Jump to content

The Grooming Epidemic is Spreading


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

If you think it is only the political right who sees the danger of gender ideology, this Scottish lesbian would like to have a word with you:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/edinburgh-fringe-comic-spat-shunned-27762754

Also, pay attention to what is happening in the UK.  Tavistock being shut down.  Law suits starting up.  Let's hope the same comes to the US soon.

TERFs are not a new phenomenon. One more getting a one-sided endorsement as a victim does not impress me. i would encourage you to read up on her a little more.

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

Should we include the Turner Diaries in middle school or high school libraries?

No.

I also refuse to allow whataboutism about Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries to somehow make them equivalent to a story about a penguin with two dads or a novel with a lesbian protagonist.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a tricky subject that too many groups hijack for their own personal reasons.  

For most people, book bannings are bad, until it's a book that they personally believe is detrimental/inappropriate to a child.  Then suddenly removing a book from a public school library is the sensible option.

The real problem isn't that some books are banned.  It's that people disagree on which books that should be.

If it were honest disagreement I would agree with you. Considering that in some states having a gay or lesbian or bi character in a book with no sexually explicit content at all is cause for removal I don’t allow that these people are arguing in good faith. If a book is pornographic or heavily erotic then sure, there are discussions to be had about where to draw lines. This is not the argument. This is an attempt to cut LGBT kids and teens off from role models or representation. It is designed to isolate them. It is cruel and it is being done not in spite of but because it is cruel. The cruelty is the point.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also refuse to allow whataboutism about Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries to somehow make them equivalent to a story about a penguin with two dads or a novel with a lesbian protagonist.

Our library has Main Kampf, though circulation is restricted. One of my students checked it to complete an assignment for me (it was rhetorical analysis).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No.

People who complain about whataboutism are simply admitting that they aren't operating from any principal.  All you are doing is deflecting that you want to impose your preferences and act like it is a principled moral stand.

Should we keep To Kill a Mockingbird?  What about Huck Finn?

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

People who complain about whataboutism are simply admitting that they aren't operating from any principal.  All you are doing is deflecting that you want to impose your preferences and act like it is a principled moral stand.

I think your claim here ignores the fundamental issues with whataboutisming.

I dislike whataboutism and hypothetical “imagine this” because both in a hypothetical situation and the what about situation, there will be important factors that are present that are not able to be taken into account because of the simplistic approach (whataboutism uses something usually vaguely similar, not identical) and therefore you may end up with completely wrong conclusions from what you would conclude in a/the real life situation.  And then if it just so happens that the situation comes along in real life for hypotheticals, you may be screwed because you have already biased yourself into acting a certain way that makes things worse, not better, because you assume your former conclusions apply in the real case even if they wouldn’t if you came at it cold, without much forethought.  Same thing for what about if you think it aligns well enough with something that has significant differences. 
 

Bottom line for me is that simplification of complicated issues rarely ends well, so why do it.

edited because I got distracted and left out half of my idea, the more important half too, lol. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Transcript is imperfect (done by machine so gets names wrong) but this is a good interview with the guy who coined the phrase:

https://slate.com/transcripts/N2RFZk5HRFFGSEZWUzhMR2U4Ykp4a3ZkZVEwdlhZMVhnbHhHQTdTTzRFOD0=

Yes, it’s kind of a political bullying. It’s not enough to oppose your enemies; you must mock, belittle, and demonize them. Thus you get the Mein Kampf comparisons and call a soccer player a cretin.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I see you are using talking points from that cretin Megan Rapinoe.  Well played.

It was coined by Adam Serwer in his book. So you are a gay and lesbian rights advocate who thinks Megan Rapinoe is cretinous? #suspicious

8 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

People who complain about whataboutism are simply admitting that they aren't operating from any principal.  All you are doing is deflecting that you want to impose your preferences and act like it is a principled moral stand.

Whataboutism was the favored technique of Soviet Russia to deflect criticism. Any time the Soviets did something bad their reaction was “but the Americans did X”. Even if the Americans were equally wrong (rare) it suggests that the Soviets are beyond reproach unless everyone criticizing them is completely virtuous. In the rare cases someone approached that level of virtue you just lie and make something up and deflect with whataboutism anyways.

Whataboutism IS DEFLECTION! Complaining about whataboutism is complaining about deflection. Words have meaning.

13 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Should we keep To Kill a Mockingbird?  What about Huck Finn?

And in the same post you devolve into more whataboutism! Are you shooting to be awarded the Order of Lenin or something?

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Transcript is imperfect (done by machine so gets names wrong) but this is a good interview with the guy who coined the phrase:

https://slate.com/transcripts/N2RFZk5HRFFGSEZWUzhMR2U4Ykp4a3ZkZVEwdlhZMVhnbHhHQTdTTzRFOD0=

I don’t know, but he seems to have started with a conclusion and then looked for an explanation rather than considered it was not meant to be cruel in the first place, but haven’t read the book to see his documentation and development of his argument, so I could be wrong. 
 

I am not automatically disagreeing with his conclusion. I find the idea that cruelty shared creates a sense of community, bonding quite interesting. That to me is a good point, but is it enough to explain what is happening with support for Trump, I don’t think so.

——

voters of color cast ballots for a candidate that they thought was racist because they felt like their economic interests were served by having him in office.”

Why couldn’t this also be true for many white voters?

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Megan Rapinoe is cretinous? #suspicious

Are you serious?  Supporting gay rights means I have to support a woman-hating sex-traitor?  A woman -- who after being successful herself -- is happy to throw young women under the bus. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t know, but he seems to have started with a conclusion and then looked for an explanation rather than considered it was not meant to be cruel in the first place. 
 

I am not automatically disagreeing with his conclusion. I find the idea that cruelty shared creates a sense of community, bonding quite interesting. That to me is a good point, but is it enough to explain what is happening with support for Trump, I don’t think so.

——

voters of color cast ballots for a candidate that they thought was racist because they felt like their economic interests were served by having him in office.”

Why couldn’t this also be true for many white voters?

 

It is true for them but if you have not listened to Trump or hardcore Trumper political rallies I suggest you do so. They create community through shared hatred. It is not about policy or improvement. It is about owning, humiliating, and defeating the enemy. The enemy must be punished. If they truly wanted the policies there were much better candidates to vote for that could have achieved that. They wanted to hurt people.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ipod Touch said:

I'm demonstrating that you are not operating from any moral principal.  You simply want to impose your will.

Should we keep the Malleus Maleficarum on school shelves? How about the Necronomicon?

I am demonstrating that you are operating from the amoral principles of the Great Old Ones who will return to devour us all when the stars are right.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If it were honest disagreement I would agree with you. Considering that in some states having a gay or lesbian or bi character in a book with no sexually explicit content at all is cause for removal I don’t allow that these people are arguing in good faith. If a book is pornographic or heavily erotic then sure, there are discussions to be had about where to draw lines. This is not the argument. This is an attempt to cut LGBT kids and teens off from role models or representation. It is designed to isolate them. It is cruel and it is being done not in spite of but because it is cruel. The cruelty is the point.

I think there is room for accusations of stuff not being in good faith on both sides.

Both sides are good at vilifying the other (or imputing the worst motive’s possible for actions they disagree with).

But in regards to banning books, I’d rather not ban than ban. But my opinion on it isn’t really any more “worthy” than most people’s. And that’s where the trickiness comes in to play. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Are you serious?  Supporting gay rights means I have to support a woman-hating sex-traitor?  A woman -- who after being successful herself -- is happy to throw young women under the bus. 

“Sex Traitors” would be a good name for a band.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is true for them but if you have not listened to Trump or hardcore Trumper political rallies I suggest you do so. They create community through shared hatred. It is not about policy or improvement. It is about owning, humiliating, and defeating the enemy. The enemy must be punished. If they truly wanted the policies there were much better candidates to vote for that could have achieved that. They wanted to hurt people.

I don’t disagree about rallies (at least the ones I saw), but the vast majority of people who voted for Trump likely never went to a rally. If you are merely talking about the more active Trump supporters, the ones who see Trump as their candidate, the rallies will be informative, imo. But if you are talking about Trump voters in general, I think that is problematic. (I did not vote for Trump, but I know quite a few people who did; only a few made excuses for his cruel behaviour).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

I don’t disagree about rallies, but the vast majority of people who voted for Trump likely never went to a rally. If you are merely talking about the more active Trump supporters, the ones who see Trump as their candidate, the rallies will be informative, imo. But if you are talking about Trump voters in general, I think that is problematic. 

I don’t. They bought the whole package. Even if they don’t support the cruelty they knew it was there and were okay with it.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree about rallies, but the vast majority of people who voted for Trump likely never went to a rally. If you are merely talking about the more active Trump supporters, the ones who see Trump as their candidate, the rallies will be informative, imo. But if you are talking about Trump voters in general, I think that is problematic. 

The point for me is that the base is all about cruelty; the “economic interests” voters were happy to ignore the cruelty. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

; the “economic interests” voters were happy to ignore the cruelty. 

I don’t think “happy” matches most of the responses I saw much. I think that is demonizing to a great extent. 

Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

I don’t think “happy” matches most of the responses I saw much. I think that is demonizing to a great extent. 

Then I’ll just replace “happy” with “willing.”

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then I’ll just replace “happy” with “willing.”

I don’t agree with the “ignore” part. 
 

What I saw from most was a weighing of effects, one of which was comparing the damage done by the cruelty or prejudice in making decisions and the damage that would be done they believed by the Democrat candidates through what they saw as harmful economic policies. They chose what they saw as the lesser of two evils (is it worse to experience racism in a job or not have a job at all?), that there would be less longterm damage created by choosing someone with better economic policy and would therefore allow people in general including minorities to be more financially secure even if Trump’s other policies would have negative effects as well. The general community as well as most individuals being in a better financial situation would allow them to counteract more effectively the hardships imposed by racist, etc policies. 
 

Whether they were right or not, in general that was how they saw the situation.  They saw financial security as the starting point, the most important factor in safety. Focusing on improving that was not ignoring other factors anymore than choosing to weed the most invasive or poisonous weed in the garden first is ignoring weeding the minor ones or fertilizing.  It is prioritizing. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t agree with the “ignore” part. 
 

What I saw from most was a weighing of effects, one of which was comparing the damage done by the cruelty or prejudice in making decisions and the damage that would be done they believed by the Democrat candidates through what they saw as harmful economic policies. They chose what they saw as the lesser of two evils (is it worse to experience racism in a job or not have a job at all?), that there would be less longterm damage created by choosing someone with better economic policy and would therefore allow people in general including minorities to be more financially secure even if Trump’s other policies would have negative effects as well. The general community as well as most individuals being in a better financial situation would allow them to counteract more effectively the hardships imposed by racist, etc policies. 
 

Whether they were right or not, in general that was how they saw the situation.  They saw financial security as the starting point, the most important factor in safety. Focusing on improving that was not ignoring other factors anymore than choosing to weed the most invasive or poisonous weed in the garden first is ignoring weeding the minor ones or fertilizing.  It is prioritizing. 

I guess I am coming from never having met a reluctant Trump voter. Everyone I know who says they voted for Trump is one of those base folks who are all in. I know there are people who held their nose and voted for him, and I can understand that. I just wish I knew some of them. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...