Getting the worst of the SJW nonsense for not being an attractive male specimen. You'd be worse off in Sweden or Belgium. Maybe in all the liberal countries of Europe.

Criticized and bullies all my life for being less interested in sports and cars than comic books, sci-fi, writing, etc., since it's not "manly." There are very few countries you wouldn't be worse off than in the US. Japan, I think. Maybe the other countries of North East Asia. I'm pretty sure nowhere else beyond that.

Being ostracized by my family for the same reason. Same. I would just add in that they go together necessarily: your family is a part of the same society, so they probably share its values. Even if they didn't, or not to a degree they'd care, they'd probably still be less than friendly to your interests if they thought they'd make your life harder, realizing the kind of society you're in.

Denied professional positions and promotions due to "office politics," i.e., I did not have opinions that were mainstream, and thus held back for personal reason by the people who had the power to make these decisions. Really? Try that almost elsewhere. That's nothing compared to the conformity expected in Asian workplaces (not just Japan, not just China; on this even the Southeast and India are like that). European workplaces vary, but if you are in a public sector spot, or a big company with the kind of contracting which links to the public sector or imitates it, then it would also be worse.

Having a skill set that requires a lot of hard work, yet does not usually happen to result in making a lot of money, which proves we do not live in a meritocracy. I have lived in poverty and been on the verge of homelessness many times, including during the present. That is one of the things that has (at least in part) required some of my periodic hiatuses. This also happens everywhere. Literally everywhere. Although the specifics of what skills are undervalued are not the same. And, lest I forget, one of the worst places probably to have undervalued skills is in Europe, especially liberal Europe. Because when you have a large public sector, which employs a big part of the workforce, then those without bureaucratic skills or inclinations are the ones to suffer the most.

Being criticized and pressured to get married with someone my own age because this is what is expected of everyone. East, Southeast and South Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, are all of them worse than the US.

It should not be that way anywhere in the world. And it should not be as bad as it is here.

That is a different argument. (Moving the goalposts, but I'll give it a pass because it's important).
Maybe it should not be that way anywhere. But it is.
Maybe it should be better also in the US. But overall it already is better in the US than almost anywhere. And the existence of room for improvement is, again, clouding your sight in perceiving that the US is one of the best, if not the best, places to be unconventional and different.

It should be FAR greener here than it is considering the resources this country commands.

Actually, maybe that is why it is better more often than not. Though it's also an egg and chicken -- to a large degree, the US is prosperous because it's good for difference.

And deriding conditions in other nations just makes it clear how little the US does to improve the situation anywhere in the world.

Sorry, but absolutely not, thank you. It is not the duty of the US (or any other external agent) to improve a place abroad. It always goes far worse when the US (or generally external agents) "does something" than when you just stay between the Atlantic and Pacific, and between the Grande and the Saint Lawrence.

And remember I say this as a furriner.

The US is a great, great civilization and empire. [* No, the US are not a nation, and I would not describe them as a country either except in the most basic political sense]. But I want the US inside their own borders, not anywhere else.

simply because the way it is meets your approval no matter how bad it is here.

No, the way it is meets my approval because often enough I see the alternatives being worse. I mean, yes, I love Singapore, but over 300 million people over half a continent are never going to be Singapore. But they can be America.

Things do not have to be good in order for many intellectuals to support it; it simply needs to meet their intellectual and emotional sensibilities.

Agreed.

The US got the ball rolling,

No, it was the UK. Although the US has caught up at times, the UK is still where it started, where it is most entrenched and where it will take longest to end.

Youths DO NOT have rights here, regardless of what their individual living conditions may be. This is what you're not getting, because you are letting your blind jingoistic loyalty get in the way. The same thing that brought out your asshole side prior to my last hiatus. And far more youths live in levels of poverty here that they should NEVER come close to experiencing, no matter how worse it may be elsewhere.

I rest my case. If your best example is poverty, you proved me right.

Yes, I agree that too many youths are poor. But if that's the worst thing they're undergoing, then they're fine by comparative standards.

And yes, you hate and call jingoistic that I mention this, but America is the only country where the poor have new iphones, recent cars, heating and AC at home, where their medical access problem is that marijuana is illegal (even though it's trivial to obtain), their food problem is either obesity or anorexia, and welfare access doesn't require simultaneous training or community service (because that reminds us too much of slavery).

Yes, even so, fewer Americans should be poor.

Most of them wouldn't last a week living like the poor live in many other places, even developed countries. Saying that isn't jingoistic, it's just stating the facts of the world.

But, again, even if poverty is still, certainly, not ideal, if that's the best example of lack of rights, then they do have many rights.

It's more than bad ENOUGH, and can always get WORSE if we tolerate it at the levels it's currently at rather than fight to improve it. You keep overlooking this fact.

I'm not overlooking it, but on here, other than Vichy, who isn't fighting to improve it? Even in the meatspace, there are more people fighting for it than you think (and fewer fighting against than you think).

The fact that younger people still cannot vote,

The US does not require an ID to vote. (Which is rare in the world, by the way)

unable to access any information without parental permission,

The usage rates of smartphones and mobile devices strongly hint that, while this may be the delusion under which both parents and blueskins work, it is no longer really true.

frequently unhappy enough to run away from home in large numbers each year

God bless they have freedom to travel. In other countries, this is prevented by passport or ID requirements on every transportation (which are usually not even targeted at runaways, but it is a side effect of those requirements).

are unable to choose their relationships, and the fact that we are still arrested for even kissing a younger person we may love or for looking at and admiring a nude picture of one of them, and younger people are arrested for sexting each other

All of which I fight against too. All of which exist outside the US too.

Wait! Weren't you unhappy above that Turkey was taking a definite step to correct the first two? I seem to remember that's how this thread started, was I drunk?

Now I don't get it.

° US has policy X: bad.
° Turkey undermines policy X: bad

Lolwut?

you are letting your US jingoism compromise your dedication to youth rights.

Then how do I call your position regarding the prospective Turkish lowering of their marriage age? Turkophobia?

The Aoc laws NOT enforced here?? Are you seriously that delusional?

The majority of statutory [somethings] in the US are minor on minor, or barely adult on barely minor.

The majority of those are not even brought to the attention of blueskins. Even those cases which are reported are not always charged.

Come on, where do you think the high rates of teen pregnancies come from? Fluoridated water?

The fact that people do not agree with some of the worst epic fails on your part, that you make periodically amidst all the admittedly good stuff you have contributed over the years, does not mean they are reading you wrong or fail at being intellectual. In fact, one need not be intellectual to see that some of the things you have said and supported periodically are bad.

It is one thing to disagree. Another to not even read external links provided in support of a point. If I say leaves are green, then someone else says no, and I link to a study on what produces leaves' colors... I expect the reply, if they don't come to agree that leaves are green, will at least incorporate the info I posted saying that they were. If the reply repeats the same points already addressed, then sorry, but I just wasted my time.

For the record, you've never done this, that I've seen. I fully recognize that and that's a very good reason why I like you so much as a mind. Even when you're wrong.

Looking down on those who disagree with you does not make them worth looking down on. That would include me, of course, since you and I agree on far, far less over the past year than we used to back during the days we were close friends and allies.

I'm sorry that you're trying so hard to fit into that coat, when I'm very clearly referring to Vichy.

However, when it comes to topics that are fully relevant to our situation and that of younger people, like the use of language issue, then I have no choice but to oppose you on that, since that matter is very on-topic. I'm sorry if it hurts you, but I no longer feel bad for you after receiving a taste of your less than positive side. So, yes, in this case, you will have to deal with my less than positive side as well.

In that case, and in the spirit of peace, I will stop using the R word and the A word at all.

Secondly, when have I ever been one of the die hard atheists and anti-religionists that you have met here in large numbers? You know I chose an alternative religious path to the Religions of the Book due to my dissatisfaction with the Christian religion I was raised in and the status quo they favored, but I did not ultimately choose agnosticism or atheism. I eventually found what I considered good reason not to do that, though I respect and support the rights of people to dissent from all religion, I have grown increasingly glad that I didn't choose that path, because the path of atheism is not right for everyone.

Thirdly, regarding "traditional" religion if by that you mean the Religions of the Book, I have been critical of their dogmatic aspects, and will continue to be, but when have I ever argued that they are entirely bereft of positive points and contributions to the world depending upon the context in which they are used, and what aspect of them we happen to be talking about?

Again, why you want to wear that coat is beyond me.

It wasn't about you. It was a general point about criticizing pedo friendly (and may I remind, youth friendly) developments just because they come from traditional religion. You've never done that, that I've seen. Not even here -- though you came close.

By traditional religion... I mean traditional religion. I don't mean only the Abrahamic religions: the Dharmic and East Asian religions are as much traditional as Abrahamic in the sense I mean. Even Paganism can be just as traditional.

On the other hand, I also don't mean all of those religions. Small groups can maybe be classified in their whole as traditional or (for the lack of a better world, provisionally) "modern", but bigger groups tend to have both traditional and modern wings. Probably the simplest example to show would be Judaism. I would consider Orthodox Jews as traditional (and, if we consider them validly Jewish, Karaites, Samaritans and Shabbateans), Conservative Jews as moderately traditional, and Reform Jews as "modern" (and, if we consider them validly Jewish, Humanistic Jews and most of Messianic Jews).

Granted, it is for the moment a very ad hoc classification, but I think it can be refined, defined without confusions, and made analytically useful.

In other words, since the anti-religion thing doesn't apply to me personally, kindly take it to Baldur, who would truly disagree with you on that matter, and then engage in a pointless argument over religion with each other that neither of you will ever convince the other to change your respective POV on

You'd be surprised. I brought Baldur back to Christendom.

Perseverance of the Saints, is what it's called.

And what is this "Kebab" business?

You'll have to find for yourself, I'm not giving more links out. *tongue out*