EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3920
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On April 21 2023 21:06 BlackJack wrote: People should also be allowed to object if any tax dollars are going to fund religious themed story hours for children, don’t you agree? Also I suspect the bigger objection to drag queen story hour has less to do with fearing the drag queen will throw down the book and start fondling all the children and more to do with being against exposing small children to different ideas about gender. At least that would be my concern as someone that believes there’s a social contagion aspect to the explosion in the youth that identify as nonbinary, trans or gender fluid. Of course I agree. Though the objection being what exactly in this case? It cant be exposing children to gender as there's fuck all outrage about blue pants and pink dresses - unless the boy wears the dress. Gender stereotypes are no problem but being out of the norm is? Fuck no thats no basis for objection. There is no evidence that anything harmful is taking place. Should public policy follow data or feelings? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On April 22 2023 23:24 Artisreal wrote: Of course I agree. Though the objection being what exactly in this case? It cant be exposing children to gender as there's fuck all outrage about blue pants and pink dresses - unless the boy wears the dress. Gender stereotypes are no problem but being out of the norm is? Fuck no thats no basis for objection. There is no evidence that anything harmful is taking place. Should public policy follow data or feelings? I suspect there’s a lot of things that we don’t consider appropriate for children that we don’t have data that quantifies harm. Is your position by default what you have offered here which is “show me evidence of emotional scarring to children, otherwise if you don’t like it you can leave the country.” If you want to spend the tax dollars on the drag queens shouldn’t you be the one to show the data of some benefit of having drag queens read to children? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13736 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2593 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
On April 23 2023 11:50 JimmiC wrote: Also, the point is being missed. It is that the people making all the noise do not "care about the children" if they did they would go after the already proven ones. It is a justification that lets thrm pretend they are not hateful. Its about hiding their intent by changing the conversation to something they think they feel they can argue. Absolutely correct. We have seen this pattern from US conservatives over and over again. They just lie, because if they were to say the thing they actually want to say, that wouldn't go over well. They instead need a smokescreen to hide it behind. What they actually want to say here is "I hate gay people and think being gay should be illegal". But people don't agree with that. So they hide between this obvious smoke of implausible deniability where they can claim that that is not what they are actually on about, but instead it is all about "protecting the children" or whatever. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States519 Posts
1. Complete intolerance: Even in your own private thoughts you despise the existence of a particular thing. 2. Personal tolerance: In your head you think “If someone is X/wants to be X in the privacy of their own home, that’s fine. I got no problems with that. Just keep it to yourself.” 3. Societal tolerance: Accept the normalization of X into everyday society and allow it to become a part of “how things are”. It took the civil rights movement from the ‘60’s onwards to get most conservatives from 1 to 2 on a lot of things, and to this day when you ask them to define “acceptance”/“not being racist”/etc. their definitions will align with 2. They think that’s enough, all that needs to happen. Of course it’s much easier to go from 1 to 2 than 2 to 3, and that’s what all the culture wars are about. The good news is that we’ve figured out that over time we can make 3 happen by saying “screw you” to conservatives and make things the new normal by living it normally. The kids of these conservatives will be exposed to it more often in society, along with others who have accepted it as normal, and are way more likely than their predecessors to get to 3. Haters gonna’ hate. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1885 Posts
On April 23 2023 21:56 Ryzel wrote: The secret to why conservatives throw a hissy fit about drag storytime and not Sunday school/beauty pageants lies in their name; conservative. I imagine overall they care less about the gay part (although I’m sure a bunch do), and more about the “changing what it means to be normal” part. In my life I’ve observed tolerance boiled down to three forms… 1. Complete intolerance: Even in your own private thoughts you despise the existence of a particular thing. 2. Personal tolerance: In your head you think “If someone is X/wants to be X in the privacy of their own home, that’s fine. I got no problems with that. Just keep it to yourself.” 3. Societal tolerance: Accept the normalization of X into everyday society and allow it to become a part of “how things are”. It took the civil rights movement from the ‘60’s onwards to get most conservatives from 1 to 2 on a lot of things, and to this day when you ask them to define “acceptance”/“not being racist”/etc. their definitions will align with 2. They think that’s enough, all that needs to happen. Of course it’s much easier to go from 1 to 2 than 2 to 3, and that’s what all the culture wars are about. The good news is that we’ve figured out that over time we can make 3 happen by saying “screw you” to conservatives and make things the new normal by living it normally. The kids of these conservatives will be exposed to it more often in society, along with others who have accepted it as normal, and are way more likely than their predecessors to get to 3. Haters gonna’ hate. This makes a lot of sense. Conservative politicians in the US have been brilliant of making their voters scared that they are under threat. I don't think it is too hard to find channels when they say exactly what they mean. I find it curious that "cancel culture" is mainly a left-wing fenomenon, so a true liberal society (as I see it) is under siege from both sides. Things are indeed changing on how we look at transgenders. If you dig a bit, there are even some questions with no obvious solutions, like passports, competetive sports and who can go to women's prisons. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On April 23 2023 08:44 BlackJack wrote: I suspect there’s a lot of things that we don’t consider appropriate for children that we don’t have data that quantifies harm. Is your position by default what you have offered here which is “show me evidence of emotional scarring to children, otherwise if you don’t like it you can leave the country.” If you want to spend the tax dollars on the drag queens shouldn’t you be the one to show the data of some benefit of having drag queens read to children? Like what? And no, it is not. What it entails though, is that with a severe restriction of a freedom, there has to be a robust basis on which grounds it can be restricted. This is not given with drag story time. There is zero basis for that. There are no arguments brought forth here as to why it is shouldn't be appropriate to have children listen to a stereotypical-womenlike dressed person. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22681 Posts
A new NBC News poll found that 60 percent of Americans think Trump shouldn’t try to retake the Oval Office — including roughly a third of Republicans. Thirty percent of those who think he shouldn’t campaign in 2024 cite the criminal charges he faces in New York as a “major” reason. At the same time, 70 percent of Americans think Biden shouldn’t seek a second term — including 51 percent of Democrats. Forty-eight percent of those who said he shouldn’t run again cited his age as a “major” reason. thehill.com It's strange to see these numbers in relation to the probability that in a purported democracy we'll all somehow end up with no choice but to vote for one of them. That seems indicative to me of foundational systemic problems that undermine the very values the system is ostensibly meant to protect. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
You can vote for someone who isn't running as an R or a D. You can also vote in 50% (sometimes more) of the major primaries. This is more a people problem than a system problem, even though it's also a system problem. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
| ||
| ||
