Talk:Gross Moral Turpitude

You asked me to come by and see if I had any ideas. I like it a lot - I think there's a subtle line here though, because while certain publications like the Mail actually sanction the opposite of their moralizing - celebrities, victimising groups and so forth (the Sun is even worse for this hypocritical rabble rousing). Indeed part of 'Gross Moral Turpitude' is about creating groups to put down etc. This is what makes Conservapedia so confusing, along with what largely comprises as the modern Right (Basically very far right/Libertarianism). Having said that, many of their adopted tenets, largely highjacked, which have a lot in them.

The sad fact is that even leftists have a fair reason to feel the moral indignation as society has moved into negative arenas which tend to favor negative behavior and also a kind of simpering 'Yes Man' quality which is very negative indeed as it allows for a mixture of thugs and nutters to set the agenda. Personally as well I like plain speaking and people to be upfront, the reality is that we all have a certain way of looking at things, and hopefully a large sphere of agreement.

I think you've missed the two edged sword with this, loads of people read the Mail - they're not all idiots, I think that there's a very subtle line which has developed which has confused debates which are legitimate and ones which have been allowed to piggy back on these to create the nutter bile politics. Personally I always side with hate over apathy, because there is at least some stake that is given to an issue by individuals. So for the article I think it should focus less on that these people are an "Other" group whose views are to be dismissed, but more look at the duplicity of a lot of their views and actions.

I'm in full on arguing roid rage PMS mode, less a funny one, so I don't know if that helps - hopefully it does:-)--Sycamore (Talk) 21:01, March 7, 2011 (UTC)