You're fine, foxley. A lot of us are wondering about the same things.

Not to try and add fuel to the fire; it seems appreciating the female form (not anything derogatory of course) has been deemed toxic. I’m almost entirely certain that in the course of pursuing equal rights that we have produced some unwanted side effects. Granted it’s more than likely coming from the vocal minority extremists but in almost everything in this country has come down to absolutes. Which doesn’t help society progress anymore than outright opposition.

Between the extremists and the people fiercely pushing back our society is becoming a very scary place.

I think it is a byproduct of becoming more and more removed from direct social interaction.  The more these discussions and topics are in the abstract and a distance, the more they are framed in polar opposites.  The mass media has evolved to where the interviewer/journalist is rarely questioning the statements of the speaker and just presents someone with the opposite viewpoint to counter that, for the illusion of objectivity.  Journalism has never been objective, because humans are never fully objective.  Everything is based on perception, even in things like scientific research.  Biases lead researchers to ignore evidence that doesn't support their theory and focus only on evidence that does.  So, rather than an Edward R Murrow challenging a politician or celebrity to back up their statements, modern journalists let them air whatever and then turn to another person, who says the opposite, but never (or rarely) presents someone with a more nuanced position.

The internet makes it hard to fully convey messages, as body language is removed from the equation, as is tone of voice, unless you are video chatting.  On a Twitter or other typed social media platform, you have only cold language, which, as any author can tell you, is open to wide interpretation.

As people become more and more conditioned to this environment, they are pushed more and more into polar environments.  Just take news coverage; how many people actually get their news from a wide variety and diversity of sources?  It's usually one or two and those platforms are probably chosen because they reflect their viewpoint or the person has had positive experiences with that source.  How many people actually watch MSNBC and Fox News, unless they study the media?  Most will chose the one that either fits their viewpoint or irritates them less.

I stopped watching tv news, as I found it just agitated me and used more print and more nuanced sources; but, even those have biases.  I like NPR's presentation of hard news, in a calm and factual manner; but, their business news is primarily sourced from the Wall Street Journal.  So, although they do labor stories, Labor really doesn't have a bigger voice than they do on other networks or papers, who are beholding to corporate advertisers.  That's just one example. 

Re what codystarbuck wrote above, for many years I played ball with a group of guys (almost all white) whose political and social outlooks were decidedly on the very conservative side. However, for a few years, one of the players on our roster, whom I'll call Joey, was a Black guy who worked frequently with a couple of the roofers on the team.

My teammates had no problems at all with Joey, despite what I'd heard them say about race issues before. They knew Joey, liked Joey, and perhaps didn't see him as anything but Joey, the guy they worked with and played ball with.

Joey moved a few years later, and it was only then that I learned from the other guys that Joey was also gay.

I do think that knowing Joey made a big difference for my teammates. On the other hand, I don't know if it changes the way the ones who vote choose their elected officials. However, I do think it expanded their ability to at least put themselves in another person's place, and I hold out hope that at least a few of them imagined how they would have felt had it been Stevie whose neck had been under Derek Chauvin's knee for almost nine minutes.

OTOH, one of my nephews is gay and that has been a kind of deal-breaker for two of my siblings, whose religious views are decidedly along the lines of "that can be fixed." Ever since my nephew came out about 10 or 12 years ago, the freeze set in. They choose not to know their nephew, whom they probably regard, along with his mother, our younger sister, as a sinner who needs to be cured somehow. Oh, they'd give you that "love the sinner, hate the sin" line, but if askked WWJD, they would conveniently forget about Jesus' charity toward Samaritans and lepers. They ain't going to hang with someone they regard as one of the world's undesirables.

One postscript about my team. One of our longtime teammates -- we called him "Doc" -- was a doctor, a super-competitive achiever type (flew his own plane, wife was a doctor, excellent golfer, season tickets to the Pats, top of his field, Eagle Scout, a classic "Junior") and one of the nicest guys on the team. Always had everybody over at least once a season to their place for a party. (He had a "big TV" before anyone else.)

As our team aged and broke up after many years together, it came out that Doc was changing his sex and would henceforth be a woman.

The reaction among our teammates? Not a big frikkin' deal. Some still play with and against her in a co-ed softball league and have no hesitation calling her by her new name.

One of the guys even told me that "she has a nice figure."

The only gripe I've heard from my buddies is that when they golf together, Doc insists on hitting from the ladies' tees.

Competitive to the end.

Everything she sings is an assault to my ears. But to be fair, outside of older music having "class" in how they got their words across, I did grow up listening to my parents records which included December 1963, Afternoon Delight and Let's Get It On, so .....

So don't let your kids listen to age-inappropriate music, of which there has been no shortage for decades. Kind of silly to suggest Cardi B is the catalyst for the downfall of civilization. While certainly raunchy, it's at least from the standpoint of a woman asserting and claiming her sexuality instead of it being a shameful thing or a collectible for a male singer to add a notch to his belt. It's certainly no more inappropriate than what a lot of old rock and blues guys sang about.

And the beat freakin' POPS, too. Catchy-ass song. Wouldn't play it where my kids can hear it.

But to the larger point, why is a woman singing about sex more upsetting than TV shows and content with people being brutally murdered? Blood and guts and gore or fantastical violence which is not a common part of life, as opposed to sex and amorous aims, of which most if not all people hope to achieve someday.

I thought the Janet Jackson thing was obviously a stunt, too, and I think most people thought it was a stupid non-troversy with the vocal "won't someone think of the children??" crowd loudly clutching at pearls to kick up a fuss. We all thought it was dumb.

And that violence is glorified in myth, legend, and reality as being a good and necessary thing.