|
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 |
In the 90's when I was 11 or 12 we received sex ed in school from various teachers with consent from our parents. We were allowed to ask any questions we liked. Of course since we were very very mature we constantly made jokes about masturbation that we found extremely hilarious. The teachers gave room for serious education but also funny moments. A classmate asked what would happen when having the urge to pee while having sex and he obviously meant it as another funny joke, but - while we all laughed - the teacher surprised us by explaining the mechanics behind it and we found that very interesting (I mean which 11 y/o wouldn't? It proves how exceptional the human body is).
We learned how to correctly put condoms on bananas. Very useful skill to have.
We also talked about AIDS, how it spreads, how it can be prevented, and about other STDs. We also talked about sexual orientation and LGBT, just a number of things that were at the forefront during those days.
In hindsight I can't really say any of that negatively impacted my innocence or mental health. I don't think adding a chapter about gender fluidity would've instilled an urge for me to jump from a bridge. Homework, however, sure did.
Maybe we should ban homework.
|
On June 19 2023 06:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 06:33 Simberto wrote:On June 19 2023 06:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob. From the article:
Schoolchildren are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set 'masturbation' as homework, secretive lesson plans reveal.
Many teachers are 'indoctrinating' children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ah, surely this will be a very good source that gives unbiased information with rational analysis. (Lol he said anal!) My source is from the book itself. You can find excerpts from "This book is gay" online: ![[image loading]](https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21c/WY-MR-Library-Books/images/1e-Page_600.jpg)
Thanks for the read, I found that hilarious and educational.
During our sex ed classes in the 90s we read passages that sounded almost exactly like that. What exactly is the issue?
|
Northern Ireland27003 Posts
Doesn’t seem age-appropriate for like, 10 year olds or whatever sure.
That aside I don’t really see some massive problem with it either. We live in a world where a big chunk of people in their mid-teens are already accessing pornography after all, which is hardly a bastion of realistic and emotionally deep appraisals of the activity
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27003 Posts
Disproportionately afraid of. At least where I am countless people struggle due to cripplingly stretched mental health services. Know a few who’ve taken their own lives
Gender dysphoria is in ways more complex to deal with than other conditions I’m familiar with. Mistakes will unfortunately be made, just the nature of the beast as it stands
Trans issues fit into that wider conversation, conservatives want to make them THE conversation and it’s quite transparent why.
|
Unfortunately we'll have to wait for a ruling before we can judge the situation. The information we currently have is insufficient.
If you know of a similar case that was won in court, I'd be happy to hear about it.
|
|
|
The posts above are just one big WTF?
Disproportionately - No offence, but do you have kids?? Thought that someone can mutilate you kid for life, is absolutely terrifying, there is nothing parent is afraid more.
I am not sure what people want to wait for here, girl transitioned at the age of 13, started at age 12, now she regrets it. This is actual tragedy. what you exactly want to wait here for? to find out if she really was a girl? if she really transitioned? if she regrets it? whether, she wins or loose lawsuit have nothing to do with what happened?
@JimmiC
Where did you got idea that I am upset about trans people??? Also whats wrong with you and catholic church? I believe I mentioned somewhere on this forum that I am an atheist and mere few posts earlier I agreed with you that this is an issue. However since you cant let it go: it seems church is not the worst culprit here:
https://www.academia.edu/21997616/A_Forgotten_Study_Abuse_in_School_100_Times_Worse_than_by_Priests
you can now turn your wrath on truly evil organisation.
|
United States44077 Posts
The thing generally made available to teens is puberty blockers which is the absolute opposite of letting them make decisions before they’re old enough.
If a 12 year old boy is old enough to become a man with his own natural hormones then he’s old enough to put that off. Putting off hormones until he’s older with hormone blockers is the opposite of transitioning. And yet the argument that children are too young for medical treatment is somehow used for puberty blockers too.
We never hear that confused teens might be too young to decide that they’re cis and that they want to choose to have their body ravaged by their bio hormones. But if they decide they might not be cis and want to wait until they’re older to decide that’s somehow a step too far.
|
Northern Ireland27003 Posts
On June 19 2023 09:23 Razyda wrote:The posts above are just one big WTF? Disproportionately - No offence, but do you have kids?? Thought that someone can mutilate you kid for life, is absolutely terrifying, there is nothing parent is afraid more. I am not sure what people want to wait for here, girl transitioned at the age of 13, started at age 12, now she regrets it. This is actual tragedy. what you exactly want to wait here for? to find out if she really was a girl? if she really transitioned? if she regrets it? whether, she wins or loose lawsuit have nothing to do with what happened? @JimmiC Where did you got idea that I am upset about trans people??? Also whats wrong with you and catholic church? I believe I mentioned somewhere on this forum that I am an atheist and mere few posts earlier I agreed with you that this is an issue. However since you cant let it go: it seems church is not the worst culprit here: https://www.academia.edu/21997616/A_Forgotten_Study_Abuse_in_School_100_Times_Worse_than_by_Priestsyou can now turn your wrath on truly evil organisation.
The thought that a young person can die due to a chronically underfunded mental health system terrifies me. Hell happened to me just this week some bloke a few years north of 20 in a group I go to. Crying shame
Terrifies me that more and more people, especially in the States are just thrown Ritalin to try to moderate behaviour that’s perfectly within normal parameters
Terrifies me that trans people may be denied care that is, thus far shown to be their best shot because of disproportionate scaremongering. And, also that in a relatively nascent phenomenon that some people will make irreversible decisions that they come to regret as well.
I just don’t buy the latest conservative whinge of the week is all. Which is frequently based on the ‘This thing happened somewhere so it’s reflective of a wider trend’ line of thinking.
I am a parent of a 10 year old myself, I also remember actually being a kid myself. Our biggest national tabloid had chicks with their tits out on page 3 when I was growing up, let’s just say many a newspaper was bought by people with no particular interest in current affairs. We spent inordinate amounts of time discussing which of our classmates or teachers were the hottest. The tech savvy among of us, or those with computers and the internet at the very least had access to porn albeit through a 56k bottleneck. Kids may have even sold burned CDs with same said content.
Do people just forget being horny kids or something?
I absolutely wouldn’t want my 10 year old kiddo with his borderline unhealthy Fortnite obsession and general air of innocence to be reading about getting bummed, sure that’s fair.
By 13/14 I’d rather him get his sex ed from books, or educators where there’s some level of investment in giving a more holistic understanding of all it involves than going down the porn and ignorance route many even of my age were shepherded down
I’d rather folks shoot for being tolerant and make the occasional misstep and adjust than do the opposite.
Hey it’s the small things you notice, my kiddo doesn’t refrain entirely from trash talk (not unlike his old man in his youth) but it’s really noticeable how variants on ‘you’re gay’ as an insult just are barely a thing anymore with that generation. A trajectory I’m absolutely in favour of
|
|
|
Norway28814 Posts
I get the negative reaction to those texts being presented for 10-11 year olds, but I honestly think it is a good thing. For some it is probably a bit early, but the thing is - for a very decent chunk, they've already been exposed to porn. A teacher explaining and contextualizing what they've already seen and gone eww and haha and wtf at isn't that bad of an idea. What more is, while 10-11 year olds are generally not there yet, stuff changes fast. Those same asexual 10-11 year olds might be masturbating when they're 11-12, and it'll be common when they're 12-13. I generally hung out with kids that were 1-2 years older than me when I grew up and I remember myself still being in that asexual phase while other kids would go like hey let's take a 5 minute break from playing football to go jack off, and they two kids (guessing they were 11 although it's nearly 30 years ago so memory isn't 100%) would go to two separate beds and masturbate. Not all 11 year olds are like that but it is common enough that giving sex ed at that age is necessary, and if you are giving sex ed you might as well do it properly, and with the realization that plenty of them have already seen everything in porn.
What more is, for the ones that are still asexual, it generally doesn't inspire them in any way, they just think it's a bit disgusting and fucked up, but I've yet to see anyone be hurt to learn that sometimes adults put penises in buttholes.
|
On June 19 2023 07:22 WombaT wrote:
Doesn’t seem age-appropriate for like, 10 year olds or whatever sure.
That aside I don’t really see some massive problem with it either. We live in a world where a big chunk of people in their mid-teens are already accessing pornography after all, which is hardly a bastion of realistic and emotionally deep appraisals of the activity
Is seeing some cock and balls going to cause irreparable harm to an 11 year old? Probably not. The fact that kids are going to go online and watch porn is not a very convincing argument for why we should have it in our school libraries. That’s the problem with the shouting about book bans. Pretty much everyone agrees that some books should be banned from libraries. There aren’t any books on bukkake or scat play in school libraries because we have decided to ban them.
Even the woman that wrote “this book is gay” has said it’s not appropriate for children which makes the objections to banning it all the more insane. The simple fact is that a lot of parents don’t want “How to suck cock” tutorials for their 11 year old child to read. If there’s a group of parents that really thinks we need to keep the “how to suck cock tutorials” for the 11 year olds then they shouldn’t be surprised if the first group of parents thinks they are groomers.
|
It's been considered ok and even productive for many years to educate kids on how to have safe sex between boy and girl. Oral sex is among the safest practices and therefore an obvious topic. Why would that be wrong? And furthermore, teaching boys how to safely do it with other boys is wrong? Why exactly, because we don't want kids to know there are gay people? It's still not ok to be gay? Or is it only ok when we're adults?
|
On June 19 2023 06:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 06:33 Simberto wrote:On June 19 2023 06:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob. From the article:
Schoolchildren are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set 'masturbation' as homework, secretive lesson plans reveal.
Many teachers are 'indoctrinating' children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ah, surely this will be a very good source that gives unbiased information with rational analysis. (Lol he said anal!) My source is from the book itself. You can find excerpts from "This book is gay" online:
Well, thank god my kids won't go to school in the US. Giving that kind of stuff to 10-11 year-olds sounds just as extreme as I would imagine the Talbans are in their kids education, but on the exact opposite end of the ideological spectrum.
On a more serious note, we also had a very permissive and open attitude towards sex in many places in Europe during the 70s, including softening the taboos around exposing children to expressions of sexuality. I'm sure that played a big role in all the pedophilia scandals that have resurfaced in recent years. Instructing young children on how to have sex is just not a good thing in my opinion.
|
Sex education isn't teaching children to have sex. Just like chemistry class isn't teaching children to take poison, and history class isn't teaching children to go to war, and biology class isn't teaching children to inject needles.
We also received education on drugs. We even watched Trainspotting as a part of that. So they were teaching us to snort coke and take meth? That's unfortunate, I didn't get the memo. I guess everyone else was having fun while I was oblivious to the joys of hard drugs.
And the pedophilia argument? What is that even? There's no rise in pedophilia due to sex education. At best you can find a correlation between cases of pedophilia and an increase in sex education, but that would be entirely circumstantial and not causally linked in any way.
|
Norway28814 Posts
On June 19 2023 19:27 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2023 06:33 Simberto wrote:On June 19 2023 06:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob. From the article:
Schoolchildren are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set 'masturbation' as homework, secretive lesson plans reveal.
Many teachers are 'indoctrinating' children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ah, surely this will be a very good source that gives unbiased information with rational analysis. (Lol he said anal!) My source is from the book itself. You can find excerpts from "This book is gay" online: Well, thank god my kids won't go to school in the US. Giving that kind of stuff to 10-11 year-olds sounds just as extreme as I would imagine the Talbans are in their kids education, but on the exact opposite end of the ideological spectrum. On a more serious note, we also had a very permissive and open attitude towards sex in many places in Europe during the 70s, including softening the taboos around exposing children to expressions of sexuality. I'm sure that played a big role in all the pedophilia scandals that have resurfaced in recent years. Instructing young children on how to have sex is just not a good thing in my opinion.
Do you really think pedophilia scandals are because children are too educated on sex? The only way I can picture that being true is that more pedophilia scandals are getting exposed because children now understand that what that guy made them do was sexual and illegal. I've honestly yet to hear of a pedophilia scandal that happened because of promiscuous 11 year olds, if they were, they'd probably be promiscuous towards other 11 year olds. (And hey, if there's data showing that more 11-12 year olds are having sex in countries with more liberal sexual education, I could accept that, and also that it'd be a valid argument against. I'm not sure that's actually the case though. )
I do believe it's true that Nordic youth tend to start a bit earlier than most other countries, but the averages are still at 16+, which I personally find entirely fine.
|
I just reacted to the passage BJ cited on how to give... a bj. I was thinking about the scandals in France involving Foucault and Springora, for example. We've had similar scandals in Sweden resurfacing from the 70s and 80s now that children's sexuality is treated completely differently.
|
Norway28814 Posts
On June 19 2023 20:05 Elroi wrote:
I just reacted to the passage BJ cited on how to give... a bj. I was thinking about the scandals in France involving Foucault and Springora, for example. We've had similar scandals in Sweden resurfacing from the 70s and 80s now that children's sexuality is treated completely differently.
Those really don't seem related to sexual education being more liberal. The main accusations of pedophilia I've seen towards Foucault (aside from arguing for a lowering of the age of consent) was that he paid Tunisian boys (preteens) to have sex with them. While abhorrent, there's obviously no correlation between this and European countries having liberal sexual education.
Springora also seems hard to relate to this. That a 50 year old celebrity seduces a 14 year old can happen many places - the unique part here is that French society somehow kept celebrating Matzneff.
Like, I do get the gut reaction, and I honestly don't see the value in explaining to 11 year olds that they should be careful not to use teeth when giving blow jobs. What I'm arguing for really isn't that. However, stuff like 'one of the things that happens when kids reach puberty is that they become interested in the concept of 'sex'', followed by an explanation of what sex is and even stuff like 'people have sex in many different ways, for example oral sex where people use the mouth and tongue to give pleasure to their partner', I think that's a healthy way to communicate the issue and I don't think 10-11 year olds are too young to hear that. They will probably find it disgusting - but that's also their reaction to learning about periods, and I think it's very important that girls learn about that before they experience it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
