ABC, CBS, FOX & NBC Have Lost More Than 77% Of Their Market Share

[formulanone]

Children and teens exposed to foul language in TV and movies is not as bad as shows and movies promoting and glorifying pre-marital sex. 

Better to have pre-marital sex versus waiting and marrying the wrong person.

I'm just trying to get all the pre-martial law sex before that's also illegal.

[kphoger]

I'm trying to think exactly what I would place as the "bedrock of society" -- probably law and order.

And yet, for most of history, 'the law' consisted mostly of case law.  In the Code of Hammurabi, for example, buying stolen property isn't illegal per se;  rather, the legal code only says what the punishment is if the buyer doesn't produce witnesses within six months (Law 13).  Likewise, not working a rented field to produce a crop isn't illegal per se;  rather, the legal code only says how to determine how much the farmer owes the landowner (Law 42) if he doesn't produce a crop.  Rather than being a systematic book of statutes outlining what is right and wrong, it is chiefly a list of if-then jurisprudential rulings having to do with restitution.  But, more to the point, I wouldn't say that Babylonian society had no bedrock for the three or four centuries of its existence before the Code of Hammurabi.

Similarly, the Twelve Tables wasn't written until the mid-5th Century BC, which means the Roman Kingdom had no written law for its entire existence, operating instead on oral tradition interpreted primarily by the powerful and wealthy.  But I wouldn't say that the society of the Roman Kingdom had no bedrock.

[JayhawkCO]

I'm trying to think exactly what I would place as the "bedrock of society" -- probably law and order.

And yet, for most of history, 'the law' consisted mostly of case law.  In the Code of Hammurabi, for example, buying stolen property isn't illegal per se;  rather, the legal code only says what the punishment is if the buyer doesn't produce witnesses within six months (Law 13).  Likewise, not working a rented field to produce a crop isn't illegal per se;  rather, the legal code only says how to determine how much the farmer owes the landowner (Law 42) if he doesn't produce a crop.  Rather than being a systematic book of statutes outlining what is right and wrong, it is chiefly a list of if-then jurisprudential rulings having to do with restitution.  But, more to the point, I wouldn't say that Babylonian society had no bedrock for the three or four centuries of its existence before the Code of Hammurabi.

Similarly, the Twelve Tables wasn't written until the mid-5th Century BC, which means the Roman Kingdom had no written law for its entire existence, operating instead on oral tradition interpreted primarily by the powerful and wealthy.  But I wouldn't say that the society of the Roman Kingdom had no bedrock.

I was going to say "morality" but didn't want to get back into that debate. Law and order basically meaning that a society decides what is acceptable and what isn't.  When you have a community that agrees on that, that's a good society. Hence the problems we currently have in our country currently.

[Max Rockatansky]

Children and teens exposed to foul language in TV and movies is not as bad as shows and movies promoting and glorifying pre-marital sex. 

Better to have pre-marital sex versus waiting and marrying the wrong person.

I'm just trying to get all the pre-martial law sex before that's also illegal.

2032 San Angeles could still be just around the corner. 

[kphoger]

I was going to say "morality" but didn't want to get back into that debate. Law and order basically meaning that a society decides what is acceptable and what isn't.  When you have a community that agrees on that, that's a good society. Hence the problems we currently have in our country currently.

I guess you and I view society differently, then.

I think a society with a prevalence of single-parent households is objectively worse than one with a greater prevalence of two-parent households, whether the community agrees that it's acceptable or not.

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

I think a society that avoids pregnancy outside of a long-term committed monogamous relationship is objectively worse than one that welcomes it, whether the community agrees or not.

[JayhawkCO]

I was going to say "morality" but didn't want to get back into that debate. Law and order basically meaning that a society decides what is acceptable and what isn't.  When you have a community that agrees on that, that's a good society. Hence the problems we currently have in our country currently.

I guess you and I view society differently, then.

I think a society with a prevalence of single-parent households is objectively worse than one with a greater prevalence of two-parent households, whether the community agrees that it's acceptable or not.

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

I think a society that avoids pregnancy outside of a long-term committed monogamous relationship is objectively worse than one that welcomes it, whether the community agrees or not.

I mean, I don't inherently disagree with any of those things. It's better to have two parents in a household for sure, if nothing else for the sanity of the parents. But kids that grow up in a madly dysfunctional household with two parents that are fighting all the time might be better served in a single parent household. I'm obviously for protecting a partner from financial ruin in the case of a divorce. And avoiding pregnancy outside of a committed relationship is obviously better, but that doesn't require marriage either.

And keep in mind, if we were in a completely different kind of culture where there was no marriage, you could have sex with whomever you want (assuming consent), and any resulting kids were raised well by the community, I wouldn't inherently find that to be a bad community.

[wxfree]

I'm trying to think exactly what I would place as the "bedrock of society" -- probably law and order.

I don't like the phrase "law and order."  The purpose of law is justice, not order.  Order can be productive and enlightening, or it can be destructive and oppressive.  Justice is an opportunity, and can lead to order if the laws are made with wisdom and enforced without bias.  Justice is almost amoral.  It isn't about right and wrong as much as it's about restoring balance.

To me, society is about a social contract, an agreement (or if you don't agree, an imposition) that certain things are required and certain other things are forbidden.  Religion can serve as a foundation for such a contract, as can legislative enactments or decrees from the tribal leader.  Basically all of it comes from tradition.

Marriage is a nearly universal tradition, as it originates from biological reality.  Same-sex marriage, even if it isn't considered wrongful, leads to the natural question about where the children come from to help you through old age.  These days people have children of a different sort, financial investments, that help them through old age, and children impair rather than advance that preparation.  Reproduction is about personal fulfillment rather than recruiting new workers in the family business.  The tradition stays the same, but the contract changes, slowly, to reflect the current time.

The bedrock is a foundation ideal.  The United States has a written statement of its ideals: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Equality, the idea that all persons have the same rights, is our foundational ideal.  Many other nations believe in supremacy, that the descendants of the ancestors are more worthy of rights than the immigrants and newcomers, or that the followers of the religion are more worthy than the non-believers.  Each nation (I mean society, not political authority) has a contract based on its ideals.

[JayhawkCO]

To me, society is about a social contract, an agreement (or if you don't agree, an imposition) that certain things are required and certain other things are forbidden. 

That's probably a better phrasing of what I intended.

[wxfree]

Fortuitous timing in the daily comics

https://www.gocomics.com/theargylesweater/2026/04/10

[kphoger]

View this meme at your own risk:  https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/dkdfza/elderly_sex/

[Beltway]

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

[kphoger]

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

True as this may be (even if not 10:1) in our current society, women have been the more likely victim across the grand scope of history.

[Rothman]

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

True as this may be (even if not 10:1) in our current society, women have been the more likely victim across the grand scope of history.

Sounds like it would be even better if women didn't have to risk their financial security if they get married.

Reminds me of my wife when she was listening to a Muslim woman worry about her husband's financial troubles in Jordan.  When my wife said, "Oh, I'm sorry you two are having financial issues," the Muslim wife retorted, "Oh no, I'm doing just fine.  It's my husband that's having money troubles!"  In certain Muslim practices, the wife's financial security is independent and secure from the husband's...

[Max Rockatansky]

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

True as this may be (even if not 10:1) in our current society, women have been the more likely victim across the grand scope of history.

Sounds like it would be even better if women didn't have to risk their financial security if they get married.

Reminds me of my wife when she was listening to a Muslim woman worry about her husband's financial troubles in Jordan.  When my wife said, "Oh, I'm sorry you two are having financial issues," the Muslim wife retorted, "Oh no, I'm doing just fine.  It's my husband that's having money troubles!"  In certain Muslim practices, the wife's financial security is independent and secure from the husband's...

My mom was an accountant at GM and made really good money before having kids.  She quit her job in 1982 after I was born because my dad's career was going really well.  When my dad got fired in 1997 there suddenly was a massive issue with family income.  My mom found it very difficult to get employed after not working for a decade and half.  Thankfully she had a well established and pensioned county job before her marriage to my dad completely fell apart in 2007.

When Jessica and I were still fully trying to have a kid both of us were on the same page that she needed to keep working.  She has way too much career equity at this point to quit her job and it would have been wrong of me to ask her to stop.  Besides that, she actually likes what she does for a career. 

[Beltway]

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups. Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

True as this may be (even if not 10:1) in our current society, women have been the more likely victim across the grand scope of history.

2026 in the U.S. is not "the grand scope of history."

Nor is it 1970. For at least 40 years now my statement is correct for the U.S. And many young men are opting out of marriage after what they have witnessed in their parents and grandparents. And the trend is not improving for men. Some of the comments I have heard from young men about young women! In the 1970s at least most of them were datable.

[Max Rockatansky]

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups. Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

True as this may be (even if not 10:1) in our current society, women have been the more likely victim across the grand scope of history.

2026 in the U.S. is not "the grand scope of history."

Nor is it 1970. For at least 40 years now my statement is correct. And many young men are opting out of marriage after what they have witnessed in their parents and grandparents. And the trend is not improving for men. Some of the comments I have heard from young men about young women! In the 1970s at least most of them were datable.

You don't strike me as exactly being hip to what the kiddos are into.

[Beltway]

Sounds like it would be even better if women didn't have to risk their financial security if they get married.
Reminds me of my wife when she was listening to a Muslim woman worry about her husband's financial troubles in Jordan.  When my wife said, "Oh, I'm sorry you two are having financial issues," the Muslim wife retorted, "Oh no, I'm doing just fine.  It's my husband that's having money troubles!"  In certain Muslim practices, the wife's financial security is independent and secure from the husband's...

I won't try to weigh in on Islamic cultures and nations.

[Beltway]

Nor is it 1970. For at least 40 years now my statement is correct. And many young men are opting out of marriage after what they have witnessed in their parents and grandparents. And the trend is not improving for men. Some of the comments I have heard from young men about young women! In the 1970s at least most of them were datable.

You don't strike me as exactly being hip to what the kiddos are into.

You don't have to be one to talk to them. Being in a 3,000+ member church gives wide exposure to all age groups.

[Molandfreak]

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh..... No......

[Rothman]

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh..... No......

*looks up MGTOW*

My word...

[Molandfreak]

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh..... No......

I think a society that doesn't protect a woman from financial ruin if her husband leaves her is objectively worse than one that does, whether the community agrees that her ruin is acceptable or not.

The problem is about 10:1 in the opposite direction, documented by men's rights groups. father's rights groups, the manosphere and MGTOW groups.

Family courts destroy men on a grand scale.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh..... No......

*looks up MGTOW*

My word...

I never thought we would have to deal with Andrew Tate levels of BS here, but here we are.

[Beltway]

*looks up MGTOW*
My word...

What comes up is the Wikipedia article that has enough feces to bury a horse.

[LilianaUwU]

*looks up MGTOW*
My word...

What comes up is the Wikipedia article that has enough feces to bury a horse.

What you'll say next is "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias".

[Beltway]

*looks up MGTOW*
My word...

What comes up is the Wikipedia article that has enough feces to bury a horse.

What you'll say next is "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias".

A neutral, supporter‑aligned definition of MGTOW

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is a self‑described lifestyle philosophy in which men choose to prioritize personal autonomy, self‑direction, and individual goals rather than pursuing traditional expectations around relationships, marriage, or family roles.

Supporters describe it as a way for men to focus on their own well‑being, financial independence, and personal development without feeling obligated to conform to social pressures or norms about how men "should" live.

[LilianaUwU]

*looks up MGTOW*
My word...

What comes up is the Wikipedia article that has enough feces to bury a horse.

What you'll say next is "Wikipedia has a left-wing bias".

A neutral, supporter‑aligned definition of MGTOW

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is a self‑described lifestyle philosophy in which men choose to prioritize personal autonomy, self‑direction, and individual goals rather than pursuing traditional expectations around relationships, marriage, or family roles.

Supporters describe it as a way for men to focus on their own well‑being, financial independence, and personal development without feeling obligated to conform to social pressures or norms about how men "should" live.

So neutral, I can smell the basement it came from.