12-27-23 • Willie Hortoning
Plexy: Outrageous! A black trans activist sexually abused her own nephews!
Orda: And about the white male Republican rapist, nothing. Typical.
Plexy: I can't believe THAT'S your takeaway!
What are you hoping the takeaway will be from this posting?
Mara: I don't think anyone here would generalize about an entire community based on this one case...but some people might.
This is my concern. This event is being presented as evidence that the Democrats are coming for your children. Don't look if you are squeamish:
"To the people of the LGBTQ community, is there any wonder why the vast majority of the people in this country refuse to accept you and your life still? This is exactly why."
"True. No one cared about what they did in their own bedrooms and stayed in the closet, out of normal people’s sight. Normal people were appalled when they started strutting their sicknesses out in public. But they definitely crossed the line, and disgusted us when they started coming after OUR children."
"One thing everyone should remember is that they told everyone that they are coming for the children."
"Gender Identity Disorder needs treatment, not acceptance and privilege."
"And people STILL wonder why they (drag queens and LGBQT….) are pushing so hard to get the teachers and schools to let them have access to your children……at school, your kids are easy-pickings….a captive audience!"
"This is not about dress up. It is about access to children for sexual purposes. It's just trying to legitimize what is currently illegal."
"The LGBTQ support the grooming of children. "
"This is exactly the type of person Target allows into the women's rooms. Do you really want that next to your small children, or worse, a female who is in there alone with him?"
"RNC, the Dems are giving you great material for your ad campaigns. I hope you have the courage to use it."
"How many more data points do we need for everyone to understand that these folks are not all there? Hmmm. And all of them are democrats. Can the divide be any more clear?"
This is far from the worst and it goes on for days. It doesn't matter how much we are respectful and try to focus on the real issue - this case is being used to "Willie Horton" the election, and this will result in more prejudice, fear and hatred for the LGBTQ community.
Click to show Fox News comments
"To the people of the LGBTQ community, is there any wonder why the vast majority of the people in this country refuse to accept you and your life still? This is exactly why."
"True. No one cared about what they did in their own bedrooms and stayed in the closet, out of normal people’s sight. Normal people were appalled when they started strutting their sicknesses out in public. But they definitely crossed the line, and disgusted us when they started coming after OUR children."
"One thing everyone should remember is that they told everyone that they are coming for the children."
"Gender Identity Disorder needs treatment, not acceptance and privilege."
"And people STILL wonder why they (drag queens and LGBQT….) are pushing so hard to get the teachers and schools to let them have access to your children……at school, your kids are easy-pickings….a captive audience!"
"This is not about dress up. It is about access to children for sexual purposes. It's just trying to legitimize what is currently illegal."
"The LGBTQ support the grooming of children. "
"This is exactly the type of person Target allows into the women's rooms. Do you really want that next to your small children, or worse, a female who is in there alone with him?"
"RNC, the Dems are giving you great material for your ad campaigns. I hope you have the courage to use it."
"How many more data points do we need for everyone to understand that these folks are not all there? Hmmm. And all of them are democrats. Can the divide be any more clear?"
This is far from the worst and it goes on for days. It doesn't matter how much we are respectful and try to focus on the real issue - this case is being used to "Willie Horton" the election, and this will result in more prejudice, fear and hatred for the LGBTQ community.
12-17-23 • Biden's Christmas Dancing Defunders
Plexy: Critics are roasting Jill Biden's holiday decorations and the bizarre "Hunger Games" aesthetic of the tap-dancers in her video.
Sparty Girl: I really liked the video - thought it was fun and lighthearted. She's a school teacher, it's fun for the children...like Candyland meets Nutcracker.
Plexy: This is a complete woke mob that supports defunding the police and the pro Palestine movement among other things. Just look up their website and mission statement - Dorrance Dance Troup.
Sparty Girl:
I’m confused. Is the complaint that the number looked too “Hunger Games” or that the dance group supports BLM? Just want to know where to direct my outrage, lol.
Plexy: While the arts are a powerful medium for expression, using a festive occasion like Christmas to subtly endorse ideas like prison abolition and defunding the police is concerning.
Sparty Girl: OMG, how horrific! Lol.
Cortana: Getting rid of prisons might end up being pretty horrific...
Not if they were replaced by something better. Ditto police. There is a real discussion to be had here with psychologists and sociologists and criminal justice experts who have real recommendations for reform that would ease human suffering AND reduce crime.
Anyone is free to disagree. But why hate it? Why hate people who want to discuss it?
Anyone is free to disagree. But why hate it? Why hate people who want to discuss it?
Cortana: Because something better would be the way they run things at Bastoy prison… but that’s still a prison.
Point is, there is NO political position of just opening the gates and turning loose the monsters and never fighting crime again. That's the idea people hate. Maybe if they listened to what people were actually proposing, they wouldn't be so afraid of discussing real prison reform.
Cortana: It’s a political standpoint. Some people support it, some people are wholeheartedly against it. They hate the idea, not the people who want to discuss it. The people are interchangeable, the political idea is what holds the dislike.
That does not explain hating this dance troupe, or hating the "woke mob". That's just hate.
Cortana: That exactly explains disliking them both to the point of not wanting the president that represents you to support it by supporting the groups that advocate for these political ideas.
That's a pretty weak excuse for "Hunger Gaming" this dance troupe. They will now be subjected to death threats.
Cortana: So now we can’t say a dance troupes’ aesthetic is akin to a popular movies aesthetic without being weary of death threats because of it ?
You just did, lol.
People can say whatever they want about their aesthetic but we all know that was never the point. "Hunger Gaming" was my euphemism for throwing these dancers to the wolves, by claiming that they are part of a "woke mob" and that they support crime and terrorism and that they show how the Bidens and Democrats and Liberals are dangerous.
That has nothing to do with discussing their aesthetic, that was just the hook.
People can say whatever they want about their aesthetic but we all know that was never the point. "Hunger Gaming" was my euphemism for throwing these dancers to the wolves, by claiming that they are part of a "woke mob" and that they support crime and terrorism and that they show how the Bidens and Democrats and Liberals are dangerous.
That has nothing to do with discussing their aesthetic, that was just the hook.
Sparty Girl: It’s just sad to me that our political divisions are so great that we can’t even enjoy a Christmas show in its face value.
What would also be helpful is a straightforward discussion of issues like criminal justice reform and turmoil in the Mid East which is charitable to both sides. There ARE better ways to do things. Experts have informed advice that would really help. I wish that was as interesting as flame wars.
----------------------------------------
Sparty Girl: What does "Defund the police" mean anyway?
"Defund the police" means let's put more money into prevention and that will cost less than paying to clean up the problems. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, you know? It's not evil.
Sparty Girl: I keep hearing different definitions. Like this one:
“‘Defund the police’ means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality,” writes University of Maryland sociologist Rashawn Ray in a June 2020 Brookings Institution blog post. “That’s it. It’s that simple.
Is this what it is?
I think those two mean the same thing. If we put funding into other public services, that costs less and does more to prevent crime than arresting criminals and paying all the costs associated with incarceration.
I think the real problem is that all public services are starved for funding, including police departments. I think we should lushly fund preventative social services, AND lushly fund police departments to get officers the best training, as well as putting people in other important roles on the beat, like social workers, conflict resolution experts and crisis prevention counselors. We are the richest society on earth, we can easily afford all this.
I think the real problem is that all public services are starved for funding, including police departments. I think we should lushly fund preventative social services, AND lushly fund police departments to get officers the best training, as well as putting people in other important roles on the beat, like social workers, conflict resolution experts and crisis prevention counselors. We are the richest society on earth, we can easily afford all this.
Cortana: “For some, “defund the police” is a movement, a stepping stone toward abolishing police departments entirely.
Society needs a few dreamers. If people want to discuss "abolishing police departments entirely," it's worth listening. It starts a conversation of what the exact role of police should be, a discussion we have never really had as a society and one that is long overdue. We do need a radical re-thinking of how we want to create peace and order in our society, based on modern discoveries about human psychology and social well-being, because the status quo we inherited from the Dark Ages is not working.
I don't think we need to live in fear that police will be "abolished" in our lifetime. It's a thought experiment, with almost no real traction. A lot of the hand-wringing over this phrase is just fear-mongering.
I don't think we need to live in fear that police will be "abolished" in our lifetime. It's a thought experiment, with almost no real traction. A lot of the hand-wringing over this phrase is just fear-mongering.
Cortana: It’s a thought experiment that literally ended with people dead, raped, robbed and without ever getting justice because the experiment failed when it was attempted.
If we’re going to have a nationwide constructive conversation about law enforcement, the depletion of law enforcement allowing for only vigilante justice should not be part of the conversation.
Nothing like real social support has EVER been attempted, so the failures of just removing police prove nothing about the long-term goal of re-ordering society so that we don't need as many police. This is different from that, so equating them is what I meant by fearmongering.
More importantly, if we want to combat depletion of law enforcement there is a very simple answer, and the same one for teachers and other public servants. Give them good jobs and pay them well. That will attract recruits and retain the experienced and if their operations are well funded and supplied and trained they will perform better. Higher risk jobs should get even better pay, why not? The real problem is that people can't make a comfortable living in these professions any more. If they could, people would line up.
More importantly, if we want to combat depletion of law enforcement there is a very simple answer, and the same one for teachers and other public servants. Give them good jobs and pay them well. That will attract recruits and retain the experienced and if their operations are well funded and supplied and trained they will perform better. Higher risk jobs should get even better pay, why not? The real problem is that people can't make a comfortable living in these professions any more. If they could, people would line up.
Ida:Excuse me, but doesn’t “defund” means “not providing money”? And now you’re saying that it’s really about doing something that requires more money? Because how can you provide further training with funds cut down?
It was just a phrase that some people scrawled on cardboard signs to carry at the George Floyd protests. Like "woke" it has mainly become a slur.
Cortana: I think you’re glamorizing criminals here… and that’s not meant as an insult, if anything that means you truly have a good heart.
But a lot of criminals don’t. They’re not only the type that turns to a life of crime because they don’t have enough money to feed their families…
Some like raping people. Some like to torture and kill people, Some like to steal pointless things like a tv that’s 12 inches bigger than the one they currently have. Some like to steal millions of dollars from their clients because they didn’t think the half a million dollar salary they get is good enough. Domestic assault cases will still need someone to show up and save the victim…
Increasing social programs and making healthcare available for all, education available for all ect. Is a great and noble idea… and it will help millions of people.
But even then, we will need police around to hold that line between the law abiding citizens and the true criminals…
I don't disagree. People are people and will be subject to violence and greed and bad decisions and psychopathy. I'm not proposing a world without police. But, I think that once you correct for deprivation and exploitation, we might need a police force half the size it is now. Then once you teach people conflict resolution, and have appropriate fellow responders for mental health and personal conflict and youth services, etc, you could shave a few more percent off. Then, we could look at other ways to prevent or solve conflicts and just see how many more crimes could be prevented instead of mopped up, maybe next year have one less cop and one more counselor. Etc. It's a process.
We may never see a world where police aren't necessary but we should keep trying. Otherwise we might stop short of what we could achieve.
We may never see a world where police aren't necessary but we should keep trying. Otherwise we might stop short of what we could achieve.
Ida:Oh please!!!! So much rationalization to a very clear statement! Defund- “prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds.” - funds: “a sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose.”
I'm sure the person who wrote it on the sign meant that. That doesn't mean we have to fear that it's coming. It's not a plank.
Ida:The idea of coming to a point of not needing a police force is a utopia, it’s not consistent with reality.
We could be preventing a lot of crime and it would cost a lot less than paying for the fallout. Diverting funds to prevention would be cheaper. That's the plank.
Ida:Ok, then let’s 86 that term and serve a more accurate one.
The phrase is not used in any serious policy discussion and it's not part of anyone's plan. Biden and the Democrats say the exact opposite - "Fund the police!" and that's my recommendation too. As I mentioned, it's mainly a political slur used by Republicans to tar Democrats as anarchists.
Similarly, I've read about the term "abolish prisons," and it also means many things to many people, but in terms of policy it mainly means abolishing the prison industrial complex and finding better ways to deal with people who have done wrong. As with police, we may never see the day when we need no prisons, but certainly we could have fewer of them than now if we prevented some crime. Again, it's a process, not a utopia, to see how many more lives we can save.
My point is, these are important policy discussions, and there is absolutely ZERO reason to "hate" these ideas, or this dance troupe, who at worst have a difference of opinion. There is no reason to turn this goofy holiday greeting into a savage example of "us vs. them," or use it to imply that Biden and the Democrats want to turn the whole country into CHOP/CHAZ.
Similarly, I've read about the term "abolish prisons," and it also means many things to many people, but in terms of policy it mainly means abolishing the prison industrial complex and finding better ways to deal with people who have done wrong. As with police, we may never see the day when we need no prisons, but certainly we could have fewer of them than now if we prevented some crime. Again, it's a process, not a utopia, to see how many more lives we can save.
My point is, these are important policy discussions, and there is absolutely ZERO reason to "hate" these ideas, or this dance troupe, who at worst have a difference of opinion. There is no reason to turn this goofy holiday greeting into a savage example of "us vs. them," or use it to imply that Biden and the Democrats want to turn the whole country into CHOP/CHAZ.
Cortana: It wasn't just a few signs...it was legislation that lobbiests attempted to push through the courts and succeeded in some areas. Those areas then saw crime spikes they were not prepared for and people died as a result.
Nobody was prepared for the crime spikes and blaming the death on defunding is disingenuous.
First of all, there was very little actual defunding. Most cities that attempted to shift funds from the police department did so only by a tiny amount, typically 1-3%, and today their police budgets are higher than before.
Secondly, the increase in crime occurred across the board, in red states and blue states, in cities that increased their police budgets as well as cities that lowered them. Experts like the Cato Institute found no correlation between defunding and increases in the homicide rate. In fact, there is very little evidence that incremental changes in police budgets affect crime rates at all. Analysis of data for the last 60 years shows no relationship between year-to-year police spending and crime rates.
CATO Institute
60 Years of Data
Thirdly, there are plenty of obvious explanations for the increase in homicide in particular. For one, the pandemic was a massive disruption with drastic economic and social pressures; and for two, there was a massive increase in the amount of gun ownership, and study after study shows that more guns result in higher rates of homicide.
Mo Guns, Mo Death America
Blaming this political movement for those deaths is ignoring important facts for political points.
First of all, there was very little actual defunding. Most cities that attempted to shift funds from the police department did so only by a tiny amount, typically 1-3%, and today their police budgets are higher than before.
Secondly, the increase in crime occurred across the board, in red states and blue states, in cities that increased their police budgets as well as cities that lowered them. Experts like the Cato Institute found no correlation between defunding and increases in the homicide rate. In fact, there is very little evidence that incremental changes in police budgets affect crime rates at all. Analysis of data for the last 60 years shows no relationship between year-to-year police spending and crime rates.
CATO Institute
60 Years of Data
Thirdly, there are plenty of obvious explanations for the increase in homicide in particular. For one, the pandemic was a massive disruption with drastic economic and social pressures; and for two, there was a massive increase in the amount of gun ownership, and study after study shows that more guns result in higher rates of homicide.
Mo Guns, Mo Death America
Blaming this political movement for those deaths is ignoring important facts for political points.
Cortana: This wasn’t just some idiots with signs, it was a political movement that had traction for a couple of years.
The slogan was from idiots with signs. "Divest and Invest" was the traditional slogan used for this movement before the George Floyd protests. Some people have been calling for this for decades. They aren't anarchists who just want more crime in the streets. They are activists against police abuse of power and racial discrimination. That doesn't make them so dangerous that people with these ideas shouldn't be on a Christmas card from the White House.
Ida:Oh, yeah? I'll have you know that 117 Democrats just voted 'no' on a bill condemning any and all attempts to decrease funding for police departments.
I don't blame them. This bill conflates respecting our officers with never questioning their funding, which is ridiculous - like saying it's not supporting the troops if you want to cut the military budget. You can do both.
12-12-23 • Credit Union Discriminates
Jane: The nation’s largest credit union rejected more than half its Black conventional mortgage applicants. Black applicants making way more money and with better credit scores were turned down in favor of white applicants who made less and were a bigger risk, on paper.
So, obviously, we aren't there yet. Cancel affirmative action!
Cortana: Um, affirmative action would not have affected this.
I know, I was just being facetious. The argument for ending affirmative action is that there is no longer systemic racism. Clearly, there is systemic racism.
Cortana: Since most applications are done online, the loan processors wouldn’t have had any idea what color they are.
So it's just a coincidence?
Cortana: A coincidence? No. Something that can be fixed by addressing the specific barriers that have impacted each individual’s life? Yes.
They are routinely turning down black people who make way more money than the white people they routinely approve. What other kind of "specific barrier" in a person's life becomes the problem when they are making more money and have better credit?
Cortana: If most home loans are approved/disapproved based on a computer program making the decision, where would the racism lie? Is the computer being programmed to be racist?
Cortana: I think every individual should be seen as an individual and they should get the help they specifically need.
I have to agree that not helping people who need it is the real issue.
Cortana: So if we both fully agree that everyone who needs help should absolutely get it… why do you think I am so wrong to believe that people should be seen as individuals as opposed to a racial group when deciding how much help that individual would need?
I don't think that's mutually exclusive with programs designed to re-weight systems that are heavily weighted in favor of white people.
Cortana: If everyone got the help they needed, why would it matter if someone is white?
If everyone who came from a financially insecure background got college grants, why does it matter what race they are?
If every foster kid got college paid for, why would it matter what race they are?
If every single mother got help, what would it matter what race they are?
If we gave every individual in America the specific help they require to overcome the stepping stones to success, why would qualifying them by race help?
When that happens, then it won't. Now, it does.
Cortana: Why don’t you think that happens today?
( I mean that as a literal, because I do think that’s what happens today)
Because today most people are not getting what they need and that's the only reason anyone cares. When everyone has what they need, race disappears. It only arises when there is conflict for resources.
I'd like to see all of the slice-and-dice programs we have today replaced with unconditional basic prosperity. If we did that, we could watch the biases and disparities melt away. But as long as people are struggling, they are going to group up into rival tribes based on historical differences. Not just race, but religion, politics, everything.
If we want to heal the divisions, this is how. But until then, we are stuck slapping these bandaids on human suffering. Of course they don't work but it's stopping a little of the bleeding. So we can't rip them off just yet.
I'd like to see all of the slice-and-dice programs we have today replaced with unconditional basic prosperity. If we did that, we could watch the biases and disparities melt away. But as long as people are struggling, they are going to group up into rival tribes based on historical differences. Not just race, but religion, politics, everything.
If we want to heal the divisions, this is how. But until then, we are stuck slapping these bandaids on human suffering. Of course they don't work but it's stopping a little of the bleeding. So we can't rip them off just yet.
Cortana: Help everyone who needs the help regardless of race, sex, gender, religion, or creed… help individuals with the specific help they need to cater success to their own life.
That is far from what is already happening. Most resources in our society, large and small, are doled out entirely by money. This gives incredibly great advantage to those who have money and incredibly great disadvantage to those who don't have money. And who has money today is largely determined by historical factors, like who was allowed to get a mortgage in the 1950s and 60s.
I agree we should help everyone but we don't. We help almost no one and not even close to enough. As long as aid is doled out in such tiny little dollops, some criteria has to be made for who gets it. Systems like this credit union show that the things people need in our society, even when we try to compensate for it, tend to be denied to black people in favor of white people because of deep historical prejudices. A very few programs that we have in place, like affirmative action, are designed to pull against that deep, systemic bias and level the playing field a bit. This story shows why we still need those pulls.
I agree we should help everyone but we don't. We help almost no one and not even close to enough. As long as aid is doled out in such tiny little dollops, some criteria has to be made for who gets it. Systems like this credit union show that the things people need in our society, even when we try to compensate for it, tend to be denied to black people in favor of white people because of deep historical prejudices. A very few programs that we have in place, like affirmative action, are designed to pull against that deep, systemic bias and level the playing field a bit. This story shows why we still need those pulls.
12-10-23 • Criminalizing Miscarriage
Jane: This case was so sad...trigger warning, the following is disturbing...a woman in Texas miscarried, like many do, into a toilet, and the fetal remains got caught in her plumbing. They are charging her with felony abuse of a corpse.
Sue: Like, what exactly do they hope to accomplish with prosecution. It doesn't save a baby, which is their supposed objective with all this. It just penalizes someone for something out of her control. There is nothing to be gained by this.
Jane: It's not about saving babies - it's about controlling women.
AvaMom: Why?
I saw some video with a MAGA speaker, and he said this: "Enough with women and this 'my body, my choice' crap! That is MY body, it's MY choice, and you will HAVE my baby!"
I think it's this. Men do not realize this, but they are acting instinctively, trying to protect and propagate their own DNA. Not that this makes it right! Of course it doesn't. But I think that is why. Men evolved to control women as a reproductive strategy.
I think it's this. Men do not realize this, but they are acting instinctively, trying to protect and propagate their own DNA. Not that this makes it right! Of course it doesn't. But I think that is why. Men evolved to control women as a reproductive strategy.
AvaMom: I hate to say this…but you are completely wrong when it comes to the motivations of the other side… This has nothing to do with trying to control women, most of the people advocating for their side are women.
LOL, women also evolved for men to control women as a reproductive strategy. It's not just abortion. It's the hijab, or women not having the right vote, or women not having equal rights. All those things are supported by some women. Men in charge was a very stable arrangement for millions of years. A lot of people support it instinctively.
AvaMom: They literally think a fetus has just as much importance as a fully grown human. They actually think it’s murder to kill one…
Yes, but why? That's a really new cultural phenomenon. It may have been a philosophical question, but the specific emphasis on this idea within the context of the anti-abortion movement, and its integration into the political debate, only became prominent after Roe v Wade. It's being preached and driven home as a tactic.
12-08-23 • More Discussion of Anti-Drag Laws
Ama: I don’t think anyone would care if Dame Edna and Mrs. Doubtfire were having a show kids were at, but it is much different when prosthetic vaginas are part of the show…
Jama: What's the big deal about that? Were you at the Women's March?
I was, and I'm reminded of this marcher I photographed in Denver. No one seemed to think this would hurt children.
Ama: I think that kind of behavior definitely hurt the cause.
I for sure didn’t want my daughters thinking that dressing the up like a vagina was a way to fight against the loss of their rights…
I don’t think turning a very serious issue into a mockery was anything but a hinderance to the cause …
we seriously went from the kinds of womens marches in the early 1900’s and civil rights marches in the 60’s where everyone marching was actually out there fighting for their rights, getting tantamount to tortured at some marches and during arrests, changing the minds of the voters because they saw how much of these causes truly impacted American freedom… to grown men frolicking around in a vagina costume while they giggle like schoolgirls…and then we’re shocked when the voters that see these displays lose all inkling that this even matters and we lose our rights.
Thanks for the thought I guess but it delegitimized the cause so much that women are now bleeding out from ruptured uteruses when they can’t get abortions, lost agency over their bodies and lost the ability to fully control their reproductive future…
First of all, it's not a guy. It's totally a woman.
Secondly, this did not delegitimize the cause, and blaming this woman for the loss of abortion rights is awful.
Secondly, this did not delegitimize the cause, and blaming this woman for the loss of abortion rights is awful.
Ama: We can agree to disagree on that. I think it severely delegitimized the cause. We were fighting for life and death choices for women, raped 13 year olds being able to decide their own future. Abused women being able to leave their relationships without forever ties to their abusers… Then it became fake vaginas, harmonicas and people acting like idiots in the streets because they were having fun.
It is an honor to disagree with you, and I'm glad we can discuss it. I don't agree that those things are in conflict. Here are some scrap pages: ((More pictures from Womens' March Here))
As you can see this was an incredibly serious and empowering event for women, and a show of strength. Power to the diversity of expression and the freedom to be unashamed of biology! In my opinion, blaming this woman and this cause for the sacking of their own rights is just more victim-blaming, "she had it coming because of what she was wearing" bullshit. Rights are rights.
But, the original question was whether the sight of this would somehow harm a child who saw it. There is no evidence to suggest that this sight is psychologically damaging, or that viewing a raunchy adult show hurts children in any way. It's not inherently dangerous. Think about what children routinely would have grown up seeing and hearing in the close quarters of the tribal societies we evolved in. Their psyches were made to handle it.
There is zero reason to think adult drag shows represent some kind of threat to children that justifies violating people's rights to freedom of expression and a parent's freedom to decide what their own child can handle. The law is not for protecting children who are under zero threat, from a situation that almost never happens. It's about Othering alternative gender expressions, and that's all.
As you can see this was an incredibly serious and empowering event for women, and a show of strength. Power to the diversity of expression and the freedom to be unashamed of biology! In my opinion, blaming this woman and this cause for the sacking of their own rights is just more victim-blaming, "she had it coming because of what she was wearing" bullshit. Rights are rights.
But, the original question was whether the sight of this would somehow harm a child who saw it. There is no evidence to suggest that this sight is psychologically damaging, or that viewing a raunchy adult show hurts children in any way. It's not inherently dangerous. Think about what children routinely would have grown up seeing and hearing in the close quarters of the tribal societies we evolved in. Their psyches were made to handle it.
There is zero reason to think adult drag shows represent some kind of threat to children that justifies violating people's rights to freedom of expression and a parent's freedom to decide what their own child can handle. The law is not for protecting children who are under zero threat, from a situation that almost never happens. It's about Othering alternative gender expressions, and that's all.
Ama:I think you’re a very good photographer, it’s just not a method of dissent that I think is an impact on the minds that needed to be changed. As for the sentence “psychologically damaging, or that viewing a raunchy adult show hurts children in any way” There is… and that’s nothing to do with drag queens in general, as I said, if it was Dame Edna no one would mind… But there’s a lot of evidence that children being in adult entertainment scenarios where alcohol mixed with sexually raunchy material is being used as entertainment can be damaging to a child.
Then maybe what needs to be disallowed is alcohol at events that allow children. But certainly a child seeing adults drinking isn't inherently dangerous either. People partying, so what? Growing up, my parents threw parties at our home where all the adults were drinking. Millions of Americans drink alcohol and watch sports and yell profanities with their children in the room on every holiday, maybe every weekend. Is this damaging the children? Enough to make it against the law?
In the US, there are 11 million children under the age of 18 living with at least 1 alcoholic parent. Studies show that these kids are at much higher risk of anxiety, depression, guilt, anger issues and inability to trust, and at least four times as likely to develop alcohol dependency themselves. Should we be making this illegal?
If you ask me, adults who are drinking should not be around children at all. BUT, that's not my call to make. It's up to parents to decide how much adult drinking their children can witness. It's often a lot, with real, measurable negative consequences. It affects millions of children, not just a handful. Yet somehow this is not enough to raise a single flag to have the practice outlawed. Not until there is someone in drag there...then suddenly we have to stop it!
It's not about "the children."
In the US, there are 11 million children under the age of 18 living with at least 1 alcoholic parent. Studies show that these kids are at much higher risk of anxiety, depression, guilt, anger issues and inability to trust, and at least four times as likely to develop alcohol dependency themselves. Should we be making this illegal?
If you ask me, adults who are drinking should not be around children at all. BUT, that's not my call to make. It's up to parents to decide how much adult drinking their children can witness. It's often a lot, with real, measurable negative consequences. It affects millions of children, not just a handful. Yet somehow this is not enough to raise a single flag to have the practice outlawed. Not until there is someone in drag there...then suddenly we have to stop it!
It's not about "the children."
Ama:There’s also a big difference between a party at home, where every adult is basically vetted for parental approval to be around their children…
And a nightclub/comedy club/adult entertainment type of public show.
I'm not seeing what the difference is that makes one so dangerous that we must take that decision away from parents and the other not.
11-11-23 • Who Decides What Jesus Would Do?
Clarity: As this satirical article shows, Christians never have to answer for the atrocities committed by Christians in the past.
I used to think the world would be better off without Christianity. It has so much baggage! But, that could take awhile. Lately I think it would be faster if Christianity had a New Reformation. There's a good message there that everybody already knows. We'd just need to convince people that fighting for the poor and against climate change is What Jesus Would Do.
Alita: I think Christians will take this to mean that you think the world would be better off without them.
I doubt it. I trust Christians to have reading comprehension.
Emmy: Anyway that sounds like a them problem!