|
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 |
On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook
How do you know it’s not the other way around? Maybe it’s the liberal playbook to keep pushing the envelope until they get the reaction they want so they can label their opponents bigots? Were conservatives going out of their way to target this stuff 10 years ago or did it only start after we started putting sordid books in the libraries and telling their young children they can be the opposite gender and making their daughters compete in sports with biological males etc.
|
Canada11322 Posts
But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook
This is a Destiny (streamer) observation, but it's effective/ well-worn because the left tends to feel the need to defend even the edge cases instead of saying 'that's excessive. I don't stand for that' and then everyone can move on. Rather we end up getting caught in a cycle of conservatives bringing up strange cases and the left soft footing around what they think about the strange case which then gives room for the conservative to say that the strange cases are the position of the left and round and round it goes.
In this case, we've said almost everything except that it wouldn't be a good book for school- we've said it's a minority case, we've said it doesn't matter, we've said conservatives are against Sex-Ed, we've said the conservatives are making mountains out of mole hills, we've relayed the sort of Sex-Ed we received or what our current children are receiving... anything except whether or not the book is any good at the school level. So the loop continues... though now I guess Drone says it's probably not a book he would use... though some parts might be useful in certain contexts.
|
On June 20 2023 17:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook How do you know it’s not the other way around? Maybe it’s the liberal playbook to keep pushing the envelope until they get the reaction they want so they can label their opponents bigots? Were conservatives going out of their way to target this stuff 10 years ago or did it only start after we started putting sordid books in the libraries and telling their young children they can be the opposite gender and making their daughters compete in sports with biological males etc.
Yes, conservatives have protested things all the time, and a whole host of these things were either innocuous or an understandable pushback against traditionalism. Conservatives (especially the more radical ones) have always protested all changes. From voting rights to medicine to Jazz to short skirts to colorful hair to rock music, the list is endless. Do you think conservatives approved of those things? They wouldn't be called conservatives then.
They were never in favor of any changes to a society's culture. So indeed, this is conservatives nitpicking minor problems in society and blowing them up to an absurd degree. Society is still intact (and relatively thriving) after all the major and minor changes that happened, and yet conservatives keep tripping over themselves looking for more things to create outrage. It's tiring and not productive.
It's not that the things are actually detrimental to society, it's that they're different. Conservatives fear change as a whole. They don't point to changes because they're harmful, but because they're afraid of them. The ideal world for a conservative is for nothing to ever change in the slightest (from what they're used to). For a liberal minded person like myself that's a dystopia.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
Cheers for your thoughts on the book in question Drone, interesting plus especially useful given your vocation
|
On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so.
I am just curious: Do conservatives want to give kids proper sex education or not? Do conservatives have a serious alternative to what kids inevitably find on the internet at a very young age?
I don't think tip-toeing around any topic they find disturbing or inappropriate will do any good, and just leaves the kids defenseless against the real world.
|
On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook
bolded: Conservatives will try to circle?
Discussion started with me stating that I believe left went to far, with specific examples and as you say general consensus was reached, that in this examples it indeed did. Then it descended into defense of sexual education leading to this:
On June 20 2023 17:37 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook This is a Destiny (streamer) observation, but it's effective/ well-worn because the left tends to feel the need to defend even the edge cases instead of saying 'that's excessive. I don't stand for that' and then everyone can move on. Rather we end up getting caught in a cycle of conservatives bringing up strange cases and the left soft footing around what they think about the strange case which then gives room for the conservative to say that the strange cases are the position of the left and round and round it goes. In this case, we've said almost everything except that it wouldn't be a good book for school- we've said it's a minority case, we've said it doesn't matter, we've said conservatives are against Sex-Ed, we've said the conservatives are making mountains out of mole hills, we've relayed the sort of Sex-Ed we received or what our current children are receiving... anything except whether or not the book is any good at the school level. So the loop continues... though now I guess Drone says it's probably not a book he would use... though some parts might be useful in certain contexts.
bolded: bizarre thing is that everyone who didnt follow discussion from the start would reach the same conclusion (eg some conservative maniac is against sex education)
So in this case it seems that liberals circled the discussion back round and drowned valid point (Wombat said "general consensus" ) with posts defending sexual education as a whole. Conservatives do the same with grooming.
From the side it looks a bit funny:
x: I dont think this book should be given to children
L: They trying to get rid of sexual education, defend against this bigots
C: Why they so determined on giving this book to kids, defend against this groomers
all the while agreeing on the issue at hand...
At the risk of sounding philosophical: It seems like one side doesn't hear another side, only what their side says about other side.
|
On June 20 2023 18:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook bolded: Conservatives will try to circle? Discussion started with me stating that I believe left went to far, with specific examples and as you say general consensus was reached, that in this examples it indeed did. Then it descended into defense of sexual education leading to this: Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 17:37 Falling wrote:But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook This is a Destiny (streamer) observation, but it's effective/ well-worn because the left tends to feel the need to defend even the edge cases instead of saying 'that's excessive. I don't stand for that' and then everyone can move on. Rather we end up getting caught in a cycle of conservatives bringing up strange cases and the left soft footing around what they think about the strange case which then gives room for the conservative to say that the strange cases are the position of the left and round and round it goes. In this case, we've said almost everything except that it wouldn't be a good book for school- we've said it's a minority case, we've said it doesn't matter, we've said conservatives are against Sex-Ed, we've said the conservatives are making mountains out of mole hills, we've relayed the sort of Sex-Ed we received or what our current children are receiving... anything except whether or not the book is any good at the school level. So the loop continues... though now I guess Drone says it's probably not a book he would use... though some parts might be useful in certain contexts. bolded: bizarre thing is that everyone who didnt follow discussion from the start would reach the same conclusion (eg some conservative maniac is against sex education) So in this case it seems that liberals circled the discussion back round and drowned valid point (Wombat said "general consensus" ) with posts defending sexual education as a whole. Conservatives do the same with grooming. From the side it looks a bit funny: x: I dont think this book should be given to children L: They trying to get rid of sexual education, defend against this bigots C: Why they so determined on giving this book to kids, defend against this groomers all the while agreeing on the issue at hand... At the risk of sounding philosophical: It seems like one side doesn't hear another side, only what their side says about other side.
The conservative argument isn't "see, even liberals and/or reasonable people would agree with us that [specific example] isn't suitable for children".
Instead it's the following:
- Propose ban on discussions around gender, LGBT, etc. from schools.
- Face pushback from liberals.
- Provide example of "extreme" book sitting in library (which may not even be shown to 10/11- year-olds).
- Argue that extreme case proves all discussions surrounding gender, LGBT etc. should be banned from schools.
|
Norway28599 Posts
I mean, sure, some is a tendency from both sides to characterize the mainstream opposing position as the most extreme opposing position. I'll totally accept that not all conservatives want to ban all forms of sex ed, without claiming to know where the median conservative position lies. But I think many conservatives will indeed be okay with stuff like teaching 17 year olds about condoms, even if this might constitute their compromise position and their true preference is wait until marriage.
Likewise foucalt was definitely a leftist and he did argue for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 but that's hardly a mainstream leftist or liberal position.
But even accounting for some degree of both sides parodying the other, there are still very real differences between the real, mainstream positions, many grounded in religious views, which typically reduces willingness to compromise. I think masturbating is a pretty healthy habit for adolescents who are getting acquainted with their own sexuality. Many Christians will find that sinful (and then either self-loathingly do it or not). I see literally nothing wrong with bring flamboyantly gay. There, again, there's real conflict with many conservatives, where the 'kindest' position is more along the lines of 'okay, I understand and accept that people are gay, but I wish they could be it privately and not turn it into an identity'.
So yeah, I think it's good if we avoid blanket statements like Republicans hate gays, but we also shouldn't pretend there are no real differences in attitudes, there obviously are. And there are also real examples of policy enacted by republican politicians and thus at least tacitly supported by republican voters (which doesn't mean it's definitely the preferred policy for all republican voters) where I think it I'd fair to consider it anti-lgb*. (I learned putting the star there from the this book is gay-book, if you're wondering.  )
|
On June 20 2023 19:43 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 18:52 Razyda wrote:On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook bolded: Conservatives will try to circle? Discussion started with me stating that I believe left went to far, with specific examples and as you say general consensus was reached, that in this examples it indeed did. Then it descended into defense of sexual education leading to this: On June 20 2023 17:37 Falling wrote:But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook This is a Destiny (streamer) observation, but it's effective/ well-worn because the left tends to feel the need to defend even the edge cases instead of saying 'that's excessive. I don't stand for that' and then everyone can move on. Rather we end up getting caught in a cycle of conservatives bringing up strange cases and the left soft footing around what they think about the strange case which then gives room for the conservative to say that the strange cases are the position of the left and round and round it goes. In this case, we've said almost everything except that it wouldn't be a good book for school- we've said it's a minority case, we've said it doesn't matter, we've said conservatives are against Sex-Ed, we've said the conservatives are making mountains out of mole hills, we've relayed the sort of Sex-Ed we received or what our current children are receiving... anything except whether or not the book is any good at the school level. So the loop continues... though now I guess Drone says it's probably not a book he would use... though some parts might be useful in certain contexts. bolded: bizarre thing is that everyone who didnt follow discussion from the start would reach the same conclusion (eg some conservative maniac is against sex education) So in this case it seems that liberals circled the discussion back round and drowned valid point (Wombat said "general consensus" ) with posts defending sexual education as a whole. Conservatives do the same with grooming. From the side it looks a bit funny: x: I dont think this book should be given to children L: They trying to get rid of sexual education, defend against this bigots C: Why they so determined on giving this book to kids, defend against this groomers all the while agreeing on the issue at hand... At the risk of sounding philosophical: It seems like one side doesn't hear another side, only what their side says about other side. The conservative argument isn't "see, even liberals and/or reasonable people would agree with us that [specific example] isn't suitable for children". Instead it's the following: - Propose ban on discussions around gender, LGBT, etc. from schools. - Face pushback from liberals. - Provide example of "extreme" book sitting in library (which may not even be shown to 10/11- year-olds). - Argue that extreme case proves all discussions surrounding gender, LGBT etc. should be banned from schools.
Yes, pretty much. Sex and sexual education seems very hard to deal with for conservatives. Instead of trying to find solutions, even BJ rather resorts to arguments like "at least we DON'T want that!"
I had a Christian conservative teacher who argued that "condoms can be abused" in class. To him, condoms made an undesired sexually profligate lifestyle more accessible and safe.
We were around 14. This is not an US specific issue.
|
|
|
Books like that are very low on the list of things that I, as a father of two children, am concerned about. If my kids (in the future, when they are 11 years old) should voluntarily go to the Sex Ed section of their school library, pick up the book called “This Book Is Gay,” open it, and read the page shown earlier in the thread, I expect they’d be surprised by the contents, but not harmed.
I do think we should treat children’s psychology and morality with reverence. They will carry with them the values that the adults in their lives represent. An example of something that I think could harm an 11-yr-old child would be seeing a father (or father figure) vote for a man who famously boasted of committing sexual assault. That sends the message that sexual assault is not very bad.
We also need to treat children’s physical integrity and expectation of safety with reverence. Those who are wigging out about “This Book Is Gay” should be wigging out a thousandfold about school shootings. Three people in my family alone (a cousin in middle school and a niece and nephew in college) have had to shelter in place because of school shooting threats. That’s way more traumatizing than the sex ed page that was posted.
More broadly, we could do better in our sacred duty of guarding and nurturing children if we did more to secure their economic well-being. Parents are stressed. All the time. Poor parents are super extra quadruple stressed. If you want to help children, one of the best ways would be to provide paid parental leave and high-quality public preschool. Republicans don’t like that stuff because we can’t afford it unless rich people pay taxes.
|
On June 20 2023 20:43 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 19:43 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2023 18:52 Razyda wrote:On June 20 2023 17:09 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 20 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 09:51 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2023 09:12 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2023 06:03 WombaT wrote:
Aye, can’t recall what age I was. I recall reading the letters page in the Guardian, sometime after my only real formal sex ed sessions. Around this sort of topic somebody had written in simply ‘Sex is fun, and everyone should know it’
This was legitimately news to me at the time, so couched in pure biological terms were our sessions. I’d assumed it was just some process that had pitfalls that you indulged in if you wanted a child, or to alleviate the dreaded ‘blue balls’
So hey we’ve come a long way
Frankly I’ve long found the whole thing preposterous. Sex is a huge, huge part of the human condition. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to get some, going to shitty clubs in our youth on the off chance we hit it off with someone, we have whole subcultures of people bitter that they are not. It naturally permeates much of art, marketing is absolutely full of leaning on sex appeal.
But teaching youngsters about its joys and pitfalls is crossing some line?
It’s utterly bizarre to me. Guarantee you can go on Pornhub and find a video that doesn’t feature any kind of star, in some relatively niche sub-category and that video will still have views than almost any YouTuber you sub to’s biggest hit.
Puritanism is not a tenable approach to singular facet of society if the rest of society is resolutely not Puritan in its mores.
I had sex Ed in school once per school year since I was 10 or 11. We didn’t learn how we could hook up for no-strings sex on Grindr. Stop trying to conflate this with not wanting sex Ed or teaching anatomy. Yes, despite saying many things to the contrary I am absolutely secretly advocating for 10 year olds getting guided through grindr Absolutely fair read, well done That’s the contents of this book that Rayzda cited when he introduced it to this thread. Really seems like people are trying to frame the discussion around Republicans not wanting children to have a proper sex education or even see a penis in an anatomy book and we shouldn’t cave to the Puritans run amok. Seems like it’s done as a round about way to defend this book being in school libraries without explicitly saying so. To be fair, the fact that Republicans actually don't want children to have a proper sex education or see a picture of a penis in an anatomy book is probably a much more widespread issue than the fringe case of that single page that was posted before. That being said, I dont think that page presented those important sex ed facts in a way that would be most easily understood by ten-year-olds. I think the tone and language of that book is probably aimed for slightly older audiences, and would have a much better impact at the high school level, although there are plenty of sensitive issues that ought to be discussed before high school. Well quite. That page doesn’t seem appropriate for young kids at all, and I can’t have an opinion on the rest of the book I’ve never read. The general consensus here seems to be both that, but also ‘well that’s a bit extreme, but we should have more in-depth sex Ed’ and the discussion has circled round to that. But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway. It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook bolded: Conservatives will try to circle? Discussion started with me stating that I believe left went to far, with specific examples and as you say general consensus was reached, that in this examples it indeed did. Then it descended into defense of sexual education leading to this: On June 20 2023 17:37 Falling wrote:But conservatives will try to circle the discussion back round to the more egregious fringe cases because they need the perception to be that that’s representative and needs fought so they can accomplish what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s a pretty stock and well-worn page on their playbook This is a Destiny (streamer) observation, but it's effective/ well-worn because the left tends to feel the need to defend even the edge cases instead of saying 'that's excessive. I don't stand for that' and then everyone can move on. Rather we end up getting caught in a cycle of conservatives bringing up strange cases and the left soft footing around what they think about the strange case which then gives room for the conservative to say that the strange cases are the position of the left and round and round it goes. In this case, we've said almost everything except that it wouldn't be a good book for school- we've said it's a minority case, we've said it doesn't matter, we've said conservatives are against Sex-Ed, we've said the conservatives are making mountains out of mole hills, we've relayed the sort of Sex-Ed we received or what our current children are receiving... anything except whether or not the book is any good at the school level. So the loop continues... though now I guess Drone says it's probably not a book he would use... though some parts might be useful in certain contexts. bolded: bizarre thing is that everyone who didnt follow discussion from the start would reach the same conclusion (eg some conservative maniac is against sex education) So in this case it seems that liberals circled the discussion back round and drowned valid point (Wombat said "general consensus" ) with posts defending sexual education as a whole. Conservatives do the same with grooming. From the side it looks a bit funny: x: I dont think this book should be given to children L: They trying to get rid of sexual education, defend against this bigots C: Why they so determined on giving this book to kids, defend against this groomers all the while agreeing on the issue at hand... At the risk of sounding philosophical: It seems like one side doesn't hear another side, only what their side says about other side. The conservative argument isn't "see, even liberals and/or reasonable people would agree with us that [specific example] isn't suitable for children". Instead it's the following: - Propose ban on discussions around gender, LGBT, etc. from schools. - Face pushback from liberals. - Provide example of "extreme" book sitting in library (which may not even be shown to 10/11- year-olds). - Argue that extreme case proves all discussions surrounding gender, LGBT etc. should be banned from schools. Yes, pretty much. Sex and sexual education seems very hard to deal with for conservatives. Instead of trying to find solutions, even BJ rather resorts to arguments like "at least we DON'T want that!" I had a Christian conservative teacher who argued that "condoms can be abused" in class. To him, condoms made an undesired sexually profligate lifestyle more accessible and safe. We were around 14. This is not an US specific issue.
I think this is the core problem. To a conservative, the optimal sex education is none. And the reason for that is purely in some feelings of ickyness.
It is hard to argue with someone who starts at a position based on some feelings, and then fills in reasons afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna say "good" and just move on with my day, but I know Republicans have been frothing at the mouth to get something on Hunter, and now we'll never hear the end of it. But yes, hold him accountable for something. Then do Trump.
|
|
|
Thats not how it works for them at this point, their messaging is compatible with saying two opposite things at once and somehow reconciling that in people's brains.
Its the fascistic The Enemy Is Strong but Also Inherently Weak and Inferior! style
|
United States42258 Posts
On June 20 2023 22:54 NewSunshine wrote:I wanna say "good" and just move on with my day, but I know Republicans have been frothing at the mouth to get something on Hunter, and now we'll never hear the end of it. But yes, hold him accountable for something. Then do Trump.
Trump seems like he’s fucked but we’ll see. The evidence against him is remarkable. There’s a voice recording of him explaining that he’s showing secret documents to someone, then he clarified that he knows that they’re secret, then he clarifies that he knows that the person he’s showing them to isn’t allowed to see them, then he moves on and addresses the question of declassification by stating that while he could have declassified them as President he elected not to do so and therefore that defence isn’t viable because he didn’t declassify them at the time and no longer can.
It’s the biggliest and bestest confession you could imagine. Everyone says so.
|
On June 20 2023 23:40 Zambrah wrote:
Thats not how it works for them at this point, their messaging is compatible with saying two opposite things at once and somehow reconciling that in people's brains.
Its the fascistic The Enemy Is Strong but Also Inherently Weak and Inferior! style
tbf a Black woman just made a plea deal last week for essentially the same federal crime (the gun one, not back taxes) and is scheduled for 18-24 months in prison vs Biden getting pretrial diversion.
That's not quite the disproportionality that conservatives are concerned about though.
|
Maybe I‘m poorly informed but how can Trumps trial be a public one in the first place if it‘s a trial about espionage and confidential information he sold ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
