employs. I feel essentially the same way about pornography.

You would be absolutely right on liberalism had the industrial revolution never happened. Classical liberalism is dead and the social roots, which are the roots I was talking about, not the historical roots, of neo-liberalism and American left social liberalism are completely different, they're driven by different factors. The freedom touted by neo-liberalism is not the same as the freedom touted by liberalism proper. Neo-liberalism is born of the first-world's right to use the third world economically, it's an economic development position. Liberalism proper is about the exact opposite, freedom through equality, freedom to be, not freedom to plunder. Choice is not an aspect of neo-liberalism.

Oh, you didn't mean the other places where women are covered and told they're less than human, you mean the nice places where that happens. Like maybe China, with their crushing shaming of those who step out of line, authoritarian government, death camps, imperialism of "lesser people", and soaring suicide rates. Maybe Eastern Europe, where racism, sexism, and constant ethnic cleansing (see how racism and crushing of people correlate?) still ravage the landscape. Ooh, what about Latin America, they're so sexually chaste! Wait, what? Uhhhhh...

I hardly think my judging African nations where they actually live in destitute poverty and mutilate little girls to keep them chaste entirely fit with my criticism of quelling of sexual freedom. It's barbaric, genital mutilation is barbaric, and one comes from another. I never tied it to black people or even all of Africa, just the sexually backward places you praise. Stone-age attitudes toward sex.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

[Trotskylvania]

It's a hobson's choice, and thus provides the illusion of free choice.

You can degrade yourself, and accept a job that institutionalizes sexual harassment by the clientelle, or you can find your situation elsewhere and face destitution.

So... it's the illusion of choice to choose from the options available in a given society to increase one's lot in life if someone else, with no investment in that one's life, finds it less than opportune? Forgive me if that makes little sense, Trots. Perhaps the women employed by Hooters, are not educated enough to justify their movement into a less vulgar occupation at the moment? The reality is that these women, regardless of the opportunities elsewhere, have chosen to take a paycheck for working in the environment Hooters provides. I rather doubt that it's degradation - unless you consider making the best with what you have to be, at all times, hobson's worthy?

This is a crock of horseshit, and you're better than it.

Come on. You position is just another variation of the "they were asking for it" apologia that is constantly thrown at victims of all kinds. Choosing a job does not mean that it isn't degrading. Especially when this is a business that routinely puts its employees in situations where they will be harassed, and then misleads them about their legal rights, and does everything possible to prevent them from exercising those rights.

[Upper America]

I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

No, a depressing world is a world where we can't even control our own bodies without "the man" stepping in.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What implications? Are you claiming that this "sexual freedom", as you call it, is somehow connected to racial equality, or gender equality? As in, if we don't allow everyone to perform any kind of sexual act they please with anyone they please, we'll somehow end up with racial segregation again...? How does that work, exactly? And what's the connection with gender equality? Men and women can't have the same legal rights and duties, they can't get equal wages for equal work, they can't have the same opportunities and so on... unless we allow porn and prostitution...?

Does. Not. Compute.

And no, "sexual freedom", when it means women having sex for money (prostitution) or having sex on camera for money (porn) or licking a plate with their hands tied behind their back (like in that incident at Hooters) does not "mandate racial or gender or sexual equity" by any wild stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it obviously promotes sexism, it obviously degrades women, and I'm still not sure if those of you who continue to deny this are genuinely blind to the obvious or somehow lying to themselves or to me.

I first started posting in this thread because of how outrageous the opinions here seemed. To suggest that ''Hooters'' is not degrading to women is like suggesting that water is dry. I am still standing here in disbelief, wondering if I fell through a wormhole into some weird alternate reality or something. Please understand, I am being entirely honest with you when I say that your argument here looks to me like someone pointing to a white piece of paper and repeatedly telling me that it is black.


Yes they are derived from the same source, as any historian of political thought can tell you. They are both derived from classical liberalism, with its emphasis on individual autonomy and its elevation of contracts and the law of exchange as the supposed foundation of all ethical human interaction. Social-liberalism (i.e. "liberalism in the American sense") and neo-liberalism both rest upon the view that the ideal society is one which maximizes individual choice, and the social good is simply whatever satisfies individual desires. They both deny the possibility that individual desires may be wrong or mistaken (social-liberalism denies that consensual acts between adults can ever be morally wrong, neo-liberalism denies that something you choose to buy might need to be regulated or banned because it's objectively bad for you). They both oppose the idea that some external entity should teach individuals what is good and what is evil (they don't want the state to legislate morality, in the bedroom or in the marketplace). And they both express their goals in terms of giving people more opportunities/choices.


Oooh, another crispy straw man! Is it my birthday?

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

Allowing people to use their bodies, be free with who they are doesn't mandate openness? Sexuality is innate in humanity and quashing it is horrible. Going back to puritanical ideas of just how much sexuality is acceptable absolutely carries with it ACTUAL sexist notions, actual implications that who you are, what you are, and what your body is is shameful, that it's wrong to be a sexual being. Nothing objectifies women like refusing to let women express their sexuality as they will, letting them be wrapped products for only the men they marry to consume.

I'm not really arguing against the notion that Hooters is degrading as much as I am with your "we need to go back to sexual 1965" line. Don't act like that's what I was arguing. Truth be told, I don't really care if a restaurant chain wants to sell itself on the sexual attractiveness of its waitresses, I think it's pointless and not at all enticing, but that's not really what I'm on about here.

I'd also like to point out that prostitution is a service industry where the sex, not necessarily the person, is the product. I don't think that it necessarily degrades or objectifies the people it employs. I feel essentially the same way about pornography.

You would be absolutely right on liberalism had the industrial revolution never happened. Classical liberalism is dead and the social roots, which are the roots I was talking about, not the historical roots, of neo-liberalism and American left social liberalism are completely different, they're driven by different factors. The freedom touted by neo-liberalism is not the same as the freedom touted by liberalism proper. Neo-liberalism is born of the first-world's right to use the third world economically, it's an economic development position. Liberalism proper is about the exact opposite, freedom through equality, freedom to be, not freedom to plunder. Choice is not an aspect of neo-liberalism.

Oh, you didn't mean the other places where women are covered and told they're less than human, you mean the nice places where that happens. Like maybe China, with their crushing shaming of those who step out of line, authoritarian government, death camps, imperialism of "lesser people", and soaring suicide rates. Maybe Eastern Europe, where racism, sexism, and constant ethnic cleansing (see how racism and crushing of people correlate?) still ravage the landscape. Ooh, what about Latin America, they're so sexually chaste! Wait, what? Uhhhhh...

I hardly think my judging African nations where they actually live in destitute poverty and mutilate little girls to keep them chaste entirely fit with my criticism of quelling of sexual freedom. It's barbaric, genital mutilation is barbaric, and one comes from another. I never tied it to black people or even all of Africa, just the sexually backward places you praise. Stone-age attitudes toward sex.

OKay, this made me laugh because it's true

We're not generally chaste, at all. You nailed it.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Sometimes people should just let everyone decide what they find degrading themselves. If those women don't mind, I don't see a significant issue.
If you mind: don't work there, don't go there and go on with your life.

It's too hard to take this stance, apparently.

The OP asked our opinions, so we're giving our opinions. What makes you think the people saying it's degrading get upset about it on a daily basis or have any intention of doing anything about it?

[Ostroeuropa]

What implications? Are you claiming that this "sexual freedom", as you call it, is somehow connected to racial equality, or gender equality? As in, if we don't allow everyone to perform any kind of sexual act they please with anyone they please, we'll somehow end up with racial segregation again...? How does that work, exactly? And what's the connection with gender equality? Men and women can't have the same legal rights and duties, they can't get equal wages for equal work, they can't have the same opportunities and so on... unless we allow porn and prostitution...?

Does. Not. Compute.

And no, "sexual freedom", when it means women having sex for money (prostitution) or having sex on camera for money (porn) or licking a plate with their hands tied behind their back (like in that incident at Hooters) does not "mandate racial or gender or sexual equity" by any wild stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it obviously promotes sexism, it obviously degrades women, and I'm still not sure if those of you who continue to deny this are genuinely blind to the obvious or somehow lying to themselves or to me.

I first started posting in this thread because of how outrageous the opinions here seemed. To suggest that ''Hooters'' is not degrading to women is like suggesting that water is dry. I am still standing here in disbelief, wondering if I fell through a wormhole into some weird alternate reality or something. Please understand, I am being entirely honest with you when I say that your argument here looks to me like someone pointing to a white piece of paper and repeatedly telling me that it is black.


Yes they are derived from the same source, as any historian of political thought can tell you. They are both derived from classical liberalism, with its emphasis on individual autonomy and its elevation of contracts and the law of exchange as the supposed foundation of all ethical human interaction. Social-liberalism (i.e. "liberalism in the American sense") and neo-liberalism both rest upon the view that the ideal society is one which maximizes individual choice, and the social good is simply whatever satisfies individual desires. They both deny the possibility that individual desires may be wrong or mistaken (social-liberalism denies that consensual acts between adults can ever be morally wrong, neo-liberalism denies that something you choose to buy might need to be regulated or banned because it's objectively bad for you). They both oppose the idea that some external entity should teach individuals what is good and what is evil (they don't want the state to legislate morality, in the bedroom or in the marketplace). And they both express their goals in terms of giving people more opportunities/choices.


Oooh, another crispy straw man! Is it my birthday?

You know very well what I meant. Social norms in China, for example, or in South-East Asia, or in most of Latin America, or in the secular parts of the Muslim world, or in the nicer parts of India, or in some parts of Eastern Europe.

But good job on your racist slur against Africans, by the way. Keep showing your enlightened tolerance like that. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a banana reference while you were at it.

Allowing people to use their bodies, be free with who they are doesn't mandate openness? Sexuality is innate in humanity and quashing it is horrible. Going back to puritanical ideas of just how much sexuality is acceptable absolutely carries with it ACTUAL sexist notions, actual implications that who you are, what you are, and what your body is is shameful, that it's wrong to be a sexual being. Nothing objectifies women like refusing to let women express their sexuality as they will, letting them be wrapped products for only the men they marry to consume.

I'm not really arguing against the notion that Hooters is degrading as much as I am with your "we need to go back to sexual 1965" line. Don't act like that's what I was arguing. Truth be told, I don't really care if a restaurant chain wants to sell itself on the sexual attractiveness of its waitresses, I think it's pointless and not at all enticing, but that's not really what I'm on about here.

I'd also like to point out that prostitution is a service industry where the sex, not necessarily the person, is the product. I don't think that it necessarily degrades or objectifies the people it employs. I feel essentially the same way about pornography.

You would be absolutely right on liberalism had the industrial revolution never happened. Classical liberalism is dead and the social roots, which are the roots I was talking about, not the historical roots, of neo-liberalism and American left social liberalism are completely different, they're driven by different factors. The freedom touted by neo-liberalism is not the same as the freedom touted by liberalism proper. Neo-liberalism is born of the first-world's right to use the third world economically, it's an economic development position. Liberalism proper is about the exact opposite, freedom through equality, freedom to be, not freedom to plunder. Choice is not an aspect of neo-liberalism.

Oh, you didn't mean the other places where women are covered and told they're less than human, you mean the nice places where that happens. Like maybe China, with their crushing shaming of those who step out of line, authoritarian government, death camps, imperialism of "lesser people", and soaring suicide rates. Maybe Eastern Europe, where racism, sexism, and constant ethnic cleansing (see how racism and crushing of people correlate?) still ravage the landscape. Ooh, what about Latin America, they're so sexually chaste! Wait, what? Uhhhhh...

I hardly think my judging African nations where they actually live in destitute poverty and mutilate little girls to keep them chaste entirely fit with my criticism of quelling of sexual freedom. It's barbaric, genital mutilation is barbaric, and one comes from another. I never tied it to black people or even all of Africa, just the sexually backward places you praise. Stone-age attitudes toward sex.

Indeed, acknowledging that the barbaric practices of these nations are linked to sexist attitudes and poverty is the most anti-racist stance you can take.
It's far worse to claim shit like genital mutilation is a part of africas culture intrinsically, or that it's fine because they are black and dont know any better.

In the west, our morality is developed not because we're better, or because we're white, or some other stupid shit.
It's because we robbed absolutely everyone blind and that left us with enough spare time to think about shit, instead of having to spend all of our time on mere survival, and that allowed us to get accustomed to a manner of living that we are now demanding be available to ALL of the worlds peoples.
This can mirror racism on occasion, because this privilege springs from racist attitudes.


Why is the west so developed in this matter?
Because our racist ancestors raided everyone and stole their shit.
But ignoring the fact we're developed in this matter is to ignore the obvious.

[Jachaelter]

In my opinion, I do not think it is degrading to women. People should respect them for there beauty though also. I understand that people do things to the waitresses at Hooters that may be bad, but Hooters girls' still love it there.

[Distruzio]

So... it's the illusion of choice to choose from the options available in a given society to increase one's lot in life if someone else, with no investment in that one's life, finds it less than opportune? Forgive me if that makes little sense, Trots. Perhaps the women employed by Hooters, are not educated enough to justify their movement into a less vulgar occupation at the moment? The reality is that these women, regardless of the opportunities elsewhere, have chosen to take a paycheck for working in the environment Hooters provides. I rather doubt that it's degradation - unless you consider making the best with what you have to be, at all times, hobson's worthy?

This is a crock of horseshit, and you're better than it.

Come on. You position is just another variation of the "they were asking for it" apologia that is constantly thrown at victims of all kinds. Choosing a job does not mean that it isn't degrading. Especially when this is a business that routinely puts its employees in situations where they will be harassed, and then misleads them about their legal rights, and does everything possible to prevent them from exercising those rights.

So you are saying that making the best with what you have is, at all times, a hobson's choice, then.

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm simply not hopping on a soapbox based on my own dissatisfaction with the atmosphere Hooters provides. A persons life is made better by working. I don't pretend to know the waitresses potential value to society but, in avoiding a condemnation of Hooters as an employer that takes advantage of those women that do work there, I avoid implicitly assuming the lack of potential value those same waitresses have to society - and themselves. I see no reason that these women have their ability to sustain themselves in the best way they see available undercut by proactive nonsense in the name of eliminating degradation.

[Geilinor]

I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

Are you saying there's no love or trust in a capitalist system?

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

You can tell that this is the inevitable prospect of prostitution because it's such a new career and has yet to run its full course. It's not called "the newest profession" for nothing.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

Are you saying there's no love or trust in a capitalist system?

All those people you thought you loved?

Nope, evil capitalist greed.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm against social busybodies too. The only thing I care about is the empowerment of individuals. I look forward to the day when an individual human is liberated from all factors that seek to limit their own power to live their lives, including eachother (Unless they consent.)
We shall craft 7 billion little utopias.

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

If you want to give someone your body for free, noone will prevent you from doing so. If you want to interact with others for free, noone will prevent you from doing so.
If you want to build a bridge between the islands, feel free.
But as soon as you want to destroy that bridge, feel free.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

And we shall each live on our little separate islands, interacting with other human beings only through contract and exchange, buying and selling each other's bodies, minds and souls. Never lowering our barriers, never trusting, never loving. Always haggling, always making deals, always trying to win a game that never ends.

What a lonely, alienating, depressing world that would be.

No, a depressing world is a world where we can't even control our own bodies without "the man" stepping in.

That's why we have rock 'n roll. So we can stick it to the man.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you saying there's no love or trust in a capitalist system?

All those people you thought you loved?

Nope, evil capitalist greed.

Shit, I feel like my life has been a lie.

Why Biden?! Why must you do this to us?

[Constantinopolis]

But, I mean, his stance that us Latin Americans... THAT Latin America that I know its flaws and virtues of Mexico and Central America in general (at least, of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), is the "bastion of purity and freedom" he proclaims. It's just bullshit. Plain and unadulterated bullshit.

Uh... which is why I never called it a "bastion of purity and freedom", or a bastion of anything, or... wait, actually I didn't call it anything.

I included the phrase "most of Latin America" (and note, I specifically said "most of", as in "not all", whereas I didn't use that phrase with regard to China for example) in a long list of places that have (to my knowledge) more conservative social norms than the West.

That is all I said and all I meant. It was in response to The Re-Frisivisiaing accusing me of being in the same category as Muslim extremists or the governments of sub-Saharan Africa. I responded to him by pointing out a whole bunch of other places that also have conservative social norms but do not take them to outrageous extremes.

So, again, all I said was that "most of Latin America" has conservative social norms and is not crazy.

I may be wrong about this (well, about the norms, anyway - I'm pretty sure you guys aren't crazy). But it's a minor point regardless.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

All those people you thought you loved?

Nope, evil capitalist greed.

Shit, I feel like my life has been a lie.

Why Biden?! Why must you do this to us?

Because evil capitalist pig-dogs.

[Cannot think of a name]

nonsense on stilts.

I am so adopting this.

[Upper America]

But, I mean, his stance that us Latin Americans... THAT Latin America that I know its flaws and virtues of Mexico and Central America in general (at least, of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), is the "bastion of purity and freedom" he proclaims. It's just bullshit. Plain and unadulterated bullshit.

Uh... which is why I never called it a "bastion of purity and freedom", or a bastion of anything, or... wait, actually I didn't call it anything.

I included the phrase "most of Latin America" (and note, I specifically said "most of", as in "not all", whereas I didn't use that phrase with regard to China for example) in a long list of places that have (to my knowledge) more conservative social norms than the West.

That is all I said and all I meant. It was in response to The Re-Frisivisiaing accusing me of being in the same category as Muslim extremists or the governments of sub-Saharan Africa. I responded to him by pointing out a whole bunch of other places that also have conservative social norms but do not take them to outrageous extremes.

So, again, all I said was that "most of Latin America" has conservative social norms and is not crazy.

I may be wrong about this (well, about the norms, anyway - I'm pretty sure you guys aren't crazy). But it's a minor point regardless.

So then, what counts as "most of Latin America"

[Constantinopolis]

So then, what counts as "most of Latin America"

When I made that statement I was thinking of the rural areas.

Again, I may have been wrong, I don't know. It was one item on a list, and I wasn't praising it for anything other than the fact that it's better than sub-Saharan Africa.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But, I mean, his stance that us Latin Americans... THAT Latin America that I know its flaws and virtues of Mexico and Central America in general (at least, of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), is the "bastion of purity and freedom" he proclaims. It's just bullshit. Plain and unadulterated bullshit.

Uh... which is why I never called it a "bastion of purity and freedom", or a bastion of anything, or... wait, actually I didn't call it anything.

I included the phrase "most of Latin America" (and note, I specifically said "most of", as in "not all", whereas I didn't use that phrase with regard to China for example) in a long list of places that have (to my knowledge) more conservative social norms than the West.

That is all I said and all I meant. It was in response to The Re-Frisivisiaing accusing me of being in the same category as Muslim extremists or the governments of sub-Saharan Africa. I responded to him by pointing out a whole bunch of other places that also have conservative social norms but do not take them to outrageous extremes.

So, again, all I said was that "most of Latin America" has conservative social norms and is not crazy.

I may be wrong about this (well, about the norms, anyway - I'm pretty sure you guys aren't crazy). But it's a minor point regardless.

We still are not fucking conservatives by any standards. That church you pander to? We go to church out of social convention, but we could give a shit less about what the priests tells us. We still fuck, do drugs, have sex with prostitutes (and yes, prostitutes are legal in certain Latin American countries and we regret nothing, they actually have a voice and power; no need for pimps for the most part in Mexico and El Salvador: "yo podre ser puta pero no soy tu puta" (I am a whore, but not your whore) comes to mind), all without the church having any power over our morality.

We're not crazy, but compared to how you paint us it's like you're painting a Latin America of around 1821, not the Latin America I know.

[Geilinor]

But, I mean, his stance that us Latin Americans... THAT Latin America that I know its flaws and virtues of Mexico and Central America in general (at least, of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), is the "bastion of purity and freedom" he proclaims. It's just bullshit. Plain and unadulterated bullshit.

Uh... which is why I never called it a "bastion of purity and freedom", or a bastion of anything, or... wait, actually I didn't call it anything.

I included the phrase "most of Latin America" (and note, I specifically said "most of", as in "not all", whereas I didn't use that phrase with regard to China for example) in a long list of places that have (to my knowledge) more conservative social norms than the West.

That is all I said and all I meant. It was in response to The Re-Frisivisiaing accusing me of being in the same category as Muslim extremists or the governments of sub-Saharan Africa. I responded to him by pointing out a whole bunch of other places that also have conservative social norms but do not take them to outrageous extremes.

So, again, all I said was that "most of Latin America" has conservative social norms and is not crazy.

I may be wrong about this (well, about the norms, anyway - I'm pretty sure you guys aren't crazy). But it's a minor point regardless.

Soldati already nailed it, but they aren't that conservative, except maybe when it comes to abortion.

[Sjovenia]

Don't get me wrong I like hooters an girls but yes I think hooters is degrading to women. All they do is serve food and walk in scantily clad clothing.