Leaderboard

This is an article from alternative media in Sweden, translating it to english through your browser usually works rather well. http://www.friatider.se/sd-regeringen-f-rs-ker-stryka-det-svenska-kulturarvet Below I've translated the key points: Today a historical debate took place in the Swedish parliament. The government is trying to pass legislation that changes and begins the destruction of Swedish culture on a state level. The non-alternative media has not reported on this issue at all and state officials have made no public announcement. According to Aron Emilsson (Swedish Democrat, national party) the current government are attempting to launch a culture revolution. In the proposition they deny that there is such a thing as Swedish culture, Swedish national monuments/heritage and they wish to remove the right to protect and preserve them. The government is attempting to modify the culture heritage law, so that all lines defining and acknowledging the existence of Swedish culture as well as a necessity to protect the swedish culture heritage, are removed. The lines are instead replaced with a poorly defined concept; that Sweden is part of a global culture community. They've given no definition as to what that means. Further, the government wishes to reform the law concerning museums, and turn all museums into "debatemuseums". These are tasked to work towards breaking segregation and spreading a leftist-liberal narrative of integration and equality. No other party other than the Swedish Democrats are against the proposed changes. (They can't stop it alone.)

I assume mods didn't approve of the contents. What a poor choice on their part.

Right, I DID respond to your "common denominator" logic; that's what my argument was ABOUT. Also, let's not play this petty game of your being passive aggressive, shall we? I'm not interested in insults and slights. I'm responding to something you said, we disagree, I'm addressing that disagreement, it was you who first dismissed me, not the other way around. I've taken the time, I only ask you the common decency to do the same, or if you really don't want to, at least just own up to that. Don't pretend you've refuted me by referring to a previous comment of yours. That's not how rebuttals work, and you know that, I know that, and I'm sure you know that I know that. My point was to illustrate, as I understand the matter of hypergamy, that your "common denominator" argument is funamentally flawed for the reasons of my illustrated "relative to what" explanation. The flaw isn't the concept of common denominators itself, nor how you're using it to dismantle the concept of both sexes being defined by hypergamy. The problem is your over-narrow criteria. Both sexes DO share a common denominator. The definition of hypergamy doesn't specify that the act is about money (although one could be forgiven for seeing it that way, when one reads "caste or class"). The key defining feature is the matter of "trading up", moving from an inferior choice to a superior choice, an improvement. Both sexes ARE doing that when one goes for a spouse with more resources and the other goes for a spouse who is younger and hotter. The first "traded up" for more resources, the second "traded up" for more fertility. But both traded up; they shared that common denominator. So they DO share a common denominator in that they are both making an exchange in preferable partners for a better option, even if what constitutes "better" differs from one sex and the other.