In a different thread (that has been derailed enough IMHO) Pundit made the claim that LGBTQERTY activists were mainly motivated by narcissism...
Lo and behold, a new psychological study proves him right:
The Article: https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/left-wing-extremism-linked-to-psychopathy-narcissism-study/ (https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/left-wing-extremism-linked-to-psychopathy-narcissism-study/)
The Study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x (http://ttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x)
The Study Archived just in case: https://archive.is/mbQU4 (https://archive.is/mbQU4)
Video talking about it:
Cue the left-wing lunatics/apologists in 10, 9, 8...
Your link to the study came out wrong - it's missing the initial "h" in the link though not the text. This one works:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x
I'm skeptical about psychological studies in general, but I have no problem with the study conclusion if it turns out to be reproducible. Left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) exists, and is associated with antagonistic narcissism and psychopathy. This is a parallel to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which the study describes as:
QuoteIndividuals with high levels of RWA have been described as people striving for (1) the strict endorsement of conservative social norms and values (i.e., conventionalism), (2) the compliance with established authorities (i.e., authoritarian submission), and (3) antagonistic behavior toward outgroup members (i.e., authoritarian aggression). In line with this description, current research found individuals with higher levels of RWA to be more close-minded (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009), fundamentalistic in their religious orientation, and prejudiced towards minority groups (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). However, in later theoretical conceptualizations (Altemeyer, 1998), it was postulated that RWA seems to be more reflective of the submissive aspect of authoritarianism while another construct – social dominance orientation (SDO) – was assumed to mirror the dominance aspect of authoritarianism. Individuals with high SDO have been characterized as people opposing social equality in support of group-based hierarchies by striving to dominate weaker out-groups. Supporting this later postulate, empirical studies have shown that SDO is associated with racism, homophobia, and attitudes unsupportive of women's rights whilst negatively correlated with empathy, tolerance, and altruism (Pratto et al., 1994). Further, it was found that SDO is related to narcissism (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021) and dark personality traits (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009).
The short form seems to be that there are closed-minded assholes and narcissists on both right and left.
EDITED TO ADD: At this point, I've read the first and last quarters of the study itself. I haven't yet seen the article or video.
Ye olde "Both sides" postulation. Since ONE side controls all institutions, government, and large corporations I do not really care how many right wing people are assholes...they do not affect me at all. Lefties however are CONSTANTLY asking for complete capitulation and celebration of their world view, no matter how degenerate or disgusting. That will get a lash back and that lash back is going to be really, really ugly.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 27, 2023, 04:51:16 PM
Ye olde "Both sides" postulation. Since ONE side controls all institutions, government, and large corporations I do not really care how many right wing people are assholes...they do not affect me at all. Lefties however are CONSTANTLY asking for complete capitulation and celebration of their world view, no matter how degenerate or disgusting. That will get a lash back and that lash back is going to be really, really ugly.
Greetings!
Yes, that's right, Oggsmash. "Whataboutism" and "False Equivalency".
I also suspect you are quite right on the coming backlash. Imagine the sweet, nice, "tolerant" Liberals screaming from coast to coast. More people have just had it with all the Liberal BS and tyranny. I'm afraid more people are just becoming so fed up with Liberals that they are going to start curb stomping the fuck out of them. As they open their mouths to REEE, they will just get stomped to the fucking pavement, again, and again, and again. I keep seeing more and more people calling for "No mercy" for the Liberals. All the degenerates, all the fucking groomers, all the kiddy diddlers will be targeted ruthlessly.
More states are structuring themselves to be more autonomous from the federal government, and on a variety of issues, such as 'gun Control" have enshrined the 2nd Amendment within state constitutions, and have more or less told the federal government to go fuck themselves. More states are standing up to the fucking baby murderers and their disgusting medical industries that profit from them, as well as the kiddy groomers, and their allies in politics and within school districts and universities. Degenerates are not welcome, and more people are getting comfortable with stomping their foot down and telling the federal government to get fucked on that, too. We can also see this happening with Liberal "Cancel Culture" and corporations thinking they can shove degeneracy down people's throats without consequences. Bud Light, Miller Light, and Target are all getting absolutely wrecked.
*Sigh* Oh well. The degenerate Liberals, the Marxists, the groomers--they wanted to fuck around and find out.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Terrified man: "OMG! An alien virus has infected all the cats, and they're running around biting everyone, and the bite is instantly fatal!"
Centrist: "I was once bitten by a dog and needed stitches, let's not pretend dog's aren't also a concern."
Quote from: oggsmash on May 27, 2023, 04:51:16 PM
Ye olde "Both sides" postulation. Since ONE side controls all institutions, government, and large corporations I do not really care how many right wing people are assholes...they do not affect me at all. Lefties however are CONSTANTLY asking for complete capitulation and celebration of their world view, no matter how degenerate or disgusting. That will get a lash back and that lash back is going to be really, really ugly.
Dude. The only claim I made here was to quote from the study that GeekyBugle cited. Unlike GeekyBugle, I don't claim it proves anything either way. Psychological studies are notoriously difficult to reproduce. I think they should be taken with a big grain of salt.
Quote from: Grognard GM on May 27, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
Terrified man: "OMG! An alien virus has infected all the cats, and they're running around biting everyone, and the bite is instantly fatal!"
Centrist: "I was once bitten by a dog and needed stitches, let's not pretend dog's aren't also a concern."
Leftist: "People preferring dogs because cat bites can now kill is just feliniphobia! We need to force the canine supremacists to accept feral cats into their neighborhoods as distributive justice. Also Pfizer assures us it's new mRNA booster is 100% effective against the cat bites... okay, more like 90%... we swear it's at least 70% effective..."
It's nice to see at least some people in academia are willing to acknowledge that left wing authoritarianism can exist and is linked to terrible psychological traits. That said, the actual journal article/study does indeed point out right wing authoritarianism as being linked to the same exact traits. So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today. These "Progressives" seem to control the future of the Democratic Party according to demographic shifts, which is terrifying, and illustrates this point. Especially in that they do seem a lot less concerned with liberty than the Conservative factions that are on the rise. In essence, the current left looks to be more authoritarian in stance and especially in future trend than the right. Which means we may indeed have a crisis of narcissism and psychopathic ideology on our hands, hence the solid relevance of this study.
Note also the left's stance on free speech or even the right of the people to defend at the grassroots level against tyranny via the second amendment.
No one with a bit of reasoning ability needs a study to see people pushing their point of view onto others with overt threats have issues. We call this basic observation. These people are willing to literally sacrifice kids and castrate them to get what they perceive as justice. I do not need a study to know someone like that is batshit.
Interesting study and interesting it was even conducted and got published given the state of peer review practices these days.
Will be hard to reproduce for those very reasons, but I hope someone tries.
As for the claim of whataboutism, if you read the quote the study is just saying 'Here are a bunch of studies which already said this exists in right wing authoritarians.'
And given most here don't claim to be traditional 90s-2000s right wing authoritarians - those studies were done mostly in the era of neo conservativism which y'all despise anyway - I don't know why you guys would freak out about it. That's not an era of conservativism you identify with anyway. The study was basically saying, "they never studied the left win progressive authoritarians so we did and found oh hey look at what we found."
The sum, if true, is saying "Extreme authoritarians, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, tend to be narcissist psychopaths who use politics to hide their dark personalities."
But, in general, even when I disagree with those on the far right that post here, I don't think of most as "authoritarian." There is a whole lot of "You guys want to do this thing I think is incredibly stupid, that's fine just as long as you're an adult and you don't try to force others to do that stupid thing or praise this stupid thing I think you're doing." Even when I think someone has a view that's extreme, that view doesn't tend to be expressed in a "and I want to control your life" manner of an authoritarian.
But there is no denying there are authoritarian extremists with right wing views in the world. You guys don't tend to like them either. So why are you pissy that studies have shown they're nuts too?
Quote from: oggsmash on May 29, 2023, 07:41:16 AM
No one with a bit of reasoning ability needs a study to see people pushing their point of view onto others with overt threats have issues. We call this basic observation. These people are willing to literally sacrifice kids and castrate them to get what they perceive as justice. I do not need a study to know someone like that is batshit.
NGL, you're sharper than the average person to notice that. Or sharper than me at least, in this instance.
For me I knew something was wrong with the belief system for folks advocating far left policies and that kind of agenda. But beyond thinking they held evil ideologies, I didn't really think much into it. I figured it was social pressure and intellectual laziness mostly. I think a lot of people like to believe that the opposition at least thinks and reasons roughly the same way they do, just coming to a different conclusion.
Then something like this study comes out and while it's not a surprise to those who already knew, it was kinda a bit shocking for me to have to reconsider whether that base assumption was correct. It seems there may indeed be underlying psychological and processing issues making their way into our society, which I at least didn't really see coming. Scary stuff. Apparently backing up what you already suspected to be true in a sense, but for me it's like a mental health crisis has been signaled for our nation for years and I just now saw the signs.
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 28, 2023, 07:59:43 PM
So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today.
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left. I appreciate those on the right that are supporting free speech. Still, the original cancel culture was cancelling people who came out as LGBT just a few years ago - fired from their jobs, barred from public forums, etc. It seems like there are people who would like to return to that.
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QZ2qxobxS_M/Wbrj96JP4fI/AAAAAAAAAMM/aia-VE5aw8EOC1w4FdNa2oBmUsQ4mi5YwCLcBGAs/s400/laughing.gif)
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 28, 2023, 07:59:43 PM
So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today.
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left. I appreciate those on the right that are supporting free speech. Still, the original cancel culture was cancelling people who came out as LGBT just a few years ago - fired from their jobs, barred from public forums, etc. It seems like there are people who would like to return to that.
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
WHY do you have to lie?
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Keep pretending the left is just about lgbt if you like. They are at this point expressly anti white, have laws and rules in place to work against white people for hiring and getting into universities and many other programs. The left is not trending authoritarian, it is extremely authoritarian and supports all sorts of insanity like mutilating children and forcing girls to be in locker rooms with boys and compete against them in sports. Soft sell that kind of horror show all you like but so much pushing always ends with a snap back.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 28, 2023, 07:59:43 PM
So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today.
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left. I appreciate those on the right that are supporting free speech. Still, the original cancel culture was cancelling people who came out as LGBT just a few years ago - fired from their jobs, barred from public forums, etc. It seems like there are people who would like to return to that.
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
WHY do you have to lie?
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Oh no he isn't!
Surely men dressing as women is practically a central part of Western culture and is has been a long favourite for children?
Quote from: Garry G on June 01, 2023, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 28, 2023, 07:59:43 PM
So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today.
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left. I appreciate those on the right that are supporting free speech. Still, the original cancel culture was cancelling people who came out as LGBT just a few years ago - fired from their jobs, barred from public forums, etc. It seems like there are people who would like to return to that.
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
WHY do you have to lie?
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Oh no he isn't!
Surely men dressing as women is practically a central part of Western culture and is has been a long favourite for children?
Another fucking liar...
Do you KNOW what pantomime is and what DRAG is? Do you understand there's differences? Or you just want to push pedoapologetics?
Pantomime: People are paid to dress up
Drag: People get a hardon by dressing as women, some have found a way to monetize their kink.
One is a job the other a kink/life style.
But by all means do keep on pushing pedoapologetics.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 28, 2023, 07:59:43 PM
So in that sense I will admit to jhkim that this is less a win for right vs left and more a win for liberty vs authoritarian beliefs.
That said, I feel what's missing from such an argument is that as others have pointed out, the right seems to be less tyrannical in its ideology than the left at the moment. Indeed I feel cancel culture's intolerance, the bigotry of the provision of benefits along racial lines, a disregard for personal responsibility and choice in addition to discrimination on the basis of vaccination decision, a proclivity towards socialism and big government, and more all point to authoritarian trends on the rise within the ranks of the swiftly radicalizing political left today.
I agree that there have been authoritarian trends rising on the left. I appreciate those on the right that are supporting free speech. Still, the original cancel culture was cancelling people who came out as LGBT just a few years ago - fired from their jobs, barred from public forums, etc. It seems like there are people who would like to return to that.
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
WHY do you have to lie?
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Dude, drag is not fundamentally sexual. Where have you been hanging out that you're conflating it with sex?
Greetings!
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Do not swallow the degenerate BS. Resist it, and fight against it. Crush the degenerates that seek to promote such filth and corruption. Stay strong. my friends!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Like fashion shows or music videos or many other entertainment forms, drag shows vary widely, from tame to explicit. There are very sexually explicit music videos, from Madonna to Peaches. But music videos and music performances aren't all the extreme, so it would be ridiculous to ban all music videos from being seen in public.
Drag shows have a long history from popular military drag shows in WWII.
From the same period, Bugs Bunny frequently appeared in drag as part of children's entertainment. Drag characters appeared in popular primetime sitcoms like M.A.S.H. and All in the Family.
Like any other show, drag shows should be classified by how sexually explicit they are, not banned simply because they are drag.
--
I've been to a bunch of rock concerts, and they've been sexual and full of drinking, drugs, lewdness. But I'm not saying that all concerts should all be banned from anywhere children might see them, because it is going to vary. Our culture is full of sexuality - from girls wearing string bikinis on the beach to sex scenes on television and especially the Internet. I'd prefer there to be less overt sexuality in general. But having the government run in to ban anything sexually suggestive from public isn't the solution.
It's up to the parents whether they want to allow kids to watch Bugs Bunny or M.A.S.H. -- and at what age. Likewise for any other drag.
Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2023, 09:51:22 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Like fashion shows or music videos or many other entertainment forms, drag shows vary widely, from tame to explicit. There are very sexually explicit music videos, from Madonna to Peaches. But music videos and music performances aren't all the extreme, so it would be ridiculous to ban all music videos from being seen in public.
Drag shows have a long history from popular military drag shows in WWII.
From the same period, Bugs Bunny frequently appeared in drag as part of children's entertainment. Drag characters appeared in popular primetime sitcoms like M.A.S.H. and All in the Family.
Like any other show, drag shows should be classified by how sexually explicit they are, not banned simply because they are drag.
--
I've been to a bunch of rock concerts, and they've been sexual and full of drinking, drugs, lewdness. But I'm not saying that all concerts should all be banned from anywhere children might see them, because it is going to vary. Our culture is full of sexuality - from girls wearing string bikinis on the beach to sex scenes on television and especially the Internet. I'd prefer there to be less overt sexuality in general. But having the government run in to ban anything sexually suggestive from public isn't the solution.
It's up to the parents whether they want to allow kids to watch Bugs Bunny or M.A.S.H. -- and at what age. Likewise for any other drag.
You just can't help being disingenuous, can you?
Bugs Bunny, MASH, and the other kinds of "men in drag" you referenced were MAKING FUN OF MEN IN WOMEN'S CLOTHING. They were not "celebrating" drag; they were holding it up for ridicule. They wanted the audience to LAUGH AT IT. That is not the context of modern drag, and you know it. You and that groomer Mistwell can obfuscate all you want, but drag queens reading books to children is perverse, at best.
You need to stop with your bullshit conflations. The fact that other things are over-sexualized does not mean that drag shows are OK for kids. We're not talking about music videos or military shows. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROMOTING DRAG TO KIDS.
You guys are despicable...
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
Greetings!
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Do not swallow the degenerate BS. Resist it, and fight against it. Crush the degenerates that seek to promote such filth and corruption. Stay strong. my friends!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dressing in drag /= cross-dressing. Much like dressing in a swimsuit /= strip show. There is nothing sexy or intended as sexual about a dude wearing a frumpy dress. It's not a show.
There are also drag shows done for comedy. No sexuality at all, they're often comedians. Those drag shows are not about sex either.
The problem with the drag show ban is it makes no distinction between drag which is intended as sexual, and drag which is not intended as sexual. We all know the guy dressed in womens clothing at a Ren Faire for a comedy play is not a sexy drag show but that guy is just as banned as the most sexual drag show under these new laws. We all know they guy in a dress at a midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show throwing rice is not doing it to be sexy but he too is just as banned as the most sexual drag show. These laws are not banning sex shows - they are banning clothing regardless of sexual content.
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! In fact you don't even need an all-mens cast since all of "Merchant of Venice," "Twelfth Night," and "As You Like It" involve a drag seen which is not about sex.
How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 10:19:14 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
Greetings!
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Do not swallow the degenerate BS. Resist it, and fight against it. Crush the degenerates that seek to promote such filth and corruption. Stay strong. my friends!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dressing in drag /= cross-dressing. Much like dressing in a swimsuit /= strip show. There is nothing sexy or intended as sexual about a dude wearing a frumpy dress. It's not a show.
There are also drag shows done for comedy. No sexuality at all, they're often comedians. Those drag shows are not about sex either.
The problem with the drag show ban is it makes no distinction between drag which is intended as sexual, and drag which is not intended as sexual. We all know the guy dressed in womens clothing at a Ren Faire for a comedy play is not a sexy drag show but that guy is just as banned as the most sexual drag show under these new laws. We all know they guy in a dress at a midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show throwing rice is not doing it to be sexy but he too is just as banned as the most sexual drag show. These laws are not banning sex shows - they are banning clothing regardless of sexual content.
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
The laws are banning drag shows FOR CHILDREN. You are a liar and a poltroon...
Just a quick Google search. Maybe organized religion is dangerous to children.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177847312/state-probe-finds-catholic-church-in-illinois-vastly-underreported-clergy-sex-ab
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/catholic-church-abuse-baltimore.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/clergy-abuse-scandal-investigation/3162757/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12072943/Rocked-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-Protestant-church-shed-half-million-members-year.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maryland-ends-time-limit-child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-massive-church-scandal.amp
https://www.fox4news.com/news/fox-4-investigates-14-girls-sexually-abused-by-north-texas-youth-pastor-the-red-flags-the-church-ignored.amp
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-01-06/report-finds-catholic-church-in-kansas-covered-up-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-priests-for-decades
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/04/05/over-600-children-sexually-abused-by-baltimore-area-clergy-as-catholic-archdiocese-looked-the-other-way-report-finds/amp/
https://people.com/human-interest/hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed-recap/
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/23/southern-baptist-scandal-its-no-coincidence-that-anti-abortion-churches-protect-abusers/
https://www.ajc.com/news/credible-allegations-of-abuse-in-catholic-church-detailed-in-georgia-report/DVKD5YK4AZDYXO2SIS7TDFKIRM/
https://gokeyless.vn/hillsong-church-scandal/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/05/23/5-things-to-know-about-planos-prestonwood-baptist-megachurch/?outputType=amp
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PMI have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
You've seen drag shows? As in multiple shows?
If they were so "gross, lewd, and degenerate", why did you go back to view multiple shows?!?
Very curious behavior.
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 10:48:44 PM
Just a quick Google search. Maybe organized religion is dangerous to children.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177847312/state-probe-finds-catholic-church-in-illinois-vastly-underreported-clergy-sex-ab
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/catholic-church-abuse-baltimore.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/clergy-abuse-scandal-investigation/3162757/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12072943/Rocked-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-Protestant-church-shed-half-million-members-year.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maryland-ends-time-limit-child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-massive-church-scandal.amp
https://www.fox4news.com/news/fox-4-investigates-14-girls-sexually-abused-by-north-texas-youth-pastor-the-red-flags-the-church-ignored.amp
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-01-06/report-finds-catholic-church-in-kansas-covered-up-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-priests-for-decades
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/04/05/over-600-children-sexually-abused-by-baltimore-area-clergy-as-catholic-archdiocese-looked-the-other-way-report-finds/amp/
https://people.com/human-interest/hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed-recap/
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/23/southern-baptist-scandal-its-no-coincidence-that-anti-abortion-churches-protect-abusers/
https://www.ajc.com/news/credible-allegations-of-abuse-in-catholic-church-detailed-in-georgia-report/DVKD5YK4AZDYXO2SIS7TDFKIRM/
https://gokeyless.vn/hillsong-church-scandal/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/05/23/5-things-to-know-about-planos-prestonwood-baptist-megachurch/?outputType=amp
And what does that have to do with drag shows for children? Just like a groomer, trying to change the subject when his ideas are under scrutiny. You're more dangerous to kids than all the Catholic priests in the Vatican...
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Stand strong! Say NO! to the weak, feminized degenerates that gather throughout our decaying, corrupt society in ever greater hordes. Let them gnash their teeth, and wail in despair!
Don't let up the pressure. Pursue them, everywhere. Run them down. Lift them up to scrutiny, so that all might see their corruption and degeneracy! RAM THE HARSH LAWS DOWN THEIR THROATS! Mercilessly oppose them, and organize against them--and anyone that supports them. Ruin them. Break them down, relentlessly. It is only through embracing such strength and discipline of the soul that our communities and our ancient and noble republic can be saved. Yes, remember the children. Children must always be protected from the degenerate animals that would plunder them and corrupt them with their endless debaucheries. VOTE properly. Call your political leaders. Write E-Mails. Never relent. Never compromise. Never surrender.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 10:19:14 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
Greetings!
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Do not swallow the degenerate BS. Resist it, and fight against it. Crush the degenerates that seek to promote such filth and corruption. Stay strong. my friends!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dressing in drag /= cross-dressing. Much like dressing in a swimsuit /= strip show. There is nothing sexy or intended as sexual about a dude wearing a frumpy dress. It's not a show.
There are also drag shows done for comedy. No sexuality at all, they're often comedians. Those drag shows are not about sex either.
The problem with the drag show ban is it makes no distinction between drag which is intended as sexual, and drag which is not intended as sexual. We all know the guy dressed in womens clothing at a Ren Faire for a comedy play is not a sexy drag show but that guy is just as banned as the most sexual drag show under these new laws. We all know they guy in a dress at a midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show throwing rice is not doing it to be sexy but he too is just as banned as the most sexual drag show. These laws are not banning sex shows - they are banning clothing regardless of sexual content.
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
The laws are banning drag shows FOR CHILDREN. You are a liar and a poltroon...
So let me see if I get this straight. You have to be an adult to see a Shakespeare performance? You have to be an adult to go to a Ren Fair? You are a liar and a poltroon...or an idiot. Take your pick.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 11:40:30 PM
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Nobody REEing here, dumbass.
You think Ren Fairs and Shakespeare performances should be adults-only, you're a fucking idiot.
You think it doesn't apply to those things, you're a fucking idiot.
REEE away Sharky. REE away about how you didn't think about the ramifications. This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
A simplistic mind wrote this law.
What passed law is even being referenced in these comments? Legit question. I have heard of stuff like a Tennessee law banning childhood consumption of adult cabaret, or adult-oriented (presumably sexualized) performances. But I have not heard of any law that bans crossdressing or men wearing makeup. (Cuz like a ton of people in theatre and the movie industry do the latter all the time, if I remember right.)
I'm all for free speech, and I'd be against a law that bans one's right to wear what they want to wear so long as they aren't walking around nude or whatnot. But in such instances as it is specifically adult oriented (heavily sexualized) content being banned from consumption by minors... that's a good thing to my mind whether it's lgbtq or whatever content or straight heteronormative content or whatnot. Because minors cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. So why should they be able to give informed consent to pornographic or erotic content consumption? Especially with live actors in-person?
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 12:26:24 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
A simplistic mind wrote this law.
What passed law is even being referenced in these comments? Legit question. I have heard of stuff like a Tennessee law banning adult cabaret, or adult-oriented (presumably sexualized) performances. But I have not heard of any law that bans crossdressing or men wearing makeup. (Cuz like a ton of people in theatre and the movie industry do the latter all the time, if I remember right.)
I'm all for free speech, and I'd be against a law that bans one's right to wear what they want to wear so long as they aren't walking around nude or whatnot. But in such instances as it is specifically adult oriented (heavily sexualized) content being banned from consumption by minors... that's a good thing to my mind whether it's lgbtq or whatever content or straight heteronormative content or whatnot. Because minors cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. So why should they be able to give informed consent to pornographic or erotic content consumption? Especially with live actors in-person?
Greetings!
Exactly, KindaMeh.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 11:40:30 PM
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Nobody REEing here, dumbass.
You think Ren Fairs and Shakespeare performances should be adults-only, you're a fucking idiot.
You think it doesn't apply to those things, you're a fucking idiot.
REEE away Sharky. REE away about how you didn't think about the ramifications. This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law.
Greetings!
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of
CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
The only DUMBASSES and FUCKING IDIOTS I see are the degenerate scum trying to tap dance and white knight in their efforts to defend and protect fucking groomers continuing to have access to our community's children.
I would encourage you, Mistwell, to seriously reconsider your philosophy concerning this topic.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 11:40:30 PM
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Nobody REEing here, dumbass.
You think Ren Fairs and Shakespeare performances should be adults-only, you're a fucking idiot.
You think it doesn't apply to those things, you're a fucking idiot.
REEE away Sharky. REE away about how you didn't think about the ramifications. This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law.
Greetings!
Oh, yes. Another observation, Mistwell. I am not "REEEING" about anything. The only people I see REEEING are Rainbow Hippos crying that they can't continue to do DRAG SHOWS AIMED AT CHILDREN--and well, Liberals, like you.
Most normal parents and upstanding people that I talk to, have generally thought it is a good thing to protect children from fucking degenerate groomers.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 10:19:14 PM
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
The laws are banning drag shows FOR CHILDREN. You are a liar and a poltroon...
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:49:50 AM
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
This is incorrect. The anti-drag laws don't just ban performances for young children. For example, the Nebraska bill introduced would make it a crime for anyone younger than 19 to attend a drag performance.
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
Someone who is 18 can vote and fight in war, but it is a criminal act to let them attend a drag performance? R-rated movies means those under 17 require an accompanying parent or guardian. This is much more restrictive than that with criminal penalties.
The Arizona bill would ban any drag performance within a quarter mile of a school, church, or park.
https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1030/2023
The Tennessee law (that was signed in March) bans drag shows on any public property. So, for example, they would be banned at public universities - even if it is for adults and no minors are present. It also bans such performances anywhere a non-adult *might* be present, even if it is intended for adults and no one under 18 is present.
https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf
Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2023, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 10:19:14 PM
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
The laws are banning drag shows FOR CHILDREN. You are a liar and a poltroon...
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:49:50 AM
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
This is incorrect. The anti-drag laws don't just ban performances for young children. For example, the Nebraska bill introduced would make it a crime for anyone younger than 19 to attend a drag performance.
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
Someone who is 18 can vote and fight in war, but it is a criminal act to let them attend a drag performance? R-rated movies means those under 17 require an accompanying parent or guardian. This is much more restrictive than that with criminal penalties.
The Arizona bill would ban any drag performance within a quarter mile of a school, church, or park.
https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1030/2023
The Tennessee law (that was signed in March) bans drag shows on any public property. So, for example, they would be banned at public universities - even if it is for adults and no minors are present. It also bans such performances anywhere a non-adult *might* be present, even if it is intended for adults and no one under 18 is present.
https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf
Greetings!
Good, Jhkim. That all sounds great! You do know, that most states require people to be *21* years of age to drink alcohol, right? So, yeah. 21 sounds good. Restrict fucking DRAG SHOWS to bars and other such clubs intended for adults, period. That way, there cn still be opportunities for the fucking degenerates to get their freak on. No need for anyone under the age of 21 to need to be exposed to such BS though. Drag shows should be treated just like fucking porn. Restrict them to the fucking seedy clubs and warehouse dumpster fires out in the sticks, far away from chrches, schools, houses, and as much of anything else, too. That reminds me, too. Here in good Red States, we often TAX THE FUCK out of anything remotely deemed sinful. Alcohol, sexshops, fucking porn, and fuck, add Drag shows! TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THEM. And, add HUGE fucking license fees for them, too. So many opportunities to tax them down! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 12:26:24 AM
I'm all for free speech, and I'd be against a law that bans one's right to wear what they want to wear so long as they aren't walking around nude or whatnot. But in such instances as it is specifically adult oriented (heavily sexualized) content being banned from consumption by minors... that's a good thing to my mind whether it's lgbtq or whatever content or straight heteronormative content or whatnot. Because minors cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. So why should they be able to give informed consent to pornographic or erotic content consumption? Especially with live actors in-person?
To KindaMeh, drag performances are not necessarily pornographic or erotic, though. For example, the movie "Kinky Boots" (2005) is rated PG-13 for "thematic material involving sexuality, and for language". Characters talk about sex - but that's about it. My extended family (parents, sisters, kids) all went to see the Kinky Boots musical - including my son was 14 at the time. The material was completely PG-13.
And there are drag performances that are tamer than that. The new laws could also apply to, say, the Mulan Jr musical, which is centered on cross-dressing as its central theme.
If parents want to prevent their children from seeing or performing in Mulan Jr, then that should be their choice - but I don't think it should be decided by the government rather than parents.
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 07:13:06 AM
Restrict fucking DRAG SHOWS to bars and other such clubs intended for adults, period. That way, there cn still be opportunities for the fucking degenerates to get their freak on. No need for anyone under the age of 21 to need to be exposed to such BS though. Drag shows should be treated just like fucking porn. Restrict them to the fucking seedy clubs and warehouse dumpster fires out in the sticks, far away from chrches, schools, houses, and as much of anything else, too. That reminds me, too. Here in good Red States, we often TAX THE FUCK out of anything remotely deemed sinful. Alcohol, sexshops, fucking porn, and fuck, add Drag shows! TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THEM.
I'm fine with taxing alcohol or taxing drag performance. I would not be fine with deeming alcohol sinful to the point that one has to go into a seedy club out in the sticks to drink it.
Personally, I'm happy to have a glass of wine with my dinner at a restaurant with my family. If you think alcohol is sinful, that's your choice. Don't drink it - don't let your kids drink it. Calling on the government to ban alcohol in all restaurants is going too far, in my opinion.
Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2023, 09:27:03 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 12:26:24 AM
I'm all for free speech, and I'd be against a law that bans one's right to wear what they want to wear so long as they aren't walking around nude or whatnot. But in such instances as it is specifically adult oriented (heavily sexualized) content being banned from consumption by minors... that's a good thing to my mind whether it's lgbtq or whatever content or straight heteronormative content or whatnot. Because minors cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. So why should they be able to give informed consent to pornographic or erotic content consumption? Especially with live actors in-person?
To KindaMeh, drag performances are not necessarily pornographic or erotic, though. For example, the movie "Kinky Boots" (2005) is rated PG-13 for "thematic material involving sexuality, and for language". Characters talk about sex - but that's about it. My extended family (parents, sisters, kids) all went to see the Kinky Boots musical - including my son was 14 at the time. The material was completely PG-13.
And there are drag performances that are tamer than that. The new laws could also apply to, say, the Mulan Jr musical, which is centered on cross-dressing as its central theme.
If parents want to prevent their children from seeing or performing in Mulan Jr, then that should be their choice - but I don't think it should be decided by the government rather than parents.
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 07:13:06 AM
Restrict fucking DRAG SHOWS to bars and other such clubs intended for adults, period. That way, there cn still be opportunities for the fucking degenerates to get their freak on. No need for anyone under the age of 21 to need to be exposed to such BS though. Drag shows should be treated just like fucking porn. Restrict them to the fucking seedy clubs and warehouse dumpster fires out in the sticks, far away from chrches, schools, houses, and as much of anything else, too. That reminds me, too. Here in good Red States, we often TAX THE FUCK out of anything remotely deemed sinful. Alcohol, sexshops, fucking porn, and fuck, add Drag shows! TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THEM.
I'm fine with taxing alcohol or taxing drag performance. I would not be fine with deeming alcohol sinful to the point that one has to go into a seedy club out in the sticks to drink it.
Personally, I'm happy to have a glass of wine with my dinner at a restaurant with my family. If you think alcohol is sinful, that's your choice. Don't drink it - don't let your kids drink it. Calling on the government to ban alcohol in all restaurants is going too far, in my opinion.
Greetings!
Jhkim, I didn't say anything about *banning* alcohol, or being forced to go out somewhere in the sticks, just to drink. That is why I *LAUGHED* concerning sinful and sin taxes. That's just what such extra taxes and regulations do though. By the way--"Sin Taxes"--are popular not just in Red States, but BLUE states as well, like California. California has HUGE taxes tacked onto any alcohol purchases, as well as other things that the government wants to make money from, or doesn't generally like or approve of--like guns.
As far as what some people view as "sinful"--well, that varies, too. Some Mormons believe that drinking coffee is sinful. Alcohol isn't sold here on Sundays. Well, anything 3.2 or less is available, but not hard liquor. Whatever. I don't really care. I like some alcohol, and drink it occasionally, socially.
I was also referencing ZONING. Governments ZONE different stuff all the time. Like how porn shops, sex shops, stripper bars--they all have to be isolated, and not near schools, hospitals, churches, and so on.
I pointed those things out as precedents. Stop trying to get me to argue about stupid shit in the weeds, man.
My main point was to treat fucking Drag shows like porn shops. That's an idea. Whatever. If you like fucking Drag shows, great! That degenerate bullshit won't fly here though. And I was referencing that yeah, different states can choose and they should--how to zone, tax, and deal with stuff, including the fucking Drag shows. If some states want to ban them, well, GOOD! Let them ban the fucking degenerates! Groomers have NO BUSINESS being anywhere near children.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 10:48:11 AM
I pointed those things out as precedents. Stop trying to get me to argue about stupid shit in the weeds, man.
That's all he has. Neither he nor Mistwell are willing to come out and say that they want children to be exposed to lewd drag shows, despite the fact that this is what is being banned. Well, this and the potential loopholes (like there are underaged college freshmen and venues will sell tickets to adults but let them bring minors, so we need to ban it from anyplace a minor might be). We all know leftists are liars and will look for those loopholes to groom kids. And that's what this is about, grooming kids to think that sexual kinks are ok (and hoping kids will explore them).
Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2023, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 10:19:14 PM
Usually it's the progressive left who has no sense of humor and doesn't think through the logical ramifications of their advocacy. This time, it's the right. Where the F is your sense of humor and how have you not thought through all the things in our society which involve drag but not sex shows? You're literally banning all-mens-cast Shakespeare performances, despite that being the traditional form of Shakespeare going back to the 1600s! How have you found yourself as someone who thinks all drag is sex shows, when you know you've seen men in drag in your life and not found it offensive or about sex?
The laws are banning drag shows FOR CHILDREN. You are a liar and a poltroon...
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:49:50 AM
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
This is incorrect. The anti-drag laws don't just ban performances for young children. For example, the Nebraska bill introduced would make it a crime for anyone younger than 19 to attend a drag performance.
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
Someone who is 18 can vote and fight in war, but it is a criminal act to let them attend a drag performance? R-rated movies means those under 17 require an accompanying parent or guardian. This is much more restrictive than that with criminal penalties.
The Arizona bill would ban any drag performance within a quarter mile of a school, church, or park.
https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1030/2023
The Tennessee law (that was signed in March) bans drag shows on any public property. So, for example, they would be banned at public universities - even if it is for adults and no minors are present. It also bans such performances anywhere a non-adult *might* be present, even if it is intended for adults and no one under 18 is present.
https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf
The first two bills don't seem likely to pass despite a firm Republican presence in those states. Which to me says that the right is not really trending authoritarian on this sort of thing in practice. Also, I'd imagine that as time goes on the more extreme and weird bill proposals that aren't passing (and remember that even if these were somehow passed they'd have to get past the courts and a Supreme Court run mostly by republicans that considers gender a protected class, whereas I myself would've considered "gender expression" more along the lines of discriminating on the basis of sex, since gender is kinda BS) will be less likely to come into play. Gotta remember that things have been trending more and more left wing on lgbtq stuff for years, and not just on the left. I see no evidence therefore of current genuine oppression or threat of rising authoritarianism in the long run from the right. Though the left has done and been pushing for some pretty sketchy stuff on lgbtq lately. Ignoring first amendment rights, parents' rights, and more.
For the last one cited, seems like it was an amendment to the Tennessee law I referenced earlier. I'm a little grey on this one, but it's worth noting that if this is literally the best you can find that would seem to imply America is doing well enough on this issue. I do feel like if a state controls public land and funds and runs public institutions it is up to them whether they want markedly adult content like stripping or the like on that land. If this overreaches into lands and institutions not run or held by the state but by local authority then yes I might be somewhat displeased. Though honestly local authority flows from the state level to begin with under the Constitution, so I can't exactly claim the state doesn't have the authority to do it.
Remember though that the original bill, which this only modifies, specifically calls out markedly adult-oriented performances. On which note, I think it reasonable that such performances should make an active effort not to allow kids in. So yeah, you shouldn't allow a non-adult to potentially be present. Do your due diligence.
Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2023, 09:27:03 AM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 12:26:24 AM
I'm all for free speech, and I'd be against a law that bans one's right to wear what they want to wear so long as they aren't walking around nude or whatnot. But in such instances as it is specifically adult oriented (heavily sexualized) content being banned from consumption by minors... that's a good thing to my mind whether it's lgbtq or whatever content or straight heteronormative content or whatnot. Because minors cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. So why should they be able to give informed consent to pornographic or erotic content consumption? Especially with live actors in-person?
To KindaMeh, drag performances are not necessarily pornographic or erotic, though. For example, the movie "Kinky Boots" (2005) is rated PG-13 for "thematic material involving sexuality, and for language". Characters talk about sex - but that's about it. My extended family (parents, sisters, kids) all went to see the Kinky Boots musical - including my son was 14 at the time. The material was completely PG-13.
And there are drag performances that are tamer than that. The new laws could also apply to, say, the Mulan Jr musical, which is centered on cross-dressing as its central theme.
If parents want to prevent their children from seeing or performing in Mulan Jr, then that should be their choice - but I don't think it should be decided by the government rather than parents.
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 07:13:06 AM
Restrict fucking DRAG SHOWS to bars and other such clubs intended for adults, period. That way, there cn still be opportunities for the fucking degenerates to get their freak on. No need for anyone under the age of 21 to need to be exposed to such BS though. Drag shows should be treated just like fucking porn. Restrict them to the fucking seedy clubs and warehouse dumpster fires out in the sticks, far away from chrches, schools, houses, and as much of anything else, too. That reminds me, too. Here in good Red States, we often TAX THE FUCK out of anything remotely deemed sinful. Alcohol, sexshops, fucking porn, and fuck, add Drag shows! TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THEM.
I'm fine with taxing alcohol or taxing drag performance. I would not be fine with deeming alcohol sinful to the point that one has to go into a seedy club out in the sticks to drink it.
Personally, I'm happy to have a glass of wine with my dinner at a restaurant with my family. If you think alcohol is sinful, that's your choice. Don't drink it - don't let your kids drink it. Calling on the government to ban alcohol in all restaurants is going too far, in my opinion.
I specifically stated that I am pro-free speech and dressing however (apart from literal nudity and the like). I then went on record that SPECIFICALLY for adult-cabaret or adult oriented performances kids shouldn't be allowed to consent to such things. No strip clubs should allow kids in either. It's not an lgbtq thing, it's a societal recognition of the importance of informed consent, which children cannot give.
Also, not that I'm for banning alcohol, but why shouldn't personal moral beliefs have a place at the polls? If you really think something is morally wrong or sinful, maybe you should be honest with yourself and with society about that fact. If a large group of people gets disutility out of alcohol being available to everyone, say also to minors, in unlimited quantities, then isn't there a market failure if that isn't reflected in pricing? The left is all in favor of talking about market externalities for the environment or whatever their latest forced health crusade is... but the moment morals derived from religion come into play as a motivating factor for individuals with respect to what they value and what might cause them distress, then suddenly it's gone too far. One should be able to vote one's conscience, and at times that means voting in accordance with religious beliefs. I'm not going to begrudge the people who do that simply because their motivations may include religion or even beliefs I don't agree with. I'll debate them on the specifics of their proposed policy and on the validity of those beliefs, but that doesn't make their vote invalid in the public sphere simply because they believe in sin.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 02, 2023, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 10:48:11 AM
I pointed those things out as precedents. Stop trying to get me to argue about stupid shit in the weeds, man.
That's all he has. Neither he nor Mistwell are willing to come out and say that they want children to be exposed to lewd drag shows, despite the fact that this is what is being banned. Well, this and the potential loopholes (like there are underaged college freshmen and venues will sell tickets to adults but let them bring minors, so we need to ban it from anyplace a minor might be). We all know leftists are liars and will look for those loopholes to groom kids. And that's what this is about, grooming kids to think that sexual kinks are ok (and hoping kids will explore them).
Greetings!
SO TRUE! Damn right, my friend!
All this BS, "Well, what about Shakespeare? What about Renaissance Faires? What about alcohol? OH MY GOD! REEE!"
We aren't talking about any of that. We are talking about targeting the fucking degenerate groomers that want to corrupt and plunder children, through various avenues of seeming "innocent" and otherwise "Innocuous" methods. Good lawmakers and laws are aimed at shutting all that BS down. That means locking these fucking scum out of doing their fucking perverted dancing, rubbing their shit on kids, teasing kids, and all that you mentioned about. It's exactly that. A sly, choked goggling effort to get close so these grooming fuckers can mentally, emotionally, and sexually confuse and corrupt children.
That BS makes me grind my teeth. I see parents all over the country going crazy, too. I don't blame them. Then, we of course have the fucking atrocity that happened in Tennessee. Yeah, a fucking TRANS MONSTER slaughtered innocent adults and children. Fuck these animals. The goddamn lawyers and police just better smarten the fuck up real fast, or people are gonna get down to brass tacks and start taking care of this BS right and proper. These governors and politicians know this is for fucking REAL, so they better step up and get shit done. They better get shit done as to what PARENTS WANT. Not the fucking degenerates. The politicians don't want to read in the news that 10,000 parents marched down somewhere and strung two dozen fucking groomers up by the tallest fucking trees, while the police stood by and applauded.
That isn't a scenario the politicians want to see flashed on national news, so yeah, they definitely have a fire lit under their asses to step up and get this BS checked.
Whatever, you know? Good states are gonna do what they need to do. Fuck what the groomers cry about, and their cucked fucking Liberal white knights that want to defend them, and protect their degeneracy.
This country's leaders need to pay far more attention to what NORMAL PEOPLE DEMAND. TO WHAT NORMAL PARENTS DEMAND. Instead of always worrying about the fucking freaks, the degenerates, and the groomers. The politicians either wake the fuck up to that reality, or they can continue to fuck around and find out.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2023, 09:51:22 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Like fashion shows or music videos or many other entertainment forms, drag shows vary widely, from tame to explicit. There are very sexually explicit music videos, from Madonna to Peaches. But music videos and music performances aren't all the extreme, so it would be ridiculous to ban all music videos from being seen in public.
Drag shows have a long history from popular military drag shows in WWII.
From the same period, Bugs Bunny frequently appeared in drag as part of children's entertainment. Drag characters appeared in popular primetime sitcoms like M.A.S.H. and All in the Family.
Like any other show, drag shows should be classified by how sexually explicit they are, not banned simply because they are drag.
--
I've been to a bunch of rock concerts, and they've been sexual and full of drinking, drugs, lewdness. But I'm not saying that all concerts should all be banned from anywhere children might see them, because it is going to vary. Our culture is full of sexuality - from girls wearing string bikinis on the beach to sex scenes on television and especially the Internet. I'd prefer there to be less overt sexuality in general. But having the government run in to ban anything sexually suggestive from public isn't the solution.
It's up to the parents whether they want to allow kids to watch Bugs Bunny or M.A.S.H. -- and at what age. Likewise for any other drag.
Again lying...
Not everytime someone dresses as the opposite sex is Drag, because Drag is explicitly sexual, but you carry on with the pedo-apologetics my dude.
This is the same playbook you lefties use every time, conflate two things: One clear degeneracy and the other not and then argue that banning the degenerate one is banning the other. FUCK OFF.
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 02, 2023, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 10:48:11 AM
I pointed those things out as precedents. Stop trying to get me to argue about stupid shit in the weeds, man.
That's all he has. Neither he nor Mistwell are willing to come out and say that they want children to be exposed to lewd drag shows, despite the fact that this is what is being banned. Well, this and the potential loopholes (like there are underaged college freshmen and venues will sell tickets to adults but let them bring minors, so we need to ban it from anyplace a minor might be). We all know leftists are liars and will look for those loopholes to groom kids. And that's what this is about, grooming kids to think that sexual kinks are ok (and hoping kids will explore them).
Greetings!
SO TRUE! Damn right, my friend!
All this BS, "Well, what about Shakespeare? What about Renaissance Faires? What about alcohol? OH MY GOD! REEE!"
We aren't talking about any of that. We are talking about targeting the fucking degenerate groomers that want to corrupt and plunder children, through various avenues of seeming "innocent" and otherwise "Innocuous" methods. Good lawmakers and laws are aimed at shutting all that BS down. That means locking these fucking scum out of doing their fucking perverted dancing, rubbing their shit on kids, teasing kids, and all that you mentioned about. It's exactly that. A sly, choked goggling effort to get close so these grooming fuckers can mentally, emotionally, and sexually confuse and corrupt children.
That BS makes me grind my teeth. I see parents all over the country going crazy, too. I don't blame them. Then, we of course have the fucking atrocity that happened in Tennessee. Yeah, a fucking TRANS MONSTER slaughtered innocent adults and children. Fuck these animals. The goddamn lawyers and police just better smarten the fuck up real fast, or people are gonna get down to brass tacks and start taking care of this BS right and proper. These governors and politicians know this is for fucking REAL, so they better step up and get shit done. They better get shit done as to what PARENTS WANT. Not the fucking degenerates. The politicians don't want to read in the news that 10,000 parents marched down somewhere and strung two dozen fucking groomers up by the tallest fucking trees, while the police stood by and applauded.
That isn't a scenario the politicians want to see flashed on national news, so yeah, they definitely have a fire lit under their asses to step up and get this BS checked.
Whatever, you know? Good states are gonna do what they need to do. Fuck what the groomers cry about, and their cucked fucking Liberal white knights that want to defend them, and protect their degeneracy.
This country's leaders need to pay far more attention to what NORMAL PEOPLE DEMAND. TO WHAT NORMAL PARENTS DEMAND. Instead of always worrying about the fucking freaks, the degenerates, and the groomers. The politicians either wake the fuck up to that reality, or they can continue to fuck around and find out.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Too true.
I am so glad you brought up the fucking TRAN MONSTER slaughtering people. Like you I was sickened by it.
It also reminds me of a girl I knew at University who was from Dunblane, a delightful little town near Stirling, Scotland and home to the celebrated tennis player Andy Murray.
Great guy Andy but I digress.
She was what you would expect in a girl, a pale red haired beauty who nevertheless lacked the morality and intelligence of us men and had chosen a social science. She was concerned about an incident in the town not many years before. She turned to me and said "Mister G", I always encourage formality with girls, "I can't help but feel hatred for all people with the same background as the person who committed such an atrocity! Can this be a reasonable thing?"
I have of course lifted the signs of her distinctive country brogue which gave even more sign of her naivete. I talk about her naivete but what of mine? Putting a comforting hand on her shoulder I told her she should not expect the same treatment from others of the perpetrators background as most people may not be completely morally pure but they try and few are so heinous.
Now as an older man reading your words and looking back I realise how mistaken I was. I should have told her to live in perpetual fear and perhaps she has shared the fate of her hometown friends. I haven't gazed into her green eyes in more than 20 years.
I am with you Sharkboy, we must guard against these MONSTERS and oppress the mercilessly despite the REEING of their pathetic enablers.
Mind the cundie,
GarryG
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 02, 2023, 04:05:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2023, 09:51:22 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Like fashion shows or music videos or many other entertainment forms, drag shows vary widely, from tame to explicit. There are very sexually explicit music videos, from Madonna to Peaches. But music videos and music performances aren't all the extreme, so it would be ridiculous to ban all music videos from being seen in public.
Drag shows have a long history from popular military drag shows in WWII.
From the same period, Bugs Bunny frequently appeared in drag as part of children's entertainment. Drag characters appeared in popular primetime sitcoms like M.A.S.H. and All in the Family.
Like any other show, drag shows should be classified by how sexually explicit they are, not banned simply because they are drag.
--
I've been to a bunch of rock concerts, and they've been sexual and full of drinking, drugs, lewdness. But I'm not saying that all concerts should all be banned from anywhere children might see them, because it is going to vary. Our culture is full of sexuality - from girls wearing string bikinis on the beach to sex scenes on television and especially the Internet. I'd prefer there to be less overt sexuality in general. But having the government run in to ban anything sexually suggestive from public isn't the solution.
It's up to the parents whether they want to allow kids to watch Bugs Bunny or M.A.S.H. -- and at what age. Likewise for any other drag.
Again lying...
Not everytime someone dresses as the opposite sex is Drag, because Drag is explicitly sexual, but you carry on with the pedo-apologetics my dude.
This is the same playbook you lefties use every time, conflate two things: One clear degeneracy and the other not and then argue that banning the degenerate one is banning the other. FUCK OFF.
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Which of these images isn't sexual?
https://www.google.com/search?q=drag+show&client=firefox-b-lm&sxsrf=APwXEdcf1F1zAuYFe_w55mtaB8rfxguyeQ:1685744245631&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDn8XXzqX_AhVJJkQIHaNiB3gQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1173&bih=824&dpr=1.09 (https://www.google.com/search?q=drag+show&client=firefox-b-lm&sxsrf=APwXEdcf1F1zAuYFe_w55mtaB8rfxguyeQ:1685744245631&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDn8XXzqX_AhVJJkQIHaNiB3gQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1173&bih=824&dpr=1.09)
You leftists know damn well what we're talking but want to deflect and conflate in order to protect the degenerates and pedos.
"A drag show is a form of entertainment performed by drag artists impersonating men or women, typically in a bar or nightclub. Shows can range from burlesque-style, adult themed nightclub acts" (*cough* such as the ones children are being banned from according to the actual legislation being passed *cough*) to a broader setup of "performers singing or lip-synching to songs while performing a pre-planned pantomime or dancing" (which has not been officially banned, much less cross dressing or male makeup more generally). This according to relatively left-wing Wikipedia. So no, drag is not generalized cross-dressing even by left-leaning definition. And banning specific types of drag from being watched by children is not the same as banning crossdressing.
Again, freedom of expression is great and all, but does not give the right to expose minors to overtly sexual performances, because again they cannot consent to them. I do think folks are ignoring the relatively narrow nature of actually passed bans on childhood consumption of adult cabaret and ADULT ORIENTED (heavily sexualized) drag shows, which as written and actually implemented seems pretty reasonable. It seems to me a relatively reasonable piece of legislation is being completely demonized and blown out of proportion.
Which actually, to bring this thread back on track, kinda showcases an all or nothing extremism on the left. They also are trying to fight this legislation in the courts when there are no legitimate grounds to do so. Trying to weaponize a court system many wanted to unlawfully pack in order to win over democracy with judicial oligarchy. Leaning towards authoritarian autocracy in my opinion.
In addition to the manipulative narcissists, let's not forget the useful idiots.
In general, there are different opinions on the subject, but also different factual positions. To summarize:
(1) Lewd performances like explicit lyrics, twerking, or explicit moves aren't appropriate for young children and it's fine to restrict them from kid access. However, there is no need to ban based on drag. A non-transgender female performer gyrating and twerking on stage in a skimpy costume isn't kid-friendly either. Such a ban should be based on the nature of the show, not on the sex of the performer.
(2) A moderately tame drag performance like the Kinky Boots musical is fine for young teens and up. There's nothing abusive or grooming about teens seeing that. It's consistent with PG-13.
(3) A highly tame drag performance like the Mulan Jr musical.
As far as what the laws are banning, replying to KindaMeh...
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 06:26:31 PM
"A drag show is a form of entertainment performed by drag artists impersonating men or women, typically in a bar or nightclub. Shows can range from burlesque-style, adult themed nightclub acts" (*cough* such as the ones children are being banned from according to the actual legislation being passed *cough*) to a broader setup of "performers singing or lip-synching to songs while performing a pre-planned pantomime or dancing" (which has not been officially banned, much less cross dressing or male makeup more generally). This according to relatively left-wing Wikipedia. So no, drag is not generalized cross-dressing even by left-leaning definition. And banning specific types of drag from being watched by children is not the same as banning crossdressing.
Again, freedom of expression is great and all, but does not give the right to expose minors to overtly sexual performances, because again they cannot consent to them. I do think folks are ignoring the relatively narrow nature of actually passed bans on childhood consumption of adult cabaret and ADULT ORIENTED (heavily sexualized) drag shows, which as written and actually implemented seems pretty reasonable.
Here is how the Nebraska bill defines a drag show:
Quote(1) For purposes of this section drag show means a performance in which:
(a) The main aspect of the performance is a performer which exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers; and
(b) The performer sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience for entertainment.
Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
That closely matches up to the latter definition you give. This makes it a Class I misdemeanor to bring anyone under 19 to any drag show.
Again, my issue is that's not a passed bill. Even were it passed it likely would not make it through the courts. Moreover, that this is the only example I have seen of the latter definition being used. Unlike in all the bills actually passed. See also that lgbt support or whatnot has broadly been on the rise over the past decade and that such bills, not targeting adult content specifically, were not passed during the alleged bad times even and I feel there is not much to fear regarding "right wing authoritarianism" within this context. We'll see if suddenly out of nowhere in the most friendly climate in decades policy becomes the opposite of expectations, but I doubt it. Rather it seems a mountain is being made out of the molehill of laws passed with the expressed purpose of protecting children.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 09:35:02 PM
Again, my issue is that's not a passed bill. Even were it passed it likely would not make it through the courts. Moreover, that this is the only example I have seen of the latter definition being used. Unlike in all the bills actually passed.
Fair that the Nevada bill hasn't passed yet, but it is an actual bill that is being put forward, showing what the anti-drag activists would like. The Arizona bill is almost identical to the Nevada, if you haven't read it.
The Tennessee law that passed defines banned performance as
"male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest". That has a qualifier, but if "prurient interest" is the real issue, then why not just ban "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"? It is intentionally targeting out drag, which can be sued and shut down over vague arguments - while others are not.
I'm not opposed to moralizing in general -- but if there is a vague line that roughly 50% of the population disagree with, then it should be in the hands of parents rather than government.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 09:35:02 PM
See also that lgbt support or whatnot has broadly been on the rise over the past decade and that such bills, not targeting adult content specifically, were not passed during the alleged bad times even and I feel there is not much to fear regarding "right wing authoritarianism" within this context. We'll see if suddenly out of nowhere in the most friendly climate in decades policy becomes the opposite of expectations, but I doubt it. Rather it seems a mountain is being made out of the molehill of laws passed with the expressed purpose of protecting children.
It seems to me that the ones making this issue into a mountain is from the conservative side at least as much as the liberal side. Conservatives seem extremely worked up about the issue of drag performances - both in wider media and here on this forum.
I am trying to discuss politely with you, but it pisses me off that as I'm trying to discuss with you, others are screaming at me that I'm a child molester - and you're painting my side as making too big a deal of the issue.
The proclaimed reason of "protecting children" doesn't mean that efforts are innocent and protective. Authoritarianism frequently uses "protecting children" as the reason why they needs more power to enforce morality. For example, the anti-satanist and anti-D&D movements were based on "protecting children", and as far as I've heard, they mostly did harm to kids who liked D&D.
EDITED TO ADD: Still, thank you for at least politely discussing the issue, KindaMeh.
Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2023, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 09:35:02 PM
Again, my issue is that's not a passed bill. Even were it passed it likely would not make it through the courts. Moreover, that this is the only example I have seen of the latter definition being used. Unlike in all the bills actually passed.
Fair that the Nevada bill hasn't passed yet, but it is an actual bill that is being put forward, showing what the anti-drag activists would like. The Arizona bill is almost identical to the Nevada, if you haven't read it.
The Tennessee law that passed defines banned performance as "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest". That has a qualifier, but if "prurient interest" is the real issue, then why not just ban "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"? It is intentionally targeting out drag, which can be sued and shut down over vague arguments - while others are not.
I'm not opposed to moralizing in general -- but if there is a vague line that roughly 50% of the population disagree with, then it should be in the hands of parents rather than government.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 02, 2023, 09:35:02 PM
See also that lgbt support or whatnot has broadly been on the rise over the past decade and that such bills, not targeting adult content specifically, were not passed during the alleged bad times even and I feel there is not much to fear regarding "right wing authoritarianism" within this context. We'll see if suddenly out of nowhere in the most friendly climate in decades policy becomes the opposite of expectations, but I doubt it. Rather it seems a mountain is being made out of the molehill of laws passed with the expressed purpose of protecting children.
It seems to me that the ones making this issue into a mountain is from the conservative side at least as much as the liberal side. Conservatives seem extremely worked up about the issue of drag performances - both in wider media and here on this forum.
I am trying to discuss politely with you, but it pisses me off that as I'm trying to discuss with you, others are screaming at me that I'm a child molester - and you're painting my side as making too big a deal of the issue.
The proclaimed reason of "protecting children" doesn't mean that efforts are innocent and protective. Authoritarianism frequently uses "protecting children" as the reason why they needs more power to enforce morality. For example, the anti-satanist and anti-D&D movements were based on "protecting children", and as far as I've heard, they mostly did harm to kids who liked D&D.
EDITED TO ADD: Still, thank you for at least politely discussing the issue, KindaMeh.
I had not heard of a Nevada bill. Let me know who's backing it and what it is because that sounds openly surprising to me. I am not in favor of such a bill if it is identical in terms to the Nebraska bill, and I doubt that it will pass in Nevada if so. I can appreciate that the Arizona one oversteps if it too is using the terminology of the Nebraska one. That said, I think that ultimately those that use that terminology will not survive in court even if they somehow manage to pass.
I'm in favor of wins where they can be had on protecting children from pornography and openly erotic content. And I don't know what the state of Tennessee has already passed on that, but sometimes I feel it pays to be specific. If strip shows are a loophole then by all means specifically ban minors' access to strip shows. I can appreciate wanting to avoid legal battles over whether a protected class was targeted in passage. That said, I would be leery though of giving the judiciary full reign over a generic term like prurient content unattached to context, and I don't believe gender discrimination is distinct in honest terms from discrimination on the basis of sex. So in that sense I think elaborating the specific terms in which the ban would apply makes sense, and indeed it should be made even more specific potentially.
I disagree that just because an issue is controversial it should not be legislated. Not when it's an issue of informed consent. Likewise, I disagree that issues with a clear right and wrong on principle are necessarily uncontroversial in practice.
I am sure you are not in favor of children being exposed to pornographic content and live erotic performances by real people. Which is why I mostly ignored any accusations targeted your way with respect to that. I did not want to give them any credence. I am likewise confident you would never in any way shape or form support pedophilia.
That said, in this instance I think it is important once again to protect children from those who claim they can consent to pornographic and openly erotic content. This issue is too important for us to back down on.
I think the reason why it touches a nerve for many on the right and those on this forum is because the passed bills being criticized do tend to specify adult content being banned for children. The right cares a lot about protecting children from sexual content and contact they cannot ever properly consent to. And it may feel to some like the left wants some folks to get a pass on their responsibilities there due to identity politics. Sure, there are conspiracies related to that sort of thing on the right, and they're typically wrong by right of being conspiracy theories, but I'd say if anything that's just because conspiratorial beliefs are oftentimes built around the things which one most fears. Which in this case is harm to kids and a failure in America's moral responsibility.
Claims of morality can be used to justify authoritarianism, but I'm sure we can both agree that morality itself is worth fighting for.
Thank you for your reasoned consideration and attempt at patiently discussing controversial issues, as always.
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:49:50 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 11:40:30 PM
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Nobody REEing here, dumbass.
You think Ren Fairs and Shakespeare performances should be adults-only, you're a fucking idiot.
You think it doesn't apply to those things, you're a fucking idiot.
REEE away Sharky. REE away about how you didn't think about the ramifications. This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law.
Greetings!
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
No my man. No laws are about an audience of "primarily" children.
It says you are in violation if kids can see the performance - which would include Shakespeare or the Ren Faire.
Those Ren Fair performances of men dresses as women with obviously fake boobs the size of coconuts cracking jokes? If kids and see them, they're banned. Those Shakespeare performances which show a woman as a man or a man as a woman, often with minorly lewd jokes? Banned if kids can see them.
This was not thought through. This kind of stuff has a very long history, is not about sexualizing kids, and is mostly funny stuff. I'd guess most people on this forum have seen performances like I am talking about, and nobody thought they were sex shows when they did.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 02, 2023, 04:05:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 01, 2023, 09:51:22 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2023, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2023, 10:49:00 PM
It should be possible to have a society where liberals and conservatives can both their lives, and LGBT people are free to do the same things as straight people. Conservatives shouldn't be legally required to express support or use proper pronouns, but equally, LGBT people should be able to live and work and play without being condemned as a danger to children just for existing in public. New anti-drag laws are defining things like simply wearing a dress as indecent behavior that children shouldn't see, which is ridiculous. Banning nudity or strip shows is one thing, but banning wearing a dress or makeup is completely different.
Drag is fundamentally sexual, you know it as well as we do.
NOT doing your sexual show in front of children doesn't violate your rights, but you go on speaking in favor of pedos.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
Like fashion shows or music videos or many other entertainment forms, drag shows vary widely, from tame to explicit. There are very sexually explicit music videos, from Madonna to Peaches. But music videos and music performances aren't all the extreme, so it would be ridiculous to ban all music videos from being seen in public.
Drag shows have a long history from popular military drag shows in WWII.
From the same period, Bugs Bunny frequently appeared in drag as part of children's entertainment. Drag characters appeared in popular primetime sitcoms like M.A.S.H. and All in the Family.
Like any other show, drag shows should be classified by how sexually explicit they are, not banned simply because they are drag.
--
I've been to a bunch of rock concerts, and they've been sexual and full of drinking, drugs, lewdness. But I'm not saying that all concerts should all be banned from anywhere children might see them, because it is going to vary. Our culture is full of sexuality - from girls wearing string bikinis on the beach to sex scenes on television and especially the Internet. I'd prefer there to be less overt sexuality in general. But having the government run in to ban anything sexually suggestive from public isn't the solution.
It's up to the parents whether they want to allow kids to watch Bugs Bunny or M.A.S.H. -- and at what age. Likewise for any other drag.
Again lying...
Not everytime someone dresses as the opposite sex is Drag, because Drag is explicitly sexual, but you carry on with the pedo-apologetics my dude.
This is the same playbook you lefties use every time, conflate two things: One clear degeneracy and the other not and then argue that banning the degenerate one is banning the other. FUCK OFF.
This is complete nonsense. None of these laws define drag as "explicitly sexual." Dictionaries don't either. Drag is just another term for cross-dressing in usually a flamboyant or parody way. Nobody is conflating anything - you're trying to redefine a well known term that's been around for a very long time (Drag Queens started in 1882) to mean something different so you can "win" an linguistic argument in a bullshit way. Drag does not mean "sexually explicit" and has NEVER meant that.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 02, 2023, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 02, 2023, 12:49:50 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2023, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 11:40:30 PM
Greetings!
Just listen to the Liberals REEEing!!! REEE! REEE! REEE!
Nobody REEing here, dumbass.
You think Ren Fairs and Shakespeare performances should be adults-only, you're a fucking idiot.
You think it doesn't apply to those things, you're a fucking idiot.
REEE away Sharky. REE away about how you didn't think about the ramifications. This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law.
Greetings!
As far as I have heard, such laws that have been passed in various states have specifically been targeted at Drag shows provided to an audience primarily of CHILDREN No one has said anything about prohibiting Shakespeare or Renaissance Faires.
No my man. No laws are about an audience of "primarily" children.
It says you are in violation if kids can see the performance - which would include Shakespeare or the Ren Faire.
Those Ren Fair performances of men dresses as women with obviously fake boobs the size of coconuts cracking jokes? If kids and see them, they're banned. Those Shakespeare performances which show a woman as a man or a man as a woman, often with minorly lewd jokes? Banned if kids can see them.
This was not thought through. This kind of stuff has a very long history, is not about sexualizing kids, and is mostly funny stuff. I'd guess most people on this forum have seen performances like I am talking about, and nobody thought they were sex shows when they did.
The Nebraska and Arizona bills which have not been passed would potentially do that if left unamended. (Maybe a Nevada bill, though that sounds weird and unlikely to me.) That said, the actually passed and legislated bills do seem to designate only adult cabaret and adult content performances of that type as banned from child consumption, insofar as I know. Even were those 2-3 bill outliers to pass though, I doubt they could ever make it through the courts.
Greetings!
It always amazes me why seemingly nice, reasonable, educated Liberals become hysterical when other people do not accept their degeneracy. Normal people do not want Trans freaks anywhere near their children, period.
It does not matter how much you believe that is wrong, or immoral, or unfair.
LEGIONS of people will seek to kill you if you attempt to force this BS on them. Do you understand that? Normal, happy parents have been getting into practical riots at district school board meetings over libraries pushing Trans books, and schools pushing Trans Drag queen story hours.
I'm just pointing out, the violent blowback is growing. Fuck with people's children, and you are opening the doorway to an inferno.
As with my recent commentary, you can see the epic fault lines appearing, like streaking across the top of the frozen ice. The politicians--at least some of them--recognize that pushing a few more buttons, and you could easily have tens of thousands of normal people just going fucking crazy and killing all the trans, all the teachers and politicians responsible, and anyone else that stands in their way. And no one will care, and no, the fucking government is not going to arrest or imprison 20,000 normal parents. Not gonna happen. More and more people from the sidelines, more or less, will cheer for them, and support them in ever-growing numbers. Why?
Because they are sick of smug, Liberal jackasses pushing degeneracy and tyranny on them. and in the process, exposing and endangering their children.
Again, what YOU are fucking comfortable with--doesn't mean that someone else won't interpret that as a threat to their children. Even women get violently homicidal when they think about you fucking their kids. Want to see nice Mr. Rogers suddenly become a homicidal terminator? Let him get the idea that your are sodomizing his 8 year old son, or are trying to groom his little boy. Or that you are trying to corrupt his 10 year old daughter.
Ultimately, that's the deeper problem with Liberalism. A smug, self-righteous arrogance that declares that only your way of viewing the world is right, and only YOUR values--whatever social, political, or degenerate BS it is--are not only TRUE, but also must be enforced upon everyone else.
We are seeing the fire begin right here in regards to the Trans Drag shows and Trans Story Hours, and Trans books in Libraries. This is all localized, domestic stuff. Have you noticed that it is getting hotter and hotter? More and more people are going berserk on teachers, police, school administrators, city political officials, they are all getting jacked, cornered, grilled, and humiliated. If not beaten or killed. Many have been deluged with death threats. Many have been FIRED, or resigned in humiliated disgrace.
This is a local example of normal Americans rejecting Liberalism.
Now zoom out, and ask yourself what is driving the animus and hatred against the American government in the international arena? Largely, it is this very same kind of smug, arrogant, Liberal tyranny. Do it our way, or else. Fuck your religion, fuck your culture, fuck your values--you need to do it our way. PERIOD.
Well, the world isn't having it, certainly not anymore. That's why the US dollar is getting deranked, and more alliances are shifting against America. More countries are telling America to shut the fuck up, and go fuck yourself. It is the exact same Liberal arrogance and tyranny.
This is precisely the deep philosophical root at the heart of all of these different social and legal issues.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 03, 2023, 01:50:31 AM
Greetings!
It always amazes me why seemingly nice, reasonable, educated Liberals become hysterical when other people do not accept their degeneracy. Normal people do not want Trans freaks anywhere near their children, period.
It does not matter how much you believe that is wrong, or immoral, or unfair.
LEGIONS of people will seek to kill you if you attempt to force this BS on them. Do you understand that? Normal, happy parents have been getting into practical riots at district school board meetings over libraries pushing Trans books, and schools pushing Trans Drag queen story hours.
I'm just pointing out, the violent blowback is growing. Fuck with people's children, and you are opening the doorway to an inferno.
As with my recent commentary, you can see the epic fault lines appearing, like streaking across the top of the frozen ice. The politicians--at least some of them--recognize that pushing a few more buttons, and you could easily have tens of thousands of normal people just going fucking crazy and killing all the trans, all the teachers and politicians responsible, and anyone else that stands in their way. And no one will care, and no, the fucking government is not going to arrest or imprison 20,000 normal parents. Not gonna happen. More and more people from the sidelines, more or less, will cheer for them, and support them in ever-growing numbers. Why?
Because they are sick of smug, Liberal jackasses pushing degeneracy and tyranny on them. and in the process, exposing and endangering their children.
Again, what YOU are fucking comfortable with--doesn't mean that someone else won't interpret that as a threat to their children. Even women get violently homicidal when they think about you fucking their kids. Want to see nice Mr. Rogers suddenly become a homicidal terminator? Let him get the idea that your are sodomizing his 8 year old son, or are trying to groom his little boy. Or that you are trying to corrupt his 10 year old daughter.
Ultimately, that's the deeper problem with Liberalism. A smug, self-righteous arrogance that declares that only your way of viewing the world is right, and only YOUR values--whatever social, political, or degenerate BS it is--are not only TRUE, but also must be enforced upon everyone else.
We are seeing the fire begin right here in regards to the Trans Drag shows and Trans Story Hours, and Trans books in Libraries. This is all localized, domestic stuff. Have you noticed that it is getting hotter and hotter? More and more people are going berserk on teachers, police, school administrators, city political officials, they are all getting jacked, cornered, grilled, and humiliated. If not beaten or killed. Many have been deluged with death threats. Many have been FIRED, or resigned in humiliated disgrace.
This is a local example of normal Americans rejecting Liberalism.
Now zoom out, and ask yourself what is driving the animus and hatred against the American government in the international arena? Largely, it is this very same kind of smug, arrogant, Liberal tyranny. Do it our way, or else. Fuck your religion, fuck your culture, fuck your values--you need to do it our way. PERIOD.
Well, the world isn't having it, certainly not anymore. That's why the US dollar is getting deranked, and more alliances are shifting against America. More countries are telling America to shut the fuck up, and go fuck yourself. It is the exact same Liberal arrogance and tyranny.
This is precisely the deep philosophical root at the heart of all of these different social and legal issues.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
It seems that you are opining that the people who fear violence should be the trans? I showed your post stating this to a New Zealand lassie of Portuguese and Irish descent, she was a dusky beauty but with green eyes and an exotic accent. Perhaps her inherent weakly womanly ways gave her the same impression as I but she agreed. Now you seem to imply and uprising of non-trans people in an orgy of violence that even that vile degenerate Dame Edna Everage would not condone. Clearly you are the type of manly man that is revolted by needless violence from any part of our great cvommunities.
Dinnae fling yer cloot til May's oot,
Garry G
Oh look, the drag ban in Tennessee was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4033015-federal-judge-rules-tennessee-restrictions-on-drag-shows-unconstitutional/) for being substantially overbroad and vague and a violation of the first amendment.
Oh gee, who could have called that? Oh right, me, in this thread, explaining how it is overbroad and vague and bans things it was never intended to ban.
Like I said, "This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law."
If you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
Except that it really doesn't apply to the things you claim it applies to. Either in practice, in intent, or even according to the ruling you cite. The judge agreed it was overly broad after... "The [contesting] group argued that the law is overly broad because it applies to minors of all ages and anywhere that a minor could be." So no, it wasn't for the reasons you claimed that it was shot down.
I personally think it's fine for it to apply to minors of all ages, because minors of all ages cannot consent, so I disagree with the judge on that. Likewise, I think the state had a compelling interest to ensure that children were definitively not present at such performances. Those were the two points the judge made, and it seems to me both were intuitively unjustified and wrong. As I said earlier, the left is fighting legit laws with questionable to no real grounds to stand on. It will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AM
Oh look, the drag ban in Tennessee was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4033015-federal-judge-rules-tennessee-restrictions-on-drag-shows-unconstitutional/) for being substantially overbroad and vague and a violation of the first amendment.
Oh gee, who could have called that? Oh right, me, in this thread, explaining how it is overbroad and vague and bans things it was never intended to ban.
Like I said, "This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law."
If you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
Maybe because other explicitly sexual shows are already illegal but you fuckers play defense for the pedos invading the LGB movement.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AMIf you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
But why aren't sexually explicit shows already legally off-limits for children in the US? I'm from another place so forgive me if I don't understand why kids are allowed to go to strip clubs in America.
Amazing lawfare again uproots the will of the people. After enough lawfare maybe the people will decide to just do warfare? Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Amazing lawfare again uproots the will of the people. After enough lawfare maybe the people will decide to just do warfare? Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
How far should they be kept away?
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AMIf you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
But why aren't sexually explicit shows already legally off-limits for children in the US? I'm from another place so forgive me if I don't understand why kids are allowed to go to strip clubs in America.
You mean the strip clubs full of books, where toddlers are taught to twerk? I think they're called Public Libraries.
But you knew this already.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 03, 2023, 01:50:31 AM
Greetings!
It always amazes me why seemingly nice, reasonable, educated Liberals become hysterical when other people do not accept their degeneracy. Normal people do not want Trans freaks anywhere near their children, period.
It does not matter how much you believe that is wrong, or immoral, or unfair.
LEGIONS of people will seek to kill you if you attempt to force this BS on them. Do you understand that? Normal, happy parents have been getting into practical riots at district school board meetings over libraries pushing Trans books, and schools pushing Trans Drag queen story hours.
I'm just pointing out, the violent blowback is growing. Fuck with people's children, and you are opening the doorway to an inferno.
As with my recent commentary, you can see the epic fault lines appearing, like streaking across the top of the frozen ice. The politicians--at least some of them--recognize that pushing a few more buttons, and you could easily have tens of thousands of normal people just going fucking crazy and killing all the trans, all the teachers and politicians responsible, and anyone else that stands in their way. And no one will care, and no, the fucking government is not going to arrest or imprison 20,000 normal parents. Not gonna happen. More and more people from the sidelines, more or less, will cheer for them, and support them in ever-growing numbers. Why?
Because they are sick of smug, Liberal jackasses pushing degeneracy and tyranny on them. and in the process, exposing and endangering their children.
Again, what YOU are fucking comfortable with--doesn't mean that someone else won't interpret that as a threat to their children. Even women get violently homicidal when they think about you fucking their kids. Want to see nice Mr. Rogers suddenly become a homicidal terminator? Let him get the idea that your are sodomizing his 8 year old son, or are trying to groom his little boy. Or that you are trying to corrupt his 10 year old daughter.
Ultimately, that's the deeper problem with Liberalism. A smug, self-righteous arrogance that declares that only your way of viewing the world is right, and only YOUR values--whatever social, political, or degenerate BS it is--are not only TRUE, but also must be enforced upon everyone else.
We are seeing the fire begin right here in regards to the Trans Drag shows and Trans Story Hours, and Trans books in Libraries. This is all localized, domestic stuff. Have you noticed that it is getting hotter and hotter? More and more people are going berserk on teachers, police, school administrators, city political officials, they are all getting jacked, cornered, grilled, and humiliated. If not beaten or killed. Many have been deluged with death threats. Many have been FIRED, or resigned in humiliated disgrace.
This is a local example of normal Americans rejecting Liberalism.
Now zoom out, and ask yourself what is driving the animus and hatred against the American government in the international arena? Largely, it is this very same kind of smug, arrogant, Liberal tyranny. Do it our way, or else. Fuck your religion, fuck your culture, fuck your values--you need to do it our way. PERIOD.
Well, the world isn't having it, certainly not anymore. That's why the US dollar is getting deranked, and more alliances are shifting against America. More countries are telling America to shut the fuck up, and go fuck yourself. It is the exact same Liberal arrogance and tyranny.
This is precisely the deep philosophical root at the heart of all of these different social and legal issues.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
It seems that you are opining that the people who fear violence should be the trans? I showed your post stating this to a New Zealand lassie of Portuguese and Irish descent, she was a dusky beauty but with green eyes and an exotic accent. Perhaps her inherent weakly womanly ways gave her the same impression as I but she agreed. Now you seem to imply and uprising of non-trans people in an orgy of violence that even that vile degenerate Dame Edna Everage would not condone. Clearly you are the type of manly man that is revolted by needless violence from any part of our great cvommunities.
Dinnae fling yer cloot til May's oot,
Garry G
Greetings!
Hello, Garry G. My commentary highlighted the parallels between how Liberals seek to impose their own world view domestically, here in America, with how Liberals within the Federal administration likewise seek to do the very same thing with foreign countries.
And we then wonder why there is resistance?
That is what my commentary highlighted.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:31:09 PM
How far should they be kept away?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
You say you're opposed to "pushing" transgender people. But if people live in the same community, they'll naturally run into each other. I have a transgender member of my church. My transgender neighbor sent her kid to the local schools. I've played games with several transgender people at my local gaming conventions.
If transgender people live their lives, they're going to do many of the same things that other people do. They'll go to parks, libraries, and swimming pools. They'll work in restaurants, libraries, and other places. They'll go to church and/or clubs. They'll attend theater or perform in theater. They'll send their kids to school, and maybe volunteer at school or be a teacher or tutor.
To guarantee that they be kept away from you, you'd need segregation laws that ensure they can't send their kids to the same schools, or go to the same swimming pools, or work at local places, etc.
If you don't like them, don't talk to them and walk away. But it isn't their responsibility to stay away from you. If they aren't committing a crime, then they can express themselves as they see fit. Part of living in a free society is that citizens have to be able to live in the same community as people they disagree with. They shouldn't be able to force anything on you, but they can live in the public space and express their views. You can live in the same public space and express your views.
I support conservatives' rights to express themselves and voice anti-transgender views, and I also support transgender advocates rights to express themselves and voice their views.
There's nothing sexual or grooming about anything guys!
Quote from: SHARK on June 03, 2023, 01:50:31 AM
Ultimately, that's the deeper problem with Liberalism. A smug, self-righteous arrogance that declares that only your way of viewing the world is right, and only YOUR values--whatever social, political, or degenerate BS it is--are not only TRUE, but also must be enforced upon everyone else.
We are seeing the fire begin right here in regards to the Trans Drag shows and Trans Story Hours, and Trans books in Libraries. This is all localized, domestic stuff. Have you noticed that it is getting hotter and hotter? More and more people are going berserk on teachers, police, school administrators, city political officials, they are all getting jacked, cornered, grilled, and humiliated. If not beaten or killed. Many have been deluged with death threats.
How are books in a library
imposing a view? It's a book available to read. There are books expressing all sorts of different views in a library. If you don't like it, don't read it. Likewise, I haven't heard of anyone being forced to attend a drag show or story hour. (If they were, then I'm against it.) If you don't like it, don't go to the show.
Shows should be classified based on their content. As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical with my son who was 14 at the time. There was some verbal references to sex, and dancing in high heels, but everything was totally PG-13. And there are much tamer shows than that.
Beating and/or killing people for having books in the library or voluntary performances seems authoritarian to me, far moreso than having books in libraries or voluntary shows.
I feel that although a fair number of folks feel antipathy towards trans ideology, the vast majority are not out to persecute them in any meaningful way. Just as a reminder, only roughly 10% of Americans oppose laws that would protect transgender people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces. That matters when one is claiming the right's alleged authoritarianism is being driven by a drive to persecute lgbtq people. It also matters what laws have actually been passed, as opposed to proposed.
People should absolutely be able to say what they want, dress how they want, call themselves whatever (assuming the speech of others is not forced), and publish what they want, all under the auspices of the law. I have to agree with that. I also agree, as do most Americans, that mob violence (whether it be in protest or not) and overt legislative discrimination is not something that should be tolerated within our society.
That said, I still stand by my belief that it is everyone's duty to protect children from being exposed to content that touches upon their inability to consent. That's a societal responsibility, and it exists regardless of what the letter of the law may currently say. Which is why I do support the legislation that has been passed.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 03, 2023, 10:12:40 PM
There's nothing sexual or grooming about anything guys!
So you're posting an image from what appears to be the Argentinian play, Stravaganza. As far as I can see, it isn't even a drag show. It's a circus-style show with scantily-clad dancers and acrobats, though admittedly Argentina is a country with nude beaches among other things.
https://www.vocescriticas.com/noticias/2022/06/06/94655-stravaganza-llega-a-salta-enterate-cuando-y-donde-es-la-funcion
The image looks photoshopped to me, but maybe it's just the sunglasses on the kid to protect their identity. (?) Regardless, I don't think whatever they did in Argentina would condemn all shows done anywhere in the world.
If kids are sexually abused, it should be criminally prosecuted. We have laws for that, which can and should be applied regardless of whether the abuser is LGBT or not.
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 10:47:01 PM
Regardless, I don't think whatever they did in Argentina would condemn all shows done anywhere in the world.
Same poster earlier implied that the existence of one proposed law shows the ill intent of all the other laws. :o
STOP treating jhkim as if he's sincere. He's not. He's going to nit pick around the edges of every argument and throw irrelevancies out to obfuscate. It's what he does. Note that "compromise" to the left is "you give us part of what we want, and we give you nothing. Then repeat." He's just trying to move the Overton Window a little at a time. He still hasn't addressed the main point: children should not be exposed to sexualized drag (which is most of it). He'll bounce around to "why do we need to specify 'drag' when we agree on 'sexualized'" (when he knows the answer), but then supports sexualized things because "some other medium did it once."
Leftists have no principles, just tactics. It's why any reasoned argument is useless (and, in fact, counter-productive). Once they've wrung a slight concession (something most people will do to be agreeable), they move on to the next, then the next. You are not going to reach common ground by trying to understand the basis of his arguments, because the basis is simply saying whatever will advance the cause one more step. And, in this case, the cause is degeneracy...
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 10:47:01 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 03, 2023, 10:12:40 PM
There's nothing sexual or grooming about anything guys!
So you're posting an image from what appears to be the Argentinian play, Stravaganza. As far as I can see, it isn't even a drag show. It's a circus-style show with scantily-clad dancers and acrobats, though admittedly Argentina is a country with nude beaches among other things.
https://www.vocescriticas.com/noticias/2022/06/06/94655-stravaganza-llega-a-salta-enterate-cuando-y-donde-es-la-funcion
The image looks photoshopped to me, but maybe it's just the sunglasses on the kid to protect their identity. (?) Regardless, I don't think whatever they did in Argentina would condemn all shows done anywhere in the world.
If kids are sexually abused, it should be criminally prosecuted. We have laws for that, which can and should be applied regardless of whether the abuser is LGBT or not.
Yes, I'm sure that has never happened in the USA
https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/ (https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 03, 2023, 11:23:05 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 10:47:01 PM
Regardless, I don't think whatever they did in Argentina would condemn all shows done anywhere in the world.
Same poster earlier implied that the existence of one proposed law shows the ill intent of all the other laws. :o
STOP treating jhkim as if he's sincere. He's not. He's going to nit pick around the edges of every argument and throw irrelevancies out to obfuscate. It's what he does. Note that "compromise" to the left is "you give us part of what we want, and we give you nothing. Then repeat." He's just trying to move the Overton Window a little at a time. He still hasn't addressed the main point: children should not be exposed to sexualized drag (which is most of it). He'll bounce around to "why do we need to specify 'drag' when we agree on 'sexualized'" (when he knows the answer), but then supports sexualized things because "some other medium did it once."
Leftists have no principles, just tactics. It's why any reasoned argument is useless (and, in fact, counter-productive). Once they've wrung a slight concession (something most people will do to be agreeable), they move on to the next, then the next. You are not going to reach common ground by trying to understand the basis of his arguments, because the basis is simply saying whatever will advance the cause one more step. And, in this case, the cause is degeneracy...
You don't argue with them to change their mind, you do it to expose them. It's not hard, just give them enough rope and they hang themselves like Jhkim just did.
Greetings!
Crush the degenerates. Our land needs to be cleansed. Never compromise. Never surrender!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I'm 100% sure it's not about pedos grooming children
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/watch-13-year-old-drag-queen-performs-for-adults/article_22707e56-cc05-11ed-9c67-6ba918901652.html (https://www.westernstandard.news/news/watch-13-year-old-drag-queen-performs-for-adults/article_22707e56-cc05-11ed-9c67-6ba918901652.html)
It's 100% not sexual, just like a pantomime you bigots!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11317925/Shocking-footage-family-friendly-drag-queen-sees-performer-spreading-legs-kids.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11317925/Shocking-footage-family-friendly-drag-queen-sees-performer-spreading-legs-kids.html)
"It's Not Gonna Lick Itself" is 100% not a sexual remark, you're just a bunch of intolerant bigots that want to ban pantomimes!
https://www.christianpost.com/news/drag-show-for-moms-and-babies-with-men-in-thongs-prompts-outrage.html (https://www.christianpost.com/news/drag-show-for-moms-and-babies-with-men-in-thongs-prompts-outrage.html)
Cue the pedo apologists in 5, 4, 3...
GeekyBugle, your first image was from a non-drag show, but you insist that it is specifically drag that is the problem. Is it OK for a child to lean into a microphone sticking out of a man's crotch as long as he is a non-transgender man? Is it OK for a 13-year-old girl to gyrate on stage in a skimpy outfit for adults, as long as she has always identified as a girl?
I would say no.
The rules should be the same for drag and non-drag performances.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 03, 2023, 12:31:55 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AM
Oh look, the drag ban in Tennessee was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4033015-federal-judge-rules-tennessee-restrictions-on-drag-shows-unconstitutional/) for being substantially overbroad and vague and a violation of the first amendment.
Oh gee, who could have called that? Oh right, me, in this thread, explaining how it is overbroad and vague and bans things it was never intended to ban.
Like I said, "This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law."
If you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
Maybe because other explicitly sexual shows are already illegal but you fuckers play defense for the pedos invading the LGB movement.
They're not. If A) Drag shows were sexually explicit and B) sexually explicit shows already had a law barring minors then C) drag shows would have already barred minors. Because they did not, you can rest assured either drag shows were not sexually explicit despite your claims to the contrary, OR sexually explicit shows were not already barring minors. Decide which route you were wrong. I'll wait.
If y'all want to make this about "People who disagree with me are pedos" then you'd be pushing a law which simply bans minors from all sexually explicit shows. You're not - because it's not about pedos but is instead about you feeling personally offended by drag shows and raising your morality flag while using kids as your shield to defend your puritanical Karen-like demands. Again.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
Sorry but what does "The further the better" mean? How far away should transgender people be put?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:01:31 PM
Bugs Bunny, MASH, and the other kinds of "men in drag" you referenced were MAKING FUN OF MEN IN WOMEN'S CLOTHING. They were not "celebrating" drag; they were holding it up for ridicule. They wanted the audience to LAUGH AT IT. That is not the context of modern drag, and you know it. You and that groomer Mistwell can obfuscate all you want, but drag queens reading books to children is perverse, at best.
The other day I laughed at a guy wearing a dress.
One of my co-workers told me that I'm not allowed to do that any more.
Quote from: jhkim on June 04, 2023, 08:02:53 AM
GeekyBugle, your first image was from a non-drag show, but you insist that it is specifically drag that is the problem. Is it OK for a child to lean into a microphone sticking out of a man's crotch as long as he is a non-transgender man? Is it OK for a 13-year-old girl to gyrate on stage in a skimpy outfit for adults, as long as she has always identified as a girl?
I would say no.
The rules should be the same for drag and non-drag performances.
It's all part of the cultural and moral rot you leftist are pushing.
Isn't it already illegal for minors to go to strip clubs? But somehow call it drag and you now have the strip club in the schools and minors performing strip for adults.
All of it celebrated by the left.
Don't know why yo have to ask, yes, everything should be banned, but there's a particular type of degeneracy being pushed onto kids by the left, so we can start there, because it makes you reeeeee.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 04, 2023, 11:32:48 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 03, 2023, 12:31:55 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AM
Oh look, the drag ban in Tennessee was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4033015-federal-judge-rules-tennessee-restrictions-on-drag-shows-unconstitutional/) for being substantially overbroad and vague and a violation of the first amendment.
Oh gee, who could have called that? Oh right, me, in this thread, explaining how it is overbroad and vague and bans things it was never intended to ban.
Like I said, "This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law."
If you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
Maybe because other explicitly sexual shows are already illegal but you fuckers play defense for the pedos invading the LGB movement.
They're not. If A) Drag shows were sexually explicit and B) sexually explicit shows already had a law barring minors then C) drag shows would have already barred minors. Because they did not, you can rest assured either drag shows were not sexually explicit despite your claims to the contrary, OR sexually explicit shows were not already barring minors. Decide which route you were wrong. I'll wait.
If y'all want to make this about "People who disagree with me are pedos" then you'd be pushing a law which simply bans minors from all sexually explicit shows. You're not - because it's not about pedos but is instead about you feeling personally offended by drag shows and raising your morality flag while using kids as your shield to defend your puritanical Karen-like demands. Again.
Okay groomer, I have posted a small ammount of proof that IT IS about pedos in drag, you keep playing defense, ergo you're at the very least a pedo apologist or a full on pedo, you can choose which.
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Paedophilia is a thing, an awful thing. It's been an ongoing problem as far back as we remember. Most examples of paedophilia don't seem to be from trans or gay people but this is the focus. It's all glaikit shite. In the end most paedo's are straight presenting blokes of whatever political views. Nasty blokes who you have probably invited to a bbq at some point.
That's not to say there aren't paedophiles of every other type of gender and sexuality and that they shouldn't be dealt with. It's just as you go down the numbers it's likely to be less and less. I'm also open to a discussion of how sex and sexuality is presented to children, it's always going to be an awkward area.
This part of the conversation has an icky regressive slant that automatically assumes that anything out of what you think is the norm is incredibly awful. Shark cites a trans person doing an awful shooting as evidence that all trans people are evil whilst not acknowledging all the people who also did awful shootings which would make everybody of their background evil, that doesn't seem reasonable. Geekybugle and others are all about redefining what "drag" means in a weirdly Orwellian way, it's clearly not just the Marxists redefining language.
Don't you see how weird this conversation is?
"If you're against pedos and degenerates performing sexualy explicit shit infront of minors you're an istaphobic regressive!"
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 04:56:42 PM
"If you're against pedos and degenerates performing sexualy explicit shit infront of minors you're an istaphobic regressive!"
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
I could say the same about you. This is just a piece of nonsense made to distract. My main thing about the culture war thing is that it's a distraction from real politics but the paedo thing could just be a distraction from the majority of paedos who are just blokes. Is that what you're doing? Are you a beard for whit guy paedos?
Quote from: Garry G on June 04, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Yes, I get it. They were "tounge in cheek", meaning they want to make society more accepting of gay people. But the creation of the video is so tone deaf. Like saying "Don't think of an elephant." That video was "Don't think of child abuse." And that's about the most counter-productive approach I can think of when trying to increase the acceptance of gays.
But it's telling that gay activists like these simply don't give a fuck. They're going to push acceptance of their identities onto children, and they don't give two fucks if it alarms parents.
LGBTQ activism jumped the shark long ago. It used to be simply about letting gay people lead their lives in peace. Something I can understand. To this whole Queer Theory bullshit about tearing down social norms and rebuilding society into their bizarre notions of Marxism/Post-Modernism/Woke/whateverthefuck.
Queer is one of those "progressive" terms that usually doesn't mean what people think it means, and drag has been incorporated as another prong of this attack.
I've followed the discussion but stayed out of it up until now because not every gay or trans or drag person goes along with this insanity, and not every one is a pedophile. It's an easy thing to critique and dismiss, although "trans" people assaulting women in bathrooms is a thing (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-failed-at-every-juncture-loudoun-county-mishandled-bathroom-sex-assault-grand-jury-finds/), there are enough whataboutisms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/) to make it a weak argument.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 04, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Yes, I get it. They were "tounge in cheek", meaning they want to make society more accepting of gay people. But the creation of the video is so tone deaf. Like saying "Don't think of an elephant." That video was "Don't think of child abuse." And that's about the most counter-productive approach I can think of when trying to increase the acceptance of gays.
But it's telling that gay activists like these simply don't give a fuck. They're going to push acceptance of their identities onto children, and they don't give two fucks if it alarms parents.
LGBTQ activism jumped the shark long ago. It used to be simply about letting gay people lead their lives in peace. Something I can understand. To this whole Queer Theory bullshit about tearing down social norms and rebuilding society into their bizarre notions of Marxism/Post-Modernism/Woke/whateverthefuck.
Queer is one of those "progressive" terms that usually doesn't mean what people think it means, and drag has been incorporated as another prong of this attack.
I've followed the discussion but stayed out of it up until now because not every gay or trans or drag person goes along with this insanity, and not every one is a pedophile. It's an easy thing to critique and dismiss, although "trans" people assaulting women in bathrooms is a thing (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-failed-at-every-juncture-loudoun-county-mishandled-bathroom-sex-assault-grand-jury-finds/), there are enough whataboutisms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/) to make it a weak argument.
Maybe you don't know or forgot that several of the "artists" on that video turned out to be child molesters, already on the registry. So it maybe was tongue in cheek and maybe not.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 04, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Yes, I get it. They were "tounge in cheek", meaning they want to make society more accepting of gay people. But the creation of the video is so tone deaf. Like saying "Don't think of an elephant." That video was "Don't think of child abuse." And that's about the most counter-productive approach I can think of when trying to increase the acceptance of gays.
But it's telling that gay activists like these simply don't give a fuck. They're going to push acceptance of their identities onto children, and they don't give two fucks if it alarms parents.
LGBTQ activism jumped the shark long ago. It used to be simply about letting gay people lead their lives in peace. Something I can understand. To this whole Queer Theory bullshit about tearing down social norms and rebuilding society into their bizarre notions of Marxism/Post-Modernism/Woke/whateverthefuck.
Queer is one of those "progressive" terms that usually doesn't mean what people think it means, and drag has been incorporated as another prong of this attack.
I've followed the discussion but stayed out of it up until now because not every gay or trans or drag person goes along with this insanity, and not every one is a pedophile. It's an easy thing to critique and dismiss, although "trans" people assaulting women in bathrooms is a thing (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-failed-at-every-juncture-loudoun-county-mishandled-bathroom-sex-assault-grand-jury-finds/), there are enough whataboutisms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/) to make it a weak argument.
Maybe you don't know or forgot that several of the "artists" on that video turned out to be child molesters, already on the registry. So it maybe was tongue in cheek and maybe not.
Which ones?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 07:38:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 04, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Yes, I get it. They were "tounge in cheek", meaning they want to make society more accepting of gay people. But the creation of the video is so tone deaf. Like saying "Don't think of an elephant." That video was "Don't think of child abuse." And that's about the most counter-productive approach I can think of when trying to increase the acceptance of gays.
But it's telling that gay activists like these simply don't give a fuck. They're going to push acceptance of their identities onto children, and they don't give two fucks if it alarms parents.
LGBTQ activism jumped the shark long ago. It used to be simply about letting gay people lead their lives in peace. Something I can understand. To this whole Queer Theory bullshit about tearing down social norms and rebuilding society into their bizarre notions of Marxism/Post-Modernism/Woke/whateverthefuck.
Queer is one of those "progressive" terms that usually doesn't mean what people think it means, and drag has been incorporated as another prong of this attack.
I've followed the discussion but stayed out of it up until now because not every gay or trans or drag person goes along with this insanity, and not every one is a pedophile. It's an easy thing to critique and dismiss, although "trans" people assaulting women in bathrooms is a thing (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-failed-at-every-juncture-loudoun-county-mishandled-bathroom-sex-assault-grand-jury-finds/), there are enough whataboutisms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/) to make it a weak argument.
Maybe you don't know or forgot that several of the "artists" on that video turned out to be child molesters, already on the registry. So it maybe was tongue in cheek and maybe not.
Which ones?
https://evangelicaldarkweb.org/2021/07/09/gay-grooming-chorus-includes-registered-sex-offenders/
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:31:09 PM
How far should they be kept away?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
You say you're opposed to "pushing" transgender people. But if people live in the same community, they'll naturally run into each other. I have a transgender member of my church. My transgender neighbor sent her kid to the local schools. I've played games with several transgender people at my local gaming conventions.
If transgender people live their lives, they're going to do many of the same things that other people do. They'll go to parks, libraries, and swimming pools. They'll work in restaurants, libraries, and other places. They'll go to church and/or clubs. They'll attend theater or perform in theater. They'll send their kids to school, and maybe volunteer at school or be a teacher or tutor.
To guarantee that they be kept away from you, you'd need segregation laws that ensure they can't send their kids to the same schools, or go to the same swimming pools, or work at local places, etc.
If you don't like them, don't talk to them and walk away. But it isn't their responsibility to stay away from you. If they aren't committing a crime, then they can express themselves as they see fit. Part of living in a free society is that citizens have to be able to live in the same community as people they disagree with. They shouldn't be able to force anything on you, but they can live in the public space and express their views. You can live in the same public space and express your views.
I support conservatives' rights to express themselves and voice anti-transgender views, and I also support transgender advocates rights to express themselves and voice their views.
I do not talk to them or associate with them and given how rare they appear in society I never really run into any. I am also not going to tolerate them playing sports with my daughter or using the same restroom. Not tolerate. Understand that.
oggsmash makes some good points here about trans movement overreach. The average American is not in favor of removing biological restrictions with credible basis only for trans folks, as they demand.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 05, 2023, 05:04:07 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:31:09 PM
How far should they be kept away?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
Why?
You say you're opposed to "pushing" transgender people. But if people live in the same community, they'll naturally run into each other. I have a transgender member of my church. My transgender neighbor sent her kid to the local schools. I've played games with several transgender people at my local gaming conventions.
If transgender people live their lives, they're going to do many of the same things that other people do. They'll go to parks, libraries, and swimming pools. They'll work in restaurants, libraries, and other places. They'll go to church and/or clubs. They'll attend theater or perform in theater. They'll send their kids to school, and maybe volunteer at school or be a teacher or tutor.
To guarantee that they be kept away from you, you'd need segregation laws that ensure they can't send their kids to the same schools, or go to the same swimming pools, or work at local places, etc.
If you don't like them, don't talk to them and walk away. But it isn't their responsibility to stay away from you. If they aren't committing a crime, then they can express themselves as they see fit. Part of living in a free society is that citizens have to be able to live in the same community as people they disagree with. They shouldn't be able to force anything on you, but they can live in the public space and express their views. You can live in the same public space and express your views.
I support conservatives' rights to express themselves and voice anti-transgender views, and I also support transgender advocates rights to express themselves and voice their views.
I do not talk to them or associate with them and given how rare they appear in society I never really run into any. I am also not going to tolerate them playing sports with my daughter or using the same restroom. Not tolerate. Understand that.
Quote from: Garry G on June 05, 2023, 01:26:52 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 05, 2023, 05:04:07 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:31:09 PM
How far should they be kept away?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
Why?
You say you're opposed to "pushing" transgender people. But if people live in the same community, they'll naturally run into each other. I have a transgender member of my church. My transgender neighbor sent her kid to the local schools. I've played games with several transgender people at my local gaming conventions.
If transgender people live their lives, they're going to do many of the same things that other people do. They'll go to parks, libraries, and swimming pools. They'll work in restaurants, libraries, and other places. They'll go to church and/or clubs. They'll attend theater or perform in theater. They'll send their kids to school, and maybe volunteer at school or be a teacher or tutor.
To guarantee that they be kept away from you, you'd need segregation laws that ensure they can't send their kids to the same schools, or go to the same swimming pools, or work at local places, etc.
If you don't like them, don't talk to them and walk away. But it isn't their responsibility to stay away from you. If they aren't committing a crime, then they can express themselves as they see fit. Part of living in a free society is that citizens have to be able to live in the same community as people they disagree with. They shouldn't be able to force anything on you, but they can live in the public space and express their views. You can live in the same public space and express your views.
I support conservatives' rights to express themselves and voice anti-transgender views, and I also support transgender advocates rights to express themselves and voice their views.
I do not talk to them or associate with them and given how rare they appear in society I never really run into any. I am also not going to tolerate them playing sports with my daughter or using the same restroom. Not tolerate. Understand that.
I think you forgot to actually post something here, or it got lost.
Or maybe you're aiming to discredit the idea that biological sex can matter in sports competitions and that adolescent children should probably not be naked in a locker room near those of another sex... by making a personal attack on me or oggsmash on the basis of prior posts. Which will not work, because ad hominem attacks do not invalidate the ideas held by the target even if they land.
I already gave my opinion on the earlier quoted topic posts by oggsmash and jhkim. With a notably closer position to jhkim. Still, oggsmash brought up a very good topic in his most recent post, so I highlighted it. Try to distract all you want.
EDIT: In retrospect I realize that my interpretation of your intent may have been uncharitable, and I may have misinterpreted. I would welcome a direct discussion of laws referencing biological restrictions, or a clarification on what this post actually meant. I took a defensive stance on the assumption of aggresssion and perceived slight, which is never a good way to begin a productive conversation with someone.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 05, 2023, 05:04:07 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 03, 2023, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:31:09 PM
How far should they be kept away?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
You say you're opposed to "pushing" transgender people. But if people live in the same community, they'll naturally run into each other. I have a transgender member of my church. My transgender neighbor sent her kid to the local schools. I've played games with several transgender people at my local gaming conventions.
If transgender people live their lives, they're going to do many of the same things that other people do. They'll go to parks, libraries, and swimming pools. They'll work in restaurants, libraries, and other places. They'll go to church and/or clubs. They'll attend theater or perform in theater. They'll send their kids to school, and maybe volunteer at school or be a teacher or tutor.
To guarantee that they be kept away from you, you'd need segregation laws that ensure they can't send their kids to the same schools, or go to the same swimming pools, or work at local places, etc.
If you don't like them, don't talk to them and walk away. But it isn't their responsibility to stay away from you. If they aren't committing a crime, then they can express themselves as they see fit. Part of living in a free society is that citizens have to be able to live in the same community as people they disagree with. They shouldn't be able to force anything on you, but they can live in the public space and express their views. You can live in the same public space and express your views.
I support conservatives' rights to express themselves and voice anti-transgender views, and I also support transgender advocates rights to express themselves and voice their views.
I do not talk to them or associate with them and given how rare they appear in society I never really run into any. I am also not going to tolerate them playing sports with my daughter or using the same restroom. Not tolerate. Understand that.
But why?
I'm not sure I understand your question in this instance? But why what? What are you asking me? I mean this query sincerely, and am trying to debate in good faith. What are you trying to convey with respect to this post and your prior post?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 01:39:33 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 04, 2023, 08:02:53 AM
GeekyBugle, your first image was from a non-drag show, but you insist that it is specifically drag that is the problem. Is it OK for a child to lean into a microphone sticking out of a man's crotch as long as he is a non-transgender man? Is it OK for a 13-year-old girl to gyrate on stage in a skimpy outfit for adults, as long as she has always identified as a girl?
I would say no.
The rules should be the same for drag and non-drag performances.
Isn't it already illegal for minors to go to strip clubs? But somehow call it drag and you now have the strip club in the schools and minors performing strip for adults.
Garry G asked a similar question:
Quote from: Garry G on June 03, 2023, 01:12:11 PM
But why aren't sexually explicit shows already legally off-limits for children in the US? I'm from another place so forgive me if I don't understand why kids are allowed to go to strip clubs in America.
Laws for this vary based on state and city. However, my understanding is that "strip shows" are defined specifically around exposing private parts (or female breasts) to the audience. Those are usually regulated so the proprietors are required that children under a certain age can't see them, and ID checks are legally required.
But as I said, drag shows vary a lot. If a drag show involves nudity, then it'd be classified with strip shows. If a drag show doesn't involve nudity, but does involve risque costumes, then it might be classified instead like sexy bikini contests.
Live events like sexy bikini contests are typically not legally restricted, but instead are just a matter of propriety. As a parallel, R-rated movies aren't enforced by police. Instead, it is a standard that the theater industry has adopted. R-rated means that children age 16 and under are not admitted without a parent or guardian present. So a younger child can't purchase a ticket and be admitted on their own, but they can be brought in by a parent.
Live events like a bikini contest typically follow similar practice to R-rated movies, but there isn't an organization like the MPAA behind it. As far as I can tell, a drag show with skimpy outfits would be similar, and follows similar practice.
Whether a child can go to a strip show or not depends specifically on state and locality. The Supreme Court saw to that. ( Also, it has been ruled that cities and states can ban nude dancing and regulate adult-oriented businesses, but can't prohibit them from operating. So free speech is safe. ) As does how a strip show is defined. So in some states and localities it's under-regulated. Sometimes, but not always, this coincides with and is influenced by an attempt to protect what are seen as lgbtq interests within the state or locality. What doesn't help is that legislation has to be specific in order to have meaning, be legally enforceable, and not be a blank check to judicial discretion. Drag shows, even risqué or XXX-type ones, are not deemed strip shows in many locations as a consequence. In which case they have to be regulated separately, as In Tennessee. (Incidentally, the same ammendment that got struck down by the courts also explicitly banned child exposure to strip clubs in the state.)
Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2023, 05:15:33 PM
Laws for this vary based on state and city. However, my understanding is that "strip shows" are defined specifically around exposing private parts (or female breasts) to the audience. Those are usually regulated so the proprietors are required that children under a certain age can't see them, and ID checks are legally required.
But as I said, drag shows vary a lot. If a drag show involves nudity, then it'd be classified with strip shows. If a drag show doesn't involve nudity, but does involve risque costumes, then it might be classified instead like sexy bikini contests.
Live events like sexy bikini contests are typically not legally restricted, but instead are just a matter of propriety. As a parallel, R-rated movies aren't enforced by police. Instead, it is a standard that the theater industry has adopted. R-rated means that children age 16 and under are not admitted without a parent or guardian present. So a younger child can't purchase a ticket and be admitted on their own, but they can be brought in by a parent.
Live events like a bikini contest typically follow similar practice to R-rated movies, but there isn't an organization like the MPAA behind it. As far as I can tell, a drag show with skimpy outfits would be similar, and follows similar practice.
You don't need to legislate laws against taking kids to wet t-shirt contests and bikini contests because normal people know that's going to be problematic and can damage their development. Apparently, however, taking kids to drag shows is perfectly normal and if you disagree you're a horrible bigot.
Imagine even needing to make jokes about something this fucking retarded...
Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 05:40:20 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 05, 2023, 05:15:33 PM
Laws for this vary based on state and city. However, my understanding is that "strip shows" are defined specifically around exposing private parts (or female breasts) to the audience. Those are usually regulated so the proprietors are required that children under a certain age can't see them, and ID checks are legally required.
But as I said, drag shows vary a lot. If a drag show involves nudity, then it'd be classified with strip shows. If a drag show doesn't involve nudity, but does involve risque costumes, then it might be classified instead like sexy bikini contests.
Live events like sexy bikini contests are typically not legally restricted, but instead are just a matter of propriety. As a parallel, R-rated movies aren't enforced by police. Instead, it is a standard that the theater industry has adopted. R-rated means that children age 16 and under are not admitted without a parent or guardian present. So a younger child can't purchase a ticket and be admitted on their own, but they can be brought in by a parent.
Live events like a bikini contest typically follow similar practice to R-rated movies, but there isn't an organization like the MPAA behind it. As far as I can tell, a drag show with skimpy outfits would be similar, and follows similar practice.
You don't need to legislate laws against taking kids to wet t-shirt contests and bikini contests because normal people know that's going to be problematic and can damage their development. Apparently, however, taking kids to drag shows is perfectly normal and if you disagree you're a horrible bigot.
Imagine even needing to make jokes about something this fucking retarded...
Greetings!
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum. All of these activities are aimed at young children, in various environments, from libraries and classrooms, to community centers, theaters, and parks.
Gee, I wonder why that is? >:(
We all know exactly why, my friend. It is only the Liberal Cucks and groomers themselves that put on a front of denial and obfuscation, while they attempt to
gaslight the rest of us.
It is good to see more people throughout society waking up to the degenerates and their BS.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You're just a bunch of reactionary istaphobes! There's nothing sexual about Pride parades or Drag Shows! ::)
Consider cleaning your own house first. It looks like organized religion is more dangerous to children than anything you Christo-groomers are bitching about.
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 10:48:44 PM
Just a quick Google search. Maybe organized religion is dangerous to children.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177847312/state-probe-finds-catholic-church-in-illinois-vastly-underreported-clergy-sex-ab
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/catholic-church-abuse-baltimore.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/clergy-abuse-scandal-investigation/3162757/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12072943/Rocked-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-Protestant-church-shed-half-million-members-year.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maryland-ends-time-limit-child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-massive-church-scandal.amp
https://www.fox4news.com/news/fox-4-investigates-14-girls-sexually-abused-by-north-texas-youth-pastor-the-red-flags-the-church-ignored.amp
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-01-06/report-finds-catholic-church-in-kansas-covered-up-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-priests-for-decades
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/04/05/over-600-children-sexually-abused-by-baltimore-area-clergy-as-catholic-archdiocese-looked-the-other-way-report-finds/amp/
https://people.com/human-interest/hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed-recap/
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/23/southern-baptist-scandal-its-no-coincidence-that-anti-abortion-churches-protect-abusers/
https://www.ajc.com/news/credible-allegations-of-abuse-in-catholic-church-detailed-in-georgia-report/DVKD5YK4AZDYXO2SIS7TDFKIRM/
https://gokeyless.vn/hillsong-church-scandal/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/05/23/5-things-to-know-about-planos-prestonwood-baptist-megachurch/?outputType=amp
Thanks for the pointless whataboutism that has no bearing on the legislation being referenced. On which note, I feel things have really gone off the rails with respect to the original topic of this thread. Nice to see we still have anti-religious bigotry from the left, though. I'm sure our religious freedoms would definitely be in great hands were they to have power. Isn't that the debating tactic being used by the left these days, after all? That if somebody says something sketchy or uses specific instances to cast shade on a group, it's proof that everyone on their side is evil?
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 05, 2023, 11:34:36 PM
Consider cleaning your own house first. It looks like organized religion is more dangerous to children than anything you Christo-groomers are bitching about.
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 10:48:44 PM
Just a quick Google search. Maybe organized religion is dangerous to children.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177847312/state-probe-finds-catholic-church-in-illinois-vastly-underreported-clergy-sex-ab
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/catholic-church-abuse-baltimore.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/clergy-abuse-scandal-investigation/3162757/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12072943/Rocked-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-Protestant-church-shed-half-million-members-year.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maryland-ends-time-limit-child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-massive-church-scandal.amp
https://www.fox4news.com/news/fox-4-investigates-14-girls-sexually-abused-by-north-texas-youth-pastor-the-red-flags-the-church-ignored.amp
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-01-06/report-finds-catholic-church-in-kansas-covered-up-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-priests-for-decades
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/04/05/over-600-children-sexually-abused-by-baltimore-area-clergy-as-catholic-archdiocese-looked-the-other-way-report-finds/amp/
https://people.com/human-interest/hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed-recap/
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/23/southern-baptist-scandal-its-no-coincidence-that-anti-abortion-churches-protect-abusers/
https://www.ajc.com/news/credible-allegations-of-abuse-in-catholic-church-detailed-in-georgia-report/DVKD5YK4AZDYXO2SIS7TDFKIRM/
https://gokeyless.vn/hillsong-church-scandal/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/05/23/5-things-to-know-about-planos-prestonwood-baptist-megachurch/?outputType=amp
The difference between us and you is this: We don't do apologetics for child molesters wherever they are found. Unlike you who does play defense on some pedos.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 05, 2023, 11:53:16 PM
Thanks for the pointless whataboutism that has no bearing on the legislation being referenced. On which note, I feel things have really gone off the rails with respect to the original topic of this thread. Nice to see we still have anti-religious bigotry from the left, though. I'm sure our religious freedoms would definitely be in great hands were they to have power. Isn't that the debating tactic being used by the left these days, after all? That if somebody says something sketchy or uses specific instances to cast shade on a group, it's proof that everyone on their side is evil?
zing
Pointing out that religious organizations are where the degenerates We are complaining about used to (and still do) hide and camo themselves to get access to children as some defense for degenerates who want to be out in the open accessing children has to be the most retarded argument I could imagine.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 06, 2023, 05:17:39 AM
Pointing out that religious organizations are where the degenerates We are complaining about used to (and still do) hide and camo themselves to get access to children as some defense for degenerates who want to be out in the open accessing children has to be the most retarded argument I could imagine.
Easier than making a real attempt to justify why you support grooming children.
this... eh... discussion is fucking incredible. i mean, would someone kindly explain to me what on earth could little school kids learn from drag queens that they could not from their teachers that would be useful and appropriate? makeup? or lip sync? or...?
/facepalm
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 07:53:29 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 07:38:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 04, 2023, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 04, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
This is all so 1986 wit the whole "gays are after our kids" with a weird 1984 style change of language where drag wasn't a thing until they were after our kids. It's weird in exactly the same way that trans women are just trying to get into female bathrooms is weird.
Yes, I get it. They were "tounge in cheek", meaning they want to make society more accepting of gay people. But the creation of the video is so tone deaf. Like saying "Don't think of an elephant." That video was "Don't think of child abuse." And that's about the most counter-productive approach I can think of when trying to increase the acceptance of gays.
But it's telling that gay activists like these simply don't give a fuck. They're going to push acceptance of their identities onto children, and they don't give two fucks if it alarms parents.
LGBTQ activism jumped the shark long ago. It used to be simply about letting gay people lead their lives in peace. Something I can understand. To this whole Queer Theory bullshit about tearing down social norms and rebuilding society into their bizarre notions of Marxism/Post-Modernism/Woke/whateverthefuck.
Queer is one of those "progressive" terms that usually doesn't mean what people think it means, and drag has been incorporated as another prong of this attack.
I've followed the discussion but stayed out of it up until now because not every gay or trans or drag person goes along with this insanity, and not every one is a pedophile. It's an easy thing to critique and dismiss, although "trans" people assaulting women in bathrooms is a thing (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-failed-at-every-juncture-loudoun-county-mishandled-bathroom-sex-assault-grand-jury-finds/), there are enough whataboutisms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/) to make it a weak argument.
Maybe you don't know or forgot that several of the "artists" on that video turned out to be child molesters, already on the registry. So it maybe was tongue in cheek and maybe not.
Which ones?
https://evangelicaldarkweb.org/2021/07/09/gay-grooming-chorus-includes-registered-sex-offenders/
"4 Chan researchers " Pardon me if I take that article with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Klava on June 06, 2023, 07:38:43 AM
this... eh... discussion is fucking incredible. i mean, would someone kindly explain to me what on earth could little school kids learn from drag queens that they could not from their teachers that would be useful and appropriate? makeup? or lip sync? or...?
/facepalm
There is no reasonable justification ever provided. Any pushback, and I mean ANY PUSHBACK, results in these fucks literally destroying your livelihood, being put on an FBI watchlist, and possible jail time. Cannot wait for the explanations from the resident Marxists why parents going to school board meetings being branded domestic terrorists by the DOJ is perfectly normal.
Quote from: Klava on June 06, 2023, 07:38:43 AM
this... eh... discussion is fucking incredible. i mean, would someone kindly explain to me what on earth could little school kids learn from drag queens that they could not from their teachers that would be useful and appropriate? makeup? or lip sync? or...?
/facepalm
The kids can learn that it's fine for women as a sex to be mocked and parodied.
Drag shows are modern minstrel shows. Blackface and jazz hands: bad. Exaggerated makeup, dress, and fake boobs: good.
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 05:40:20 PM
You don't need to legislate laws against taking kids to wet t-shirt contests and bikini contests because normal people know that's going to be problematic and can damage their development. Apparently, however, taking kids to drag shows is perfectly normal and if you disagree you're a horrible bigot.
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
---
In contradiction to Brad, sexualization, grooming, and sexual abuse of children is not in the slightest a new thing from liberated LGBT people that no one else does. It is old and indeed was widely accepted in the past. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
In the present, child sexual abuse is still common - as it has always been. By some studies, over 10% of girls experiencing child sexual abuse - with a third of those age 12 or younger. This is usually heterosexual, though there are also LGBT abusers. Child marriage is still legal in 42 U.S. states.
---
I support action to reduce child sexual abuse, but it should apply equally to straight and LGBT. Specifically, my problems with the Tennessee law are:
(1) It singles out drag without applying to the same costumes and behavior in non-drag performances.
(2) It applies to all minors - treating 17-year-olds the same as 9-year-olds.
This law was struck down in court because it was overbroad in application for exactly this reason. As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
Inequality under the law is a terrible thing. No arguments there. Things improved have improved a lot, and that wouldn't be possible without things originally having been quite bad.
I don't think anyone 20 years ago would have believed the only 10% opposition to legislated non-discrimination statistic that now applies. But apply it does. Which is why all this "authoritarian right that legally persecutes the lgbtq" scaremongering would be preposterous even if not for the fact that adult businesses like drag shows cannot even be closed down by the state, as per the Supreme Court. For as I noted earlier... "it has been ruled that cities and states can ban nude dancing and regulate adult-oriented businesses, but can't prohibit them from operating. So free speech [and drag] is safe."
Likewise, I and most people also support the idea of ending child marriages, again upon the grounds that children regardless of age cannot properly consent. Which is where I'm gonna have to disagree with your interpretation of the Tennessee law. The judge struck it down, as I said before, specifically on the grounds that "the law is overly broad because it applies to minors of all ages and anywhere that a minor could be." Again, not due to your listed point #1. (Which was addressed previously, I feel, with an explanation of how laws need to be specific and drag shows are distinct from strip clubs [also banned by that Tennessee law] and the like under existing Tennessee law. Also in how banning prurient content more generally for children without any context would just be giving the decision over to judicial arbitrage, assuming such a law could somehow survive scrutiny in scope and application [which it wouldn't]. If the goal is for folks to be equal under the law, one cannot give exemptions to some simply on the basis of their identity, nor to adult businesses on the basis of wanting to protect the political association of their performers.)
Again, to quote myself... "I personally think it's fine for it to apply to minors of all ages, because minors of all ages cannot consent, so I disagree with the judge on that. Likewise, I think the state had a compelling interest to ensure that children were definitively not present at such performances. Those were the two points the judge made, and it seems to me both were intuitively unjustified and wrong. [...] It will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court."
Edit: Also, what was banned by the law was adult cabaret and genuinely adult content in live entertainment. Not PG-13 content. Which matters, I feel, to context.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
---
In contradiction to Brad, sexualization, grooming, and sexual abuse of children is not in the slightest a new thing from liberated LGBT people that no one else does. It is old and indeed was widely accepted in the past. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
In the present, child sexual abuse is still common - as it has always been. By some studies, over 10% of girls experiencing child sexual abuse - with a third of those age 12 or younger. This is usually heterosexual, though there are also LGBT abusers. Child marriage is still legal in 42 U.S. states.
---
I support action to reduce child sexual abuse, but it should apply equally to straight and LGBT. Specifically, my problems with the Tennessee law are:
(1) It singles out drag without applying to the same costumes and behavior in non-drag performances.
(2) It applies to all minors - treating 17-year-olds the same as 9-year-olds.
This law was struck down in court because it was overbroad in application for exactly this reason. As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
Slavery used to be legal. This adherence to legalism and not objective morality is what leads to the slippery slope we're experiencing. What an utterly retarded argument you're trying to make here...
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
May I ask an honest question? What is the attraction of drag shows?
In my younger days, I had male and female friends who though they were fun and hilarious. I never understood the attraction.
At the present onset of my crusty old days, I view drag shows as a misogynistic mockery of the feminine. Fine if you want to do that in private, but why promote it to kids? And I cannot get the parallel to minstrel shows out of my head. Minstrel shows were good clean fun at the time and even some black people liked them. If we are okay with exaggerated parody of a group of people, why not bring minstrel shows back?
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 05:40:20 PM
You don't need to legislate laws against taking kids to wet t-shirt contests and bikini contests because normal people know that's going to be problematic and can damage their development. Apparently, however, taking kids to drag shows is perfectly normal and if you disagree you're a horrible bigot.
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
---
In contradiction to Brad, sexualization, grooming, and sexual abuse of children is not in the slightest a new thing from liberated LGBT people that no one else does. It is old and indeed was widely accepted in the past. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
In the present, child sexual abuse is still common - as it has always been. By some studies, over 10% of girls experiencing child sexual abuse - with a third of those age 12 or younger. This is usually heterosexual, though there are also LGBT abusers. Child marriage is still legal in 42 U.S. states.
---
I support action to reduce child sexual abuse, but it should apply equally to straight and LGBT. Specifically, my problems with the Tennessee law are:
(1) It singles out drag without applying to the same costumes and behavior in non-drag performances.
(2) It applies to all minors - treating 17-year-olds the same as 9-year-olds.
This law was struck down in court because it was overbroad in application for exactly this reason. As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
Let me introduce you to a novel concept:
Linear time, we no longer live on those times, dragging them out is just an apeal to emotion, yes those things happened and were terrible, and now you can get your whole life ruined if you dare correct gender some asshole.
So I guess you're also in favor of minors of 17 being able to buy beer? There's plenty of examples where we treat ALL minors the same so you're just acting surprised BECAUSE you agree with perverts giving/getting lap-dances to/from minors.
As for laws "targeting" Drag... Well, if you had strippers being invited to perform in front of minors you would see the exact same reaction, but you don't, because as immoral as being a stripper is they at least know enough not to do that.
Your "arguments" are just special pleading and whataboutism.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 04:34:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
May I ask an honest question? What is the attraction of drag shows?
In my younger days, I had male and female friends who though they were fun and hilarious. I never understood the attraction.
At the present onset of my crusty old days, I view drag shows as a misogynistic mockery of the feminine. Fine if you want to do that in private, but why promote it to kids? And I cannot get the parallel to minstrel shows out of my head. Minstrel shows were good clean fun at the time and even some black people liked them. If we are okay with exaggerated parody of a group of people, why not bring minstrel shows back?
IMHO?
It tickles the latent/repressed homosexuality/mysoginy of some and others love it because it's "transgressive".
As for why push it on children? You need to understand their PoV: In Germany they placed children with foster parents that were KNOWN child molesters to prevent the children from becoming nazis, to the left being normal ("sexually repressed" they call it) leads directly and invariably to fascism.
So you push a semmingly innocent thing to push the overton window and normalize stuff not so innocent, it's basically what grooming means.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 04:34:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
May I ask an honest question? What is the attraction of drag shows?
In my younger days, I had male and female friends who though they were fun and hilarious. I never understood the attraction.
At the present onset of my crusty old days, I view drag shows as a misogynistic mockery of the feminine. Fine if you want to do that in private, but why promote it to kids? And I cannot get the parallel to minstrel shows out of my head. Minstrel shows were good clean fun at the time and even some black people liked them. If we are okay with exaggerated parody of a group of people, why not bring minstrel shows back?
I can't comment on the genre as a whole, because I haven't seen much of it. I loved the Kinky Boots musical, which has a nice story along with amazing dancing and costumes, and the Cyndi Lauper music. I don't think it is at all misogynist. That specific show is much more about masculinity than it is about the feminine. Even the cross-dressing character, Lola, nominally identifies as straight and is attracted to women. It's about how men limit their expression and can get closed off by being obsessed over being manly. Sometimes men enjoy things that aren't seen as "manly", especially LGBT men but also straight men.
The film "The Full Monte", for example, has similar messages about masculinity (especially that it's also about industrial workers in the UK) without any drag. The film "Billy Elliot" also comments about this in a similar setting of coal miners. While there is a side character who is gay, the main character Billy isn't gay - he just enjoys ballet dancing.
This is what I think the WWII military drag shows that I linked earlier were about. They weren't attacking or mocking women. They loved women and missed having feminine things in their lives, so they enjoyed putting on dresses to have some feminine things around in their all-male environment.
Letting off some steam and breaking free of social standards can be fun.
---
Also note that there are also drag kings as well as drag queens. With both, I think they're often (though not always) commenting on masculine/feminine markers and standards - which is different than commenting on men and women. The point is that sometimes, men can enjoy things like singing along to Madonna songs, or beautiful flowers, or frilly dresses. Women can enjoy things like tuxedos or sports or cigars.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
Linear time, we no longer live on those times, dragging them out is just an apeal to emotion, yes those things happened and were terrible, and now you can get your whole life ruined if you dare correct gender some asshole.
Dude, I'm not the one who brought up the topic. I was directly replying to SHARK who spoke positively about the days when degenerate, sinful "gays and trannies" were kept in their place, and oggsmash expressed similar sentiments. Check the conversation history above.
It's kind of giving me whiplash trying to switch between talking to you and KindaMeh on the one hand, and SHARK and oggsmash on the other. You claim that the past is so far behind that I'm wrong to even bring it up, while simultaneously, SHARK and oggsmash are calling for a return to it.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
I can't comment on the genre as a whole, because I haven't seen much of it. I loved the Kinky Boots musical, which has a nice story along with amazing dancing and costumes, and the Cyndi Lauper music. I don't think it is at all misogynist. That specific show is much more about masculinity than it is about the feminine. Even the cross-dressing character, Lola, nominally identifies as straight and is attracted to women. It's about how men limit their expression and can get closed off by being obsessed over being manly. Sometimes men enjoy things that aren't seen as "manly", especially LGBT men but also straight men.
Are you saying drag shows are not misogynist because a woman wrote the music or because you liked this show?
Minstrel shows were extremely popular, not just with white people, and many prominent troupes were black performers who also wore blackface.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
The film "The Full Monte", for example, has similar messages about masculinity (especially that it's also about industrial workers in the UK) without any drag. The film "Billy Elliot" also comments about this in a similar setting of coal miners. While there is a side character who is gay, the main character Billy isn't gay - he just enjoys ballet dancing.
A boy who likes ballet is very different from a drag show. Schools go to ballet performances where there are normally male dancers.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
This is what I think the WWII military drag shows that I linked earlier were about. They weren't attacking or mocking women. They loved women and missed having feminine things in their lives, so they enjoyed putting on dresses to have some feminine things around in their all-male environment.
Letting off some steam and breaking free of social standards can be fun.
There's a difference between a bunch of lads letting off steam and a profession where performers dress as exaggerated personas of a specific group of people.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
Also note that there are also drag kings as well as drag queens. With both, I think they're often (though not always) commenting on masculine/feminine markers and standards - which is different than commenting on men and women. The point is that sometimes, men can enjoy things like singing along to Madonna songs, or beautiful flowers, or frilly dresses. Women can enjoy things like tuxedos or sports or cigars.
Again, there were black minstrels and many were very successful.
This is not about a man signing along with a Madonna song. I've done that and so what. I know women who smoke cigars. So what. This is about a profession whose entire existence is about exaggerated parody of a group of people. If you want to get Marxist about it, you can even go further and say that the performers are mostly white men, who are privileged, and the people being depicted are part of a historically disadvantaged and oppressed group. I'm only framing it this way to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of: minstrel show = nazi vs. drag show = stunning and brave.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 08:11:53 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
Linear time, we no longer live on those times, dragging them out is just an apeal to emotion, yes those things happened and were terrible, and now you can get your whole life ruined if you dare correct gender some asshole.
Dude, I'm not the one who brought up the topic. I was directly replying to SHARK who spoke positively about the days when degenerate, sinful "gays and trannies" were kept in their place, and oggsmash expressed similar sentiments. Check the conversation history above.
It's kind of giving me whiplash trying to switch between talking to you and KindaMeh on the one hand, and SHARK and oggsmash on the other. You claim that the past is so far behind that I'm wrong to even bring it up, while simultaneously, SHARK and oggsmash are calling for a return to it.
It's funny, I have no issue arguing with you and Mistwell while keeping you both separate.
I might be wrogn but I read Shark and Oggsmash as hyperbolic.
What isn't hyperbole tho is the activists (and people like you playing defense for their degeneracy) ARE going to cause a backlash of epic proportions, a button for a sample: Take me, I used to laugh at Christians and the slippery slope "fallacy", even after returning to the Church I was on the camp of the more tolerant liberals (the classical type), NOW?
I'm not only celebrating the laws curtailing the reach of the degenerates I'm calling for them.
You need to remember I'm the moderate, but you guys keep on pushing the degeneracy onto other people's kids and you'll live to see the consecuences of your actions and regret them, the backlash is comming, it's only a matter of how intense and when.
I'm not celebrating it, I have LGB family & friends, I'm trying to get the people that are acting out of compasion and blindness to stop and think because you're gonna get people hurt and laws you'll really hate. Which will end up hurting my LGB loved ones who all are against the madness the activistrs are pushing for.
So please stop and think more than two steps ahead, think about EXACTLY WHY are drag performers so intent on performing infront of children, teaching them how to lapdance and other sick shit. WHY are the activists so intent on putting books with pornographic images and text in the hands of little children (I'm talking elementary school), think man before you end up hurting the communities you think you're helping.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 08:11:53 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
Linear time, we no longer live on those times, dragging them out is just an apeal to emotion, yes those things happened and were terrible, and now you can get your whole life ruined if you dare correct gender some asshole.
Dude, I'm not the one who brought up the topic. I was directly replying to SHARK who spoke positively about the days when degenerate, sinful "gays and trannies" were kept in their place, and oggsmash expressed similar sentiments. Check the conversation history above.
It's kind of giving me whiplash trying to switch between talking to you and KindaMeh on the one hand, and SHARK and oggsmash on the other. You claim that the past is so far behind that I'm wrong to even bring it up, while simultaneously, SHARK and oggsmash are calling for a return to it.
You are twisting what I said. If you are going to mention me say exactly what I said. No boys playing sports against my daughter and no boys in the girls bathroom/lockeroom. If that is some return to a dark past of repression you are simply a crazy person. Its not a dark past its common fucking sense. IF you and people like you keep pushing so hard on this there is going to be a consequence. You are not going to like it.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2023, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 05:40:20 PM
You don't need to legislate laws against taking kids to wet t-shirt contests and bikini contests because normal people know that's going to be problematic and can damage their development. Apparently, however, taking kids to drag shows is perfectly normal and if you disagree you're a horrible bigot.
Yes, well, that is because once upon a time, gays and trannies were content to keep their degeneracy isolated to gay nightclubs and tranny bars.
In recent years, they have promoted Drag Queen Story Hours, Drag Shows, and a cascade of sexually explicit gay sex books pushed onto kids through the libraries and assigned curriculum.
To SHARK - once upon a time, LGBT people were fired from their jobs for being discovered to be gay, put on FBI watch lists, discharged from the military, put in jail as sex offenders for violating anti-sodomy or similar laws, and/or hounded out of public society. This wasn't ages ago. It has been only a decade since same-sex marriage was legalized and military discharges ended, for example.
LGBT people were not "content" with the older situation. They fought against the authoritarian laws and harassment that prevented them from living their lives openly and equally.
---
In contradiction to Brad, sexualization, grooming, and sexual abuse of children is not in the slightest a new thing from liberated LGBT people that no one else does. It is old and indeed was widely accepted in the past. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
In the present, child sexual abuse is still common - as it has always been. By some studies, over 10% of girls experiencing child sexual abuse - with a third of those age 12 or younger. This is usually heterosexual, though there are also LGBT abusers. Child marriage is still legal in 42 U.S. states.
---
I support action to reduce child sexual abuse, but it should apply equally to straight and LGBT. Specifically, my problems with the Tennessee law are:
(1) It singles out drag without applying to the same costumes and behavior in non-drag performances.
(2) It applies to all minors - treating 17-year-olds the same as 9-year-olds.
This law was struck down in court because it was overbroad in application for exactly this reason. As I said, I went with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical, including my son who was 14 at the time. That show was completely consistent with PG-13 guidelines. Drag shows aren't highly varied, and what is appropriate varies with child age.
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. A time when degenerate groomers were not allowed to be anywhere near children, and grooming them. Such "Dark Ages" indeed! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 07:30:10 AM
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. A time when degenerate groomers were not allowed to be anywhere near children, and grooming them. Such "Dark Ages" indeed! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 08:19:12 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
I can't comment on the genre as a whole, because I haven't seen much of it. I loved the Kinky Boots musical, which has a nice story along with amazing dancing and costumes, and the Cyndi Lauper music. I don't think it is at all misogynist. That specific show is much more about masculinity than it is about the feminine. Even the cross-dressing character, Lola, nominally identifies as straight and is attracted to women. It's about how men limit their expression and can get closed off by being obsessed over being manly. Sometimes men enjoy things that aren't seen as "manly", especially LGBT men but also straight men.
Are you saying drag shows are not misogynist because a woman wrote the music or because you liked this show?
No, I'm saying didn't think this show was misogynist, which is one of the reasons I liked it. I am not saying anything about drag shows as a whole, because I haven't seen enough of the genre to judge and because from what I've seen drag shows are highly varied. WWII military drag shows aren't the same as Kinky Boots, which isn't the same as Mulan Jr or others.
I believe there are misogynist drag shows. You evidently saw some misogynist drag shows, which contributes to your view. But I don't think the Kinky Boots musical is misogynist, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 08:19:12 PM
Minstrel shows were extremely popular, not just with white people, and many prominent troupes were black performers who also wore blackface.
Sure. It's because of the massive popularity of racist blackface shows that blackface isn't considered acceptable today. There are some more respectful blackface performances, like Fred Astaire's tribute to Bill "Bojangles" Robinson in the movie
Swing Time, but those are pushed out by the far more common racist uses of blackface - like the awful Bing Crosby / Marjorie Reynolds number in
Holiday Inn. If racist blackface hadn't had that popular history, attitudes today would be different.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 08:19:12 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:04:03 PM
The film "The Full Monte", for example, has similar messages about masculinity (especially that it's also about industrial workers in the UK) without any drag. The film "Billy Elliot" also comments about this in a similar setting of coal miners. While there is a side character who is gay, the main character Billy isn't gay - he just enjoys ballet dancing.
A boy who likes ballet is very different from a drag show. Schools go to ballet performances where there are normally male dancers.
Have you seen Billy Elliot? My point (with added emphasis above) is that ballet dancing is
not drag, nor is male stripping. However, there are similar themes to the movies - especially because all three are set in working class British industrial communities. There are many people who deride ballet dancers as unmanly sissies. The movie of Billy Elliot is about struggling with the prejudice of people who deride the boy's love of ballet dancing. They mock him and whisper about him and so forth.
A central theme of all of these movies (Kinky Boots, The Full Monte, and Billy Elliot) is the prejudice the characters face.
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 09:44:42 AM
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 12:10:05 PM
It's because of the massive popularity of racist blackface shows that blackface isn't considered acceptable today.
....
A central theme of all of these movies (Kinky Boots, The Full Monte, and Billy Elliot) is the prejudice the characters face.
Brad, this is because, like most liberal issues, those pushing the issue are carefully avoiding "first causes." That is to say, liberal "logic" works best when applied to specific events where emotions can be manipulated, as opposed to careful rational, examination of cause and effect. Jhkim wants kids to view drag, and other sexual fetishes, as normal. He says as much (whereas he wants kids to view blackface as abnormal and harmful... and the fact that we agree on that is used as a wedge to try and force the issue).
What is the unstated cause of this promotion of drag shows as normal? The recognition by all that heterosexuality is the human default. The left hates this, but must acknowledge it in action (if not in thought or word), because to do otherwise would mean the failure of their ideology.
The reality of the situation is that all sexual "deviancy" (using the technical definition)
must be manufactured. People are not born LGBTQ+. Even twin studies have confirmed this. There's only a 52% concordance of identical twins and a 22% of fraternal twins when it comes to homosexuality. Even the big proponents of the "born gay" theory (the Kinsey Institute) recognize that homosexuality is, at best,
epigenetic (and the various genome-wide association studies have put the final nail in the "born that way" coffin). So, at the very least, it requires both genetic and environmental factors to result in homosexual attraction (and probably mostly environmental, based on GWAS).
This is because human beings have a sex
drive, not instinct. What arouses us can be
learned. There was a landmark study at the University of Michigan that studied physical arousal that developed unconscious associations with automobile tires and sexual arousal in the participants (i.e., after image association priming, males became physically aroused by images of tires, even though they did not consciously associate the tires with sex). Of course, most of these studies are decades old, because you can't study sex in this context any more.
Likewise, if you look at age of first sexual contact, lesbians and gay men report their first sexual experience at a younger age than the norm, and with a far older partner than the norm. We already have dozens of studies investigating the mental and social consequences of sexual abuse on children, and many of the children involved have issues with sexuality (from hypersexualism through asexualism) because of this early contact.
So, what does this boil down to? The dirty little secret is that
both sides recognize that drag queens are made, not born. That fetish behavior is not spontaneous. That, despite natural proclivities one way or the other, the environment is key to increasing or decreasing the number of people who practice deviant sexual behaviors. And the LGBTQ+ community wants more
targets members. Drag shows for children are recruitment efforts. Period. They are intended to normalize such conduct so that children will be more likely to experiment with it. Because, without recruitment, many of these fetish behaviors would shrink to irrelevancy (they will never truly disappear, as long as emotional and sexual abuse exist... which is forever, sadly). So, we know they are recruiting. They know they are recruiting. But to admit it would be to admit that their opponents are correct, which would destroy the heart of their argument for licentiousness. So they pretend that "it's just harmless fun, people expressing themselves, blah blah blah." Because, in the end, there's no justification for exposing young children to deviant behavior unless it is to encourage children to see such behavior as normal and worth investigating/participating in. Drag shows for kids are recruiting drives.
Well while lefties are teaching their kids to mutilate their genitals and venerate drag queens I am teaching mine how to fight, shoot, lift weights, and get lots of exercise both mental and physical. The problem I get to is when lefties want to teach MY kids their bullshit. The fact certain states are pushing hard to make burning a rainbow flag a hate crime when people are allowed to literally shit on the American flag says about all that needs to be said. This crap is going to cause a lot more than flags to get burned.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 04, 2023, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 04, 2023, 11:32:48 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 03, 2023, 12:31:55 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 03, 2023, 11:52:49 AM
Oh look, the drag ban in Tennessee was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4033015-federal-judge-rules-tennessee-restrictions-on-drag-shows-unconstitutional/) for being substantially overbroad and vague and a violation of the first amendment.
Oh gee, who could have called that? Oh right, me, in this thread, explaining how it is overbroad and vague and bans things it was never intended to ban.
Like I said, "This was a dumb law written by people without a sense of humor, or who lack the ability to think beyond a single stage of thinking, or both. A simplistic mind wrote this law."
If you guys want to ban EXPLICITLY SEXUAL shows such that kids cannot see them, I think that's fine (though just ban explicitly sexual shows - why limit it to drag unless it's not about the sex?) These laws are not doing that, and pretending all drag is sexually explicit is just a bullshit excuse to ban free speech because it "offends you" and you want to be the morals police. Just like the progressives.
Maybe because other explicitly sexual shows are already illegal but you fuckers play defense for the pedos invading the LGB movement.
They're not. If A) Drag shows were sexually explicit and B) sexually explicit shows already had a law barring minors then C) drag shows would have already barred minors. Because they did not, you can rest assured either drag shows were not sexually explicit despite your claims to the contrary, OR sexually explicit shows were not already barring minors. Decide which route you were wrong. I'll wait.
If y'all want to make this about "People who disagree with me are pedos" then you'd be pushing a law which simply bans minors from all sexually explicit shows. You're not - because it's not about pedos but is instead about you feeling personally offended by drag shows and raising your morality flag while using kids as your shield to defend your puritanical Karen-like demands. Again.
Okay groomer, I have posted a small ammount of proof that IT IS about pedos in drag, you keep playing defense, ergo you're at the very least a pedo apologist or a full on pedo, you can choose which.
LOL no you have not posted "proof" and even managed to post a non-drag show by accident as part of your "proof".
IF YOU WANT TO BAN MINORS FROM ALL SEXUALLY EXPLICIT SHOWS, ADVOCATED FOR THAT LAW.
Instead you're advocating to ban minors from drag shows which are sexually explicit, but not non-drag shows which are sexually explicit. Why is that? You called me a pedo, but you won't ban minors from sexually explicit shows for...reasons?
I think we both know the reason why. If cheerleaders are sexually explicit, you think they are hot and are cool with minors seeing it. But put men in dresses doing otherwise identical moves in every way and you will call it sexually explicit pedos. Because this isn't about you protecting minors, it's about you protecting your delicate prudish morals and claiming you're offended so society must protect you from being offended.
But go ahead and prove me wrong by advocating to ban minors from all sexually explicit shows of any kind, whether it involves drag or not. Let's see you advocate for that. Can kids go to sports events with cheerleaders anymore under your rule, or not?
Challenge to everyone here:
Are cheerleaders sometimes sexually explicit during their performances at sporting events, or not?
If men in drag performed in an otherwise identical manner to those cheerleaders, with the only difference in the performance being they are men in womens clothing, would that suddenly be sexually explicit while it wasn't when it was women doing it?
I am guessing the answers will involve a whole lot of bullshit non-distinctions which people pretend are oh so very real and only a moron or pedo could dare not see how those non-distinctions really are meaningful distinctions. Which will, more than anything else, prove this is about you guys being personally offended and expecting society to protect you from being offended like some progressive Karen, rather than actually trying to protect minors from seeing sexually explicit performances. Because it doesn't seem like you want to protect minors from all sexually explicit performances, just the ones that ick you out because it's a dude in a dress rather than a hot girl in a skimpy outfit.
If a group of black rappers can rap about money and 'hos, what's the difference between a group of white guys giving the exact same performance in blackface?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 07, 2023, 07:19:27 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 08:11:53 PM
I'm not the one who brought up the topic. I was directly replying to SHARK who spoke positively about the days when degenerate, sinful "gays and trannies" were kept in their place, and oggsmash expressed similar sentiments. Check the conversation history above.
It's kind of giving me whiplash trying to switch between talking to you and KindaMeh on the one hand, and SHARK and oggsmash on the other. You claim that the past is so far behind that I'm wrong to even bring it up, while simultaneously, SHARK and oggsmash are calling for a return to it.
You are twisting what I said. If you are going to mention me say exactly what I said. No boys playing sports against my daughter and no boys in the girls bathroom/lockeroom. If that is some return to a dark past of repression you are simply a crazy person. Its not a dark past its common fucking sense. IF you and people like you keep pushing so hard on this there is going to be a consequence. You are not going to like it.
I don't mean to misrepresent you, oggsmash. The posts that I was thinking of were when you said this:
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
As I said, this seemed similar to SHARK's position to me.
Would you be OK with a transgender person in a dance class with your daughter, say, or in the classroom or other activities? My impression was that you were still opposed to this.
My transgender friend J, say, used to be a teacher and now works for a tutoring service. Their job is working with kids. I was roommates with them for two years after their divorce and my breakup. My fiancee and I asked them to officiate our wedding next year. I find them to be a good and trustworthy person, and I think they should be treated the same as anyone other teacher or tutor.
There are lots of scummy, degenerate people in the world. There are priests who abuse kids, teachers who abuse kids, and parents who abuse kids. That sucks, and I want such abuse stopped. But classifying all transgender people as degenerates is wrong.
In Response to Mistwell: But we DO think all live XXX adult performances (which is different from PG-13 movie content or pretty much all cheerleading) should be banned to minors. That Tennessean law you hate banned both strip clubs and adult cabaret from having minors, not just XXX drag shows. There's just no winning, it seems.
And in many locations drag shows exist as a loophole because the prior two have already been banned for minors, meaning they do have to be specified in law. Again, laws have to be specifically enough tailored that the judiciary doesn't strike them down or use them as a blank check. Why the heck would you support leaving drag shows as the only place where such laws about seriously adult and XXX content do not apply?
Also what makes you want to give the judiciary the right to ban content without specific terms and restrictions? There's a difference between banning children from genuinely adult entertainment and what you claim should be done in banning all children of all ages from hearing about whatever judge #5 dislikes. Didn't y'all freak out over the "don't say gay" law that only does the rather sane move of regulating sex ed to above the 3rd grade? I don't think you're being genuine about this topic, or else you have not noticed the implications of what you're proposing.
Also if there's ever a cheerleading event that's XXX in high school, the organizer and whoever taught that stuff to kids should probably be put in prison.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 09:44:42 AM
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 12:10:05 PM
It's because of the massive popularity of racist blackface shows that blackface isn't considered acceptable today.
....
A central theme of all of these movies (Kinky Boots, The Full Monte, and Billy Elliot) is the prejudice the characters face.
Brad, this is because, like most liberal issues, those pushing the issue are carefully avoiding "first causes." That is to say, liberal "logic" works best when applied to specific events where emotions can be manipulated, as opposed to careful rational, examination of cause and effect. Jhkim wants kids to view drag, and other sexual fetishes, as normal. He says as much (whereas he wants kids to view blackface as abnormal and harmful... and the fact that we agree on that is used as a wedge to try and force the issue).
What is the unstated cause of this promotion of drag shows as normal? The recognition by all that heterosexuality is the human default. The left hates this, but must acknowledge it in action (if not in thought or word), because to do otherwise would mean the failure of their ideology.
The reality of the situation is that all sexual "deviancy" (using the technical definition) must be manufactured. People are not born LGBTQ+. Even twin studies have confirmed this. There's only a 52% concordance of identical twins and a 22% of fraternal twins when it comes to homosexuality. Even the big proponents of the "born gay" theory (the Kinsey Institute) recognize that homosexuality is, at best, epigenetic (and the various genome-wide association studies have put the final nail in the "born that way" coffin). So, at the very least, it requires both genetic and environmental factors to result in homosexual attraction (and probably mostly environmental, based on GWAS).
This is because human beings have a sex drive, not instinct. What arouses us can be learned. There was a landmark study at the University of Michigan that studied physical arousal that developed unconscious associations with automobile tires and sexual arousal in the participants (i.e., after image association priming, males became physically aroused by images of tires, even though they did not consciously associate the tires with sex). Of course, most of these studies are decades old, because you can't study sex in this context any more.
Likewise, if you look at age of first sexual contact, lesbians and gay men report their first sexual experience at a younger age than the norm, and with a far older partner than the norm. We already have dozens of studies investigating the mental and social consequences of sexual abuse on children, and many of the children involved have issues with sexuality (from hypersexualism through asexualism) because of this early contact.
So, what does this boil down to? The dirty little secret is that both sides recognize that drag queens are made, not born. That fetish behavior is not spontaneous. That, despite natural proclivities one way or the other, the environment is key to increasing or decreasing the number of people who practice deviant sexual behaviors. And the LGBTQ+ community wants more targets members. Drag shows for children are recruitment efforts. Period. They are intended to normalize such conduct so that children will be more likely to experiment with it. Because, without recruitment, many of these fetish behaviors would shrink to irrelevancy (they will never truly disappear, as long as emotional and sexual abuse exist... which is forever, sadly). So, we know they are recruiting. They know they are recruiting. But to admit it would be to admit that their opponents are correct, which would destroy the heart of their argument for licentiousness. So they pretend that "it's just harmless fun, people expressing themselves, blah blah blah." Because, in the end, there's no justification for exposing young children to deviant behavior unless it is to encourage children to see such behavior as normal and worth investigating/participating in. Drag shows for kids are recruiting drives.
Greetings!
Excellent analysis, Eirikrautha! Very nice!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 02:57:37 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 07, 2023, 07:19:27 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 08:11:53 PM
I'm not the one who brought up the topic. I was directly replying to SHARK who spoke positively about the days when degenerate, sinful "gays and trannies" were kept in their place, and oggsmash expressed similar sentiments. Check the conversation history above.
It's kind of giving me whiplash trying to switch between talking to you and KindaMeh on the one hand, and SHARK and oggsmash on the other. You claim that the past is so far behind that I'm wrong to even bring it up, while simultaneously, SHARK and oggsmash are calling for a return to it.
You are twisting what I said. If you are going to mention me say exactly what I said. No boys playing sports against my daughter and no boys in the girls bathroom/lockeroom. If that is some return to a dark past of repression you are simply a crazy person. Its not a dark past its common fucking sense. IF you and people like you keep pushing so hard on this there is going to be a consequence. You are not going to like it.
I don't mean to misrepresent you, oggsmash. The posts that I was thinking of were when you said this:
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:20:14 PM
Trans cross dressers are degenrates. Some people do not want degenerates around their kids. Simple stuff. I dont mind a degenerate living their life as they see fit, but keep them far from me and the fam.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2023, 01:34:11 PM
The further the better. Most certainly not in a space full of kids (school or library). But if you and the rest insist on pushing them and accepting them on people...dont be shocked by the consequences. Tolerance they can have. That is the end of that line.
As I said, this seemed similar to SHARK's position to me.
Would you be OK with a transgender person in a dance class with your daughter, say, or in the classroom or other activities? My impression was that you were still opposed to this.
My transgender friend J, say, used to be a teacher and now works for a tutoring service. Their job is working with kids. I was roommates with them for two years after their divorce and my breakup. My fiancee and I asked them to officiate our wedding next year. I find them to be a good and trustworthy person, and I think they should be treated the same as anyone other teacher or tutor.
There are lots of scummy, degenerate people in the world. There are priests who abuse kids, teachers who abuse kids, and parents who abuse kids. That sucks, and I want such abuse stopped. But classifying all transgender people as degenerates is wrong.
You do not know the definition of degenerate. I am not classifying anything I am using the written definition of the word to describe exactly what I am seeing. It has several definitions and transgenders and cross dressers most definitely fall right into the bounds of at least one of them. There is a baseline of normal despite what people who do their best to erode and degenerate societal norms say and do.
My kids need not be anywhere near them and if either of their schools had a transgender teacher, that is the last we go to that school. You have a different set of norms where you live and you live faaaar away from me. It should stay that way.
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 07:30:10 AM
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. A time when degenerate groomers were not allowed to be anywhere near children, and grooming them. Such "Dark Ages" indeed! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Greetings!
That's right, Brad! It is sad how brainwashed these Liberals have become to embrace Trannies as being normal, and even celebrating them. It is so weird to me, like they literally have drank deeply from the Kool-Aid of Stupid. It reminds me of how the Scriptures talk about Reprobates, and how those that have rebelled against God,--God therefore gives them over to having a degenerate mind and spirit. They have become so degenerate that they cannot abide by righteousness. They lose the capacity to comprehend righteousness. We are seeing exactly what the Scriptures talk bout, "In the Last days, they shall call that which is Evil, as Good; and they shall call that which is Good, Evil." (My paraphrase). I see this playing out in our society entirely. It is like watching the human fabric become exponentially rotten and corrupt right before our eyes at breathtaking speed. Hardly a week goes by now without some new insanity is being promoted and embraced.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 07:30:10 AM
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. A time when degenerate groomers were not allowed to be anywhere near children, and grooming them. Such "Dark Ages" indeed! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Greetings!
That's right, Brad! It is sad how brainwashed these Liberals have become to embrace Trannies as being normal, and even celebrating them. It is so weird to me, like they literally have drank deeply from the Kool-Aid of Stupid. It reminds me of how the Scriptures talk about Reprobates, and how those that have rebelled against God,--God therefore gives them over to having a degenerate mind and spirit. They have become so degenerate that they cannot abide by righteousness. They lose the capacity to comprehend righteousness. We are seeing exactly what the Scriptures talk bout, "In the Last days, they shall call that which is Evil, as Good; and they shall call that which is Good, Evil." (My paraphrase). I see this playing out in our society entirely. It is like watching the human fabric become exponentially rotten and corrupt right before our eyes at breathtaking speed. Hardly a week goes by now without some new insanity is being promoted and embraced.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I will tell you this I have been agnostic for all my adult life. The past 6 months I find myself looking at what in almost every description could be defined as evil. It makes me think if there is definite, certain, defined evil present (and I mean what looks to be deeper or darker than base human nature) then perhaps there is a defined good present as well. I am probably not agnostic now and read more from the bible that I ever have in my entire life (though I still do not read much). I think I have been made religious by the presence of this insanity.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 07, 2023, 03:06:15 PM
In Response to Mistwell: But we DO think all live XXX adult performances (which is different from PG-13 movie content or pretty much all cheerleading) should be banned to minors. That Tennessean law you hate banned both strip clubs and adult cabaret from having minors, not just XXX drag shows. There's just no winning, it seems.
And in many locations drag shows exist as a loophole because the prior two have already been banned for minors, meaning they do have to be specified in law. Again, laws have to be specifically enough tailored that the judiciary doesn't strike them down or use them as a blank check. Why the heck would you support leaving drag shows as the only place where such laws about seriously adult and XXX content do not apply?
Also what makes you want to give the judiciary the right to ban content without specific terms and restrictions? There's a difference between banning children from genuinely adult entertainment and what you claim should be done in banning all children of all ages from hearing about whatever judge #5 dislikes. Didn't y'all freak out over the "don't say gay" law that only does the rather sane move of regulating sex ed to above the 3rd grade? I don't think you're being genuine about this topic, or else you have not noticed the implications of what you're proposing.
Also if there's ever a cheerleading event that's XXX in high school, the organizer and whoever taught that stuff to kids should probably be put in prison.
But he and other leftards looooove to pretend that's not OUR position, just like they looove to pretend the evidence infront of their eyes doesn't exist.
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too. Only pedos think there's ever a justification for giving minors explicit books with expolicit images and instructions about how to use butplugs, do sexting and how to log into Grindr to hookup with adults.
Mistwell has proven to me he's just a filthy degenerate that should have his harddrive browsing history searched by the law.
I'll do you one better KindaMeh, EVERY single degenerate that performs, promotes or exposes children to such materials should get the death penalty, together with ALL child molesters wherever they are found (yes, this includes those in the Church but also the teachers, entertainment industry and LGBTQWERTY activists to name a few).
GeekyBugle, I agree with respect to expanding restrictions to porn. it should be illegal to sell or even inadvertently through piracy digitally distribute porn to children. This is a controversial opinion for some, but I will absolutely back you on it.
I don't think Mistwell actually supports pedophilia. I do however think that many on the left can't see the truth: this legislation is not about targeting lgbtq folks, it's about protecting the children. He's convinced that the only reason why the law exists is to shut down crossdressing and drag shows (which can't legally happen), as opposed to it being very narrowly and responsibly tailored to stop children from being exposed to live XXX content.
Also, I get that what you're saying is mostly hyperbole, GeekyBugle. That said, I'm not gonna say we should kill all the left's useful idiots just for being fooled. Only those who themselves molest, distribute porn and perform XXX shows in front of minors knowingly should have their heads roll, so to speak. Also teachers and others who take kids out to XXX content, potentially including parents. Else not only would it be killing people for being deceived and speaking wrongly but also even if we brought back the guillotine we wouldn't be able to keep up with all the fooled and deceived "allies" of lgbtq "protection".
Likewise, the death penalty here in America is super delayed, highly expensive, and questionably effective as currently implemented. I'd say just lock folks up. I hear child molesters have a tough time in prison.
Edit: Not saying these are all equal offenses, but all should receive serious consideration and be punished according to new and responsible laws.
I too use hyperbole, and am not advocating draconian punishment, merely punishment that fits the crime, and a properly expanded list of crimes.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 07, 2023, 03:40:40 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 07:30:10 AM
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. A time when degenerate groomers were not allowed to be anywhere near children, and grooming them. Such "Dark Ages" indeed! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
He's pushing an agenda and doesn't even realize it. I'd say this goes for about 95% of the people who think this crap is okay; they literally cannot internalize the possibility that everything they're saying is nothing more than what someone told them to say, and they;ve been brainwashed to believe it's fine. But, I suppose brainwashing works because of who it works on...
Greetings!
That's right, Brad! It is sad how brainwashed these Liberals have become to embrace Trannies as being normal, and even celebrating them. It is so weird to me, like they literally have drank deeply from the Kool-Aid of Stupid. It reminds me of how the Scriptures talk about Reprobates, and how those that have rebelled against God,--God therefore gives them over to having a degenerate mind and spirit. They have become so degenerate that they cannot abide by righteousness. They lose the capacity to comprehend righteousness. We are seeing exactly what the Scriptures talk bout, "In the Last days, they shall call that which is Evil, as Good; and they shall call that which is Good, Evil." (My paraphrase). I see this playing out in our society entirely. It is like watching the human fabric become exponentially rotten and corrupt right before our eyes at breathtaking speed. Hardly a week goes by now without some new insanity is being promoted and embraced.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I will tell you this I have been agnostic for all my adult life. The past 6 months I find myself looking at what in almost every description could be defined as evil. It makes me think if there is definite, certain, defined evil present (and I mean what looks to be deeper or darker than base human nature) then perhaps there is a defined good present as well. I am probably not agnostic now and read more from the bible that I ever have in my entire life (though I still do not read much). I think I have been made religious by the presence of this insanity.
Greetings!
OUTSTANDING, Oggsmash! The BIBLE, my friend, "Is like a Lamp unto our Feet." I believe that you will find everything good in the Bible. Strength, Honour, Righteousness, and TRUTH. I encourage you to pray and read the Bible, everyday, with humbleness, and reverence.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
If a group of black rappers can rap about money and 'hos, what's the difference between a group of white guys giving the exact same performance in blackface?
So you admit this is about being offended (comparison to blackface) and not about protecting kids from sexually explicit material (not blackface). Thank you. I appreciate the honesty.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 07, 2023, 03:06:15 PM
In Response to Mistwell: But we DO think all live XXX adult performances (which is different from PG-13 movie content or pretty much all cheerleading) should be banned to minors. That Tennessean law you hate banned both strip clubs and adult cabaret from having minors, not just XXX drag shows. There's just no winning, it seems.
And in many locations drag shows exist as a loophole because the prior two have already been banned for minors, meaning they do have to be specified in law. Again, laws have to be specifically enough tailored that the judiciary doesn't strike them down or use them as a blank check. Why the heck would you support leaving drag shows as the only place where such laws about seriously adult and XXX content do not apply?
Also what makes you want to give the judiciary the right to ban content without specific terms and restrictions? There's a difference between banning children from genuinely adult entertainment and what you claim should be done in banning all children of all ages from hearing about whatever judge #5 dislikes. Didn't y'all freak out over the "don't say gay" law that only does the rather sane move of regulating sex ed to above the 3rd grade? I don't think you're being genuine about this topic, or else you have not noticed the implications of what you're proposing.
Also if there's ever a cheerleading event that's XXX in high school, the organizer and whoever taught that stuff to kids should probably be put in prison.
But he and other leftards looooove to pretend that's not OUR position, just like they looove to pretend the evidence infront of their eyes doesn't exist.
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too. Only pedos think there's ever a justification for giving minors explicit books with expolicit images and instructions about how to use butplugs, do sexting and how to log into Grindr to hookup with adults.
Mistwell has proven to me he's just a filthy degenerate that should have his harddrive browsing history searched by the law.
I'll do you one better KindaMeh, EVERY single degenerate that performs, promotes or exposes children to such materials should get the death penalty, together with ALL child molesters wherever they are found (yes, this includes those in the Church but also the teachers, entertainment industry and LGBTQWERTY activists to name a few).
Greetings!
Damn right, Hermano! Our laws should be strict, severe, and harsh. Our laws should promote the good, and be a bulwark against evil, wickedness, lawlessness, and degeneracy.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 02:45:20 PM
If a group of black rappers can rap about money and 'hos, what's the difference between a group of white guys giving the exact same performance in blackface?
So you admit this is about being offended (comparison to blackface) and not about protecting kids from sexually explicit material (not blackface). Thank you. I appreciate the honesty.
Dude, blackface is not cool. It's not just about being offended, it's about harmful stereotypes. rystrami makes a good point about how mainstream trans ideology plays into sexist ideology and ideas about how people of a given sex should be portrayed and are assumed to think. When you tie sex to psychology with gender you are implicitly claiming that adherence to the stereotype is what makes one male or female. Erikrautha was right to bring this up. That said, if you want a response on views of legislation rather than morality and whether drag shows are offensive, maybe take a look at one of my many responses to your posts.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 07, 2023, 03:06:15 PM
In Response to Mistwell: But we DO think all live XXX adult performances (which is different from PG-13 movie content or pretty much all cheerleading) should be banned to minors. That Tennessean law you hate banned both strip clubs and adult cabaret from having minors, not just XXX drag shows. There's just no winning, it seems.
"Winning" would be "sexual explicit performances" and not "strip clubs and cabaret." Children were already banned from strip clubs and the law said cabaret was equivalent but did not say all sexually explicit shows could not have kids. Hence, it was never about "protecting kids and pedos" but was instead about "I'm offended."
QuoteAnd in many locations drag shows exist as a loophole because the prior two have already been banned for minors, meaning they do have to be specified in law. Again, laws have to be specifically enough tailored that the judiciary doesn't strike them down or use them as a blank check. Why the heck would you support leaving drag shows as the only place where such laws about seriously adult and XXX content do not apply?
I've said I support what? I keep asking why you won't advocate to ban kids from all sexually explicit performances of any kind and you dance around answering. We both know why - it bans kids from seeing many cheerleaders and similar performances which you're not offended by despite it being sexually explicit.
QuoteAlso what makes you want to give the judiciary the right to ban content without specific terms and restrictions? There's a difference between banning children from genuinely adult entertainment and what you claim should be done in banning all children of all ages from hearing about whatever judge #5 dislikes. Didn't y'all freak out over the "don't say gay" law that only does the rather sane move of regulating sex ed to above the 3rd grade? I don't think you're being genuine about this topic, or else you have not noticed the implications of what you're proposing.
Laws are barred from being arbitrary and capricious or so vague as to be up to the arbitrary and capricious decision-making of enforcement. Which is from the Constitution, ultimately.
QuoteAlso if there's ever a cheerleading event that's XXX in high school, the organizer and whoever taught that stuff to kids should probably be put in prison.
Oh my friend, have you not been to a professional sporting event in the past decade? MOST are "sexually explicit" in the context we're discussing here. They're not going around naked, but they're doing the same damn thing most drag shows do.
WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A STATE TRIES TO STOP SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CHEERLEAD PERFORMANCES. (https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0511/p03s01-ussc.html)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 07, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
My kids need not be anywhere near them and if either of their schools had a transgender teacher, that is the last we go to that school. You have a different set of norms where you live and you live faaaar away from me. It should stay that way.
I live in what I thought was a pretty conservative area, but then some of these fucks moved in and started doing crap like a drag show at a church...then they bitched when a bunch of people showed up to protest. Made national news, and the people protesting (peacefully I might add, simply hanging out with signs) were painted as some sort of horrible bigots. So not only did they do this horseshit, they did it at a church, which claims to be Christian. I'm actually waiting for the lightning bolts to strike any time now...
So anyway, my kids go to a Baptist-run 3x week school and are homeschooled the rest of the time. I saw the writing on the wall during all this shamdemic nonsense and I am glad as fuck I didn't allow my kids to ever step foot into a public school, even here. And you know what the saddest part is? I was talking with my wife about it...I really liked school when I was a kid, and I went to just a regular old public school in my neighborhood growing up. Walked there from 3rd - 5th grade, then rode my bike to the junior high on the other side of the neighborhood. My teachers were, for the most part, decent people. I cannot even imagine any of this shit going on at all, and it really disturbs me that it's gotten so out of control that the decision to choose private/homeschool over public school is no choice at all. Either you accept pure degeneracy or you spend a lot of money to avoid it. And of COURSE the fucking liberals are mad the state is trying to reallocate tax payer funds to allow school choice, because God forbid your own fucking money be used to educate your child in whatever manner you so pick, instead of just allowing some blue haired tranny sociopath to tell them about anal sex.
If I didn't have the means and had to send my kids to public school, I'd burn the fucking building down at the first sign of any of this garbage. My family can visit me in prison for all I care.
"Laws are barred from being arbitrary and capricious or so vague as to be up to the arbitrary and capricious decision-making of enforcement. Which is from the Constitution, ultimately."
Is my point. You can't trust the judiciary to enforce your proposed ban. And even if they let it stand it would give way too much power to the judiciary. You have to ban specific things. Like XXX shows, strip clubs, and adult cabaret. And sometimes that means banning XXX drag shows from being shown to minors if they weren't previously covered. Doesn't mean all drag is banned (it can't be), or all is banned from children (only the adult and XXX types, though that doesn't mean I personally support mainstream trans ideology).
Also, I don't support cheerleading of a XXX nature in principle. I'm not gonna look at that link right now if it has NSFW content, but if we're talking about truly adult content then yes, sports can't have strippers on the field without banning children from attendance. Texas Republican Party failed if it wouldn't do that, though I suspect it was probably a poorly written and defined law that wouldn't actually do what I'm thinking of.
I'm actually also gonna go a bit further and say that all pornography, XXX animation and XXX anime, XXX films, XXX TV, adult games that are NSFW, and more should be illegal to distribute to children or make children watch. With real accountability and consequences. We need to have a society that respects that children cannot consent to content of that kind.
We also need to be better as a society about what we expose children to even at the lower levels of PG-13 and R rated content, depending on child age. Maybe we should legislate to some extent what has thus far been informal, with respect to the box office. Though I am less firm on this than on the above and stopping genuinely pornographic and XXX content.
Edit: And not just at the state level. This is interstate commerce. We can justify federal laws, I feel.
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2023, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 07, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
My kids need not be anywhere near them and if either of their schools had a transgender teacher, that is the last we go to that school. You have a different set of norms where you live and you live faaaar away from me. It should stay that way.
I live in what I thought was a pretty conservative area, but then some of these fucks moved in and started doing crap like a drag show at a church...then they bitched when a bunch of people showed up to protest. Made national news, and the people protesting (peacefully I might add, simply hanging out with signs) were painted as some sort of horrible bigots. So not only did they do this horseshit, they did it at a church, which claims to be Christian. I'm actually waiting for the lightning bolts to strike any time now...
So anyway, my kids go to a Baptist-run 3x week school and are homeschooled the rest of the time. I saw the writing on the wall during all this shamdemic nonsense and I am glad as fuck I didn't allow my kids to ever step foot into a public school, even here. And you know what the saddest part is? I was talking with my wife about it...I really liked school when I was a kid, and I went to just a regular old public school in my neighborhood growing up. Walked there from 3rd - 5th grade, then rode my bike to the junior high on the other side of the neighborhood. My teachers were, for the most part, decent people. I cannot even imagine any of this shit going on at all, and it really disturbs me that it's gotten so out of control that the decision to choose private/homeschool over public school is no choice at all. Either you accept pure degeneracy or you spend a lot of money to avoid it. And of COURSE the fucking liberals are mad the state is trying to reallocate tax payer funds to allow school choice, because God forbid your own fucking money be used to educate your child in whatever manner you so pick, instead of just allowing some blue haired tranny sociopath to tell them about anal sex.
If I didn't have the means and had to send my kids to public school, I'd burn the fucking building down at the first sign of any of this garbage. My family can visit me in prison for all I care.
None of that level of poison where I live yet, sports and a network of friends they have known their whole lives is the only reason We did not put them in private school already. I still might move my son, but both are out if I see any of that bullshit on either of their campuses. I am with you and thankful that if we see the need to roll out we can...otherwise I think I might choose a similar path that wouldnt end well.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
Cheerleading can go lots of ways. You say there is sexually explicit cheerleading. Sure, maybe, but the activity as a whole is not focused on sex. There are modestly dressed cheer squads. Many cheer squads have men. It is often athletic. Yes, sex sells and sometimes the outfits get skimpy, but that is not central to the activity.
I don't have a problem with a man who wants to dress as a normal woman and live his life like that. You do you, buddy. I don't have a problem with cheerleading either. Oh no, we saw some skin. I don't even have a problem with drag shows, if confined to adult venues. Same with minstrel shows. Dress up and offend people, I don't care. I find both to be in poor taste, but I support free speech and expression, so shrug I guess.
The problem is when people pretend that drag shows are some kind of identity affirming activity that we must all support without question. No. Drag shows are obviously a sex thing. Stop trying to spin it.
The minstrel show comparison fits very well. In 20 or 50 years, we will look back at this era and its drag queen story hours with shame and embarrassment.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
Cheerleading can go lots of ways. You say there is sexually explicit cheerleading. Sure, maybe, but the activity as a whole is not focused on sex. There are modestly dressed cheer squads. Many cheer squads have men. It is often athletic. Yes, sex sells and sometimes the outfits get skimpy, but that is not central to the activity.
I don't have a problem with a man who wants to dress as a normal woman and live his life like that. You do you, buddy. I don't have a problem with cheerleading either. Oh no, we saw some skin. I don't even have a problem with drag shows, if confined to adult venues. Same with minstrel shows. Dress up and offend people, I don't care. I find both to be in poor taste, but I support free speech and expression, so shrug I guess.
The problem is when people pretend that drag shows are some kind of identity affirming activity that we must all support without question. No. Drag shows are obviously a sex thing. Stop trying to spin it.
The minstrel show comparison fits very well. In 20 or 50 years, we will look back at this era and its drag queen story hours with shame and embarrassment.
A Democrat led law, that I guess had nothing to do with certain leftard ideology, from 2005, that people said:
Quote
"The legislation does not have any specificity to it," says Keith Kilgore, athletic director for the Fort Bend Independent School District, just west of Houston. "I was surprised that it got as many votes as it did - not that I don't share their concerns. I just fail to see who is going to identify what is and what is not acceptable behavior. And if there are consequences, who is going to administer those consequences."
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
The average cheerleader, pop singer, or beauty queen also doesn't dress like the average woman. None of these all dress the same as each other - but by their nature, performers dress up in elaborate and exaggerated outfits and makeup. I think Mistwell's point about cheerleading is a good example of the issue. The Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, for example, have public performances like this:
This is performed for families including small children, who we can see in the audience in the clip. As I judge it, this is at least as provocative as any of the numbers from the Kinky Boots musical.
I can understand someone objecting to the number, but I also don't think that anyone should be put to death for sexualizing children this way.
XXX performances, literal porn, animated porn, and explicitly adult businesses are not on par with that. They are much worse and are overtly sexual to the point where children cannot be allowed to "lawfully consent". Which were the things folks are calling for bans on with legitimate consequences to those who violate a child's trust and inability to consent. I went furthest on that, and still did not call for the death penalty or a ban on all cheerleading.
That said, while we are on the topic, maybe stadiums SHOULD have to do due diligence on what cheers are going to be performed... and then assign a rating of PG-13, R, or XXX, with children of certain ages requiring adult supervision or being banned for all under 18 ages accordingly. Companies could be liable if they violated the law by not giving a rating or selling tickets to minors. This would vary in punishment from fines and the like to, for NSFW stuff, actual accountability and jail time for an offender who actively exposed children to known and orchestrated XXX content intentionally.
(I doubt anything would actually be XXX, but there's no point in allowing the possibility that something like that could go down in front of kids.)
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 07, 2023, 08:21:18 PM
XXX performances, literal porn, animated porn, and explicitly adult businesses are not on par with that. They are much worse and are overtly sexual to the point where children cannot be allowed to "lawfully consent". Which were the things folks are calling for bans on with legitimate consequences to those who violate a child's trust and inability to consent. I went furthest on that, and still did not call for the death penalty or a ban on all cheerleading.
The performances of contention, though, are things like events at a church billed as family-friendly, or story time at a library. Do you believe that these events are XXX performances that children cannot consent to?
This is true only in two (or three, any word on Nevada?) unpassed bills that are unpassed for a reason. I already gave my opinion on freedom of speech, and those two bills being illegal. If you want my moral opinion on such public events that's less sanguine. But again, the actual laws that have been passed and are in question are not nearly as restrictive or untargeted as you seem to be claiming.
I feel the argument here is being mischaracterized. Not least given that the authoritarian overreach you claim the right is somehow going to commit seems to have no support in polling that I have seen.
Rather, what are your responses to claims of leftist overreach in socialism, racial and ethnic clientelism, court packing, judicial arbitrage, free speech (ex:"hate speech"), and more?
Yanno, as relates to the ACTUAL topic of this thread, leftist authoritarianism and its effects on the American psyche.
If the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are the "representation" of average cheerleading for this discussion, then drag queens with bare prosthetic breasts and assless chaps gyrating against preteens are the "representation" of average drag show. Jhkim always asserts that our extremes don't represent his side, but he never fails to pick extremes to argue against. This is why you can't take him in good faith. Because all of his arguments are based on duplicitousness.
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 08:07:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
The average cheerleader, pop singer, or beauty queen also doesn't dress like the average woman. None of these all dress the same as each other - but by their nature, performers dress up in elaborate and exaggerated outfits and makeup. I think Mistwell's point about cheerleading is a good example of the issue. The Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, for example, have public performances like this:
This is performed for families including small children, who we can see in the audience in the clip. As I judge it, this is at least as provocative as any of the numbers from the Kinky Boots musical.
I can understand someone objecting to the number, but I also don't think that anyone should be put to death for sexualizing children this way.
More covered than women on a beach, not twerking lapdance or poledancing so, besides the obvious whataboutism and trtying to claim hypocresy what's your point?
You want to remark how different this is from the shit they do on the dragshows they have taken to schools? Not to talk about the pride parades.
I've seen way worst than that on the cheerleading competitions, but you won't highlight that because those are black squads and we all know "that's their culture", to dance like hoes in front of thousands.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
If the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are the "representation" of average cheerleading for this discussion, then drag queens with bare prosthetic breasts and assless chaps gyrating against preteens are the "representation" of average drag show. Jhkim always asserts that our extremes don't represent his side, but he never fails to pick extremes to argue against. This is why you can't take him in good faith. Because all of his arguments are based on duplicitousness.
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
Greetings!
Indeed, my friend. I was going to blast the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders example, but you broke out the napalm very nicely! ;D
Cheerleaders re not even comparable. XXX my ass. That's entirely an apples to oranges comparison. Normal people are not fucking worried about their children being warped, fucked in the head, brainwashed, and groomed by Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, or cheerleaders anywhere else.
What normal people are concerned and angry about are Liberal fucking schools, with Liberal fucking teachers, and Librarians, and theaters, and parks, celebrating and promoting a deviant, degenerate lifestyle to their children, and furthermore, sponsoring and welcoming gross, mentally-ill degenerates to be around their children. Meanwhile, all of the tax-payer paid adults around the children, and given authority and responsibility over the children for hours every day--are actively and intentionally teaching children that these degenerates are normal and should be celebrated--while brainwashing and encouraging young children to approve of, explore, and participate in such a degenerate lifestyle.
It is THAT POINT--and not any of the other smokescreen BS--that is where the gasoline meets the FIRE.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Actually, that brings up a good point about left wing authoritarianism. The left in many places wants to make their public schooling the only option. They oppose tax credits and funding for homeschooling and private education. Some even want to make it illegal except at the college level, where they are broadly in control. They don't give a shit about freedom of education, save when somebody like DeSantis comes along and tries to make the state funded schools actually teach to state curriculum guidelines that AREN'T woke and openly discriminatory.
So...if I take my kids to a Cowboys game (no fucking thanks, lifelong Bills fan but whatever) and they see some cheerleaders this is the equivalent to having drag show reading hour during their kindergarten class.
The level of cope to justify pure degeneracy has reached new lows...
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 08:07:41 PM
~Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Video~
If these girls showed up dressed like that to read a storybook to a classroom of young students, I would have a problem with that. I would question why they are dressed like that at a school. Same for drag queens.
I also wouldn't bring young kids to a venue where this was the main event. Same as drag shows.
There are other differences, as others have pointed out, but I will set those aside for sake of argument.
Would you be fine with cheerleader story time with girls dressed like this?
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 08:07:41 PM
~Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Video~
If these girls showed up dressed like that to read a storybook to a classroom of young students, I would have a problem with that. I would question why they are dressed like that at a school. Same for drag queens.
Great. Then would you agree with me that there should be equal standards for drag and non-drag sexuality in front of children?
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Would you be fine with cheerleader story time with girls dressed like this?
I'd be skeptical of it, certainly, and likely uncomfortable - if, say, a woman in a Tinkerbell costume was reading stories to little girls. Still, kids see more than the cheerleading outfit or a Tinkerbell costume on the beach. I certainly wouldn't say that parents who took their kids to Tinkerbell's Story Time should be put to death for sexualizing children, especially sight unseen.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
Thanks. That sounds like an honest stance.
In terms of science, though, I disagree about what is natural. First of all, what is natural isn't necessarily what is right for modern human society. For example, it might be natural to have sex with children as soon as puberty is reached, but that shouldn't dictate our human rules. Further, even if nature was the rule, there are hundreds of species display homosexual behavior - from bonobos to penguins to bison. It is quite common in mammals and birds.
So Nature doesn't give heterosexual people more right to display than LGBT people.
Our society values everyone getting equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think there should be equal standards for sexual displays.
---
Regarding your earlier point about epigenetic origin:
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
The reality of the situation is that all sexual "deviancy" (using the technical definition) must be manufactured. People are not born LGBTQ+. Even twin studies have confirmed this. There's only a 52% concordance of identical twins and a 22% of fraternal twins when it comes to homosexuality. Even the big proponents of the "born gay" theory (the Kinsey Institute) recognize that homosexuality is, at best, epigenetic (and the various genome-wide association studies have put the final nail in the "born that way" coffin). So, at the very least, it requires both genetic and environmental factors to result in homosexual attraction (and probably mostly environmental, based on GWAS).
This is because human beings have a sex drive, not instinct. What arouses us can be learned.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
The dirty little secret is that both sides recognize that drag queens are made, not born. That fetish behavior is not spontaneous. That, despite natural proclivities one way or the other, the environment is key to increasing or decreasing the number of people who practice deviant sexual behaviors. And the LGBTQ+ community wants more targets members. Drag shows for children are recruitment efforts.
Your presumption here is that any deviation from the norm is wrong and should be eliminated. Thus we should program people to conform, and make it illegal to deviate from the norm.
Personally, I don't want to increase the number of LGBT people, or decrease them. My priority is other qualities. When I raised my son, I cared that he learned about the world - and that he was curious, honest, forthright, and kind.
For example, the rate of people who identify as LGBT in California is 4.0% and in Texas it is 3.3%. And I suspect some of that difference is migration of LGBT Texans who move to California. But even if it was all environmental epigenetic effect, I don't care either way. If both hetero people and LGBT people are treated equally and with dignity, then my priorities are met regardless of percentages.
Quote from: jhkim on June 08, 2023, 11:26:59 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 08:07:41 PM
~Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Video~
If these girls showed up dressed like that to read a storybook to a classroom of young students, I would have a problem with that. I would question why they are dressed like that at a school. Same for drag queens.
Great. Then would you agree with me that there should be equal standards for drag and non-drag sexuality in front of children?
I didn't argue otherwise. I would be a little more permissive with mainstream heterosexuality because it's fundamental to the continued propagation of the species, but yeah kids should be protected from too much sexuality related displays.
Quote from: jhkim on June 08, 2023, 11:26:59 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Would you be fine with cheerleader story time with girls dressed like this?
I'd be skeptical of it, certainly, and likely uncomfortable - if, say, a woman in a Tinkerbell costume was reading stories to little girls. Still, kids see more than the cheerleading outfit or a Tinkerbell costume on the beach. I certainly wouldn't say that parents who took their kids to Tinkerbell's Story Time should be put to death for sexualizing children, especially sight unseen.
My dude, it was a simple question that asked for nothing more than a yes/no answer, so I don't know why refused to answer directly and started talking about Tinkerbell and the beach.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 08, 2023, 11:26:59 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 08:07:41 PM
~Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Video~
If these girls showed up dressed like that to read a storybook to a classroom of young students, I would have a problem with that. I would question why they are dressed like that at a school. Same for drag queens.
Great. Then would you agree with me that there should be equal standards for drag and non-drag sexuality in front of children?
I didn't argue otherwise. I would be a little more permissive with mainstream heterosexuality because it's fundamental to the continued propagation of the species, but yeah kids should be protected from too much sexuality related displays.
Quote from: jhkim on June 08, 2023, 11:26:59 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 08, 2023, 10:44:02 AM
Would you be fine with cheerleader story time with girls dressed like this?
I'd be skeptical of it, certainly, and likely uncomfortable - if, say, a woman in a Tinkerbell costume was reading stories to little girls. Still, kids see more than the cheerleading outfit or a Tinkerbell costume on the beach. I certainly wouldn't say that parents who took their kids to Tinkerbell's Story Time should be put to death for sexualizing children, especially sight unseen.
My dude, it was a simple question that asked for nothing more than a yes/no answer, so I don't know why refused to answer directly and started talking about Tinkerbell and the beach.
That's our jhkim.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
No I am calling sexually explicit performances sexually explicit performances. The law Texas proposed in 2005 was trying to ban "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and extracurricular competitions where minors are allowed.
QuoteThere's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning.
No, it hasn't. At least, not more than sexually suggestive cheerleader performances. It's literally just guys doing what women to at sporting events. And often it's not even that. Often it's just a comedy routine. I think people here don't even know what happens at drag events and they think it's all strutting and dancing and sexual posing. It's definitely not. A fair bit of it is fat guys in a dress doing a comedy routine.
QuoteCheerleading can go lots of ways. You say there is sexually explicit cheerleading. Sure, maybe, but the activity as a whole is not focused on sex. There are modestly dressed cheer squads. Many cheer squads have men. It is often athletic. Yes, sex sells and sometimes the outfits get skimpy, but that is not central to the activity.
At PROFESSIONAL cheer leading level, sexuality is critical to the performance at some point every night. If you have been to ANY pro sporting event you know what I am referring to.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 07:12:15 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
Cheerleading can go lots of ways. You say there is sexually explicit cheerleading. Sure, maybe, but the activity as a whole is not focused on sex. There are modestly dressed cheer squads. Many cheer squads have men. It is often athletic. Yes, sex sells and sometimes the outfits get skimpy, but that is not central to the activity.
I don't have a problem with a man who wants to dress as a normal woman and live his life like that. You do you, buddy. I don't have a problem with cheerleading either. Oh no, we saw some skin. I don't even have a problem with drag shows, if confined to adult venues. Same with minstrel shows. Dress up and offend people, I don't care. I find both to be in poor taste, but I support free speech and expression, so shrug I guess.
The problem is when people pretend that drag shows are some kind of identity affirming activity that we must all support without question. No. Drag shows are obviously a sex thing. Stop trying to spin it.
The minstrel show comparison fits very well. In 20 or 50 years, we will look back at this era and its drag queen story hours with shame and embarrassment.
A Democrat led law, that I guess had nothing to do with certain leftard ideology, from 2005, that people said:
Quote
"The legislation does not have any specificity to it," says Keith Kilgore, athletic director for the Fort Bend Independent School District, just west of Houston. "I was surprised that it got as many votes as it did - not that I don't share their concerns. I just fail to see who is going to identify what is and what is not acceptable behavior. And if there are consequences, who is going to administer those consequences."
Yes, exactly. Same objection being made to these anti-drag laws. That you don't see the irony involved, and that you thought it made a meaningful point to say it was a Democrat who proposed that law, is no surprise but continues to be disappointing. Whatever point you think you just made, I think it was the opposite of the one you intended.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
If the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are the "representation" of average cheerleading for this discussion, then drag queens with bare prosthetic breasts and assless chaps gyrating against preteens are the "representation" of average drag show. Jhkim always asserts that our extremes don't represent his side, but he never fails to pick extremes to argue against. This is why you can't take him in good faith. Because all of his arguments are based on duplicitousness.
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
LOL you are calling the Dallas Cheerleaders the extreme of cheerleading? My friend, how naive are you in terms of professional sporting events? They're TAME compared to most NBA dance squads.
As for your later point about what you deem "normal" yes, that's the point I am making as well. This is you proclaiming your delicate sensibilities are offended and you need your feelings protected from the immorality that is men in dresses doing what women in dresses have done for decades. It's not about protecting kids, it's about protecting you from being offended. Your position is literally identical to the position of the puritanical radical feminists of the early 1900s who also opposed cheerleading (and drinking and smoking and a host of other things). If we had listened to your types, there never would have been cheerleading, and alcohol would still be illegal.
You can shove your personal morality dictating to society because you're offended. Welcome to the U.S.. It's OK to be offended.
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 10:28:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
If the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are the "representation" of average cheerleading for this discussion, then drag queens with bare prosthetic breasts and assless chaps gyrating against preteens are the "representation" of average drag show. Jhkim always asserts that our extremes don't represent his side, but he never fails to pick extremes to argue against. This is why you can't take him in good faith. Because all of his arguments are based on duplicitousness.
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
Greetings!
Indeed, my friend. I was going to blast the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders example, but you broke out the napalm very nicely! ;D
Cheerleaders re not even comparable. XXX my ass. That's entirely an apples to oranges comparison. Normal people are not fucking worried about their children being warped, fucked in the head, brainwashed, and groomed by Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, or cheerleaders anywhere else.
Who gives a shit what you think is normal? We don't ban speech because you think that speech is not normal. What society do you think you're living in where speech is unacceptable if it varies from normality? Maybe try North Korea if that's what you want out of your society. That isn't the U.S.. What don't tell people what they can say and do and think based on what we deem to be normal.
As for brainwashing, if you think people are brainwashed by men doing the same moves as women in the same clothing, then how can you say women doing it isn't brainwashing? How would that even work psychologically, where the brain wouldn't be impacted by one type but would by the other? This is just another way of you saying what's "normal" and claiming not-normal is inherently bad. Even though what's normal in society right now was not-normal 50 years ago. You want an unchanging society? Again, you might consider another nation.
Quote from: Brad on June 08, 2023, 04:08:46 AM
So...if I take my kids to a Cowboys game (no fucking thanks, lifelong Bills fan but whatever) and they see some cheerleaders this is the equivalent to having drag show reading hour during their kindergarten class.
The level of cope to justify pure degeneracy has reached new lows...
Do you really imagine the drag show reading hour is sexually explicit?
Again, what is it you're trying to protect kids from. People claimed it was to protect them from seeing sexually explicit performances. The cheerleaders are often sexually explicit. The drag show reading hour is not. So it sure sounds like you're trying to protect them from...you being offended, rather than any kind of sexually explicit performances.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
What is the unstated cause of this promotion of drag shows as normal? The recognition by all that heterosexuality is the human default. The left hates this, but must acknowledge it in action (if not in thought or word), because to do otherwise would mean the failure of their ideology.
The reality of the situation is that all sexual "deviancy" (using the technical definition) must be manufactured. People are not born LGBTQ+. Even twin studies have confirmed this. There's only a 52% concordance of identical twins and a 22% of fraternal twins when it comes to homosexuality. Even the big proponents of the "born gay" theory (the Kinsey Institute) recognize that homosexuality is, at best, epigenetic (and the various genome-wide association studies have put the final nail in the "born that way" coffin). So, at the very least, it requires both genetic and environmental factors to result in homosexual attraction (and probably mostly environmental, based on GWAS).
This is because human beings have a sex drive, not instinct. What arouses us can be learned. There was a landmark study at the University of Michigan that studied physical arousal that developed unconscious associations with automobile tires and sexual arousal in the participants (i.e., after image association priming, males became physically aroused by images of tires, even though they did not consciously associate the tires with sex). Of course, most of these studies are decades old, because you can't study sex in this context any more.
Likewise, if you look at age of first sexual contact, lesbians and gay men report their first sexual experience at a younger age than the norm, and with a far older partner than the norm. We already have dozens of studies investigating the mental and social consequences of sexual abuse on children, and many of the children involved have issues with sexuality (from hypersexualism through asexualism) because of this early contact.
So, what does this boil down to? The dirty little secret is that both sides recognize that drag queens are made, not born. That fetish behavior is not spontaneous. That, despite natural proclivities one way or the other, the environment is key to increasing or decreasing the number of people who practice deviant sexual behaviors. And the LGBTQ+ community wants more targets members. Drag shows for children are recruitment efforts. Period. They are intended to normalize such conduct so that children will be more likely to experiment with it. Because, without recruitment, many of these fetish behaviors would shrink to irrelevancy (they will never truly disappear, as long as emotional and sexual abuse exist... which is forever, sadly). So, we know they are recruiting. They know they are recruiting. But to admit it would be to admit that their opponents are correct, which would destroy the heart of their argument for licentiousness. So they pretend that "it's just harmless fun, people expressing themselves, blah blah blah." Because, in the end, there's no justification for exposing young children to deviant behavior unless it is to encourage children to see such behavior as normal and worth investigating/participating in. Drag shows for kids are recruiting drives.
Nailed it.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 07:12:15 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 07, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 07, 2023, 03:50:56 PM
Yes, children/minors SHOULD be banned from ALL XXX content and even from softcore pron too.
When Texas tried to tone down the sexually explicit cheerleading, it was met with boos and claims that's too vague to enforce, and got zero sponsors. Republicans opposed it in Texas.
Because this isn't about protecting kids from seeing sexually explicit performances and never was. It's, as mentioned earlier, the alt-right's offended equivalent of blackface. You feel offended and icky seeing men in a dress gyrate like a cheerleader does every day. That's all this is about no matter how much you try to hide it behind the routine "It's for the kids!" like some striking teacher's union.
So you're calling a scantily clad performance sexually explicit? Not the definition I would use, but okay.
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning. Quiz time: Does the average drag queen A) dress like the average woman or B) dress in provocative and elaborate clothing with lots of exposed skin, huge boobs, and absurdly exaggerated make up?
Cheerleading can go lots of ways. You say there is sexually explicit cheerleading. Sure, maybe, but the activity as a whole is not focused on sex. There are modestly dressed cheer squads. Many cheer squads have men. It is often athletic. Yes, sex sells and sometimes the outfits get skimpy, but that is not central to the activity.
I don't have a problem with a man who wants to dress as a normal woman and live his life like that. You do you, buddy. I don't have a problem with cheerleading either. Oh no, we saw some skin. I don't even have a problem with drag shows, if confined to adult venues. Same with minstrel shows. Dress up and offend people, I don't care. I find both to be in poor taste, but I support free speech and expression, so shrug I guess.
The problem is when people pretend that drag shows are some kind of identity affirming activity that we must all support without question. No. Drag shows are obviously a sex thing. Stop trying to spin it.
The minstrel show comparison fits very well. In 20 or 50 years, we will look back at this era and its drag queen story hours with shame and embarrassment.
A Democrat led law, that I guess had nothing to do with certain leftard ideology, from 2005, that people said:
Quote
"The legislation does not have any specificity to it," says Keith Kilgore, athletic director for the Fort Bend Independent School District, just west of Houston. "I was surprised that it got as many votes as it did - not that I don't share their concerns. I just fail to see who is going to identify what is and what is not acceptable behavior. And if there are consequences, who is going to administer those consequences."
Yes, exactly. Same objection being made to these anti-drag laws. That you don't see the irony involved, and that you thought it made a meaningful point to say it was a Democrat who proposed that law, is no surprise but continues to be disappointing. Whatever point you think you just made, I think it was the opposite of the one you intended.
Actually, the drag laws were critiqued by the judiciary for targeting all minors and requiring certainty a minor was not in attendance. We gave a critique of that, involving generalized inability to consent and others noting laws where 18 is the cutoff in absolute terms.
This cheerleading law, while good in intent, seems to have been criticized in implementation and a lack of clarity. Both of which you had earlier said make sense as a critique under the constitution. What are the punishments, what are the exact definitions, who is punished, who enforces the law? All questions that must be answered.
Which again is why I support the specificity of existing laws that ban only specific types of drag shows from all minors. With specific punishments and enforcement and guidelines. I think if anything they should be more specific so less is left within the hands of the courts, and it is applying the same standard across different adult industries and identities. I also support them within a wider array of laws that target stripping, porn, XXX games and content, adult cabaret and so forth being targeted at children. I also think that PG-13 and R ratings should be legislated to have real meaning for what tickets companies can sell to minors in a legal sense. I think video game sales should potentially have similar restrictions based on age rating. Maybe also ticket sales to plays and other live events and performances like cheerleading, though the plays and performances would need to be self-policing on ratings, since a broadly applicable rating system does not currently exist for such things. That might make the latter plan non-viable.
"scantilly clad women shaking their hips are explicitly sexual, drag degenerates doing the exact same aren't" Mistwell 2023
Okay Groomer
Grooming: Introducing a seemingly innocent aspect of a really degenerate thing or something you can claim isn't ideological to normalize the degeneracy/ideology so people will be more open to accept, engage with the sexual deviancy or cult's ideology.
When applied to minors it's called grooming children.
Quote from: DocJones on June 08, 2023, 04:48:59 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
What is the unstated cause of this promotion of drag shows as normal? The recognition by all that heterosexuality is the human default. The left hates this, but must acknowledge it in action (if not in thought or word), because to do otherwise would mean the failure of their ideology.
The reality of the situation is that all sexual "deviancy" (using the technical definition) must be manufactured. People are not born LGBTQ+. Even twin studies have confirmed this. There's only a 52% concordance of identical twins and a 22% of fraternal twins when it comes to homosexuality. Even the big proponents of the "born gay" theory (the Kinsey Institute) recognize that homosexuality is, at best, epigenetic (and the various genome-wide association studies have put the final nail in the "born that way" coffin). So, at the very least, it requires both genetic and environmental factors to result in homosexual attraction (and probably mostly environmental, based on GWAS).
This is because human beings have a sex drive, not instinct. What arouses us can be learned. There was a landmark study at the University of Michigan that studied physical arousal that developed unconscious associations with automobile tires and sexual arousal in the participants (i.e., after image association priming, males became physically aroused by images of tires, even though they did not consciously associate the tires with sex). Of course, most of these studies are decades old, because you can't study sex in this context any more.
Likewise, if you look at age of first sexual contact, lesbians and gay men report their first sexual experience at a younger age than the norm, and with a far older partner than the norm. We already have dozens of studies investigating the mental and social consequences of sexual abuse on children, and many of the children involved have issues with sexuality (from hypersexualism through asexualism) because of this early contact.
So, what does this boil down to? The dirty little secret is that both sides recognize that drag queens are made, not born. That fetish behavior is not spontaneous. That, despite natural proclivities one way or the other, the environment is key to increasing or decreasing the number of people who practice deviant sexual behaviors. And the LGBTQ+ community wants more targets members. Drag shows for children are recruitment efforts. Period. They are intended to normalize such conduct so that children will be more likely to experiment with it. Because, without recruitment, many of these fetish behaviors would shrink to irrelevancy (they will never truly disappear, as long as emotional and sexual abuse exist... which is forever, sadly). So, we know they are recruiting. They know they are recruiting. But to admit it would be to admit that their opponents are correct, which would destroy the heart of their argument for licentiousness. So they pretend that "it's just harmless fun, people expressing themselves, blah blah blah." Because, in the end, there's no justification for exposing young children to deviant behavior unless it is to encourage children to see such behavior as normal and worth investigating/participating in. Drag shows for kids are recruiting drives.
Nailed it.
Yep.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
Quote"DQSH grew from queer author Michelle Tea's personal desire to connect her toddler with queer culture."
Note the term, "Queer culture".
QuoteJosé Esteban Muñoz argued in his 2009 book Cruising Utopia that queerness is imagination itself, a yearning for a future not fully conceivable in the present:
Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality. Put another way, we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality. We have never been queer, yet queerness exists for us as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and used to imagine a future. The future is queerness's domain. Queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring that allows us to see and feel beyond the quagmire of the present. The here and now is a prison house. (p. 1)
We turn now to an exploration of drag as pedagogical form embodying the kind of queer imaginative ideality Muñoz described.
This is not just some harmless dudes in dresses telling kids stories. This is politics and ideology being foisted onto children. This is political grooming.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:43:11 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 07, 2023, 10:28:36 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
If the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are the "representation" of average cheerleading for this discussion, then drag queens with bare prosthetic breasts and assless chaps gyrating against preteens are the "representation" of average drag show. Jhkim always asserts that our extremes don't represent his side, but he never fails to pick extremes to argue against. This is why you can't take him in good faith. Because all of his arguments are based on duplicitousness.
Besides, heterosexual displays are normal. People will develop those naturally. Obviously, we shouldn't expose children to them too soon. But we should never expose children to deviant behavior. So cheerleading and drag shows aren't remotely comparable.
Greetings!
Indeed, my friend. I was going to blast the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders example, but you broke out the napalm very nicely! ;D
Cheerleaders re not even comparable. XXX my ass. That's entirely an apples to oranges comparison. Normal people are not fucking worried about their children being warped, fucked in the head, brainwashed, and groomed by Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, or cheerleaders anywhere else.
Who gives a shit what you think is normal? We don't ban speech because you think that speech is not normal. What society do you think you're living in where speech is unacceptable if it varies from normality? Maybe try North Korea if that's what you want out of your society. That isn't the U.S.. What don't tell people what they can say and do and think based on what we deem to be normal.
As for brainwashing, if you think people are brainwashed by men doing the same moves as women in the same clothing, then how can you say women doing it isn't brainwashing? How would that even work psychologically, where the brain wouldn't be impacted by one type but would by the other? This is just another way of you saying what's "normal" and claiming not-normal is inherently bad. Even though what's normal in society right now was not-normal 50 years ago. You want an unchanging society? Again, you might consider another nation.
Greetings!
Who gives a shit about what I think is normal? Well, for starters, many people in school district administrations think what I think is normal is important. I am a taxpayer, so I am entitled to see that my tax money is not going towards BS that I don't think is normal, or what I think is immoral and wrong. That's right. Because I fucking said so.
Furthermore, millions of other tax paying citizens and parents, believe that what I think is important. That's why so many Liberal, cock-sucking teachers and degenerate groomers are being fired and otherwise dismissed from teaching positions and administrative positions within school boards. Because WE fucking said so.
Furthermore, parents have authority and rights over what their children are taught and exposed to--by people paid by OUR TAX DOLLARS.
Do you understand now?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
I think people here don't even know what happens at drag events and they think it's all strutting and dancing and sexual posing. It's definitely not. A fair bit of it is fat guys in a dress doing a comedy routine.
I haven't seen much live drag and don't think I can generalize the genre. Based on discussion here, I did watch this trailer from 8 years ago for Friends of George's - the theater company in Memphis that sued over the Tennessee law.
This isn't what all drag is, and that's the point. Drag can be widely different things.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 08, 2023, 05:00:55 PM
Which again is why I support the specificity of existing laws that ban only specific types of drag shows from all minors. With specific punishments and enforcement and guidelines. I think if anything they should be more specific so less is left within the hands of the courts, and it is applying the same standard across different adult industries and identities. I also support them within a wider array of laws that target stripping, porn, XXX games and content, adult cabaret and so forth being targeted at children.
How would you define the specific types of drag shows that should be banned? You used the term "XXX" before, but how would that be a practical distinction that isn't just court discretion? The Tennessee law banned any that "appealed to prurient interest" which I think was key to it being shut down for being vague and over-broad.
(https://i.imgur.com/XGv2JID.jpg)
According to our resident groomers Mistwell and jhkim, this is just harmless fun, and certainly no worse than watching a football game with cheerleaders.
I think "prurient interest" should potentially be narrowed down, but I'm also not a lawyer or a legislator. I have no way of knowing what that term means, as a legislator, lawyer, or judge would, within the context of Tennessee law. Wasn't it deemed overbroad on the basis of applying to minors of all ages and anywhere a minor could be, though? I had thought that was what the folks who submitted the complaint argued and the judge agreed to. That causes me to believe that the issue at hand is not whether that term has specific enough meaning within the context of law, legislation, or Tennessee law.
Now, I could be mistaken. But I think the intent of the law seemed clearly to ban adult entertainment and adult cabaret.
There should be a way to adjudicate what adult content and NSFW content is. I know some games and videos and the like allegedly display content warnings that those not of 18+ cannot play them. However this labeling is determined applicable might be a good way to determine it. Or maybe on the basis of exposed private parts and breasts or nipples or the like. Let the law experts and lawyers figure it out, but there's gotta be a way to define it. I mean, we can define strip shows, so I feel like we can define what shouldn't be shown to children. There's gotta be a way.
Quote from: Brad on June 08, 2023, 07:43:52 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XGv2JID.jpg)
According to our resident groomers Mistwell and jhkim, this is just harmless fun, and certainly no worse than watching a football game with cheerleaders.
But they'll use the mote and bailey retreating to #NotAllDrag is like that, while knowing perfectly well what's happening at schools and other venues.
Because they're groomers.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2023, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 08, 2023, 07:43:52 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XGv2JID.jpg)
According to our resident groomers Mistwell and jhkim, this is just harmless fun, and certainly no worse than watching a football game with cheerleaders.
But they'll use the mote and bailey retreating to #NotAllDrag is like that, while knowing perfectly well what's happening at schools and other venues.
Because they're groomers.
Greetings!
Exactly right, GeekyBugle! Instead of playing their stupid game of "Whack-A-Mole" that is why we just say fuck it, too bad. Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period. Fuck what the Libtards think. Ram it down their throats, again and again and again. Make it clear so it is like a fucking brand on their forehead that we do not approve of their degeneracy, and will not accept it or tolerate it, at all. End of story.
They hate such unyielding resistance. To be successful, however, this is what must be done, whether they like it or not.
The Liberals are seething and REEEing that more and more people are in fact coming to this same conclusion. This is why we must remain RELENTLESS and UNYIELDING. No remorse. No apologies. No compromise.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Such a ban against all drag/crossdressing in all occasions would be struck down by the courts. Perhaps rightfully under freedom of speech and cetera. Even if there were enough support to pass it, there wouldn't be enough for a constitutional ammendment. I feel we should work within the law to protect children even if it seems incredibly difficult. We owe it to the constitution and to ourselves not to sink to their level. We should play the game better than they do, be in whack-a-mole as the octopus that plays the drums. Tailor specific laws that are legitimate.
Not least because in the end the far left will likely have a majority via demographic shifts. And when they do every constitutional protection is going to come in clutch.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 12:28:28 AM
Such a ban against all drag/crossdressing in all occasions would be struck down by the courts. Perhaps rightfully under freedom of speech and cetera. Even if there were enough support to pass it, there wouldn't be enough for a constitutional ammendment. I feel we should work within the law to protect children even if it seems incredibly difficult. We owe it to the constitution and to ourselves not to sink to their level. We should play the game better than they do, be in whack-a-mole as the octopus that plays the drums. Tailor specific laws that are legitimate.
Not least because in the end the far left will likely have a majority via demographic shifts. And when they do every constitutional protection is going to come in clutch into the dumpster.
If the far left consolidate power, the Constitution won't stop them.
Sorry, meant a demographic majority for the left, of which the far left is a part. At which point I think constitutional protections might well help.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 12:57:02 AM
Sorry, meant a demographic majority for the left, of which the far left is a part. At which point I think constitutional protections might well help.
I think you are extremely optimistic. The far left is faaar better at lawfare than the middle and the right. The constitution might as well be toilet paper if the left consolidates a big national majority. What is going to help then won't have anything to do with paper and words.
I do enjoy the line around there is no normal or no one cares what anyone thinks is normal. Well people spouting shit like that are going to get a chance to learn to care what parents think is normal. There are not many things that will stir normies to serious action or even violence...but goofing with their kids is one of them. Shouting free speech is some right to have kids around degenerates is going to get people kicked into a pit Sparta style.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 09, 2023, 05:42:55 AM
I do enjoy the line around there is no normal or no one cares what anyone thinks is normal. Well people spouting shit like that are going to get a chance to learn to care what parents think is normal. There are not many things that will stir normies to serious action or even violence...but goofing with their kids is one of them. Shouting free speech is some right to have kids around degenerates is going to get people kicked into a pit Sparta style.
I am the Negative Nancy today, but after Covid had parents gladly shooting their kids up with experimental medications, and considering the rise in people mutilating and abusing their children with hormones, I'm pretty down on the ability for parents to protect their children. Any that resist will get beat down by The State, assisted by the people who swallow this stuff. It's already happening.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/transgender-minors-protected-from-estranged-parents-under-washington-law
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2023, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 08, 2023, 07:43:52 PM
According to our resident groomers Mistwell and jhkim, this is just harmless fun, and certainly no worse than watching a football game with cheerleaders.
But they'll use the mote and bailey retreating to #NotAllDrag is like that, while knowing perfectly well what's happening at schools and other venues.
I've been clear that I do
not have much knowledge of live drag events. I've been to less than a handful of live drag events, and I don't claim anything either way about all drag shows.
My line has simply been that the same standards for children should apply whether drag or not. In cases where children are shown adult genitals, say, it doesn't matter what clothes the adult is wearing. Indecent exposure is a criminal offense pretty much anywhere, and can be prosecuted as such regardless of if the offender is wearing a dress or a trenchcoat. If the person in Brad's picture was exposing their genitals to kids as implied by the photoshop, then they can and should be prosecuted for that.
There is tons of child sexualization and child sexual abuse in the world, and there always has been. This includes LGBT people but it certainly isn't limited to it. There are the thousands of cases of physical sexual assault on minors every year - by peers as well as by adults - teachers, priests, relatives, and parents. As I mentioned, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. That's physical sex. Sexual suggestiveness in front of children is vastly more common.
People suggesting that my example of the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders was an extreme edge case, which I feel is ridiculous. The point of that isn't that it was extreme. It isn't. It's the sort of thing that is frequent and normal and mainstream.
That I don't want to ban all drag like SHARK suggests doesn't mean I think that there is never anything wrong done at drag shows.
As for what drag shows are like:
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 08, 2023, 05:53:31 PM
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBv19E-fF7w
This is not just some harmless dudes in dresses telling kids stories. This is politics and ideology being foisted onto children. This is political grooming.
Ratman, that's a two and a half hour video. I tried to get through it, but I've only gotten through about an hour so far. The thing is, the whole thing is based on the principle that if one wants to know about (X) topic, the way to the truth is to read an academic analysis of it. I'm skeptical even of soft science papers like psychology or sociology. I'm extremely skeptical of "grievance studies" like queer theory. I don't think, for example, that reading a queer theory paper on cheerleading will tell me everything I need to know about cheerleading.
The video is based purely on reading into one queer theory analysis paper, and suggests that whatever is read in queer theory is the truth.
If someone wants to know about what family-friendly live drag events are like, I would think the best way would be to go to one. I've never been to such, but I'm searching in my area - maybe I can get to see a drag queen story hour in the next few weeks to judge for myself and report.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 12:28:28 AM
Such a ban against all drag/crossdressing in all occasions would be struck down by the courts. Perhaps rightfully under freedom of speech and cetera. Even if there were enough support to pass it, there wouldn't be enough for a constitutional ammendment. I feel we should work within the law to protect children even if it seems incredibly difficult. We owe it to the constitution and to ourselves not to sink to their level. We should play the game better than they do, be in whack-a-mole as the octopus that plays the drums. Tailor specific laws that are legitimate.
Not least because in the end the far left will likely have a majority via demographic shifts. And when they do every constitutional protection is going to come in clutch.
Well, they are panicking because the leftwards trend is reversing, younger people are becoming more conservative little by little, as for people from other countries...
Latinos MIGHT like the socialist stuff, but they are incredibly religious and conservative in the social stuff, Muslims even more so, I do think their ploy to get more voters by demographic shift will backfire on them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 01:16:12 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 12:28:28 AM
Such a ban against all drag/crossdressing in all occasions would be struck down by the courts. Perhaps rightfully under freedom of speech and cetera. Even if there were enough support to pass it, there wouldn't be enough for a constitutional ammendment. I feel we should work within the law to protect children even if it seems incredibly difficult. We owe it to the constitution and to ourselves not to sink to their level. We should play the game better than they do, be in whack-a-mole as the octopus that plays the drums. Tailor specific laws that are legitimate.
Not least because in the end the far left will likely have a majority via demographic shifts. And when they do every constitutional protection is going to come in clutch.
Well, they are panicking because the leftwards trend is reversing, younger people are becoming more conservative little by little, as for people from other countries...
Latinos MIGHT like the socialist stuff, but they are incredibly religious and conservative in the social stuff, Muslims even more so, I do think their ploy to get more voters by demographic shift will backfire on them.
I hope you're right on that. If so, it would be all the more reason to avoid doing anything overly violent or constitution breaking in the meantime. Though I do suspect a majority will be left leaning relative to today in the future, as a bit of a pessimist myself.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 09, 2023, 05:42:55 AM
I do enjoy the line around there is no normal or no one cares what anyone thinks is normal. Well people spouting shit like that are going to get a chance to learn to care what parents think is normal. There are not many things that will stir normies to serious action or even violence...but goofing with their kids is one of them. Shouting free speech is some right to have kids around degenerates is going to get people kicked into a pit Sparta style.
oggsmash -- All of the complaints that I've seen in this thread are events that parents deliberately take their kids to. For example, one of GeekyBugle's articles was about a UK event called CabaBabaRave that parents brought their young children to. The Plano Texas event that GeekyBugle linked that was billed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that "may not be appropriate for all ages" - but parents brought a young girl anyway.
This shows in how the Tennessee bill and other anti-drag bills aren't about giving parents control - like with R-rated movies where kids can be admitted with a parent or guardian. They are banning regardless of parents' permission.
Like with the debate over child beauty pageants, it seems to me this is mostly over what parents are doing with their own kids.
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
There's a difference you're missing in this comparison.
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning.
No, it hasn't. At least, not more than sexually suggestive cheerleader performances. It's literally just guys doing what women to at sporting events. And often it's not even that. Often it's just a comedy routine. I think people here don't even know what happens at drag events and they think it's all strutting and dancing and sexual posing. It's definitely not. A fair bit of it is fat guys in a dress doing a comedy routine.
You can deny all you want, but drag was popularized at minstrel and burlesque shows and was either sexual in nature or was comedy at the expense of women. Before that it was used in plays when it was taboo for women to be actors. If you disagree, why not educate us in the history of this esteemed art form.
Drag is mockery of women. It would not be acceptable to liberals if it targeted any other group of people. Not even white men because white men wouldn't stand for it. Women tend to be more accommodating and accepting, and this is why this one version of mockery against a "historically marginalized group" is not only tolerated but lauded. This is why a lot of feminists can't stand drag. Drag creates a bizarro world where feminists and conservatives can agree on something.
Why don't you try a dose of empathy. Imagine a profession that openly mocked and parodied your people. You can look away and don't go to the shows, like a functioning adult. Okay, now imagine this profession is going to schools and teaching kids that this kind of insult to your people is, not only acceptable, it's brave and something to aspire to.
I'm a white guy with Slavic roots. I laugh at the Schmenge Brothers. But if they were in schools trying to normalize their obvious parody as some kind of calling or way of life, I would hate them, too.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning.
No, it hasn't. At least, not more than sexually suggestive cheerleader performances. It's literally just guys doing what women to at sporting events. And often it's not even that. Often it's just a comedy routine. I think people here don't even know what happens at drag events and they think it's all strutting and dancing and sexual posing. It's definitely not. A fair bit of it is fat guys in a dress doing a comedy routine.
You can deny all you want, but drag was popularized at minstrel and burlesque shows and was either sexual in nature or was comedy at the expense of women. Before that it was used in plays when it was taboo for women to be actors. If you disagree, why not educate us in the history of this esteemed art form.
In my bolded section, you just said that it wasn't always sexual. Often it was comedy.
Your claim is that this comedy was at the expense of women, but that's a separate argument. It's certainly true that minstrel shows were overall both racist and sexist, but those were the standards of the time. There were still great black performers like Bill Robinson who performed in minstrel shows, who demonstrated positive traits and talent. There were also talented and well-regarded drag performers. Among drag shows, one of the biggest stars was Julian Eltinge. Here's a short bit on him:
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 01:34:58 PM
Why don't you try a dose of empathy. Imagine a profession that openly mocked and parodied your people. You can look away and don't go to the shows, like a functioning adult. Okay, now imagine this profession is going to schools and teaching kids that this kind of insult to your people is, not only acceptable, it's brave and something to aspire to.
I'm a white guy with Slavic roots. I laugh at the Schmenge Brothers. But if they were in schools trying to normalize their obvious parody as some kind of calling or way of life, I would hate them, too.
I'd be open to empathy to women who were bristling at the offensiveness of drag to their people. But it sounds to me like you're a man white knighting for women, who mostly are not insulted or offended by drag.
As a man, I don't feel insulted by older acts like Marlene Dietrich putting on men's clothes to perform. And I don't feel offended or insulted by drag kings today.
Again, I haven't watched many live drag performances, but I've watched a fair bit of LGBT shows and cinema. I'm sure that there are misogynist drag shows out there, but as I said, I don't see that in the ones that I've seen -- so I don't think it is a reason to condemn all of drag.
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on June 08, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 07, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Drag has always had a sexual underpinning.
No, it hasn't. At least, not more than sexually suggestive cheerleader performances. It's literally just guys doing what women to at sporting events. And often it's not even that. Often it's just a comedy routine. I think people here don't even know what happens at drag events and they think it's all strutting and dancing and sexual posing. It's definitely not. A fair bit of it is fat guys in a dress doing a comedy routine.
You can deny all you want, but drag was popularized at minstrel and burlesque shows and was either sexual in nature or was comedy at the expense of women. Before that it was used in plays when it was taboo for women to be actors. If you disagree, why not educate us in the history of this esteemed art form.
In my bolded section, you just said that it wasn't always sexual. Often it was comedy.
Your claim is that this comedy was at the expense of women, but that's a separate argument. It's certainly true that minstrel shows were overall both racist and sexist, but those were the standards of the time. There were still great black performers like Bill Robinson who performed in minstrel shows, who demonstrated positive traits and talent. There were also talented and well-regarded drag performers. Among drag shows, one of the biggest stars was Julian Eltinge. Here's a short bit on him:
Yeah, it's a separate argument. So? Is there a 1 argument maximum or something?
There are exceptions to everything. You keep trotting out exceptions: drag kings, highly artistic performances, etc. The typical drag performance today is over-exaggerated and raunchy.
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 01:34:58 PM
Why don't you try a dose of empathy. Imagine a profession that openly mocked and parodied your people. You can look away and don't go to the shows, like a functioning adult. Okay, now imagine this profession is going to schools and teaching kids that this kind of insult to your people is, not only acceptable, it's brave and something to aspire to.
I'm a white guy with Slavic roots. I laugh at the Schmenge Brothers. But if they were in schools trying to normalize their obvious parody as some kind of calling or way of life, I would hate them, too.
I'd be open to empathy to women who were bristling at the offensiveness of drag to their people. But it sounds to me like you're a man white knighting for women, who mostly are not insulted or offended by drag.
As a man, I don't feel insulted by older acts like Marlene Dietrich putting on men's clothes to perform. And I don't feel offended or insulted by drag kings today.
Again, I haven't watched many live drag performances, but I've watched a fair bit of LGBT shows and cinema. I'm sure that there are misogynist drag shows out there, but as I said, I don't see that in the ones that I've seen -- so I don't think it is a reason to condemn all of drag.
I knew someone would eventually say the magic words "white knight." There is a lot of writing by women (feminists or not) on how drag degrades and mocks women. Go read it. (Be sure to cherry pick the one feminist who's fine with it.)
Like I said, I don't have a problem with drag shows in principle. I consider them to be in poor taste, but it's free speech and I'm an adult who can make my own decisions. The question is: how is drag queen story time okay? Hank Azaria played Apu on the Simpsons. It was mockery and comedy, but he wasn't visiting schools teaching kids about the wonders of being hindu.
This is one of those things that the alphabet people need to back down. Like that trans woman in Vancouver who sued women-only waxing salons for not waxing his hairy balls. It turns regular people against the cause. You asked for tolerance, you received tolerance, so be satisfied with tolerance. Demanding for acceptance and adulation is backfiring. Not because regular people are bigots, but because regular people are regular people.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
In my bolded section, you just said that it wasn't always sexual. Often it was comedy.
Your claim is that this comedy was at the expense of women, but that's a separate argument. It's certainly true that minstrel shows were overall both racist and sexist, but those were the standards of the time. There were still great black performers like Bill Robinson who performed in minstrel shows, who demonstrated positive traits and talent. There were also talented and well-regarded drag performers. Among drag shows, one of the biggest stars was Julian Eltinge. Here's a short bit on him:
Yeah, it's a separate argument. So? Is there a 1 argument maximum or something?
There are exceptions to everything. You keep trotting out exceptions: drag kings, highly artistic performances, etc. The typical drag performance today is over-exaggerated and raunchy.
The variety of different sorts of drag is important because we're talking about laws that would broadly apply to all drag. SHARK is advocating making all drag illegal ("
Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period."). There are proposed bills in state legislature that would ban any minor from seeing any drag show. And the passed Tennessee law categorized male and female impersonators with strippers, which was deemed overbroad in court.
No one disagrees that there are raunchy, sexual drag shows that are adult entertainment -- and that children shouldn't be brought to such drag shows. The issue is about classifying all drag shows that way.
The alternative is classifying performances based on how sexual they are, not by whether they are drag or not. My claim is that the cases being complained about would be unacceptable regardless of the sex of the performer.
NOTE: Reading a little further, it seems the Tennessee law that passed was not the version I linked earlier. The amended version doesn't define in terms of "prurient" but instead uses a definition of "harmful to minors" that includes that is broader than the federal definition of obscenity. Here's what I read on why it was found to violate free speech:
https://theconversation.com/why-tennessees-law-limiting-drag-performances-likely-violates-the-first-amendment-201126
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
As a man, I don't feel insulted by older acts like Marlene Dietrich putting on men's clothes to perform. And I don't feel offended or insulted by drag kings today.
Again, I haven't watched many live drag performances, but I've watched a fair bit of LGBT shows and cinema. I'm sure that there are misogynist drag shows out there, but as I said, I don't see that in the ones that I've seen -- so I don't think it is a reason to condemn all of drag.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with drag shows in principle. I consider them to be in poor taste, but it's free speech and I'm an adult who can make my own decisions. The question is: how is drag queen story time okay? Hank Azaria played Apu on the Simpsons. It was mockery and comedy, but he wasn't visiting schools teaching kids about the wonders of being hindu.
I'm not saying anything either way about drag story time. I've never been to one, and I don't claim to know enough to generalize. I am looking into going to see one in the next few weeks.
As I understand it, your objection isn't that it is sexualizing children, but rather that it teaches misogynistic things about women. What that argument depends on is whether the drag performance is taken as a lesson about real women. Again, I don't have an opinion right now because I don't think I'm informed about such.
Regarding Hank Azaria - I don't feel that voice actors have to be the same ethnicity as the character they play. I feel this is overreach and similar to arguments about cultural appropriation that I don't agree with. Hank Azaria shouldn't teach kids about being Hindu, but he could come to a school and teach kids how to do different accents for voice acting.
Since you leftists want to equivocate and use the "innocent" drag to cover for the degeneracy being pushed onto children I agree with Shark! Ban it all!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 06:54:59 PM
Since you leftists want to equivocate and use the "innocent" drag to cover for the degeneracy being pushed onto children I agree with Shark! Ban it all!
I understand your frustration, but hurried haymakers are just what they want. They'll use the courts and constitution to strike down broader bans.
I think it makes more sense to ban its negative impacts in a targeted and carefully legally considered fashion. As well as further expanding attacks on child exposure to porn and the like as you had suggested.
Also a separate line of legislation is needed to get schools and the ideological tenor of public administration back on track. The public should have a right to expect that those hired do not teach woke bigotry. If anything falls outside a clean and productive curriculum approved by the public it shouldn't receive public funding to be taught, likewise those who grade on it should be fired. The public should also have a right to not have government and public employees pushing ideology on the job either. Else why is there the Hatch Act?
We can do this cleverly, cleanly and within the law. That's how we win, I feel. That's how we combat left wing authoritarianism without weakening the constitution and our rights.
Also, To GeekyBugle: How are things where you're located right now, on this topic? Both legislatively/constitutionally and societally/culturally? You're living in part of Mexico, yeah? (I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of you with respect to that.) Mostly just curious what your perspective there is. Always nice to have an eye on the ground.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 07:13:32 PM
We can do this cleverly, cleanly and within the law. That's how we win, I feel. That's how we combat left wing authoritarianism without weakening the constitution and our rights.
I used to think this way, too, until I realized Marxists couldn't give a fuck about the law except when it suits their purposes.
Quote from: KindaMeh on June 09, 2023, 07:25:04 PM
Also, To GeekyBugle: How are things where you're located right now, on this topic? Both legislatively/constitutionally and societally/culturally? You're living in part of Mexico, yeah? (I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of you with respect to that.) Mostly just curious what your perspective there is. Always nice to have an eye on the ground.
México, yes, México City to be precise.
Well, here Gender Ideology and everything woke is being pushed by ALL political parties, even the pseudo right-wing PAN (Partido Acción Nacional) which is really center left at best.
It's just not as bad as in the USA YET, but since we have no right wing party it's only a matter of time.
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PMI have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
You've seen drag shows? As in multiple shows?
If they were so "gross, lewd, and degenerate", why did you go back to view multiple shows?!?
Very curious behavior.
My dad used to say "Show me a guy who loves baiting queers and I'll show you a guy trying to catch one for himself!" BABY SHARK couldn't be a more obvious closet case if he was wearing a priest's collar.
Quote from: Garry G on June 02, 2023, 05:15:05 PM
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 10:52:18 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PMI have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
You've seen drag shows? As in multiple shows?
If they were so "gross, lewd, and degenerate", why did you go back to view multiple shows?!?
Very curious behavior.
My dad used to say "Show me a guy who loves baiting queers and I'll show you a guy trying to catch one for himself!" BABY SHARK couldn't be a more obvious closet case if he was wearing a priest's collar.
So, you are asserting that, by denigrating gays, Shark is proving he is gay. And this is a criticism. So, you are attempting to insult Shark by calling him gay. Being gay is an insult for you.
Why do you hate gay people?
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 10:52:18 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PMI have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
You've seen drag shows? As in multiple shows?
If they were so "gross, lewd, and degenerate", why did you go back to view multiple shows?!?
Very curious behavior.
My dad used to say "Show me a guy who loves baiting queers and I'll show you a guy trying to catch one for himself!" BABY SHARK couldn't be a more obvious closet case if he was wearing a priest's collar.
Greetings!
*Laughing* I'm not baiting anyone. It is obvious that Drag Shows are being used by the trannies to open the doors to grooming children and normalizing degeneracy in classrooms, libraries, parks, and so on. And thus from this, with entire society.
I'm not a closet case of anything.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 02, 2023, 05:15:05 PM
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Based on your previous logic, by desperately accusing your opponents of not protecting children, it just proves you don't care about children or those that groom them.
Why do you want to groom children?
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 02, 2023, 05:15:05 PM
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Many conservatives here and elswhere have spoken against child beauty pageants, but you can't help yourselves but to lie about us.
Just out of curiosity, how many children are in beauty pageants AGAINST the will of their parents by state mandate?
NONE?
Okay, then even if both are terrible for children (and I would include ALL the entertainment industry as a no, no for children [working there I mean]) they aren't the same problem, but ask me if I'm in favor of banning said pageants and at the very least putting some very heavy restrictions on children in the entertainment industry?
While you're at it ask every other conservative here and elsewhere.
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 01:05:03 PM
As for what drag shows are like:
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 08, 2023, 05:53:31 PM
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBv19E-fF7w
This is not just some harmless dudes in dresses telling kids stories. This is politics and ideology being foisted onto children. This is political grooming.
Ratman, that's a two and a half hour video. I tried to get through it, but I've only gotten through about an hour so far. The thing is, the whole thing is based on the principle that if one wants to know about (X) topic, the way to the truth is to read an academic analysis of it.
No, it's not. It's James Lindsay researching the origins of the current "woke" phenomenon within academia. You're the one claiming something about "the whole thing", and the "way to truth".
this garbage has it's origins in activist academia, and Lindsay came with reciepts.
QuoteI'm skeptical even of soft science papers like psychology or sociology. I'm extremely skeptical of "grievance studies" like queer theory. I don't think, for example, that reading a queer theory paper on cheerleading will tell me everything I need to know about cheerleading.
The video is based purely on reading into one queer theory analysis paper, and suggests that whatever is read in queer theory is the truth.
Again, no. Lindsay is pointing out the ideological origins of queer theory, and how it's affected LGBTQ activism.
QuoteIf someone wants to know about what family-friendly live drag events are like, I would think the best way would be to go to one. I've never been to such, but I'm searching in my area - maybe I can get to see a drag queen story hour in the next few weeks to judge for myself and report.
I doubt very seriously that such a visit and report will make any impact on this discussion.
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 01:05:03 PM
If someone wants to know about what family-friendly live drag events are like, I would think the best way would be to go to one. I've never been to such, but I'm searching in my area - maybe I can get to see a drag queen story hour in the next few weeks to judge for myself and report.
this is the epitome of disingenuous. how can anyone not see that that^ is the wrong question to ask, ffs? it's kids we are talking about - biologically constructed sponges of information that will suck up anything you throw at them. they have near zero experience of their own to protect them from manipulation and propaganda. so the first question to ask in any situation like this is "what are they going to learn from that?" and you do that BEFORE you allow anyone in front of the kids, not after their parents protest you. to this day i've never met anyone who advocates for this shit and would give me a straight answer to that very simple question:
what useful stuff are kids going to learn from drag shows?
because a lot of their parents are crystal clear on this issue so there must be some very important reason to keep pushing for this shit, right? RIGHT? so, what is that?
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 05:50:44 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
In my bolded section, you just said that it wasn't always sexual. Often it was comedy.
Your claim is that this comedy was at the expense of women, but that's a separate argument. It's certainly true that minstrel shows were overall both racist and sexist, but those were the standards of the time. There were still great black performers like Bill Robinson who performed in minstrel shows, who demonstrated positive traits and talent. There were also talented and well-regarded drag performers. Among drag shows, one of the biggest stars was Julian Eltinge. Here's a short bit on him:
Yeah, it's a separate argument. So? Is there a 1 argument maximum or something?
There are exceptions to everything. You keep trotting out exceptions: drag kings, highly artistic performances, etc. The typical drag performance today is over-exaggerated and raunchy.
The variety of different sorts of drag is important because we're talking about laws that would broadly apply to all drag. SHARK is advocating making all drag illegal ("Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period."). There are proposed bills in state legislature that would ban any minor from seeing any drag show. And the passed Tennessee law categorized male and female impersonators with strippers, which was deemed overbroad in court.
No one disagrees that there are raunchy, sexual drag shows that are adult entertainment -- and that children shouldn't be brought to such drag shows. The issue is about classifying all drag shows that way.
The alternative is classifying performances based on how sexual they are, not by whether they are drag or not. My claim is that the cases being complained about would be unacceptable regardless of the sex of the performer.
NOTE: Reading a little further, it seems the Tennessee law that passed was not the version I linked earlier. The amended version doesn't define in terms of "prurient" but instead uses a definition of "harmful to minors" that includes that is broader than the federal definition of obscenity. Here's what I read on why it was found to violate free speech:
https://theconversation.com/why-tennessees-law-limiting-drag-performances-likely-violates-the-first-amendment-201126
It's not about classifying drag shows. Of course, there is a range. That goes without saying.
You're trying to turn this into some huge taxonomy exercise, when it's really very simple: Drag queen story hour has no educational value and worse it provides negative value in the form of degradation to women and overt sexualization.
Also, I'm not SHARK. He can make his own arguments. The more I read about this in general and read drag supporters arguments, the more I agree with him.
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 05:50:44 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 09, 2023, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 02:30:01 PM
As a man, I don't feel insulted by older acts like Marlene Dietrich putting on men's clothes to perform. And I don't feel offended or insulted by drag kings today.
Again, I haven't watched many live drag performances, but I've watched a fair bit of LGBT shows and cinema. I'm sure that there are misogynist drag shows out there, but as I said, I don't see that in the ones that I've seen -- so I don't think it is a reason to condemn all of drag.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with drag shows in principle. I consider them to be in poor taste, but it's free speech and I'm an adult who can make my own decisions. The question is: how is drag queen story time okay? Hank Azaria played Apu on the Simpsons. It was mockery and comedy, but he wasn't visiting schools teaching kids about the wonders of being hindu.
I'm not saying anything either way about drag story time. I've never been to one, and I don't claim to know enough to generalize. I am looking into going to see one in the next few weeks.
As I understand it, your objection isn't that it is sexualizing children, but rather that it teaches misogynistic things about women. What that argument depends on is whether the drag performance is taken as a lesson about real women. Again, I don't have an opinion right now because I don't think I'm informed about such.
Regarding Hank Azaria - I don't feel that voice actors have to be the same ethnicity as the character they play. I feel this is overreach and similar to arguments about cultural appropriation that I don't agree with. Hank Azaria shouldn't teach kids about being Hindu, but he could come to a school and teach kids how to do different accents for voice acting.
It's either or both: sexualizing children and/or teaching misogynistic things about women.
I'm emphasizes the misogyny because that quite obviously demonstrates the blatant hypocrisy of people who support drag in schools.
You keep saying that you don't know enough to argue about drag queen story hour. You need to study it, take a statistically significant whatsit and see for yourself. I don't see why. No such rigor was applied when school boards decided that drag queen story hour was a good thing.
This is what you sound like:
Stripper story hour - It could be fine. I don't know enough about strippers. Not all strippers perform fully nude. I've only seen a couple of strip shows. Strip shows can be artistic. There was a good movie about a stripper that I really liked.
It's really not that complicated.
Desmond is amazing and how he was celebrated told me all i need to know about that crowd.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 09, 2023, 11:45:47 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 10:52:18 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 01, 2023, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 08:52:49 PMI have seen Drag shows before. They are entirely very sexual. They are gross, lewd, and absolutely degenerate. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is GASLIGHTING you.
You've seen drag shows? As in multiple shows?
If they were so "gross, lewd, and degenerate", why did you go back to view multiple shows?!?
Very curious behavior.
My dad used to say "Show me a guy who loves baiting queers and I'll show you a guy trying to catch one for himself!" BABY SHARK couldn't be a more obvious closet case if he was wearing a priest's collar.
So, you are asserting that, by denigrating gays, Shark is proving he is gay. And this is a criticism. So, you are attempting to insult Shark by calling him gay. Being gay is an insult for you.
Why do you hate gay people?
It's not BABY SHARK'S homosexuality I'm mocking -it's his self-loathing. It's 2023 for heaven's sake -there's no reason to hide it or to lash out by calling others "cocksuckers" as he's so fond of doing.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 02, 2023, 05:15:05 PM
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Many conservatives here and elswhere have spoken against child beauty pageants, but you can't help yourselves but to lie about us.
I'm sure there are some who did, but is it anything like the hysteria over drag shows going on now? Feel free to show examples.
QuoteJust out of curiosity, how many children are in beauty pageants AGAINST the will of their parents by state mandate?
NONE?
Where is the state mandating drag shows for kids over the objections of their parents? Feel free to show examples.
QuoteOkay, then even if both are terrible for children (and I would include ALL the entertainment industry as a no, no for children [working there I mean]) they aren't the same problem, but ask me if I'm in favor of banning said pageants and at the very least putting some very heavy restrictions on children in the entertainment industry?
While you're at it ask every other conservative here and elsewhere.
The issue with these bans is they are overly broad, ripe for abuse and in most cases, an open invitation for the state to usurp parental rights. For example, many years ago my kid sister played Thumper in a school play
Bambi. Thumper is a boy rabbit. Was she being "groomed" by her elementary school, or by my aunt who spent weeks sewing her rabbit costume that made it possible?
Another example: When I was a kid, my parents and grandparents let me watch a number of movies and TV shows that featured cross-dressers (Bosom Buddies, Some Like It Hot, MASH, Monty Python, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid), trannies (Bachelor Party, The World According To Garp), and even pedophiles (Airplane, Airplane 2). Was I being "groomed"?
Should parents who let their kids watch R-rated movies be investigated for "grooming"? How about parents who take kids to breastaurants like Hooters? Personally, I think some drag shows should not be for kids. Ditto for child pageants. Or taking them to glorified titty bars. But these laws open so many cans of worms that even a Trump-appointed judge in Tennessee threw the newest one out.
Oh, and I've yet to see vigilante mobs threatening to use force to shut down child pageants, or breastaurants selling their own clothing lines aimed at kids.
https://twitter.com/nikko_hill/status/1665875429494775809?s=20
Quote from: Klava on June 10, 2023, 04:47:55 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 09, 2023, 01:05:03 PM
If someone wants to know about what family-friendly live drag events are like, I would think the best way would be to go to one. I've never been to such, but I'm searching in my area - maybe I can get to see a drag queen story hour in the next few weeks to judge for myself and report.
so the first question to ask in any situation like this is "what are they going to learn from that?" and you do that BEFORE you allow anyone in front of the kids, not after their parents protest you.
You've got an emphasis on "BEFORE" here, which is odd because that's exactly what I'm saying. Any parents or organizers should become informed, ask questions
and get answers before deciding anything about their kids. For example, if I was a librarian charged with deciding whether to allow a show at my library, I'd want to see a preview of the show exactly as it would happen at my library before I decide.
The best way to get answers about a performance is to see the material for oneself. Reading academic papers or social media reports are secondary sources that may well be biased.
---
Quote from: Klava on June 10, 2023, 04:47:55 AM
to this day i've never met anyone who advocates for this shit and would give me a straight answer to that very simple question:
what useful stuff are kids going to learn from drag shows?
because a lot of their parents are crystal clear on this issue so there must be some very important reason to keep pushing for this shit, right? RIGHT? so, what is that?
Again, I've never been to a drag story time or been involved with one, so I can't speak for organizers or parents.
I suspect that the intended lesson is about prejudice and preconceptions. That was the central theme of the Kinky Boots musical that I went with my extended family with my son at 14. There are many people who have prejudices about drag performers and/or LGBT people. Getting to know such people often results in a different view than if one just goes by preconceptions.
I know that when I was around 11 (in 1981), I first learned about LGBT people at church. I was very surprised when a gay couple brought their adopted baby in for baptism. I had no idea that two men could be a family raising a child, and I was confused. It brought up a lot of questions, because at that time, LGBT people largely had to keep themselves hidden from society - so I had no idea they even existed.
Quote from: jhkim on June 10, 2023, 12:50:10 PM
I suspect that the intended lesson is about prejudice and preconceptions. That was the central theme of the Kinky Boots musical that I went with my extended family with my son at 14. There are many people who have prejudices about drag performers and/or LGBT people. Getting to know such people often results in a different view than if one just goes by preconceptions.
I know that when I was around 11 (in 1981), I first learned about LGBT people at church. I was very surprised when a gay couple brought their adopted baby in for baptism. I had no idea that two men could be a family raising a child, and I was confused. It brought up a lot of questions, because at that time, LGBT people largely had to keep themselves hidden from society - so I had no idea they even existed.
So, like we've all said, the purpose of drag queen story hour is to normalize deviant sexualities. You were successfully brainwashed (because an 11 year-old can't be
persuaded... they lack the capacity) to accept such ridiculousness as normal (two men can't raise a baby very well, any more than two women or one of either sex in single parent households. Much of the criminal, social, and psychological issues faced in the Western world come from broken homes, without strong mother and father figures. The sociological evidence is near irrefutable). So you see no problem with forced normalization of other people's kids. At least you finally admitted it.
Yeah that baptism story explains a whole hell of a lot.
Where the fuck did you have to live in 1981 to not know gay people existed? I lived in México (a much more conservative society than the US back then) and we knew gay people existed even before the AIDs pandemic.
Also Leviticus 18 & 20 (I don't agree with the putting them to death part but that's just me), meaning ANY chruch that marries gay people or gives baptism to their children isn't a Christian church anymore.
Quote from: jhkim on June 10, 2023, 12:50:10 PM
I suspect that the intended lesson is about prejudice and preconceptions.
and that calls for a drag show? really? opinions of the parents be damned, kids have to have those basic concepts explained to them by men in makeup and wearing fake tits?
/facepalm
Personally I find pedophiles and anyone who advocates for pedophilia repugnant. I refuse to interact with these people, and I think we'd be better off if everyone followed this policy.
Quote from: Klava on June 10, 2023, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 10, 2023, 12:50:10 PM
I suspect that the intended lesson is about prejudice and preconceptions.
and that calls for a drag show? really? opinions of the parents be damned, kids have to have those basic concepts explained to them by men in makeup and wearing fake tits?
/facepalm
Bingo. We have gone beyond tolerance to conversion. The absurdity is the tactic, and outrage is the goal.
Deleting this because of lack of context.
double
Look at Brad's drag forum avatar. Is he a groomer?
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 11, 2023, 10:22:37 PM
Look at Brad's drag forum avatar. Is he a groomer?
Therefore Zelen is a Dragon and GamerSince77 is a retard.
Ah, look at GeekyBugle and Shark trying to start a new satanic panic. It's already been done, boys. No one is buying your bullshit.
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 11, 2023, 10:43:35 PM
Ah, look at GeekyBugle and Shark trying to start a new satanic panic. It's already been done, boys. No one is buying your bullshit.
I'm not trying to start anything, that's your side pushing people into rejecting the LGBTQWERTY altogether by pushing your pedo agenda.
You should quit while your this much behind, the more you type the more you confirm you're a retard.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 11, 2023, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 11, 2023, 10:43:35 PM
Ah, look at GeekyBugle and Shark trying to start a new satanic panic. It's already been done, boys. No one is buying your bullshit.
I'm not trying to start anything, that's your side pushing people into rejecting the LGBTQWERTY altogether by pushing your pedo agenda.
You should quit while your this much behind, the more you type the more you confirm you're a retard.
Oh, but Geeky, they love to be behind. Its their preferred position.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 10, 2023, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 10, 2023, 12:50:10 PM
I suspect that the intended lesson is about prejudice and preconceptions. That was the central theme of the Kinky Boots musical that I went with my extended family with my son at 14. There are many people who have prejudices about drag performers and/or LGBT people. Getting to know such people often results in a different view than if one just goes by preconceptions.
I know that when I was around 11 (in 1981), I first learned about LGBT people at church. I was very surprised when a gay couple brought their adopted baby in for baptism. I had no idea that two men could be a family raising a child, and I was confused. It brought up a lot of questions, because at that time, LGBT people largely had to keep themselves hidden from society - so I had no idea they even existed.
So, like we've all said, the purpose of drag queen story hour is to normalize deviant sexualities. You were successfully brainwashed (because an 11 year-old can't be persuaded... they lack the capacity) to accept such ridiculousness as normal (two men can't raise a baby very well, any more than two women or one of either sex in single parent households. Much of the criminal, social, and psychological issues faced in the Western world come from broken homes, without strong mother and father figures. The sociological evidence is near irrefutable). So you see no problem with forced normalization of other people's kids. At least you finally admitted it.
So you're classifying church experiences as "brainwashing"?!? Do you think kids shouldn't go to church, because it's brainwashing them with things they don't have the capacity to process?
Or do you think it's that gay people shouldn't be allowed to come to church? That makes no sense to me. Even if one considers homosexuality a sin, that doesn't mean that gay people shouldn't come to church. Churches are supposed to be for sinners.
A good church is the opposite of brainwashing. It encourages children to think about spiritual matters, and learn for themselves. That's what I was taught - not to just believe what the pope or what the minister said implicitly, but to read the Bible and other works for myself, to think about the issues, and to pray. I don't recall that homosexuality was ever mentioned in any of my church services as a kid. We just had some gay church members.
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 02:05:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 11, 2023, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 11, 2023, 10:43:35 PM
Ah, look at GeekyBugle and Shark trying to start a new satanic panic. It's already been done, boys. No one is buying your bullshit.
I'm not trying to start anything, that's your side pushing people into rejecting the LGBTQWERTY altogether by pushing your pedo agenda.
You should quit while your this much behind, the more you type the more you confirm you're a retard.
Oh, but Geeky, they love to be behind. Its their preferred position.
LOL, how do you know he doesn't prefer biting pillows?
Sane people > Leave children alone
LGBTQWERTY acitivists > OMG you're a Homophobe!
Me > WTAFF!? Do you idiots realize it's YOU who are saying gay people are pedos?
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 03:05:14 PM
Or do you think it's that gay people shouldn't be allowed to come to church? That makes no sense to me. Even if one considers homosexuality a sin, that doesn't mean that gay people shouldn't come to church. Churches are supposed to be for sinners.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. Which means don't endorse the sinful lifestyle. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more."
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 03:05:14 PM
A good church is the opposite of brainwashing. It encourages children to think about spiritual matters, and learn for themselves. That's what I was taught - not to just believe what the pope or what the minister said implicitly, but to read the Bible and other works for myself, to think about the issues, and to pray. I don't recall that homosexuality was ever mentioned in any of my church services as a kid. We just had some gay church members.
So on one hand, you are supposed to read and think for yourself. The Bible speaks to sexual immorality quite a bit. But somehow you are exempt from that because your preacher never brought it up? Seems contradictory.
Also, all of this is directly proving my point. Yes, church IS brainwashing. All instruction of a child is training a minor. All families inculcate their values in their children, starting way younger than a child is capable of reasoning. Church is one of the ways that parents do so. The question is who gets to choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility, so they get most of the choice. But some parents may make choices that benefits themselves and not their children. So that range of choices may be circumscribed legally by government, acting on behalf of society.
So, when parents protest drag queen story hour at schools, they are asserting their right to determine what values are being taught to their kids. When laws are passed banning drag queen story hour at libraries or giving puberty-blockers to under-aged children, it is an assertion by the citizenry that those choices are harmful enough to children (much like banning smoking for children or banning pimping out your child) that parental choice needs to be abrogated.
What you (and the other groomer-adjacent defenders on this thread) have not addressed, despite it being raised repeatedly is:
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
I recognize that your standard attempts to derail by bringing up irrelevancies and tortured analogies have hit a road-block in your own admission that you see the purpose of these events to normalize the behavior to children. Now you need to justify why such normalization is more important than the concerns of parents and the citizenry.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
Yes, church IS brainwashing. All instruction of a child is training a minor. All families inculcate their values in their children, starting way younger than a child is capable of reasoning. Church is one of the ways that parents do so. The question is who gets to choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility, so they get most of the choice. But some parents may make choices that benefits themselves and not their children. So that range of choices may be circumscribed legally by government, acting on behalf of society.
This is ridiculous sophistry. "Brainwashed" is clearly a negative, not how kids are responsibly raised with moral values. Do you say that you were brainwashed as a child? Do you talk with friends and ask them about how they're brainwashing their kid?
There's clearly a difference between responsibly raising a child so they'll grow into an adult who will think for themselves, vs. brainwashing.
No one disagrees that parents should be responsible, but that there are some irresponsible parents such that the state needs to take a hand.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
What you (and the other groomer-adjacent defenders on this thread) have not addressed, despite it being raised repeatedly is:
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
I'm not advocating for drag queen story hour. I've never been to one. I've never taken my son to one. I don't claim that it is necessary or that it is good.
If the issue was solely banning drag queen story hour, I wouldn't much care. But state anti-drag laws and bills are also much more broad. And the position of several posters like SHARK is to outlaw all drag shows period. The data point that I know is that I went to the Kinky Boots musical with my family, including my son who was 14 at the time, and we all had a good time - enjoying the show, and I thought it was tame for PG-13. There were some verbal references to sex, and people dancing in high heels. I've also been to a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in a lot of drag outfits, which was also tame for a pop concert.
What I suggest is that sexualization should be considered inappropriate independent of drag or not. In all the cases that I've seen offered in this thread, it would also be inappropriate regardless of drag. I'm supportive of laws to tighten sexualization of and for kids. Here's a paper I ran across with case studies and suggestions about how to tighten state laws in New York:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=student_scholarship
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
What I suggest is that sexualization should be considered inappropriate independent of drag or not. In all the cases that I've seen offered in this thread, it would also be inappropriate regardless of drag. I'm supportive of laws to tighten sexualization of and for kids. Here's a paper I ran across with case studies and suggestions about how to tighten state laws in New York:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=student_scholarship
So, given that NO ONE is pushing for "stripper story hour" or for giving children acces to books with sexualy explicit hetero material, you're in favor of banning the ONLY thing being pushed into children right?
You violent bigots need to stop propagating the lie that Drag is being used to groom children.
It's not as if schools are urging children to wear full blown drag to celebrate pride day you bigots!
https://archive.is/XpBJm (https://archive.is/XpBJm)
I mean it's not like they are trying to force kids as young as 11 to attend school in full blown drag and then had to backtrack due to the parent's outrage, you're just trying to conjure (out of thin air) a new satanic panic you istophobes!
https://archive.is/tcYbw (https://archive.is/tcYbw)
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
Yes, church IS brainwashing. All instruction of a child is training a minor. All families inculcate their values in their children, starting way younger than a child is capable of reasoning. Church is one of the ways that parents do so. The question is who gets to choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility, so they get most of the choice. But some parents may make choices that benefits themselves and not their children. So that range of choices may be circumscribed legally by government, acting on behalf of society.
This is ridiculous sophistry. "Brainwashed" is clearly a negative, not how kids are responsibly raised with moral values. Do you say that you were brainwashed as a child? Do you talk with friends and ask them about how they're brainwashing their kid?
There's clearly a difference between responsibly raising a child so they'll grow into an adult who will think for themselves, vs. brainwashing.
No one disagrees that parents should be responsible, but that there are some irresponsible parents such that the state needs to take a hand.
More and more, I'm starting to think The State is the last institution I'd trust with the welfare of children.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 13, 2023, 01:28:29 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
Yes, church IS brainwashing. All instruction of a child is training a minor. All families inculcate their values in their children, starting way younger than a child is capable of reasoning. Church is one of the ways that parents do so. The question is who gets to choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility, so they get most of the choice. But some parents may make choices that benefits themselves and not their children. So that range of choices may be circumscribed legally by government, acting on behalf of society.
This is ridiculous sophistry. "Brainwashed" is clearly a negative, not how kids are responsibly raised with moral values. Do you say that you were brainwashed as a child? Do you talk with friends and ask them about how they're brainwashing their kid?
There's clearly a difference between responsibly raising a child so they'll grow into an adult who will think for themselves, vs. brainwashing.
No one disagrees that parents should be responsible, but that there are some irresponsible parents such that the state needs to take a hand.
More and more, I'm starting to think The State is the last institution I'd trust with the welfare of children.
As someone living in a country where we have socialized medicine, the government is rarely the institution to handle anything.
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
Yes, church IS brainwashing. All instruction of a child is training a minor. All families inculcate their values in their children, starting way younger than a child is capable of reasoning. Church is one of the ways that parents do so. The question is who gets to choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility, so they get most of the choice. But some parents may make choices that benefits themselves and not their children. So that range of choices may be circumscribed legally by government, acting on behalf of society.
This is ridiculous sophistry. "Brainwashed" is clearly a negative, not how kids are responsibly raised with moral values. Do you say that you were brainwashed as a child? Do you talk with friends and ask them about how they're brainwashing their kid?
There's clearly a difference between responsibly raising a child so they'll grow into an adult who will think for themselves, vs. brainwashing.
No one disagrees that parents should be responsible, but that there are some irresponsible parents such that the state needs to take a hand.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
What you (and the other groomer-adjacent defenders on this thread) have not addressed, despite it being raised repeatedly is:
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
I'm not advocating for drag queen story hour. I've never been to one. I've never taken my son to one. I don't claim that it is necessary or that it is good.
If the issue was solely banning drag queen story hour, I wouldn't much care. But state anti-drag laws and bills are also much more broad. And the position of several posters like SHARK is to outlaw all drag shows period. The data point that I know is that I went to the Kinky Boots musical with my family, including my son who was 14 at the time, and we all had a good time - enjoying the show, and I thought it was tame for PG-13. There were some verbal references to sex, and people dancing in high heels. I've also been to a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in a lot of drag outfits, which was also tame for a pop concert.
What I suggest is that sexualization should be considered inappropriate independent of drag or not. In all the cases that I've seen offered in this thread, it would also be inappropriate regardless of drag. I'm supportive of laws to tighten sexualization of and for kids. Here's a paper I ran across with case studies and suggestions about how to tighten state laws in New York:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=student_scholarship
Greetings!
Yes, that's right, Jhkim. BAN THEM ALL! Of course, what I originally suggested was simply banning them all in all other pubic locations, but allowing Drag Shows in gay bars and gay discos, where the age restriction is 21 and ABOVE, and the zoning is prescribed for pornography and adult businesses, like strip clubs and sex shops.
You didn't like that, Jhkim. Claiming that that was back in the days of horrible authoritarianism and homophobic hate.
So, I attempted to allow for some freedom for deviant sexualized behavior, but you cried about that. So, fuck it. BAN THEM ENTIRELY.
That's what you get for not being reasonable and wanting to push and promote degeneracy, even in the face of PARENTS screaming about it and protesting these suck fucking programs and shows from COAST TO COAST!
Society will be much better off without fucking tranny Drag Shows. It is no *real* loss, after all. It is just a way for society to restrict and control fucking degenerate behavior and degenerate people in our midst.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 13, 2023, 03:32:35 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
If the issue was solely banning drag queen story hour, I wouldn't much care. But state anti-drag laws and bills are also much more broad. And the position of several posters like SHARK is to outlaw all drag shows period. The data point that I know is that I went to the Kinky Boots musical with my family, including my son who was 14 at the time, and we all had a good time - enjoying the show, and I thought it was tame for PG-13. There were some verbal references to sex, and people dancing in high heels. I've also been to a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in a lot of drag outfits, which was also tame for a pop concert.
Yes, that's right, Jhkim. BAN THEM ALL! Of course, what I originally suggested was simply banning them all in all other pubic locations, but allowing Drag Shows in gay bars and gay discos, where the age restriction is 21 and ABOVE, and the zoning is prescribed for pornography and adult businesses, like strip clubs and sex shops.
You didn't like that, Jhkim. Claiming that that was back in the days of horrible authoritarianism and homophobic hate.
So, I attempted to allow for some freedom for deviant sexualized behavior, but you cried about that. So, fuck it. BAN THEM ENTIRELY.
Your compromise was to make illegal for me to go with my family to see the Kinky Boots musical with my son at 14 and his older nephews. And that 19-year-olds serving in the military are too innocent to see Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria - which was rated PG back in 1982.
What you're talking about was never a narrow law about protecting little children. It's about making laws far more restrictive than in, say, the 1980s or even the 1920s. And that was your supposed compromise.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
What I suggest is that sexualization should be considered inappropriate independent of drag or not. In all the cases that I've seen offered in this thread, it would also be inappropriate regardless of drag. I'm supportive of laws to tighten sexualization of and for kids. Here's a paper I ran across with case studies and suggestions about how to tighten state laws in New York:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=student_scholarship
So, given that NO ONE is pushing for "stripper story hour" or for giving children acces to books with sexualy explicit hetero material, you're in favor of banning the ONLY thing being pushed into children right?
You think there's no hetero stuff being pushed on children? I mean, it doesn't take any hidden cameras to find such. The cases below were broadcast as mainstream programming for seven years (from "Toddlers & Tiaras").
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_social_share_1200x630_center,f_auto,q_auto:best/streams/2013/April/130417/1C6964130-110107-ent-toddlers-hmed.jpg)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NINTCHDBPICT000730778598.jpg?w=1240)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/urtzhBAH.6rt2qICsBulDA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/os/590/2012/08/20/ht-toddlers-and-tiaras-2-nt-110901-wmain-jpg_005411.jpg)
And again, like my Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders example, this isn't the extreme edge caught on hidden cameras - this is what's in mainstream programming to the public.
Sexualization of kids is not something new or unique to LGBT.
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 12:27:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 10:39:10 PM
What I suggest is that sexualization should be considered inappropriate independent of drag or not. In all the cases that I've seen offered in this thread, it would also be inappropriate regardless of drag. I'm supportive of laws to tighten sexualization of and for kids. Here's a paper I ran across with case studies and suggestions about how to tighten state laws in New York:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=student_scholarship
So, given that NO ONE is pushing for "stripper story hour" or for giving children acces to books with sexualy explicit hetero material, you're in favor of banning the ONLY thing being pushed into children right?
You think there's no hetero stuff being pushed on children? I mean, it doesn't take any hidden cameras to find such. The cases below were broadcast as mainstream programming for seven years (from "Toddlers & Tiaras").
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_social_share_1200x630_center,f_auto,q_auto:best/streams/2013/April/130417/1C6964130-110107-ent-toddlers-hmed.jpg)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NINTCHDBPICT000730778598.jpg?w=1240)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/urtzhBAH.6rt2qICsBulDA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/os/590/2012/08/20/ht-toddlers-and-tiaras-2-nt-110901-wmain-jpg_005411.jpg)
And again, like my Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders example, this isn't the extreme edge caught on hidden cameras - this is what's in mainstream programming to the public.
Sexualization of kids is not something new or unique to LGBT.
Again, how many of those are state mandated against the wishes of the parents? Zero?
Why do you keep distracting with this?
We have told you we are in favor of banning those types of shows (in my case from banning children in entertainment or heavily regulating it at least).
You want the right to take your underage son to see Drag but don't want others to have the right to allow their children to see the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders... Hypocrisy much?
Answer my questions:
How many of the pageants or those TV shows are state mandated?
Why do you keep bringing them up when we have said we're against those?
Why can't you say that yes, those shows aren't something children should be exposed to like we can say those shows and pageants should be banned?
Gets the nogging working.
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 12:27:16 PM
Sexualization of kids is not something new or unique to LGBT.
You are working hard for that crown of the king of whataboutism.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 12:27:16 PM
You think there's no hetero stuff being pushed on children? I mean, it doesn't take any hidden cameras to find such. The cases below were broadcast as mainstream programming for seven years (from "Toddlers & Tiaras").
Again, how many of those are state mandated against the wishes of the parents? Zero?
Why do you keep distracting with this?
We have told you we are in favor of banning those types of shows (in my case from banning children in entertainment or heavily regulating it at least).
Actually, I have not noted you or other posters saying that in this thread. Can you cite the post where you said this? In reply #59 that you claimed such shows were already illegal, and then just now in #229, you suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children.
Also, you gave lots of examples of cases where parents deliberately brought their children to clearly-marked events, like the Caba Baba Rave in the UK or the adult-themed drag event in Plano Texas, or the non-drag Argentinian circus show you cited as an example. Nearly all of your examples were not state-mandated.
---
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
You want the right to take your underage son to see Drag but don't want others to have the right to allow their children to see the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders... Hypocrisy much?
That is not my position. Again, my claim is that I want standards of sexual displays to be the same regardless of drag or not. I think taking a 14-year-old to see either the Kinky Boots musical or the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders is OK. There are different standards for different ages of minors, and not all drag performances are the equivalent of XXX.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
Answer my questions:
How many of the pageants or those TV shows are state mandated?
Why do you keep bringing them up when we have said we're against those?
Why can't you say that yes, those shows aren't something children should be exposed to like we can say those shows and pageants should be banned?
1) None of those pageants or shows are state-mandated.
2) You haven't previously said that you support new laws to make such shows illegal. If you have, cite me the post where you said that. Instead, you've repeatedly said that there is no problem with heterosexual displays and sexualization.
3) I've said exactly this. I have over and over said that I support laws restricted sexual displays for children, by defining and banning sexual displays regardless of whether the displays are in drag or not.
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 12:27:16 PM
You think there's no hetero stuff being pushed on children? I mean, it doesn't take any hidden cameras to find such. The cases below were broadcast as mainstream programming for seven years (from "Toddlers & Tiaras").
Again, how many of those are state mandated against the wishes of the parents? Zero?
Why do you keep distracting with this?
We have told you we are in favor of banning those types of shows (in my case from banning children in entertainment or heavily regulating it at least).
Actually, I have not noted you or other posters saying that in this thread. Can you cite the post where you said this? In reply #59 that you claimed such shows were already illegal, and then just now in #229, you suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children.
Also, you gave lots of examples of cases where parents deliberately brought their children to clearly-marked events, like the Caba Baba Rave in the UK or the adult-themed drag event in Plano Texas, or the non-drag Argentinian circus show you cited as an example. Nearly all of your examples were not state-mandated.
---
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
You want the right to take your underage son to see Drag but don't want others to have the right to allow their children to see the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders... Hypocrisy much?
That is not my position. Again, my claim is that I want standards of sexual displays to be the same regardless of drag or not. I think taking a 14-year-old to see either the Kinky Boots musical or the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders is OK. There are different standards for different ages of minors, and not all drag performances are the equivalent of XXX.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
Answer my questions:
How many of the pageants or those TV shows are state mandated?
Why do you keep bringing them up when we have said we're against those?
Why can't you say that yes, those shows aren't something children should be exposed to like we can say those shows and pageants should be banned?
1) None of those pageants or shows are state-mandated.
2) You haven't previously said that you support new laws to make such shows illegal. If you have, cite me the post where you said that. Instead, you've repeatedly said that there is no problem with heterosexual displays and sexualization.
3) I've said exactly this. I have over and over said that I support laws restricted sexual displays for children, by defining and banning sexual displays regardless of whether the displays are in drag or not.
Yes, I am also against parents being allowed to take their children to see porn, why does that surprize you?
Now, lying about what I've said? WHERE exactly do I "suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children. " because nowhere in the part you quote before that or on the following stuff I wrote do I say that. WHY the fuck are you lying?
As for me saying I'm in favor of banning pageants and other stuff like those and children from working on the entertainment industry... Not the first time but you only have to go back 2 pages.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Quote from: Garry G on June 02, 2023, 05:15:05 PM
This is weird because you're just wrong. Literally every time somebody dresses as the opposite sex it's drag. It may be that English isn't your first language but drag is the word that is used for dressing up as the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's not a particularly new word either, anybody dressing as the opposite sex is doing drag. Look it up likesay, give it a go if you fancy.
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Many conservatives here and elswhere have spoken against child beauty pageants, but you can't help yourselves but to lie about us.
Just out of curiosity, how many children are in beauty pageants AGAINST the will of their parents by state mandate?
NONE?
Okay, then even if both are terrible for children (and I would include ALL the entertainment industry as a no, no for children [working there I mean]) they aren't the same problem, but ask me if I'm in favor of banning said pageants and at the very least putting some very heavy restrictions on children in the entertainment industry?
While you're at it ask every other conservative here and elsewhere.
Once again we're against exposing kids to porn or sexualy explicit "shows" which include but are not limited to Drag Shows.
So are you finally going to stop lying about our position and distracting and pronounce yourself in favor of the same?
Or is this just you playing defense for pedos as long as they hide under the LGBTQWERTY banner?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
We have told you we are in favor of banning those types of shows (in my case from banning children in entertainment or heavily regulating it at least).
Actually, I have not noted you or other posters saying that in this thread. Can you cite the post where you said this? In reply #59 that you claimed such shows were already illegal, and then just now in #229, you suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children.
Also, you gave lots of examples of cases where parents deliberately brought their children to clearly-marked events, like the Caba Baba Rave in the UK or the adult-themed drag event in Plano Texas, or the non-drag Argentinian circus show you cited as an example. Nearly all of your examples were not state-mandated.
As for me saying I'm in favor of banning pageants and other stuff like those and children from working on the entertainment industry... Not the first time but you only have to go back 2 pages.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Many conservatives here and elswhere have spoken against child beauty pageants, but you can't help yourselves but to lie about us.
Thanks for the answer. I had not seen this. This was you talking to Elfdart, in reply #200 out of 239 so far.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Once again we're against exposing kids to porn or sexualy explicit "shows" which include but are not limited to Drag Shows.
So are you finally going to stop lying about our position and distracting and pronounce yourself in favor of the same?
I have over and over pronounced myself against exposing kids to porn and sexually explicit shows. How many times do I have to do so?
Fine, I will say it again: I am against exposing kids to porn and XXX shows.
Again, my line is that I saw the Kinky Boots musical with my family. It is all about drag, but the content is PG-13 at most. Not all drag is the same. Multiple posters are advocating anti-drag laws that would make it illegal to see this to anyone under 21, or even illegal for it to exist at all. Meanwhile, the proposed laws would do nothing against children watching or taking part in sexual displays like in the child beauty pageants.
I support laws that ban exposing kids to porn independent of whether it drag or not.
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 12:39:00 PM
We have told you we are in favor of banning those types of shows (in my case from banning children in entertainment or heavily regulating it at least).
Actually, I have not noted you or other posters saying that in this thread. Can you cite the post where you said this? In reply #59 that you claimed such shows were already illegal, and then just now in #229, you suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children.
Also, you gave lots of examples of cases where parents deliberately brought their children to clearly-marked events, like the Caba Baba Rave in the UK or the adult-themed drag event in Plano Texas, or the non-drag Argentinian circus show you cited as an example. Nearly all of your examples were not state-mandated.
As for me saying I'm in favor of banning pageants and other stuff like those and children from working on the entertainment industry... Not the first time but you only have to go back 2 pages.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 11:05:57 PM
Don't interrupt them -it makes it that much harder for them to make shit up as they go. I don't doubt that some of these shows are disturbing, but I don't remember this same level of hysteria over child beauty pageants even after the case of JonBenet Ramsay, who was exploited by her parents and murdered.
Many conservatives here and elswhere have spoken against child beauty pageants, but you can't help yourselves but to lie about us.
Thanks for the answer. I had not seen this. This was you talking to Elfdart, in reply #200 out of 239 so far.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Once again we're against exposing kids to porn or sexualy explicit "shows" which include but are not limited to Drag Shows.
So are you finally going to stop lying about our position and distracting and pronounce yourself in favor of the same?
I have over and over pronounced myself against exposing kids to porn and sexually explicit shows. How many times do I have to do so?
Fine, I will say it again: I am against exposing kids to porn and XXX shows.
Again, my line is that I saw the Kinky Boots musical with my family. It is all about drag, but the content is PG-13 at most. Not all drag is the same. Multiple posters are advocating anti-drag laws that would make it illegal to see this to anyone under 21, or even illegal for it to exist at all. Meanwhile, the proposed laws would do nothing against children watching or taking part in sexual displays like in the child beauty pageants.
I support laws that ban exposing kids to porn independent of whether it drag or not.
So you're just gonna pretend that you never said "and then just now in #229, you suggested that there was no problem with heterosexual sexualization of children." about me?
Sorry but no, you have to adress this or we're done here and I'm putting you on ignore, I don't deal or fraternize with people who say such gross lies about me.
As for you saying you're against porn/explicit sexual stuff and children you still don't recognize that ONE type is being pushed onto children by the government (Not only in the USA BTW). Guess that might explain the strong reaction to it since the other sickos aren't trying to get our children on their shows against our will.
So, you're not playing defense for pedos and I'm sorry for insinuating that.
Still will put you on ignore if you don't adress the other stuff.
Greetings!
I just love the EPIC WHATBOUTISM in regards to "Child Beauty Pageants" ::)
Coast to coast, parents are literally getting into mini riots with ANTIFA and others at district school board meetings about fucking degenerate DRAG SHOWS and TRANS PROPAGANDA being pumped into children--and them reading gay sex and ass-fucking stories grade-school libraries--And some communities have demanded action by their politicians--hence, many new laws restricting Trannies, Drag Shows, and the entire Tranny propaganda--
But Jhkim wants everyone to worry about "Child Beauty Pageants."
That is just smoke and dancing, Jhkim.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
So, you're not playing defense for pedos and I'm sorry for insinuating that.
Still will put you on ignore if you don't adress the other stuff.
Thank you. I apologize for insinuating you weren't supportive of laws against heterosexual displays like child beauty pageants. I missed your comment to Elfdart back in reply #200.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
As for you saying you're against porn/explicit sexual stuff and children you still don't recognize that ONE type is being pushed onto children by the government (Not only in the USA BTW). Guess that might explain the strong reaction to it since the other sickos aren't trying to get our children on their shows against our will.
You said that you're against child beauty pageants, right? Are you not aware that they are frequently sponsored and run by schools?
https://www.cullmantimes.com/community/west-point-elementary-schools-beauty-pageant-march-10/article_fb25203c-a9f2-5652-b1b9-3fb944452481.html
https://www.dailyleader.com/2022/05/14/2022-ba-elementary-beauty-pageant-beauties/
etc.
I've gone over the the cases that you've referred to in this thread. In parentheses on the right is the reply number where the reference appeared.
(#67) The non-drag Argentinian circus show where a young kid was brought up to a microphone sticking out of a performer's crotch
(#72) The Plano TX drag show, listed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that parents brought a young girl to
(#75) A 13-year-old performing a lewd dance for a crowd of adults - unknown source, unknown parent or government involvement
(#76 and #77) The Caba Baba Rave in the UK, where parents brought their young kids to racy cabaret performances
(#176) Brad's image implying a drag performer flash their genitals to kids sitting in front of them - unknown parent or government involvement
(#230) A Derbyshire UK school (ages 11-17) had a "Drag 'n Rainbows" themed non-uniform day where students were encouraged to dress up, including possibly in drag
So only this last one had government involvement. I'm on board to ban such government action. I also think we can go further, to discourage or ban other sexualized displays - again, based on the level of sexualization, not based on LGBT/straight.
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
So, you're not playing defense for pedos and I'm sorry for insinuating that.
Still will put you on ignore if you don't adress the other stuff.
Thank you. I apologize for insinuating you weren't supportive of laws against heterosexual displays like child beauty pageants. I missed your comment to Elfdart back in reply #200.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
As for you saying you're against porn/explicit sexual stuff and children you still don't recognize that ONE type is being pushed onto children by the government (Not only in the USA BTW). Guess that might explain the strong reaction to it since the other sickos aren't trying to get our children on their shows against our will.
You said that you're against child beauty pageants, right? Are you not aware that they are frequently sponsored and run by schools?
https://www.cullmantimes.com/community/west-point-elementary-schools-beauty-pageant-march-10/article_fb25203c-a9f2-5652-b1b9-3fb944452481.html
https://www.dailyleader.com/2022/05/14/2022-ba-elementary-beauty-pageant-beauties/
etc.
I've gone over the the cases that you've referred to in this thread. In parentheses on the right is the reply number where the reference appeared.
(#67) The non-drag Argentinian circus show where a young kid was brought up to a microphone sticking out of a performer's crotch
(#72) The Plano TX drag show, listed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that parents brought a young girl to
(#75) A 13-year-old performing a lewd dance for a crowd of adults - unknown source, unknown parent or government involvement
(#76 and #77) The Caba Baba Rave in the UK, where parents brought their young kids to racy cabaret performances
(#176) Brad's image implying a drag performer flash their genitals to kids sitting in front of them - unknown parent or government involvement
(#230) A Derbyshire UK school (ages 11-17) had a "Drag 'n Rainbows" themed non-uniform day where students were encouraged to dress up, including possibly in drag
So only this last one had government involvement. I'm on board to ban such government action. I also think we can go further, to discourage or ban other sexualized displays - again, based on the level of sexualization, not based on LGBT/straight.
Well fuck me sideways! No, I wasn't aware schools were sponsoring or runing child pageants... That's just as sick as having Drag freaks or having the children do Drag or having "Desmond is Amazing" perform a strip tease for a bunch of pedos (with his parents applauding and stuffing their pockets with money the fucking sickos).
Not only the ones with government involved need to get banned, have you seen what goes on on the Pride parades? And people take their children to see that, those parents need to go to jail and have the children placed with responsible adults that aren't fucking pedo degenerates.
Same with schools promoting the sexualization of children, people need to go to jail.
As for why people oppsoe Drag queens in schools?
These are the actions of the people pushing for them:
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1668741466619879427 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1668741466619879427)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1668341726254338048 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1668341726254338048)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1667191978964971520 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1667191978964971520)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1667293432727863297 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1667293432727863297)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666796632682405888 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666796632682405888)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666494997481283586 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666494997481283586)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666091055681531907 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666091055681531907)
https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1664300932736139265 (https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1664300932736139265)
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1664254080158507008 (https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1664254080158507008)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 11, 2023, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: GamerSince77 on June 11, 2023, 10:43:35 PM
Ah, look at GeekyBugle and Shark trying to start a new satanic panic. It's already been done, boys. No one is buying your bullshit.
I'm not trying to start anything, that's your side pushing people into rejecting the LGBTQWERTY altogether by pushing your pedo agenda.
You should quit while your this much behind, the more you type the more you confirm you're a retard.
Are you suggesting Johnny Cash was retarded?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 10, 2023, 01:24:27 PM
Where the fuck did you have to live in 1981 to not know gay people existed? I lived in México (a much more conservative society than the US back then) and we knew gay people existed even before the AIDs pandemic.
Also Leviticus 18 & 20 (I don't agree with the putting them to death part but that's just me), meaning ANY chruch that marries gay people or gives baptism to their children isn't a Christian church anymore.
Leviticus has a long list of people who should be killed. Does this mean a church that marries or baptizes people who eat pork or shellfish, wear clothes made of mixed fabrics, or has a foreskin is no longer a Christian church?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 07:21:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 06:47:22 PM
You said that you're against child beauty pageants, right? Are you not aware that they are frequently sponsored and run by schools?
https://www.cullmantimes.com/community/west-point-elementary-schools-beauty-pageant-march-10/article_fb25203c-a9f2-5652-b1b9-3fb944452481.html
https://www.dailyleader.com/2022/05/14/2022-ba-elementary-beauty-pageant-beauties/
etc.
Well fuck me sideways! No, I wasn't aware schools were sponsoring or runing child pageants... That's just as sick as having Drag freaks or having the children do Drag or having "Desmond is Amazing" perform a strip tease for a bunch of pedos (with his parents applauding and stuffing their pockets with money the fucking sickos).
Not only the ones with government involved need to get banned, have you seen what goes on on the Pride parades? And people take their children to see that, those parents need to go to jail and have the children placed with responsible adults that aren't fucking pedo degenerates.
Glad to hear we feel similarly about child pageants.
I don't know details on "Desmond is Amazing" -- but I'm not surprised given how many other child performers have been exploited and abused. Usually those are girls abused by adult men. Brooke Shields starred as a prostitute in "Pretty Baby" when she was 11, and "young teen" is still a top keyword in porn searches today. And there's also plenty of LGBT abuse as well. Corey Feldman and Corey Haim reported being frequently raped as teens by adult men.
Yes, I'm aware about Pride parades -- as well as the public sexual displays at events like Mardi Gras and on public beaches (spring break etc.).
I'm sure there's lots of stuff that both of us don't know about either.
I realize we'll disagree about some stuff -- but we don't have to agree on everything to agree that there is bad on both sides and want to stop it.
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses eaters of bacon is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
See? I can play this game, too!
(https://www.abbi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/leviticus.jpg)
Quote from: Elfdart on June 14, 2023, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses eaters of bacon is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
See? I can play this game, too!
(https://www.abbi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/leviticus.jpg)
Greetings!
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 04:31:36 PM
Again, my line is that I saw the Kinky Boots musical with my family. It is all about drag, but the content is PG-13 at most. Not all drag is the same. Multiple posters are advocating anti-drag laws that would make it illegal to see this to anyone under 21, or even illegal for it to exist at all. Meanwhile, the proposed laws would do nothing against children watching or taking part in sexual displays like in the child beauty pageants.
I support laws that ban exposing kids to porn independent of whether it drag or not.
Son: "Dad, What does 'kinky' mean?"
Me: "Something that appeals to bizarre or deviants tastes, especially of a sexual or erotic nature. And no we're not going."
Quote from: Elfdart on June 14, 2023, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses eaters of bacon is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
See? I can play this game, too!
(https://www.abbi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/leviticus.jpg)
The problem with your whataboutism is that that it's comparing a bathtub toy to a battleship. You're picking on minor flaws to defend absolute evil.
It's easy to take potshots at Christianity. Its teachings and principles are plain for everyone to read.
You're not some super genius for pointing out its contradictions or obvious anachronisms. Religious scholars and historians have been talking about those for centuries.
And of course the people like Elfdart who make these kinds of cheap shots never post their own comprehensive principles for critique. It's always about knocking down others rather than taking a principled stand.
Call it mother gaia worship, but if abject sin that is condemned in numerous places is celebrated and condoned in your church, it just isnt Christian. Make up a differnt religion IMO. Lefties essentially already have one, just file the taxes and make it official.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 14, 2023, 01:07:42 PM
It's easy to take potshots at Christianity. Its teachings and principles are plain for everyone to read.
You're not some super genius for pointing out its contradictions or obvious anachronisms. Religious scholars and historians have been talking about those for centuries.
And of course the people like Elfdart who make these kinds of cheap shots never post their own comprehensive principles for critique. It's always about knocking down others rather than taking a principled stand.
I'm not taking potshots at Christianity at all, just retarded fag-bashers who try to use ancient scriptures to justify their hang-ups about homos -hang-ups that have more to do with their own repressed desire to play hide the salami with other guys. Case in point:
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 09:57:49 AM
Greetings!
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You must have arms like an orangutan if you can pull something that far out of your ass. If this distinction was so important, why didn't Jesus himself make it? Nowhere does he say that some "abominations" are OK (pork, sowing different grains in the same field, schlepping on the sabbath) while others (guy-on-guy butt sex) aren't. In fact, Christ doesn't mention the pickle-kissers at all. What he does condemn time and again are hypocrites, like the mob who wanted to stone a woman to death for adultery.
Try reading the bible instead of thumping it.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 14, 2023, 01:07:42 PM
And of course the people like Elfdart who make these kinds of cheap shots never post their own comprehensive principles for critique. It's always about knocking down others rather than taking a principled stand.
People like him have no principles, they simply do whatever the State tells them to do.
Also I find it quite interesting that these "Christian" churches flying a "pride" flag seem to find no irony in that original sin is literally being prideful...
And people who complain about bible thumpers are really closeted Christian zealots!!
Your argument is as boring as it is unprincipled.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 14, 2023, 01:50:09 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 14, 2023, 01:07:42 PM
It's easy to take potshots at Christianity. Its teachings and principles are plain for everyone to read.
You're not some super genius for pointing out its contradictions or obvious anachronisms. Religious scholars and historians have been talking about those for centuries.
And of course the people like Elfdart who make these kinds of cheap shots never post their own comprehensive principles for critique. It's always about knocking down others rather than taking a principled stand.
I'm not taking potshots at Christianity at all, just retarded fag-bashers who try to use ancient scriptures to justify their hang-ups about homos -hang-ups that have more to do with their own repressed desire to play hide the salami with other guys. Case in point:
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 09:57:49 AM
Greetings!
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You must have arms like an orangutan if you can pull something that far out of your ass. If this distinction was so important, why didn't Jesus himself make it? Nowhere does he say that some "abominations" are OK (pork, sowing different grains in the same field, schlepping on the sabbath) while others (guy-on-guy butt sex) aren't. In fact, Christ doesn't mention the pickle-kissers at all. What he does condemn time and again are hypocrites, like the mob who wanted to stone a woman to death for adultery.
Try reading the bible instead of thumping it.
Greetings!
I've read the Bible, and continue to do so every day.
Instead of propping up bogus, weak ass critiques of the Bible, why don't you actually learn about theology, doctrine, and Biblical interpretation, as I have. No "Thumping" involved, except to point out your poor understanding of Christian doctrine. Your pathetic squealing about what Christ didn't mention is irrelevant. Christ did not specifically talk about many things. The Book of Romans discusses many sins, as well as the sin of Homosexuality. St. Paul discusses doctrine extensively.
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-69/gods-view-of-homosexuality-part-1
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-70/gods-view-of-homosexuality-part-2
Here is an excellent sermon by Pastor John McaArthur, of Grace Communty Church, in Southern California. Pastor MacArthur goes over the many verses in Scripture, and discusses proper, faithful Biblical doctrine.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 10, 2023, 01:24:27 PM
Also Leviticus 18 & 20 (I don't agree with the putting them to death part but that's just me), meaning ANY chruch that marries gay people or gives baptism to their children isn't a Christian church anymore.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 09:57:49 AM
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
The Old Testament doesn't categorize Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Leviticus 18:22 that forbids (implied) anal sex is categorized the same as Leviticus 18:19 that forbids sex during a woman's monthly period. The entirety of Leviticus is a legal code for the society that they lived in.
The New Testament overrides all of these. That doesn't mean that we ignore morality. It means that we derive our morality from Christ's commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...and to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) We don't murder, or slander, or do other sins not because it is written in Leviticus, but because murder is contrary to Christ's commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself. Even though slavery isn't forbidden in the Old Testament, we hold it contrary to Christ's commandments.
Our Christian morality of today isn't found by selecting through Leviticus with "keep it; skip it; keep it; skip it". Rather, we derive many of the same principles from a different source. The Old Testament codes are lessons that we can learn from, but not laws to obey.
In the Old Testament, Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with. This shows the society they lived in. If they lived in today's society, they would have acted differently. Proper law depends on society.
Moral principles are different.EDITED TO ADD: I meant to say that moral principles are different from social legal code. i.e. Moral principles are objective and eternal.
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 02:51:59 PM
The Old Testament doesn't categorize Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Leviticus 18:22 that forbids (implied) anal sex is categorized the same as Leviticus 18:19 that forbids sex during a woman's monthly period. The entirety of Leviticus is a legal code for the society that they lived in.
The New Testament overrides all of these. That doesn't mean that we ignore morality. It means that we derive our morality from Christ's commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...and to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) We don't murder, or slander, or do other sins not because it is written in Leviticus, but because murder is contrary to Christ's commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself. Even though slavery isn't forbidden in the Old Testament, we hold it contrary to Christ's commandments.
Our Christian morality of today isn't found by selecting through Leviticus with "keep it; skip it; keep it; skip it". Rather, we derive many of the same principles from a different source. The Old Testament codes are lessons that we can learn from, but not laws to obey.
In the Old Testament, Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with. This shows the society they lived in. If they lived in today's society, they would have acted differently. Proper law depends on society. Moral principles are different.
Does it really matter? In the context of this conversation, we are comparing imperfect adherence to principles that are an ideal to absolute debauchery and they exploitation of children. You're so wrapped up in defending yourself when what you should be doing is sharpening your ax for the execution.
I don't care how you look at it, the destruction of the culture the way the left is doing it now is very evil. The worst part is the justification in causing so much suffering is saying "things need to get better." It's a lie that so many are caught up in.
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 02:51:59 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 10, 2023, 01:24:27 PM
Also Leviticus 18 & 20 (I don't agree with the putting them to death part but that's just me), meaning ANY chruch that marries gay people or gives baptism to their children isn't a Christian church anymore.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 09:57:49 AM
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
The Old Testament doesn't categorize Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Leviticus 18:22 that forbids (implied) anal sex is categorized the same as Leviticus 18:19 that forbids sex during a woman's monthly period. The entirety of Leviticus is a legal code for the society that they lived in.
The New Testament overrides all of these. That doesn't mean that we ignore morality. It means that we derive our morality from Christ's commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...and to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) We don't murder, or slander, or do other sins not because it is written in Leviticus, but because murder is contrary to Christ's commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself. Even though slavery isn't forbidden in the Old Testament, we hold it contrary to Christ's commandments.
Our Christian morality of today isn't found by selecting through Leviticus with "keep it; skip it; keep it; skip it". Rather, we derive many of the same principles from a different source. The Old Testament codes are lessons that we can learn from, but not laws to obey.
In the Old Testament, Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with. This shows the society they lived in. If they lived in today's society, they would have acted differently. Proper law depends on society. Moral principles are different.
So, by your logic, Jesus by saying "keep the comandments" was engaging in "keep it" and by not talking about homosexuality was engaging in "skip it" wasn't he?
The sheer fucking hubris some people have.
Imagine trying to justify immoral behavior as a so-called "Christian" by appealing to the Bible. And people say Satan isn't real...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 14, 2023, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 02:51:59 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 10, 2023, 01:24:27 PM
Also Leviticus 18 & 20 (I don't agree with the putting them to death part but that's just me), meaning ANY chruch that marries gay people or gives baptism to their children isn't a Christian church anymore.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 14, 2023, 05:58:06 AM
A Christian Church that welcomes and excuses homosexuality is simply not Christian. Should probably just put a Moloch or Baal statue in the building and keep on rolling, but it is simply not Christian. I do not understand why people who want to gather, build community and have fellowship feel the need to corrupt a religion to their own ends in order to do so. Just follow Baal. Build a temple, get the tax break and gather on Sundays.
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 09:57:49 AM
There is a difference between Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. Hence, why Christians in the New Testament are therefore free to eat all meats, as none are unclean. Therefore, there is no restriction on diet. Moral laws, as discussed in the New Testament, the moral condemnation of Homosexuality still stands.
The Old Testament doesn't categorize Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Leviticus 18:22 that forbids (implied) anal sex is categorized the same as Leviticus 18:19 that forbids sex during a woman's monthly period. The entirety of Leviticus is a legal code for the society that they lived in.
The New Testament overrides all of these. That doesn't mean that we ignore morality. It means that we derive our morality from Christ's commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...and to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) We don't murder, or slander, or do other sins not because it is written in Leviticus, but because murder is contrary to Christ's commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself. Even though slavery isn't forbidden in the Old Testament, we hold it contrary to Christ's commandments.
Our Christian morality of today isn't found by selecting through Leviticus with "keep it; skip it; keep it; skip it". Rather, we derive many of the same principles from a different source. The Old Testament codes are lessons that we can learn from, but not laws to obey.
In the Old Testament, Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with. This shows the society they lived in. If they lived in today's society, they would have acted differently. Proper law depends on society. Moral principles are different.
So, by your logic, Jesus by saying "keep the comandments" was engaging in "keep it" and by not talking about homosexuality was engaging in "skip it" wasn't he?
The sheer fucking hubris some people have.
Greetings!
Preach on, Hermano!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Brad on June 14, 2023, 04:28:34 PM
Imagine trying to justify immoral behavior as a so-called "Christian" by appealing to the Bible. And people say Satan isn't real...
Greetings!
Mind boggling, isn't it? ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 03:21:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 02:51:59 PM
The Old Testament doesn't categorize Moral Laws and Ritual Laws. Leviticus 18:22 that forbids (implied) anal sex is categorized the same as Leviticus 18:19 that forbids sex during a woman's monthly period. The entirety of Leviticus is a legal code for the society that they lived in.
The New Testament overrides all of these. That doesn't mean that we ignore morality. It means that we derive our morality from Christ's commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...and to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39) We don't murder, or slander, or do other sins not because it is written in Leviticus, but because murder is contrary to Christ's commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself. Even though slavery isn't forbidden in the Old Testament, we hold it contrary to Christ's commandments.
Our Christian morality of today isn't found by selecting through Leviticus with "keep it; skip it; keep it; skip it". Rather, we derive many of the same principles from a different source. The Old Testament codes are lessons that we can learn from, but not laws to obey.
In the Old Testament, Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with. This shows the society they lived in. If they lived in today's society, they would have acted differently. Proper law depends on society. Moral principles are different.
Does it really matter? In the context of this conversation, we are comparing imperfect adherence to principles that are an ideal to absolute debauchery and they exploitation of children. You're so wrapped up in defending yourself when what you should be doing is sharpening your ax for the execution.
I don't care how you look at it, the destruction of the culture the way the left is doing it now is very evil. The worst part is the justification in causing so much suffering is saying "things need to get better." It's a lie that so many are caught up in.
Greetings!
Very true, BadApple!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 14, 2023, 03:42:19 PM
So, by your logic, Jesus by saying "keep the comandments" was engaging in "keep it" and by not talking about homosexuality was engaging in "skip it" wasn't he?
The sheer fucking hubris some people have.
GeekyBugle, you are free to disagree. If you want to explain what you follow, then I'm happy to hear that, and I won't insult you for having different practice than mine.
For example, I sometimes work on the Sabbath, and don't consider it a sin even though it is against one of the Ten Commandments. I usually go to church - but I'll sometimes do something else. The week before last, I helped my niece move into her new apartment on Sunday, say. Still, I understand that some people will disagree with this. Yet I'd hope we could still agree on bigger priorities - like helping the sick, feeding the poor, and other good works as Jesus taught.
I genuinely do consider the laws of Leviticus good reading - but as inspiration rather than absolute law to follow. I was reminded how Leviticus 19:14 is "Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God." Last Sunday, I attended my church's program on "Dignity for Blind People" - where one of our members talked about cultural practice to help give dignity to blind people. He'll also be leading services on the 25th, and I'll be helping as worship associate.
https://www.uufrc.org/services/joy-of-delight-roots-hold-me-close-wings-set-me-free/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSgwnCQf-DhEbFnS6SbCd-8EnufOmYOVRAVMej7tlVE6jxfMvyuLLmL9iTe15hrhZeakcorvUMVBYLL/pub
I try to keep an open mind about other practices.
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 03:21:39 PM
Does it really matter? In the context of this conversation, we are comparing imperfect adherence to principles that are an ideal to absolute debauchery and they exploitation of children.
I do not agree with this. Child abuse is a huge problem -- but like war and greed, it has been with us for ages, and continues to plague society. I would like to take steps against it, but it needs to confront both heterosexual and LGBT child exploitation -- both of which are problems. Singling out only LGBT displays -- while allowing hetero displays and abuse to continue is self-righteous hubris.
If we are to have new laws, they should be about the sexuality of the display, not whether it is drag or not.
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 05:24:46 PM
I do not agree with this. Child abuse is a huge problem -- but like war and greed, it has been with us for ages, and continues to plague society. I would like to take steps against it, but it needs to confront both heterosexual and LGBT child exploitation -- both of which are problems. Singling out only LGBT displays -- while allowing hetero displays and abuse to continue is self-righteous hubris.
If we are to have new laws, they should be about the sexuality of the display, not whether it is drag or not.
This might be news to you but people have been trying to end child abuse for decades, centuries even. Drag shows in schools is just the latest manifestation. And we are wrong for pointing this out? Must we list all forms of child abuse before we can add another one to the heap? When people accuse you of what-about-ism, this is why.
Men invading women's sport
Men being housed in women's prison
Men suing women's salons when refused service
Men wearing dresses and make up and creeping on children
Etc. etc.
It's stark misogyny. And in the case of the last one, it's perverted gratification, grooming, or even child abuse.
But rather than condemn it, you generalize the problem into oblivion.
We don't need new laws. We just need regular people with enough common sense and a little bit of courage to tell the gender ideologues "No."
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 05:24:46 PM
I do not agree with this. Child abuse is a huge problem -- but like war and greed, it has been with us for ages, and continues to plague society. I would like to take steps against it, but it needs to confront both heterosexual and LGBT child exploitation -- both of which are problems. Singling out only LGBT displays -- while allowing hetero displays and abuse to continue is self-righteous hubris.
If we are to have new laws, they should be about the sexuality of the display, not whether it is drag or not.
First, there's a much higher degree of child exploitation going on now that is being addressed. It is specifically coming from the far left in the form of LGBTQ+ "acceptance." I've gotten my hands on some of the "educational" material and it is way worse than a silly beauty pageant. Seeing the one as the same as the other is a false equivalency.
Second, most of the new laws are gender neutral but the LGBTQ+ alphabet soup idiots are just picking out the parts that mentions them and calling it an attack. I wish people talking about the laws would actually read them before commenting on them.
I am in no way for any form of child exploitation. A lot of child activities border it and we should be leery of them. Sports, gymnastics (not a sport, I will die on this hill), dance, music recital, academic excellence programs are all good examples of where it gets iffy. Drag show for kids and children's books with explicit sexual act displayed in graphic detail are not iffy at all. It is child sexual abuse as clearly outlined 70 years ago. They know they are doing it and they deserve the full weight of the law and the hate from parents.
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 06:22:48 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 05:24:46 PM
I do not agree with this. Child abuse is a huge problem -- but like war and greed, it has been with us for ages, and continues to plague society. I would like to take steps against it, but it needs to confront both heterosexual and LGBT child exploitation -- both of which are problems. Singling out only LGBT displays -- while allowing hetero displays and abuse to continue is self-righteous hubris.
If we are to have new laws, they should be about the sexuality of the display, not whether it is drag or not.
First, there's a much higher degree of child exploitation going on now that is being addressed. It is specifically coming from the far left in the form of LGBTQ+ "acceptance." I've gotten my hands on some of the "educational" material and it is way worse than a silly beauty pageant. Seeing the one as the same as the other is a false equivalency.
It is false equivalency to say that there is "one or the other" as if there are only two possibilities for behavior. What it sounds like you're doing is seeking out the most clickbaity, outrage-driven material you can find -- and then generalizing that as "what liberals do" -- while then assuming that everyone conservative is just like you and your neighbors.
But the world is big. Both left and right have many many cases of full-on sexual assault of children. There are abusive parents of many different politics. And lots of cases of abuse by non-parents - by priests, by teachers, etc. It is naive and false for anyone to assume that the people on their "side" are harmless and well-intentioned.
From my view, I attend and volunteer at a very liberal church. I have transgender friends and family who I talk to about issues. We talk about how to do good in the world - like how to help the poor, the sick, those suffering from wars and disasters, and so forth. But I realize that there are others on my side who are not like the people I interact with. I try to understand others not through outrage media, but by talking to them.
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 06:22:48 PM
Second, most of the new laws are gender neutral but the LGBTQ+ alphabet soup idiots are just picking out the parts that mentions them and calling it an attack. I wish people talking about the laws would actually read them before commenting on them.
We had detailed discussion of the laws and bills earlier in this thread, starting with my citing in Reply #33.
https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/new-study-proves-pundit-was-right/msg1255481/#msg1255481
By definition, the anti-drag laws are
not gender-neutral. If there is a lewd, sexual performance by a drag queen for children -- then organizers can avoid the law by having a non-transgender woman perform a lewd, sexual performance for children instead.
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 06:22:48 PM
I am in no way for any form of child exploitation. A lot of child activities border it and we should be leery of them. Sports, gymnastics (not a sport, I will die on this hill), dance, music recital, academic excellence programs are all good examples of where it gets iffy. Drag show for kids and children's books with explicit sexual act displayed in graphic detail are not iffy at all.
I'll repeat again my experience - seeing the Kinky Boots musical with my extended family when my son was 14. This was a show all about drag, and I found nothing inappropriate about it for him. There were some verbal references to sex and high-heeled outfits, but it was tame compared to most PG-13 rated shows. Heck, it's tamer than Victor/Victoria which was rated PG in 1981. I went to a Billy Porter concert where he was dressed in various drag outfits over the course of the show, and it was also tame for a pop show.
The assertion of lots of people is that any drag is equivalent to porn, but that doesn't match my experience.
The big question is -- are we talking about the same thing? i.e. Are you assuming a show like the Kinky Boots musical, and thus you consider me a clear groomer and pedophile for seeing the show with my family? Or are you saying that you're not against banning those shows, but rather you have a different picture of what drag is?
I agree there can be lewd, adult-only drag that should not be shown to kids. But it should be defined by the sexual content. Substituting non-transgender women for the drag queens doesn't make a sexual show kid-friendly.
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 07:47:48 PM
<snip>
First, it's the left institutionalizing the wholesale sexual abuse of children. They are using the entire school system. They are mass printing and trying to get universal distribution material that would be called pornographic under any other circumstances for the explicit purpose of getting them into the hands of children. There are many said books, enough to make an entire section of a library. It is not isolated.
I said "the left," not liberal. That's two different things.
Second, most places that are banning drag shows explicitly already have laws on the books prohibiting erotic show for minors by hetero performers. Many of the other locations are doing up laws that are being misrepresented as being anti-LGBTQ (my state included) when the plain reading of the law shows it's not. The media is flat out lying.
A lot of these drag shows are not merely people in drag performing for general entertainment. (I would find that weird but I wouldn't care.) They are engaged in what is clearly sexual behavior.
Finally, a lot of this is going on behind the parents' backs and against their wishes. This is done in the name of protecting children from homophobic abuse at home but they know they are performing mass child sexual abuse and don't want to be punished for it.
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 08:38:47 PM
Second, most places that are banning drag shows explicitly already have laws on the books prohibiting erotic show for minors by hetero performers. Many of the other locations are doing up laws that are being misrepresented as being anti-LGBTQ (my state included) when the plain reading of the law shows it's not. The media is flat out lying.
You're claiming that prior Tennessee law had laws to crack down
only on heterosexual displays. That seems like an extraordinary claim -- that somehow Tennessee was extra LGBT-friendly (??) in the past. I would want to see citation of the text of these anti-hetero-only laws.
I read the text of the Tennessee law (Senate Bill 3) as well as Nebraska bill LB371 and Arizona bill SB1030. I see no evidence of this in any of them. If pre-existing law already banned equivalent heterosexual displays, then why wouldn't they just pass an amendment to close the loophole, rather than creating a whole new law with its own strictures?
Here's legal info that I've gone through for TN, NE, and AZ.
https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/id/2755954
https://theconversation.com/why-tennessees-law-limiting-drag-performances-likely-violates-the-first-amendment-201126
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1030/2023
These laws clearly single out drag. Change the birth sex of the performer, and the law no longer applies -- even if the exact sexual behavior, costume, and/or words are used.
You ever thought that right now we don't have a problem with mass efforts to push straight sex show onto kids?
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 11:32:45 PM
You ever thought that right now we don't have a problem with mass efforts to push straight sex show onto kids?
If so, then why not make it equally illegal under the law? You'd get more support for such laws, and I suspect it would be more likely to pass constitutionality test in the courts as well.
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 11:12:41 PM
Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 08:38:47 PM
Second, most places that are banning drag shows explicitly already have laws on the books prohibiting erotic show for minors by hetero performers. Many of the other locations are doing up laws that are being misrepresented as being anti-LGBTQ (my state included) when the plain reading of the law shows it's not. The media is flat out lying.
You're claiming that prior Tennessee law had laws to crack down only on heterosexual displays. That seems like an extraordinary claim -- that somehow Tennessee was extra LGBT-friendly (??) in the past. I would want to see citation of the text of these anti-hetero-only laws.
I read the text of the Tennessee law (Senate Bill 3) as well as Nebraska bill LB371 and Arizona bill SB1030. I see no evidence of this in any of them. If pre-existing law already banned equivalent heterosexual displays, then why wouldn't they just pass an amendment to close the loophole, rather than creating a whole new law with its own strictures?
Here's legal info that I've gone through for TN, NE, and AZ.
https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/id/2755954
https://theconversation.com/why-tennessees-law-limiting-drag-performances-likely-violates-the-first-amendment-201126
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf
https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1030/2023
These laws clearly single out drag. Change the birth sex of the performer, and the law no longer applies -- even if the exact sexual behavior, costume, and/or words are used.
I love how this lying piece of shit wants you to view the Tennessee bill from sources biased against it, but is unwilling to post a link to the governing body enacting it.
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0003&ga=113
Attached is the PDF of the actual bill.
Fuck you, liar.
Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2023, 05:36:07 PM
Greetings!
Yes, that's right, Oggsmash. "Whataboutism" and "False Equivalency".
I also suspect you are quite right on the coming backlash. Imagine the sweet, nice, "tolerant" Liberals screaming from coast to coast. More people have just had it with all the Liberal BS and tyranny. I'm afraid more people are just becoming so fed up with Liberals that they are going to start curb stomping the fuck out of them. As they open their mouths to REEE, they will just get stomped to the fucking pavement, again, and again, and again. I keep seeing more and more people calling for "No mercy" for the Liberals. All the degenerates, all the fucking groomers, all the kiddy diddlers will be targeted ruthlessly.
More states are structuring themselves to be more autonomous from the federal government, and on a variety of issues, such as 'gun Control" have enshrined the 2nd Amendment within state constitutions, and have more or less told the federal government to go fuck themselves. More states are standing up to the fucking baby murderers and their disgusting medical industries that profit from them, as well as the kiddy groomers, and their allies in politics and within school districts and universities. Degenerates are not welcome, and more people are getting comfortable with stomping their foot down and telling the federal government to get fucked on that, too. We can also see this happening with Liberal "Cancel Culture" and corporations thinking they can shove degeneracy down people's throats without consequences. Bud Light, Miller Light, and Target are all getting absolutely wrecked.
*Sigh* Oh well. The degenerate Liberals, the Marxists, the groomers--they wanted to fuck around and find out.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Make no mistake, the people causing all the trouble and attempting to destroy society are NOT liberals. Liberals are lovers of freedom and want less government and want peace and tolerance. The idiots ruining society these days are Marxists and socialists who insist on their way or the highway. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, and they absolutely will not stop of their own volition. They don't respond to reason, refuse to rationally debate, and only understand force. Facts to these people are like sunlight to a vampire. I refuse to call them liberals because I have respect for actual liberals.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 07:21:34 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 11:12:41 PM
These laws clearly single out drag.
Attached is the PDF of the actual bill.
Quote from: the actual bill"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
holy crap batman, it singles out drag!!11!11one!!111eleven!!1
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 02:39:22 AM
If so, then why not make it equally illegal under the law? You'd get more support for such laws, and I suspect it would be more likely to pass constitutionality test in the courts as well.
Why these laws need to exist is perplexing to me, but it surely seems like only a certain group of people are pissed off they cannot engage in lewd behavior in front of kids. As sleazy as strip clubs are, I am 100% certain that if you tried to bring your kids into one for a show the owners and dancers would be the first ones asking you WTF you were doing. Plus there are signs that say "No one under 21 admitted" plastered all over the place; these establishments are clearly for adults only. But it's okay to do this sort of stuff at a school as long as the performers are gay, right?
Eagerly awaiting the non-answer.
Quote from: Klava on June 15, 2023, 09:15:12 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 07:21:34 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 11:12:41 PM
These laws clearly single out drag.
Attached is the PDF of the actual bill.
Quote from: the actual bill"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
holy crap batman, it singles out drag!!11!11one!!111eleven!!1
Yes, it singles out drag
compared to an identical non-drag performance. That is what I said in my post. I also gave two links for the Tennessee law, the first of which is the PDF itself.
For example, let's say there is a sexually suggestive drag singer. If the organizers simply switch the sex of the performer, then the performance now becomes legal under the law because it is no longer drag. The exact same sexually suggestive costume, moves, and lyrics are now allowed.
Quote from: Brad on June 15, 2023, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 02:39:22 AM
If so, then why not make it equally illegal under the law? You'd get more support for such laws, and I suspect it would be more likely to pass constitutionality test in the courts as well.
Why these laws need to exist is perplexing to me, but it surely seems like only a certain group of people are pissed off they cannot engage in lewd behavior in front of kids.
At least in this thread, some posters are really angry at my suggestion that a law equally restrict heterosexual displays. The logic seems to be:
- ban Billy Porter in concert, but allow Madonna or Peaches
- ban Bugs Bunny in drag, but allow Jessica Rabbit
- ban Mulan, but allow Pocahontas
Again, if the problem is lewd behavior in front of kids, then ban lewd behavior. Don't make a ban the specifically allows heterosexual lewd behavior.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: Klava on June 15, 2023, 09:15:12 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 07:21:34 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 11:12:41 PM
These laws clearly single out drag.
Attached is the PDF of the actual bill.
Quote from: the actual bill"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
holy crap batman, it singles out drag!!11!11one!!111eleven!!1
Yes, it singles out drag compared to an identical non-drag performance. That is what I said in my post. I also gave two links for the Tennessee law, the first of which is the PDF itself.
For example, let's say there is a sexually suggestive drag singer. If the organizers simply switch the sex of the performer, then the performance now becomes legal under the law because it is no longer drag. The exact same sexually suggestive costume, moves, and lyrics are now allowed.
jhkim, you are desperately trying to wriggle away from the truth with the energy of a shaved gerbil shoved up someone's ass.
Quote from: The Bill
HOUSE BILL 9
By Todd
SENATE BILL 3
By Johnson
SB0003
000187
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
(c)
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that
was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the
effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and
(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and
enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or
licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).
(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and
applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
The only thing singled out in this bill are adult performances conducted in the presence of minors!
Goddamn, jhkim, you can try as hard to spin this as you like, but drag shows are not singled out you lying fuckwad.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: Brad on June 15, 2023, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 02:39:22 AM
If so, then why not make it equally illegal under the law? You'd get more support for such laws, and I suspect it would be more likely to pass constitutionality test in the courts as well.
Why these laws need to exist is perplexing to me, but it surely seems like only a certain group of people are pissed off they cannot engage in lewd behavior in front of kids.
At least in this thread, some posters are really angry at my suggestion that a law equally restrict heterosexual displays. The logic seems to be:
- ban Billy Porter in concert, but allow Madonna or Peaches
- ban Bugs Bunny in drag, but allow Jessica Rabbit
- ban Mulan, but allow Pocahontas
Again, if the problem is lewd behavior in front of kids, then ban lewd behavior. Don't make a ban the specifically allows heterosexual lewd behavior.
Again,more lies from you.
Is this all you have, jhkim? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 11:20:56 AM
jhkim, you are desperately trying to wriggle away from the truth with the energy of a shaved gerbil shoved up someone's ass.
Quote from: The Bill
HOUSE BILL 9
By Todd
SENATE BILL 3
By Johnson
SB0003
000187
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
(c)
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that
was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the
effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and
(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and
enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or
licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).
(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and
applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
The only thing singled out in this bill are adult performances conducted in the presence of minors!
Goddamn, jhkim, you can try as hard to spin this as you like, but drag shows are not singled out you lying fuckwad.
Above is your text where I have added bolding in red. Yes, this bill bans "adult cabaret performance", but it uses "male and female impersonation" to
define what is adult cabaret. If the organizers substitute the sex of the performer but keep the performance the same, then an act is no longer female impersonation. Therefore it is not subject to this definition of "adult cabaret performance".
NOTE: This is the house version of the bill, but my understanding is that it is a modified senate version of the bill that was actually signed into law. It is substantially similar, but it doesn't have the "prurient interest" language. I linked the senate version in my post.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 11:20:56 AM
jhkim, you are desperately trying to wriggle away from the truth with the energy of a shaved gerbil shoved up someone's ass.
Quote from: The Bill
HOUSE BILL 9
By Todd
SENATE BILL 3
By Johnson
SB0003
000187
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
(c)
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that
was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the
effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and
(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and
enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or
licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).
(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and
applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
The only thing singled out in this bill are adult performances conducted in the presence of minors!
Goddamn, jhkim, you can try as hard to spin this as you like, but drag shows are not singled out you lying fuckwad.
Above is your text where I have added bolding in red. Yes, this bill bans "adult cabaret performance", but it uses "male and female impersonation" to define what is adult cabaret. If the organizers substitute the sex of the performer but keep the performance the same, then an act is no longer female impersonation. Therefore it is not subject to this definition of "adult cabaret performance".
NOTE: This is the house version of the bill, but my understanding is that it is a modified senate version of the bill that was actually signed into law. It is substantially similar, but it doesn't have the "prurient interest" language. I linked the senate version in my post.
You forgot to mention the word "or" in your red highlights, gerbil.
You must try harder!
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 11:20:56 AM
jhkim, you are desperately trying to wriggle away from the truth with the energy of a shaved gerbil shoved up someone's ass.
Quote from: The Bill
HOUSE BILL 9
By Todd
SENATE BILL 3
By Johnson
SB0003
000187
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
(c)
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that
was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the
effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and
(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and
enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or
licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).
(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and
applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
The only thing singled out in this bill are adult performances conducted in the presence of minors!
Goddamn, jhkim, you can try as hard to spin this as you like, but drag shows are not singled out you lying fuckwad.
Above is your text where I have added bolding in red. Yes, this bill bans "adult cabaret performance", but it uses "male and female impersonation" to define what is adult cabaret. If the organizers substitute the sex of the performer but keep the performance the same, then an act is no longer female impersonation. Therefore it is not subject to this definition of "adult cabaret performance".
NOTE: This is the house version of the bill, but my understanding is that it is a modified senate version of the bill that was actually signed into law. It is substantially similar, but it doesn't have the "prurient interest" language. I linked the senate version in my post.
Um, you forgot to highlight topless, dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers, as part of the definition, none of which have an impersonation modifier and thus is applicable to both male and female performers. If you are going to focus on definitions, use all of the criteria instead of cherry picking the parts you want to focus on.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 11:20:56 AM
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
Above is your text where I have added bolding in red. Yes, this bill bans "adult cabaret performance", but it uses "male and female impersonation" to define what is adult cabaret. If the organizers substitute the sex of the performer but keep the performance the same, then an act is no longer female impersonation. Therefore it is not subject to this definition of "adult cabaret performance".
(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/f5d3150ec428ca1f3534a85f7ee4b35e789f3862/hub/2019/05/22/1b710a6b-5f4d-4987-a046-c23674b221a3/picard-meme-facepalm.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)
Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 15, 2023, 12:29:57 PM
Um, you forgot to highlight topless, dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers, as part of the definition, none of which have an impersonation modifier and thus is applicable to both male and female performers. If you are going to focus on definitions, use all of the criteria instead of cherry picking the parts you want to focus on.
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:19:38 AM
At least in this thread, some posters are really angry at my suggestion that a law equally restrict heterosexual displays.
Maybe you misunderstood my post, so let me be clearer: NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THEIR FUCKING KIDS TO STRIP CLUBS, PORN SHOPS, OR NIGHTCLUBS.
You don't NEED a fucking law against this sort of crap because no parent in their right mind would do such a thing. The issue now is that, for some odd fucking reason, a certain group of people feel the need to call you all sorts of names if you just don't allow them to expose your children to pure degeneracy. In fact, you are labeled a bigot and they make legitimate attempts to destroy your life and livelihood. Someone like you needs to be thankful these sorts of laws are getting passed, honestly, because it's going to be the only thing keeping the degenerates from getting blasted by shotguns. People are sick of this crap.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 12:40:10 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 15, 2023, 12:29:57 PM
Um, you forgot to highlight topless, dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers, as part of the definition, none of which have an impersonation modifier and thus is applicable to both male and female performers. If you are going to focus on definitions, use all of the criteria instead of cherry picking the parts you want to focus on.
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
You're splitting hairs. Statutory language is never perfect and is always subject to interpretation in caselaw.
Besides, the
complete definition nails 99% of the objectionable material and also says "or similar entertainers".
Quote from: Brad on June 15, 2023, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:19:38 AM
At least in this thread, some posters are really angry at my suggestion that a law equally restrict heterosexual displays.
Maybe you misunderstood my post, so let me be clearer: NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THEIR FUCKING KIDS TO STRIP CLUBS, PORN SHOPS, OR NIGHTCLUBS.
You don't NEED a fucking law against this sort of crap because no parent in their right mind would do such a thing. The issue now is that, for some odd fucking reason, a certain group of people feel the need to call you all sorts of names if you just don't allow them to expose your children to pure degeneracy. In fact, you are labeled a bigot and they make legitimate attempts to destroy your life and livelihood. Someone like you needs to be thankful these sorts of laws are getting passed, honestly, because it's going to be the only thing keeping the degenerates from getting blasted by shotguns. People are sick of this crap.
Not only does jhkim need a new law, he needs a perfectly worded law the likes of which humanity has never been able to write before!
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:55:11 PM
Not only does jhkim need a new law, he needs a perfectly worded law the likes of which humanity has never been able to write before!
The irony here is that making laws does fuck all to curb behavior people want to engage in. If/when these laws go into effect, the groomers will just start having shows in abandoned warehouses and basements like they used to. "Come one, come all! Don't tell your parents!"
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 02:12:41 PM
Greetings!
I've read the Bible, and continue to do so every day.
I didn't know they printed Bibles with Think And Do pages.
QuoteInstead of propping up bogus, weak ass critiques of the Bible, why don't you actually learn about theology, doctrine, and Biblical interpretation, as I have.
I'm not critiquing the book, numbnuts -just retards like you who attribute their inability to handle their own budding homosexuality as it starts to blossom to a man who did not mention Teh Gayz at all. If Jesus didn't care enough about those degenerate sodomites who make you tremble with excitement (while pretending it's fear) to mention them ONCE, why should I give a shit?
QuoteNo "Thumping" involved, except to point out your poor understanding of Christian doctrine. Your pathetic squealing about what Christ didn't mention is irrelevant. Christ did not specifically talk about many things. The Book of Romans discusses many sins, as well as the sin of Homosexuality. St. Paul discusses doctrine extensively.
Last time I checked Paul wasn't Jesus. His opinion about fags is almost as depraved as his opinion about slaves -you know, how they should obey their masters as their masters obey god? Paul was a dumbass.
QuoteHere is an excellent sermon by Pastor John McaArthur, of Grace Communty Church, in Southern California. Pastor MacArthur goes over the many verses in Scripture, and discusses proper, faithful Biblical doctrine.
That guy isn't Jesus either. He reminds me of H.L. Mencken's definition of a theologian as a man who pretends to know more about the Gospels than Christ himself.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 15, 2023, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 02:12:41 PM
Greetings!
I've read the Bible, and continue to do so every day.
I didn't know they printed Bibles with Think And Do pages.
QuoteInstead of propping up bogus, weak ass critiques of the Bible, why don't you actually learn about theology, doctrine, and Biblical interpretation, as I have.
I'm not critiquing the book, numbnuts -just retards like you who attribute their inability to handle their own budding homosexuality as it starts to blossom to a man who did not mention Teh Gayz at all. If Jesus didn't care enough about those degenerate sodomites who make you tremble with excitement (while pretending it's fear) to mention them ONCE, why should I give a shit?
QuoteNo "Thumping" involved, except to point out your poor understanding of Christian doctrine. Your pathetic squealing about what Christ didn't mention is irrelevant. Christ did not specifically talk about many things. The Book of Romans discusses many sins, as well as the sin of Homosexuality. St. Paul discusses doctrine extensively.
Last time I checked Paul wasn't Jesus. His opinion about fags is almost as depraved as his opinion about slaves -you know, how they should obey their masters as their masters obey god? Paul was a dumbass.
QuoteHere is an excellent sermon by Pastor John McaArthur, of Grace Communty Church, in Southern California. Pastor MacArthur goes over the many verses in Scripture, and discusses proper, faithful Biblical doctrine.
That guy isn't Jesus either. He reminds me of H.L. Mencken's definition of a theologian as a man who pretends to know more about the Gospels than Christ himself.
Greetings!
My budding homosexuality? *Laughing* Whatever, man. That isn't a box I have ever been interested in checking.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 12:40:10 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 15, 2023, 12:29:57 PM
Um, you forgot to highlight topless, dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers, as part of the definition, none of which have an impersonation modifier and thus is applicable to both male and female performers. If you are going to focus on definitions, use all of the criteria instead of cherry picking the parts you want to focus on.
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
You're splitting hairs. Statutory language is never perfect and is always subject to interpretation in caselaw.
Besides, the complete definition nails 99% of the objectionable material and also says "or similar entertainers".
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
In the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
Are 99% of these 163,000 reports about leftist parents taking their kids to drag shows? I'd be skeptical of such a claim. I don't think that, say, LibsOfTikTok accurately represents the whole of child abuse in Tennessee or any other state.
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 15, 2023, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 14, 2023, 02:12:41 PM
No "Thumping" involved, except to point out your poor understanding of Christian doctrine. Your pathetic squealing about what Christ didn't mention is irrelevant. Christ did not specifically talk about many things. The Book of Romans discusses many sins, as well as the sin of Homosexuality. St. Paul discusses doctrine extensively.
Last time I checked Paul wasn't Jesus. His opinion about fags is almost as depraved as his opinion about slaves -you know, how they should obey their masters as their masters obey god? Paul was a dumbass.
I think that Paul has many good points, but his every word should not be taken as law for all time. Something like the First Corinthians is a letter to a particular community at a particular place and time. Slavery is wrong, but inciting slave revolt might have been a wrong choice for early Christians at the time. Society needs to develop. Likewise, First Corinthians has admonitions like this:
QuoteFor God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord's people.
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
I don't think that women should be kept silent in church. Women take part in services at my church, and are encouraged to speak. That doesn't mean I think Paul should be ignored, but his advice should be read in light of the time and place he is writing.
WTF is wrong with you. Really. This behavior is covered for normal "hetero" people under child welfare laws. Most states have it on the books as "lewd or lascivious behavior." For some reason the LGBTQ+ community didn't think it applied to them so now parents and legislators have to spell it out for them in specific laws that they mean by gays and trannies too.
As far as your whataboutisms, you damn well should know that it's comparing a mountain to a mole hill. There's enough available footage of the "drag shows for kids" to see it's clearly overt sexual behavior being displayed. Not all of them and the "community" is circulating clean shows to try and obfuscate the issue. (that act of deception and gaslighting is why there's not a lot of wiggle room in some of the new laws for "clean" drag shows)
At this point, it's clear to me you have an agenda driven perspective. You don't care about the issues or the victims, you care about winning. It sickens me.
Quote from: SHARK on June 15, 2023, 02:37:27 PM
Greetings!
My budding homosexuality? *Laughing* Whatever, man. That isn't a box I have ever been interested in checking.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think someone wants to live vicariously through you, Shark.
Quote from: BadApple on June 15, 2023, 03:49:30 PM
As far as your whataboutisms, you damn well should know that it's comparing a mountain to a mole hill. There's enough available footage of the "drag shows for kids" to see it's clearly overt sexual behavior being displayed. Not all of them and the "community" is circulating clean shows to try and obfuscate the issue. (that act of deception and gaslighting is why there's not a lot of wiggle room in some of the new laws for "clean" drag shows)
To give an idea about where I'm coming from. I moved to the SF Bay area in 2000 shortly after my son was born. From early on, we had a lot of LGBT friends. My late friend Heather was transgender and would come over for a weekly game for years, for example. He went to local public schools. I was closely involved in his education, like volunteering on field trips. I got an education degree and credential myself in 2011, and taught in some local public schools. I also brought him to local gaming conventions, where he played D&D and other games.
On some recommendations, I went with my extended family to see the Kinky Boots musical in 2014. I thought it was a great show, and a tame PG at most. I had earlier gone to an adults-only drag show at a bar in SF with my wife. Much later, after my divorce, I went to see a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in drag. That's the extent of my seeing live drag shows.
I've always been concerned about what my son is exposed to, but despite living in the peak of leftist and LGBT culture, I have not observed in-person inappropriateness to my kid. My biggest concern was always the Internet and online material.
---
That doesn't mean that no threat exists to any kid. I know there are hundreds of thousands of parents who range from irresponsible to outright abusive. I have met some acquaintances - including LGBT ones - who seemed irresponsible and who I wouldn't want my kid around. There is lewd and lascivious LGBT behavior, like during Pride parades -- but there is also lewd behavior at Mardi Gras, on public beaches during spring break, and so forth.
I am trying to engage and watch footage which is being offered. I'm keeping track and watching what is offered. My prior summary (with reply numbers in parentheses) was:
(#67) The non-drag Argentinian circus show where a young kid was brought up to a microphone sticking out of a performer's crotch
(#72) The Plano TX drag show, listed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that parents brought a young girl to
(#75) A 13-year-old performing a lewd dance for a crowd of adults - unknown source, unknown parent or government involvement
(#76 and #77) The Caba Baba Rave in the UK, where parents brought their young kids to racy cabaret performances
(#176) Brad's image implying a drag performer flash their genitals to kids sitting in front of them - unknown parent or government involvement
(#230) A Derbyshire UK school (ages 11-17) had a "Drag 'n Rainbows" themed non-uniform day where students were encouraged to dress up, including possibly in drag
I have started watching GeekyBugle's LibsOfTikTok links, but it's slow because I mostly post off-time at work, and I can't watch those at work.
I'll continue to watch. However, in general, my view of reality is shaped more by what I've seen for myself and/or investigated independently than by outrage-inducing clickbait videos. I feel that social media often produces a distorted perspective of the world.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:55:11 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 15, 2023, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 11:19:38 AM
At least in this thread, some posters are really angry at my suggestion that a law equally restrict heterosexual displays.
Maybe you misunderstood my post, so let me be clearer: NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THEIR FUCKING KIDS TO STRIP CLUBS, PORN SHOPS, OR NIGHTCLUBS.
You don't NEED a fucking law against this sort of crap because no parent in their right mind would do such a thing. The issue now is that, for some odd fucking reason, a certain group of people feel the need to call you all sorts of names if you just don't allow them to expose your children to pure degeneracy. In fact, you are labeled a bigot and they make legitimate attempts to destroy your life and livelihood. Someone like you needs to be thankful these sorts of laws are getting passed, honestly, because it's going to be the only thing keeping the degenerates from getting blasted by shotguns. People are sick of this crap.
Not only does jhkim need a new law, he needs a perfectly worded law the likes of which humanity has never been able to write before!
Something about a poster on a D&D forum going into rules lawyer mode over a RL issue amuses me greatly. :D
Quote from: Brad on June 15, 2023, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:55:11 PM
Not only does jhkim need a new law, he needs a perfectly worded law the likes of which humanity has never been able to write before!
The irony here is that making laws does fuck all to curb behavior people want to engage in. If/when these laws go into effect, the groomers will just start having shows in abandoned warehouses and basements like they used to. "Come one, come all! Don't tell your parents!"
Well, at least they won't be ushered into the front door anymore.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 05:10:38 PM
Quote from: BadApple on June 15, 2023, 03:49:30 PM
As far as your whataboutisms, you damn well should know that it's comparing a mountain to a mole hill. There's enough available footage of the "drag shows for kids" to see it's clearly overt sexual behavior being displayed. Not all of them and the "community" is circulating clean shows to try and obfuscate the issue. (that act of deception and gaslighting is why there's not a lot of wiggle room in some of the new laws for "clean" drag shows)
To give an idea about where I'm coming from. I moved to the SF Bay area in 2000 shortly after my son was born. From early on, we had a lot of LGBT friends. My late friend Heather was transgender and would come over for a weekly game for years, for example. He went to local public schools. I was closely involved in his education, like volunteering on field trips. I got an education degree and credential myself in 2011, and taught in some local public schools. I also brought him to local gaming conventions, where he played D&D and other games.
On some recommendations, I went with my extended family to see the Kinky Boots musical in 2014. I thought it was a great show, and a tame PG at most. I had earlier gone to an adults-only drag show at a bar in SF with my wife. Much later, after my divorce, I went to see a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in drag. That's the extent of my seeing live drag shows.
I've always been concerned about what my son is exposed to, but despite living in the peak of leftist and LGBT culture, I have not observed in-person inappropriateness to my kid. My biggest concern was always the Internet and online material.
---
That doesn't mean that no threat exists to any kid. I know there are hundreds of thousands of parents who range from irresponsible to outright abusive. I have met some acquaintances - including LGBT ones - who seemed irresponsible and who I wouldn't want my kid around. There is lewd and lascivious LGBT behavior, like during Pride parades -- but there is also lewd behavior at Mardi Gras, on public beaches during spring break, and so forth.
I am trying to engage and watch footage which is being offered. I'm keeping track and watching what is offered. My prior summary (with reply numbers in parentheses) was:
(#67) The non-drag Argentinian circus show where a young kid was brought up to a microphone sticking out of a performer's crotch
(#72) The Plano TX drag show, listed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that parents brought a young girl to
(#75) A 13-year-old performing a lewd dance for a crowd of adults - unknown source, unknown parent or government involvement
(#76 and #77) The Caba Baba Rave in the UK, where parents brought their young kids to racy cabaret performances
(#176) Brad's image implying a drag performer flash their genitals to kids sitting in front of them - unknown parent or government involvement
(#230) A Derbyshire UK school (ages 11-17) had a "Drag 'n Rainbows" themed non-uniform day where students were encouraged to dress up, including possibly in drag
I have started watching GeekyBugle's LibsOfTikTok links, but it's slow because I mostly post off-time at work, and I can't watch those at work.
I'll continue to watch. However, in general, my view of reality is shaped more by what I've seen for myself and/or investigated independently than by outrage-inducing clickbait videos. I feel that social media often produces a distorted perspective of the world.
Hey man, I hear you. I have friends who belong to the rainbow club. They tend to be pretty reasonable, though the trans community I'm familiar with has a high degree of mental illness. Friends are friends because they have things in common. TTRPGs and similar pursuits attract a certain type of person, so there's much to bridge the gap. That's one of the reasons I like TTRPGs: you can game with anyone and nobody cares who you are -- unless someone brings up politics in a serious way.
I've met other rainbow people, ones who I have nothing in common with, and the difference is striking. They are much more obsessed with sex, identity, badges, labels, flags, and all that. I've met people who are trans so they can get laid or so they can earn more as prostitutes. The one trans friend I keep in touch with loathes the community because it's toxic according to her.
That is to say, friends are going to be more reasonable because they found their way into your trust. It's a biased sample.
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 05:10:38 PM
Quote from: BadApple on June 15, 2023, 03:49:30 PM
As far as your whataboutisms, you damn well should know that it's comparing a mountain to a mole hill. There's enough available footage of the "drag shows for kids" to see it's clearly overt sexual behavior being displayed. Not all of them and the "community" is circulating clean shows to try and obfuscate the issue. (that act of deception and gaslighting is why there's not a lot of wiggle room in some of the new laws for "clean" drag shows)
To give an idea about where I'm coming from. I moved to the SF Bay area in 2000 shortly after my son was born. From early on, we had a lot of LGBT friends. My late friend Heather was transgender and would come over for a weekly game for years, for example. He went to local public schools. I was closely involved in his education, like volunteering on field trips. I got an education degree and credential myself in 2011, and taught in some local public schools. I also brought him to local gaming conventions, where he played D&D and other games.
On some recommendations, I went with my extended family to see the Kinky Boots musical in 2014. I thought it was a great show, and a tame PG at most. I had earlier gone to an adults-only drag show at a bar in SF with my wife. Much later, after my divorce, I went to see a Billy Porter concert where he dressed in drag. That's the extent of my seeing live drag shows.
I've always been concerned about what my son is exposed to, but despite living in the peak of leftist and LGBT culture, I have not observed in-person inappropriateness to my kid. My biggest concern was always the Internet and online material.
---
That doesn't mean that no threat exists to any kid. I know there are hundreds of thousands of parents who range from irresponsible to outright abusive. I have met some acquaintances - including LGBT ones - who seemed irresponsible and who I wouldn't want my kid around. There is lewd and lascivious LGBT behavior, like during Pride parades -- but there is also lewd behavior at Mardi Gras, on public beaches during spring break, and so forth.
I am trying to engage and watch footage which is being offered. I'm keeping track and watching what is offered. My prior summary (with reply numbers in parentheses) was:
(#67) The non-drag Argentinian circus show where a young kid was brought up to a microphone sticking out of a performer's crotch
(#72) The Plano TX drag show, listed as having "strong language and suggestive dialogue" that parents brought a young girl to
(#75) A 13-year-old performing a lewd dance for a crowd of adults - unknown source, unknown parent or government involvement
(#76 and #77) The Caba Baba Rave in the UK, where parents brought their young kids to racy cabaret performances
(#176) Brad's image implying a drag performer flash their genitals to kids sitting in front of them - unknown parent or government involvement
(#230) A Derbyshire UK school (ages 11-17) had a "Drag 'n Rainbows" themed non-uniform day where students were encouraged to dress up, including possibly in drag
I have started watching GeekyBugle's LibsOfTikTok links, but it's slow because I mostly post off-time at work, and I can't watch those at work.
I'll continue to watch. However, in general, my view of reality is shaped more by what I've seen for myself and/or investigated independently than by outrage-inducing clickbait videos. I feel that social media often produces a distorted perspective of the world.
That's a logical fallacy, it's the "argument from incredulity", you haven't seen it in person ergo you can dismiss all evidence that refutes your preconceptions. It's a very common "argument" among the Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists.
I could dig hundreds of videos from LibsofTikTok and GaysAgainstGroomers and you would find a way to dismiss them, so what's the point of doing so?
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 03:23:04 PM
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
I see that my favorite shaved gerbil is wriggling even more frenetically.
QuoteIn the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
And look at those goalposts move!!
Quote
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Glad to see that you agree with me once confronted with the actual law.
See, the TRUTH will set you free!
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 03:23:04 PM
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
I see that my favorite shaved gerbil is wriggling even more frenetically.
QuoteIn the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
And look at those goalposts move!!
Quote
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Glad to see that you agree with me once confronted with the actual law.
See, the TRUTH will set you free!
Greetings!
*Laughing* "The Shaved Gerbil"!!!
So funny Jeff! The TRUTH will set you free! I love that, too. It is hilarious watching the shaved gerbil dance and wriggle!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 10:16:15 PM
Hey man, I hear you. I have friends who belong to the rainbow club. They tend to be pretty reasonable, though the trans community I'm familiar with has a high degree of mental illness. Friends are friends because they have things in common. TTRPGs and similar pursuits attract a certain type of person, so there's much to bridge the gap. That's one of the reasons I like TTRPGs: you can game with anyone and nobody cares who you are -- unless someone brings up politics in a serious way.
I've met other rainbow people, ones who I have nothing in common with, and the difference is striking. They are much more obsessed with sex, identity, badges, labels, flags, and all that. I've met people who are trans so they can get laid or so they can earn more as prostitutes. The one trans friend I keep in touch with loathes the community because it's toxic according to her.
That is to say, friends are going to be more reasonable because they found their way into your trust. It's a biased sample.
Sure. I agree that friends is a biased sample. But outrage clickbait like LibsOfTikTok is a biased sample as well. I try to read up on things like statistical surveys and opinion polls as a reality check on myself, especially for the national picture.
I don't claim to have a comprehensive view. Just like with games, experiences will differ. That's why I'd like to read up about what others have experienced here, and what they read about. Still, I'm also not convinced that other posters here know more than me, particularly about, say, what things are like in the leftist Bay area or among LGBT people broadly.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 15, 2023, 10:30:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 05:10:38 PM
I have started watching GeekyBugle's LibsOfTikTok links, but it's slow because I mostly post off-time at work, and I can't watch those at work.
I'll continue to watch. However, in general, my view of reality is shaped more by what I've seen for myself and/or investigated independently than by outrage-inducing clickbait videos. I feel that social media often produces a distorted perspective of the world.
That's a logical fallacy, it's the "argument from incredulity", you haven't seen it in person ergo you can dismiss all evidence that refutes your preconceptions. It's a very common "argument" among the Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists.
I could dig hundreds of videos from LibsofTikTok and GaysAgainstGroomers and you would find a way to dismiss them, so what's the point of doing so?
I'm not dismissing the contents of videos. However, what the contents of the videos doesn't dismiss the rest of my life experience. So I'm trying to learn more to broaden out my experience - which includes the videos but also includes other information sources. If some sources are contradictory -- then I have to try to resolve them.
As I said, I believe and I'm completely against events documented in the videos like the Caba Baba Rave in the UK. There are parents out there who will take their kids to such events, and I support laws to shut such down, based on the sexuality of the performances.
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 12:40:10 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 15, 2023, 12:29:57 PM
Um, you forgot to highlight topless, dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers, as part of the definition, none of which have an impersonation modifier and thus is applicable to both male and female performers. If you are going to focus on definitions, use all of the criteria instead of cherry picking the parts you want to focus on.
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
You're splitting hairs. Statutory language is never perfect and is always subject to interpretation in caselaw.
Besides, the complete definition nails 99% of the objectionable material and also says "or similar entertainers".
thank you for making my point for me. english is not my native language, and
legal english is a special kind of fucked up i'm told. still, for what it's worth, how anyone would be able to read the definition in the bill in question as anti drag in any shape or form is beyond me.
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 03:23:04 PM
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
I see that my favorite shaved gerbil is wriggling even more frenetically.
QuoteIn the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
And look at those goalposts move!!
Quote
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Glad to see that you agree with me once confronted with the actual law.
See, the TRUTH will set you free!
Greetings!
*Laughing* "The Shaved Gerbil"!!!
So funny Jeff! The TRUTH will set you free! I love that, too. It is hilarious watching the shaved gerbil dance and wriggle!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I wish it wasn't so funny. I'm a conservative leaning libertarian and I used to have these really enjoyable debates and arguments with classical liberals. I miss that. This bunch currently aren't liberal, but leftist with the main Hallmark of their identity being intellectual dishonesty and the belief that anything goes as long as you are ramming "the message" down other people's throats.
You can't engage in an honest conversation with a leftist because they will lie to make their point look sound and sane. All you can do is mock them and call them out on their most egregious lies, and the return investment of fun when doing that keeps shrinking because by consistently lying the leftists are doing your work for you.
Leftists hate channels like LibsofTikTok because it holds up a mirror to their behavior and shows how mentally and emotionally unhinged they are.
I'd like to see more classical liberals and fewer leftists.
Until then, I just get to kick around shaved gerbils.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 04:06:27 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 03:23:04 PM
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
I see that my favorite shaved gerbil is wriggling even more frenetically.
QuoteIn the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
And look at those goalposts move!!
Quote
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Glad to see that you agree with me once confronted with the actual law.
See, the TRUTH will set you free!
Greetings!
*Laughing* "The Shaved Gerbil"!!!
So funny Jeff! The TRUTH will set you free! I love that, too. It is hilarious watching the shaved gerbil dance and wriggle!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I wish it wasn't so funny. I'm a conservative leaning libertarian and I used to have these really enjoyable debates and arguments with classical liberals. I miss that. This bunch currently aren't liberal, but leftist with the main Hallmark of their identity being intellectual dishonesty and the belief that anything goes as long as you are ramming "the message" down other people's throats.
You can't engage in an honest conversation with a leftist because they will lie to make their point look sound and sane. All you can do is mock them and call them out on their most egregious lies, and the return investment of fun when doing that keeps shrinking because by consistently lying the leftists are doing your work for you.
Leftists hate channels like LibsofTikTok because it holds up a mirror to their behavior and shows how mentally and emotionally unhinged they are.
I'd like to see more classical liberals and fewer leftists.
Until then, I just get to kick around shaved gerbils.
Greetings!
Indeed, Jeff. The more traditional "Classical" Liberal is a thing of the past. I remember reading some article where the Leftist Marxists in the Democrat Party proclaimed that they must cleanse the party of the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats. You remember Blue Dog Democrats?
See though, back in the day, such "Classical Liberals" were often Christians, patriotic, and educated, rational, and honest. They weren't Woke fucking Communists. However, as much as people lament the absence o such Liberals, it should be remembered that it was THEM that tolerated and welcomed the proto-Woke Marxists into their camp. THEY coddled the freaks, the activists, the rebels, the misfits, the nutjobs. They celebrated them, and embraced them into their midst, and pushed their acceptance by society, even if they did not always agree with them on tone, ethics, or government policies.
It's just like with Anna Kasparian's recent wakening to the Leftist insanity--and pushed back against the Rainbow people because she is a WOMAN. Now, she has become offended and alarmed. That's nice, but honestly, too fucking bad. Too little, too late. She has been a hardcore Leftist for many years. Now that the Leftist mob is starting to eat their own and attack WOMEN, she decides to wake up now? I don't have any sympathy. It just shows how intellectually and morally corrupt and bankrupt that Leftists are, and ultimately, Liberals are morally weak as well. Their world view allows for and requires that they embrace the freaks.
I understand your missing such classical Liberals, but when you really understand the deep, inherent flaws to the Liberal ideology--it is doomed, and such a time of reasonableness and rationality was a sand castle on the beach--soon to be but a moment in time, until it was washed away in the growing insanity. What is the deep flaw? Well, there are several facets, but a central element is the exaltation of the Individual and Individual Freedom is more important than anything else. Religion, family, tradition, whatever. It is the unrestrained exaltation of Hyper Individualism, as a rebellious, atheistic-inspired philosophy that ultimately doomed, because it is a corrupt ideology. The doors are always open to the rebel, the freak, and the scheming, narcissistic hedonist.
This process can be seen throughout the Democrat Party and Liberalism going back 200 years, with the French Revolution. Every 20 to 50 years or so, some new "Liberal" outrage would be embraced as the new norm, and the new pet cause to promote onto society. Step by step, the government, the academic institutions, entertainment, and so on, have all been weakened and eroded. That base line weakness made them prime, soft meat to be infected and corrupted by Marxism.
Even now, the whole world is gradually rejecting Liberalism, and embracing Civilizational and Ethnic Identity, a more conservative return to the ancient and trusted values of Culture, Faith, Nationalism, Tradition, and Family. A whole shifting of embracing genuine Identity against the concepts of ideology in general, and ideological Liberalism in particular. A Civilizational Identity.
The "Classical" Liberal was never a permanent fixture, but was always ultimately temporary.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 05:16:27 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 04:06:27 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 15, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 03:23:04 PM
So we're from screaming "YOU'RE LYING" to now saying that the exact language of the law isn't important and it's OK if it lets through some heterosexual displays?
I see that my favorite shaved gerbil is wriggling even more frenetically.
QuoteIn the big picture, I am skeptical about knowing for sure about what all the problems are. Tennessee according to its own agencies admits a huge problem of child abuse by parents -- just like with every other state. As they define:
QuoteThere were more than 163,000 reports of abuse to Child Protective Services in 2022, and over 70,000 cases or assessments were opened based on those initial reports. The agency's budget allows for 832 case managers, and state law allows 20 open cases per case manager at a time.
Source: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/jun/06/study-tennessee-child-abuse-tfp
And look at those goalposts move!!
Quote
I believe that there are inappropriate and/or abusive leftist parents who should be investigated and restricted in what they can legally do. I support laws to restrict performances, just that they should be defined to make heterosexual displays just as illegal as LGBT ones.
Glad to see that you agree with me once confronted with the actual law.
See, the TRUTH will set you free!
Greetings!
*Laughing* "The Shaved Gerbil"!!!
So funny Jeff! The TRUTH will set you free! I love that, too. It is hilarious watching the shaved gerbil dance and wriggle!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I wish it wasn't so funny. I'm a conservative leaning libertarian and I used to have these really enjoyable debates and arguments with classical liberals. I miss that. This bunch currently aren't liberal, but leftist with the main Hallmark of their identity being intellectual dishonesty and the belief that anything goes as long as you are ramming "the message" down other people's throats.
You can't engage in an honest conversation with a leftist because they will lie to make their point look sound and sane. All you can do is mock them and call them out on their most egregious lies, and the return investment of fun when doing that keeps shrinking because by consistently lying the leftists are doing your work for you.
Leftists hate channels like LibsofTikTok because it holds up a mirror to their behavior and shows how mentally and emotionally unhinged they are.
I'd like to see more classical liberals and fewer leftists.
Until then, I just get to kick around shaved gerbils.
Greetings!
Indeed, Jeff. The more traditional "Classical" Liberal is a thing of the past. I remember reading some article where the Leftist Marxists in the Democrat Party proclaimed that they must cleanse the party of the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats. You remember Blue Dog Democrats?
See though, back in the day, such "Classical Liberals" were often Christians, patriotic, and educated, rational, and honest. They weren't Woke fucking Communists. However, as much as people lament the absence o such Liberals, it should be remembered that it was THEM that tolerated and welcomed the proto-Woke Marxists into their camp. THEY coddled the freaks, the activists, the rebels, the misfits, the nutjobs. They celebrated them, and embraced them into their midst, and pushed their acceptance by society, even if they did not always agree with them on tone, ethics, or government policies.
It's just like with Anna Kasparian's recent wakening to the Leftist insanity--and pushed back against the Rainbow people because she is a WOMAN. Now, she has become offended and alarmed. That's nice, but honestly, too fucking bad. Too little, too late. She has been a hardcore Leftist for many years. Now that the Leftist mob is starting to eat their own and attack WOMEN, she decides to wake up now? I don't have any sympathy. It just shows how intellectually and morally corrupt and bankrupt that Leftists are, and ultimately, Liberals are morally weak as well. Their world view allows for and requires that they embrace the freaks.
I understand your missing such classical Liberals, but when you really understand the deep, inherent flaws to the Liberal ideology--it is doomed, and such a time of reasonableness and rationality was a sand castle on the beach--soon to be but a moment in time, until it was washed away in the growing insanity. What is the deep flaw? Well, there are several facets, but a central element is the exaltation of the Individual and Individual Freedom is more important than anything else. Religion, family, tradition, whatever. It is the unrestrained exaltation of Hyper Individualism, as a rebellious, atheistic-inspired philosophy that ultimately doomed, because it is a corrupt ideology. The doors are always open to the rebel, the freak, and the scheming, narcissistic hedonist.
This process can be seen throughout the Democrat Party and Liberalism going back 200 years, with the French Revolution. Every 20 to 50 years or so, some new "Liberal" outrage would be embraced as the new norm, and the new pet cause to promote onto society. Step by step, the government, the academic institutions, entertainment, and so on, have all been weakened and eroded. That base line weakness made them prime, soft meat to be infected and corrupted by Marxism.
Even now, the whole world is gradually rejecting Liberalism, and embracing Civilizational and Ethnic Identity, a more conservative return to the ancient and trusted values of Culture, Faith, Nationalism, Tradition, and Family. A whole shifting of embracing genuine Identity against the concepts of ideology in general, and ideological Liberalism in particular. A Civilizational Identity.
The "Classical" Liberal was never a permanent fixture, but was always ultimately temporary.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Summer grasses
Of heroes dreams
All that remains.
- Matsuo Basho
An apt description for the ephemeral nature you ascribe to liberalism.
Greetings!
Damn, Jeff! When did you get into poetry? I like that, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
More resistance from PARENTS against the fucking Rainbow Flag and Tranny BS.
MUSLIM MOMMIES are now also resisting against the Trannies. Awesome video by SALTY CRACKER.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 07:49:53 AM
Greetings!
Damn, Jeff! When did you get into poetry? I like that, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I like poetry. Rudyard Kipling hit it out of the park with his, especially "Tommy".
Quote from: SHARK on June 16, 2023, 08:07:41 AM
Greetings!
More resistance from PARENTS against the fucking Rainbow Flag and Tranny BS.
MUSLIM MOMMIES are now also resisting against the Trannies. Awesome video by SALTY CRACKER.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This one is my favorite - middle school students told to celebrate pride rebelled when it was shoved down their throats.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:01:37 AM
Summer grasses
Of heroes dreams
All that remains.
- Matsuo Basho
Damn, I felt this one.
Trannies are a demographic that are 100% with serious psycological disorders such as schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, 90% +/- with hard substance abuse problems, over 70% with violent crime rate convictions, and over 60% conviction rate of crimes of a sexual nature (including pedophilia but I don't know the specific stat for that one) and here we are having a discussion about whether the laws to try and keep them away from kids is fair to them.
WTF happened? Why did the left become this twisted?
Quote from: Klava on June 16, 2023, 03:06:02 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 12:40:10 PM
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
You're splitting hairs. Statutory language is never perfect and is always subject to interpretation in caselaw.
Besides, the complete definition nails 99% of the objectionable material and also says "or similar entertainers".
thank you for making my point for me. english is not my native language, and legal english is a special kind of fucked up i'm told. still, for what it's worth, how anyone would be able to read the definition in the bill in question as anti drag in any shape or form is beyond me.
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad and struck it down. So it's not just me.
I'll restate again my point - the law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag. This means that any show made illegal according to this part of the definition can avoid the law by changing out the performer but keeping the movements, costume, and lyrics identical. So if, say, a college show has a male student dressed up as Jessica Rabbit, it could potentially be banned under the law, but it becomes legal if they substitute a female student doing the exact same thing.
If the intention is protecting young children against sexualized performances, then that's what the law should specify. Including drag in the definition of what is to be banned just reduces support - when sexualized drag performances could be banned for their sexualization rather than for drag.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: Klava on June 16, 2023, 03:06:02 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on June 15, 2023, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 12:40:10 PM
That is true - but that doesn't change the case I outlined. Yes, strippers are banned regardless of heterosexual or LGBT.
However, drag performers are banned when the exact same performance would be legal if done by a non-drag performer.
You're splitting hairs. Statutory language is never perfect and is always subject to interpretation in caselaw.
Besides, the complete definition nails 99% of the objectionable material and also says "or similar entertainers".
thank you for making my point for me. english is not my native language, and legal english is a special kind of fucked up i'm told. still, for what it's worth, how anyone would be able to read the definition in the bill in question as anti drag in any shape or form is beyond me.
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad and struck it down. So it's not just me.
Yes, it is just you. SB3 has only been temporarily stopped while being discussed - not permanently stopped. Nice lie of omission on your part.
Quote from: leftist shaved gerbilI'll restate again my point - the law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag. This means that any show made illegal according to this part of the definition can avoid the law by changing out the performer but keeping the movements, costume, and lyrics identical. So if, say, a college show has a male student dressed up as Jessica Rabbit, it could potentially be banned under the law, but it becomes legal if they substitute a female student doing the exact same thing.
Only if that performance is done in the presence of minors.
You need to read the bill again. This time without trying to figure out ways to lie about it.
Quote from: leftist shaved gerbilIf the intention is protecting young children against sexualized performances, then that's what the law should specify.
Except that is exactly what the law does specify.
Quote from: leftist shaved gerbilIncluding drag in the definition of what is to be banned just reduces support - when sexualized drag performances could be banned for their sexualization rather than for drag.
Do you also advocate for minors to go to strip clubs?
The way you are fighting for kids to be exposed to sexualized performances makes me wonder if you are a NAMBLA supporter.
Quote from: BadApple on June 16, 2023, 11:14:39 AM
Trannies are a demographic that are 100% with serious psycological disorders such as schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, 90% +/- with hard substance abuse problems, over 70% with violent crime rate convictions, and over 60% conviction rate of crimes of a sexual nature (including pedophilia but I don't know the specific stat for that one) and here we are having a discussion about whether the laws to try and keep them away from kids is fair to them.
Where are you getting this? I'm familiar with two studies.
First was a Swedish study that followed 324 sex-reassignment patients from 1973 to 2003 and compared them to a similar non-transgender control sample. Their violent crime rate was 3.6 convictions per 1000 person-years. That is higher than the control group rate of 1.9, but it's still quite low. Sweden has low crime rates. The study noted the increase was from transgender men (i.e. women transitioning to men) who had a higher violent crime rate than non-transgender women. Basically, in this study, all transgender people had similar crime rates to non-transgender men.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
In America, there was a 2020 survey of 298 transgender women aged 16–29 years in Chicago and Boston. The sample is not random. The subjects were a subset of those recruited into a program ("Project LifeSkills") for those at risk of HIV infection. There was no control sample for this group.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854820938420
This group reported 67% ever arrested, though only 23% of arrests being for violent crimes - which would suggest around 15% overall. Also, the conviction rate was around 65%.
That is much higher than the Swedish sample, but again, the sample is from high-crime-rate areas in a population recruited for risk of HIV infection. That's not reasonable to project to all transgender people.
Even if I gave you all the links, what would it matter? You've completely rejected the evidence for arguments so far. As it is, I'm done pretending that any of this part of the conversation is in good faith.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad and struck it down. So it's not just me.
Yes, it is just you. SB3 has only been temporarily stopped while being discussed - not permanently stopped. Nice lie of omission on your part.
Below is from the ruling itself.
Quote from: Judge Thomas ParkerAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/06/03/federal-judge-overturns-tennessees-ban-on-drag-shows/
The bolding and all-caps is from the original text.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
I'll restate again my point - the law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag. This means that any show made illegal according to this part of the definition can avoid the law by changing out the performer but keeping the movements, costume, and lyrics identical. So if, say, a college show has a male student dressed up as Jessica Rabbit, it could potentially be banned under the law, but it becomes legal if they substitute a female student doing the exact same thing.
Only if that performance is done in the presence of minors.
You need to read the bill again. This time without trying to figure out ways to lie about it.
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Quote from: BadApple on June 16, 2023, 03:32:37 PM
Even if I gave you all the links, what would it matter? You've completely rejected the evidence for arguments so far. As it is, I'm done pretending that any of this part of the conversation is in good faith.
I have agree with many cases of material that are inappropriate for young children. I have agreed with GeekyBugle about links like the Caba Baba Rave, the 13-year-old dancer video, and others. Young children frequently have access to inappropriately sexual material, and I am opposed to this. I talked about how I was concerned about Internet access for my son -- where I think Internet porn is the elephant in the room as far as inappropriate sexual content. I advocate we should equally condemn heterosexual and LGBT display.
What I don't agree with is targeting all LGBT people and/or all drag, while allowing heterosexual displays in an unequal manner. This isn't a way of protecting young children. It's making this a partisan fight.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 03:50:27 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad and struck it down. So it's not just me.
Yes, it is just you. SB3 has only been temporarily stopped while being discussed - not permanently stopped. Nice lie of omission on your part.
Below is from the ruling itself.
Quote from: Judge Thomas ParkerAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/06/03/federal-judge-overturns-tennessees-ban-on-drag-shows/
The bolding and all-caps is from the original text.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
I'll restate again my point - the law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag. This means that any show made illegal according to this part of the definition can avoid the law by changing out the performer but keeping the movements, costume, and lyrics identical. So if, say, a college show has a male student dressed up as Jessica Rabbit, it could potentially be banned under the law, but it becomes legal if they substitute a female student doing the exact same thing.
Only if that performance is done in the presence of minors.
You need to read the bill again. This time without trying to figure out ways to lie about it.
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Care tro point exactly where in the law it says that if it's not drag then it's okay?
Because I don't see it, as a matter of fact I see quite the opposite.
Quote
HOUSE BILL 9
By Todd
SENATE BILL 3
By Johnson
SB0003
000187
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7,
Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented
performances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subsection:
(c)
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that
was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the
effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and
(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and
enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or
licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).
(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and
applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
You either can't understand what you read or you're wilfully lying.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 05:18:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 03:50:27 PM
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Care tro point exactly where in the law it says that if it's not drag then it's okay?
Because I don't see it, as a matter of fact I see quite the opposite.
What it says in the law is to specifically mention drag as
not okay. If that clause has any effect, it means targeting drag and not non-drag. As you say, an adult cabaret performance is defined as a performance that
"features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers".
A female student singing in Jessica Rabbit cosplay is not a topless dancer, go-go dancer, exotic dancer, or stripper. That leaves two possibilities:
1) They aren't banned under the law.
2) They are banned under the
"similar entertainers" clause, in which case, there was no need for the drag clause in the first place, because a male student doing the same would also be banned by the same logic.
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 03:50:27 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad and struck it down. So it's not just me.
Yes, it is just you. SB3 has only been temporarily stopped while being discussed - not permanently stopped. Nice lie of omission on your part.
Below is from the ruling itself.
Quote from: Judge Thomas ParkerAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/06/03/federal-judge-overturns-tennessees-ban-on-drag-shows/
The bolding and all-caps is from the original text.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
I'll restate again my point - the law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag. This means that any show made illegal according to this part of the definition can avoid the law by changing out the performer but keeping the movements, costume, and lyrics identical. So if, say, a college show has a male student dressed up as Jessica Rabbit, it could potentially be banned under the law, but it becomes legal if they substitute a female student doing the exact same thing.
Only if that performance is done in the presence of minors.
You need to read the bill again. This time without trying to figure out ways to lie about it.
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Tennessee Lookout is an affiliate of States Newsroom which is a known leftist agitprop organization.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/states-newsroom-a-tip-of-the-dark-money-iceberg/
Keep wriggling shaved gerbil......
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:00:15 PM
Tennessee Lookout is an affiliate of States Newsroom which is a known leftist agitprop organization.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/states-newsroom-a-tip-of-the-dark-money-iceberg/
Keep wriggling shaved gerbil......
Do you deny that is what the judge said? Here is the exact same document and quote from courtlistener.com.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf
Here's the same under clearinghouse.net
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
Here is the same from techdirt:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/07/federal-judge-rules-tennessee-anti-drag-law-unconstitutional/
In each of these, the document and language are identical.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:00:15 PM
Tennessee Lookout is an affiliate of States Newsroom which is a known leftist agitprop organization.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/states-newsroom-a-tip-of-the-dark-money-iceberg/
Keep wriggling shaved gerbil......
Do you deny that is what the judge said? Here is the exact same document and quote from courtlistener.com.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf
Here's the same under clearinghouse.net
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
Here is the same from techdirt:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/07/federal-judge-rules-tennessee-anti-drag-law-unconstitutional/
In each of these, the document and language are identical.
The court documents you linked to say that the case is ongoing. Well, except for techdirt.com which is another leftist agitprop site.
Dance, gerbil! Dance!
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:00:15 PM
Tennessee Lookout is an affiliate of States Newsroom which is a known leftist agitprop organization.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/states-newsroom-a-tip-of-the-dark-money-iceberg/
Keep wriggling shaved gerbil......
Do you deny that is what the judge said? Here is the exact same document and quote from courtlistener.com.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf
Here's the same under clearinghouse.net
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
Here is the same from techdirt:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/07/federal-judge-rules-tennessee-anti-drag-law-unconstitutional/
In each of these, the document and language are identical.
The court documents you linked to say that the case is ongoing. Well, except for techdirt.com which is another leftist agitprop site.
Dance, gerbil! Dance!
I go to the first link (courtlistener.com). I open up the PDF document, which is 70 pages. It has across the top of page 1:
QuoteCase 2:23-cv-02163-TLP-tmp Document 91 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1394
On page two of the PDF, I see the following text as the conclusion of the opening section:
QuoteAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
What do you see when you open this PDF document?
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 05:18:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 03:50:27 PM
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Care tro point exactly where in the law it says that if it's not drag then it's okay?
Because I don't see it, as a matter of fact I see quite the opposite.
What it says in the law is to specifically mention drag as not okay. If that clause has any effect, it means targeting drag and not non-drag. As you say, an adult cabaret performance is defined as a performance that "features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers".
A female student singing in Jessica Rabbit cosplay is not a topless dancer, go-go dancer, exotic dancer, or stripper. That leaves two possibilities:
1) They aren't banned under the law.
2) They are banned under the "similar entertainers" clause, in which case, there was no need for the drag clause in the first place, because a male student doing the same would also be banned by the same logic.
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
I never said it didn't target Drag, I said it wasn't ONLY targetting Drag, which you assert it does.
Quote"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), go-go dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), exotic dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), strippers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not),
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
IANAL but, with the little knowledge I have about laws I think that "or similar entertainers" DOES cover anyone doing a performance "that appeals to a prurient interest" but not in Drag.
A law is better the les ambiguous it is, so I think including all the categories they did is fine, I also think it does cover Jessica Rabit (weird obsession you have there).
So, having proven that it DOESN'T single out Drag, and since you yourself KNOW the "similar entertainers" bit covers shows not on Drag (as proven by your post) I see no reason why you would still be against the law.
Unless you think that Drag should be exempt from the law for some reason? Maybe you think the Degenerates are really angels in disguise incapable of doing no evil? Or maybe it's a partisan position? IDK.
What I do KNOW is that you have no argument left.
Regarding the "Trump appointed judge" you mean like the other Trump appointed judges that have voted against conservative positions? Kavanaugh too IIRC. You mention who appointed him as if that proves anything, you think Trump is an infallible judge of character? I mean he listened to Fauci, or the General that lied to him about the troops on Afghanistan?
So I don't see why WHO appointed the judge is of ANY relevance whatsoever.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:29:36 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 06:00:15 PM
Tennessee Lookout is an affiliate of States Newsroom which is a known leftist agitprop organization.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/states-newsroom-a-tip-of-the-dark-money-iceberg/
Keep wriggling shaved gerbil......
Do you deny that is what the judge said? Here is the exact same document and quote from courtlistener.com.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf
Here's the same under clearinghouse.net
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
Here is the same from techdirt:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/07/federal-judge-rules-tennessee-anti-drag-law-unconstitutional/
In each of these, the document and language are identical.
The court documents you linked to say that the case is ongoing. Well, except for techdirt.com which is another leftist agitprop site.
Dance, gerbil! Dance!
I go to the first link (courtlistener.com). I open up the PDF document, which is 70 pages. It has across the top of page 1:
QuoteCase 2:23-cv-02163-TLP-tmp Document 91 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1394
On page two of the PDF, I see the following text as the conclusion of the opening section:
QuoteAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
What do you see when you open this PDF document?
So why does the summary dated June 6 call this a preliminary hearing and the case ongoing?
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
I think that you need more experience reading court documents there, professor.
I'll just sit back sipping bourbon and watch the shaved gerbil gyrate.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 07:13:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:29:36 PM
I go to the first link (courtlistener.com). I open up the PDF document, which is 70 pages. It has across the top of page 1:
QuoteCase 2:23-cv-02163-TLP-tmp Document 91 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1394
On page two of the PDF, I see the following text as the conclusion of the opening section:
QuoteAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
What do you see when you open this PDF document?
So why does the summary dated June 6 call this a preliminary hearing and the case ongoing?
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
I think that you need more experience reading court documents there, professor.
I'll just sit back sipping bourbon and watch the shaved gerbil gyrate.
So you agree that what I posted were, in fact, the actual words and ruling of Judge Parker in his 6/2/23 ruling, right? That the different sites that you accused of lying were also accurately posting his 70-page ruling, yes?
Now you give the clearinghouse.net URL and ask about the summary dated June 6. I go to the link. At the top there is a "
Case Summary" that starts with "In 2022, Jackson Pride attempted". At the bottom, this lists "Summary Authors" as "Sophia Weaver (4/4/2023)" and "Simran Takhar (6/5/2023)". This summary concludes with:
QuoteAfter the parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, the court held a bench trial on May 22-23, 2023. After trial, on June 2, 2023, it issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It held that, despite the state's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children, the Act was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. Finding that plaintiff had standing to bring this lawsuit, the court applied strict scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of the Act. Under that analysis, it concluded that the Act was not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting minors, citing the Act's lack of affirmative defenses, silence on a scienter requirement, novel punitive scheme, and overbroad geographical scope. It further held that the Act was unconstitutionally vague and substantially broad, failed to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct, encouraged discriminatory enforcement, and chilled "a large amount of speech." The court therefore declared the Act an unconstitutional restriction on speech and permanently enjoined its enforcement within the defendant's jurisdiction of Shelby County, Tennessee.
This is what you cited.
I'm not saying you have to agree with the judge, but I accurately reported what he said, and said the same thing as the summary you're citing.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 08:34:09 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 16, 2023, 07:13:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 06:29:36 PM
I go to the first link (courtlistener.com). I open up the PDF document, which is 70 pages. It has across the top of page 1:
QuoteCase 2:23-cv-02163-TLP-tmp Document 91 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1394
On page two of the PDF, I see the following text as the conclusion of the opening section:
QuoteAfter considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite Tennessee's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children—the Adult Entertainment Act ("AEA") is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on the freedom of speech and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendant Steven Mulroy from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.
What do you see when you open this PDF document?
So why does the summary dated June 6 call this a preliminary hearing and the case ongoing?
https://clearinghouse.net/case/44081/
I think that you need more experience reading court documents there, professor.
I'll just sit back sipping bourbon and watch the shaved gerbil gyrate.
So you agree that what I posted were, in fact, the actual words and ruling of Judge Parker in his 6/2/23 ruling, right? That the different sites that you accused of lying were also accurately posting his 70-page ruling, yes?
Now you give the clearinghouse.net URL and ask about the summary dated June 6. I go to the link. At the top there is a "Case Summary" that starts with "In 2022, Jackson Pride attempted". At the bottom, this lists "Summary Authors" as "Sophia Weaver (4/4/2023)" and "Simran Takhar (6/5/2023)". This summary concludes with:
QuoteAfter the parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, the court held a bench trial on May 22-23, 2023. After trial, on June 2, 2023, it issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It held that, despite the state's compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children, the Act was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. Finding that plaintiff had standing to bring this lawsuit, the court applied strict scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of the Act. Under that analysis, it concluded that the Act was not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting minors, citing the Act's lack of affirmative defenses, silence on a scienter requirement, novel punitive scheme, and overbroad geographical scope. It further held that the Act was unconstitutionally vague and substantially broad, failed to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct, encouraged discriminatory enforcement, and chilled "a large amount of speech." The court therefore declared the Act an unconstitutional restriction on speech and permanently enjoined its enforcement within the defendant's jurisdiction of Shelby County, Tennessee.
This is what you cited.
I'm not saying you have to agree with the judge, but I accurately reported what he said, and said the same thing as the summary you're citing.
Hate to point this out to you professor shaved gerbil, but Shelby County is not the entirety of Tennessee and a higher court can overturn a lower court ruling.
QuoteCase Ongoing.
Leftism has obviously damaged your cognitive functions.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad
fair enough. not the way i'd have read it, but if an actual federal judge is against the law then as a dude from far away land i'll defer to that.
Quotethe law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag.
you are splitting hairs, as been pointed out already, but okay, it does specifically name drag, i'll give you that. it also specifically names strippers, exotic dancers and a bunch of others - does that discriminate against some groups making it "unnecessarily broad" in your opinion? you have to name something in the law, right? how exactly do you name a group of people without naming them?
irrespective of the the above, let's say if "male or female impersonators" part was removed from the definition - it is redundant anyway, on that we do agree i hope - would the law be okay in your opinion? because it would still ban the bloody drag.
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad
fair enough. not the way i'd have read it, but if an actual federal judge is against the law then as a dude from far away land i'll defer to that.
Quotethe law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag.
you are splitting hairs, as been pointed out already, but okay, it does specifically name drag, i'll give you that. it also specifically names strippers, exotic dancers and a bunch of others - does that discriminate against some groups making it "unnecessarily broad" in your opinion? you have to name something in the law, right? how exactly do you name a group of people without naming them?
irrespective of the the above, let's say if "male or female impersonators" part was removed from the definition - it is redundant anyway, on that we do agree i hope - would the law be okay in your opinion? because it would still ban the bloody drag.
It's not that complicated.
They just wanna mess with and diddle kids.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 17, 2023, 08:41:10 AM
They just wanna mess with and diddle kids.
[spoler]i know[/spoiler]
p.s. how the eff there's no
Spoiler
tag on this board? ???
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 05:58:55 PM
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
I never said it didn't target Drag, I said it wasn't ONLY targetting Drag, which you assert it does.
I said it targets drag compared to to an identical non-drag performance. i.e. Two theaters do identical shows - let's say acting and singing in a lewd comedy. One has drag performers, one has non-drag performers doing the same thing. Since drag is named in the definition to be banned, the law more squarely targets the drag version. Being named as banned is worse than not being named.
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is
inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 05:58:55 PM
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
I never said it didn't target Drag, I said it wasn't ONLY targetting Drag, which you assert it does.
I said it targets drag compared to to an identical non-drag performance. i.e. Two theaters do identical shows - let's say acting and singing in a lewd comedy. One has drag performers, one has non-drag performers doing the same thing. Since drag is named in the definition to be banned, the law more squarely targets the drag version. Being named as banned is worse than not being named.
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
OK, groomer.
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad
fair enough. not the way i'd have read it, but if an actual federal judge is against the law then as a dude from far away land i'll defer to that.
Reasonable people can disagree with the judge. But I'm not lying about his ruling, and this ruling isn't radical queer pedophilia, as some posters are implying. He's a conservative, Trump-appointed Tennessee judge. That doesn't mean he's right - but the name-calling over this position is off-base.
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PMthe law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag.
you are splitting hairs, as been pointed out already, but okay, it does specifically name drag, i'll give you that. it also specifically names strippers, exotic dancers and a bunch of others - does that discriminate against some groups making it "unnecessarily broad" in your opinion? you have to name something in the law, right? how exactly do you name a group of people without naming them?
irrespective of the the above, let's say if "male or female impersonators" part was removed from the definition - it is redundant anyway, on that we do agree i hope - would the law be okay in your opinion? because it would still ban the bloody drag.
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
In the big picture, everyone I know who has a daughter has been concerned about early sexualization in their pre-teens -- seen in the clothes they wear, videos they watch, songs they listen to, etc. The majority of that is heterosexual material, but some of it is also LGBT. Child abuse remains a huge problem. For example, the anti-child-marriage group that I belong to (Unchained at Last) isn't partisan left/right. It is a common cause:
https://www.unchainedatlast.org/
There are a lot of Democrats who will support efforts to reduce child abuse, child marriage, and child sexualization. However, they will be opposed to it if it unequally targets LGBT people.
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
fair enough. not the way i'd have read it, but if an actual federal judge is against the law then as a dude from far away land i'll defer to that.
Reasonable people can disagree with the judge. But I'm not lying about his ruling, and this ruling isn't radical queer pedophilia, as some posters are implying. He's a conservative, Trump-appointed Tennessee judge. That doesn't mean he's right - but the name-calling over this position is off-base.
it seems i phailed at english again. because nothing i posted in that particular passage was meant as name-calling. i just re-read it a few times, and, honestly, i can't figure out what brought this on, so let me re-post it in as plain a language as i can master:
i do disagree with the judge, but i also genuinely think that my perspective as a foreigner is probably not good here, so i defer to his opinion. no irony, no strings attached.
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
you keep splitting hairs. everybody and his mother in law knows what kind of drag we are talking about here - it's the only kind that's really alive today, the "highly sexualized" one. since we are talking about laws here now, i guess nuances of the language do matter, but when it comes to kids and their education, personally i'd rather err on the side of caution, even if it means stepping on some toes.
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PM
Klava - just to inform you... Judge Thomas Parker is a federal judge who was appointed by Trump. When a Tennessee drag theater (called "Friends of George's") sued against the law, Judge Parker found the law to be unconstitutionally broad
fair enough. not the way i'd have read it, but if an actual federal judge is against the law then as a dude from far away land i'll defer to that.
Reasonable people can disagree with the judge. But I'm not lying about his ruling, and this ruling isn't radical queer pedophilia, as some posters are implying. He's a conservative, Trump-appointed Tennessee judge. That doesn't mean he's right - but the name-calling over this position is off-base.
Quote from: Klava on June 17, 2023, 04:42:49 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 12:02:59 PMthe law defines "adult cabaret performance" in part by "male or female impersonators" - i.e. drag.
you are splitting hairs, as been pointed out already, but okay, it does specifically name drag, i'll give you that. it also specifically names strippers, exotic dancers and a bunch of others - does that discriminate against some groups making it "unnecessarily broad" in your opinion? you have to name something in the law, right? how exactly do you name a group of people without naming them?
irrespective of the the above, let's say if "male or female impersonators" part was removed from the definition - it is redundant anyway, on that we do agree i hope - would the law be okay in your opinion? because it would still ban the bloody drag.
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
In the big picture, everyone I know who has a daughter has been concerned about early sexualization in their pre-teens -- seen in the clothes they wear, videos they watch, songs they listen to, etc. The majority of that is heterosexual material, but some of it is also LGBT. Child abuse remains a huge problem. For example, the anti-child-marriage group that I belong to (Unchained at Last) isn't partisan left/right. It is a common cause:
https://www.unchainedatlast.org/
There are a lot of Democrats who will support efforts to reduce child abuse, child marriage, and child sexualization. However, they will be opposed to it if it unequally targets LGBT people.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Quote from: UK Mail Article
Tennessee Tech is slammed for putting on campus drag show mocking Christianity with star dressed as a Catholic monk - while children handed him money
By Vanessa Serna For Dailymail.com
Tennessee Tech University is criticized after the theater department put on an on-campus drag show mocking Christianity with children present
Children were caught on camera rushing to the front of the stage to gift the performer with cash throughout the set
Landon Starbuck posted the video on Twitter and rebuked the mockery while warning parents to be aware of what their tuition money supports
Phil Oldham, president of the campus, was unaware the show occurred and called the department, dubbed Backdoor Playhouse, out for hosting the show
Parents were quick to call school officials 'groomers' for allowing the event to occur
A Tennessee university has been slammed for putting on a campus drag show that mocked Christianity as little kids gave money to performers.
Tennessee Tech University's theater team, dubbed Backdoor Playhouse, hosted a Christianity-themed drag show with the star dressed as a Catholic monk before stripping down to a corset and stockings.
Landon Starbuck posted the video on Twitter and called out the mockery towards Christians as children rushed up to the stage to hand the drag queen money.
'Tennessee Tech University hosted a drag show that had little kids handing cash to the drag queen who was performing a dance meant to mock Christians,' Starbuck wrote.
'Every parent who pays to send their kids to Tennessee Tech deserves to know that this is what they're allowing on campus.'
The video has received more than 270,000 views since it went viral on September 7 and caught the awareness of Phil Oldham, the school's president, who was oblivious that the show occurred.
'I am disturbed and dismayed about the activities in a video circulating on social media from a recent event on Tennessee Tech's campus. I do not feel the activities in the video represent Tech's values, and I do not condone explicit activity where minors are present,' Oldham wrote in a statement on Thursday.
Commenters were quick to call out the school calling the video 'sickening' while others referred to them as 'groomers.'
The start of the video is what appears to be the opening of the set with the drag queen coming out from behind stage curtains lip-syncing the 2013 hit Take Me to Church by Hozier.
'YESS!' an ecstatic crowd can be heard screaming in the background.
Within seconds kids are seen heading to the stage to hand over cash as the performer drops the money and does the sign of the cross.
The video transitions to Elley Duhé's upbeat hit Middle of the Night as the performer prepares to take off the religious attire by the downbeat.
As soon as his monk rob came off, the audience cheered and more younger children rushed to the front of the stage.
Audience members continued to cheer through multiple songs of the drag queen dancing while taking off more clothing.
More kids were carried by their parents to the front of the stage as the drag queen's clothes came off
More pieces of clothing came off throughout the set
Some Tennessee residents were angered the university allowed the show to occur on campus.
'This is not acceptable in our state, we need [Oldham] to step up and end this now,' one person said on Twitter.
Another added, 'Drag shows should not have minors at them. It is an adult situation and that those are the only people that should be there.'
Other commenters were quick to call school officials 'groomers' while claiming the state supports 'pedophilia.'
'This is disgusting, perverted and highly offensive Tennessee Tech. I wouldn't have figured you for groomers, but here we are, not a good look, you perverts.'
Another wrote, 'What is the matter with these people. Sickness and demonic in nature.'
'Just plain sick - and with children even. I'm gay and this really disgusts me.'
'No one cares about the drag show, it's the children being groomed by encouraging them to give money to an adult who is giving an inherently sexual performance. That is the issue here. Groomers using LGBT as a Trojan horse.'
President Oldham assured his school community that the show did not represent the belief's of Tennessee Tech University.
'I also am offended by disparaging mockery toward any religious group. To be clear, this was not a university sponsored event. No university funds were used. Two registered student groups facilitated the scheduling and promotion of the event.
Tennessee Tech President Phil Oldham condemned the show and the mockery towards Christianity
Tennessee Tech President Phil Oldham condemned the show and the mockery towards Christianity
'Although registered student organizations have the ability to reserve space on campus, the programming should not include obscene, lewd or explicit activities.'
Oldham said an investigation looking into the event is underway and all events scheduled by 'these sponsoring organizations are cancelled pending review.'
RELATED ARTICLES
Republican lawmaker slams 'kid-friendly' drag show in Texas where armed Antifa protesters turned up: 'We need to protect children from any sexualization'
'I didn't see anything outrageous but even if that was the case, was anybody forced to attend? Were children present against their parents' wishes,' one Twitter user wrote.
Another added, 'All this over a theatrical performance with no nudity or profanity? How can a college have a president who does not understand free speech, diversity, equity, inclusion and performance art?'
The Backdoor Playhouse didn't respond to DailyMail.com for a comment.
But shortly after Oldham's message, the crew updated their Facebook status.
'Pride isn't a thing we do one month out of the year. It's part of our core principles here at Backdoor Playhouse. It's our culture and our identity. It's us!
'To all our LBGTQ+ friends: We love you! We see you! We stand with you!'
Some people were infuriated the show occurred in the conservative state of Tennessee while others did not mind
Some people were infuriated the show occurred in the conservative state of Tennessee while others did not mind
Share or comment on this article:Tennessee Tech is slammed for putting on a campus drag show mocking Christianity with kids present
Sorry for the formatting. I'm using a phone.
EDIT: Fixed the wall of text.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
In this case, the issue of kids seeing sexualized lipsynching is complicated by controversy over the mockery of Catholic practice.
I've read up more about it from some news articles here:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/tennessee-tech-probing-campus-drag-show-mocking-christianity.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-drag-was-pushed-back-into-shadows-tennessee-2023-03-25/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252259/drag-show-tennessee-tech-blasted-for-mocking-catholic-faith
https://www.thefire.org/news/tennessee-tech-still-investigating-enforcing-event-ban-lgbtq-and-theater-groups-hosted-drag
FIRE, the org in the last link, is most commonly involved in free speech fights to keep conservative speakers on campus who are being attacked by left-leaning students -- but in this case they are defending the LGBT student organizations' rights after they were censured over the video. I generally support FIRE, but I'm not endorsing everything they say here.
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 05:58:55 PM
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
I never said it didn't target Drag, I said it wasn't ONLY targetting Drag, which you assert it does.
I said it targets drag compared to to an identical non-drag performance. i.e. Two theaters do identical shows - let's say acting and singing in a lewd comedy. One has drag performers, one has non-drag performers doing the same thing. Since drag is named in the definition to be banned, the law more squarely targets the drag version. Being named as banned is worse than not being named.
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
I wonder WHY did you cut parts of the quote?
could it be I destroyed that "argument" but you need it to keep lying about the law?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 16, 2023, 05:18:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 16, 2023, 03:50:27 PM
From SB003:
QuoteIt is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
If the show is at a state university, it is on public property and the law applies - regardless of the presence or possible presence of 17-year-olds or younger. Even if the students find a private venue, it could still be a crime even if no 17-year-old is present, if it was possible a 17-year-old might see it.
That is, unless they have a female student play Jessica Rabbit. Then they're OK.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, my point is that such a law should be based on exposure of sexualized performances to young children. By having "male or female impersonators" be part of the definition of what is banned, it is targeting based on whether a performance is drag or not - not the sexuality. I would want to shut down things like the Caba Baba Rave from sexualized performances, while the law bans based on drag.
Care tro point exactly where in the law it says that if it's not drag then it's okay?
Because I don't see it, as a matter of fact I see quite the opposite.
What it says in the law is to specifically mention drag as not okay. If that clause has any effect, it means targeting drag and not non-drag. As you say, an adult cabaret performance is defined as a performance that "features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers".
A female student singing in Jessica Rabbit cosplay is not a topless dancer, go-go dancer, exotic dancer, or stripper. That leaves two possibilities:
1) They aren't banned under the law.
2) They are banned under the "similar entertainers" clause, in which case, there was no need for the drag clause in the first place, because a male student doing the same would also be banned by the same logic.
Is it really such a stretch that a law that puts "male or female impersonators" into its list of performances to be banned is intended to target such?
I never said it didn't target Drag, I said it wasn't ONLY targetting Drag, which you assert it does.
Quote"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), go-go dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), exotic dancers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), strippers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not),
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers (no gender & regardless of Drag or not), regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;
IANAL but, with the little knowledge I have about laws I think that "or similar entertainers" DOES cover anyone doing a performance "that appeals to a prurient interest" but not in Drag.
A law is better the les ambiguous it is, so I think including all the categories they did is fine, I also think it does cover Jessica Rabit (weird obsession you have there).
So, having proven that it DOESN'T single out Drag, and since you yourself KNOW the "similar entertainers" bit covers shows not on Drag (as proven by your post) I see no reason why you would still be against the law.
Unless you think that Drag should be exempt from the law for some reason? Maybe you think the Degenerates are really angels in disguise incapable of doing no evil? Or maybe it's a partisan position? IDK.
What I do KNOW is that you have no argument left.
Regarding the "Trump appointed judge" you mean like the other Trump appointed judges that have voted against conservative positions? Kavanaugh too IIRC. You mention who appointed him as if that proves anything, you think Trump is an infallible judge of character? I mean he listened to Fauci, or the General that lied to him about the troops on Afghanistan?
So I don't see why WHO appointed the judge is of ANY relevance whatsoever.
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
In this case, the issue of kids seeing sexualized lipsynching is complicated by controversy over the mockery of Catholic practice.
I've read up more about it from some news articles here:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/tennessee-tech-probing-campus-drag-show-mocking-christianity.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-drag-was-pushed-back-into-shadows-tennessee-2023-03-25/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252259/drag-show-tennessee-tech-blasted-for-mocking-catholic-faith
https://www.thefire.org/news/tennessee-tech-still-investigating-enforcing-event-ban-lgbtq-and-theater-groups-hosted-drag
FIRE, the org in the last link, is most commonly involved in free speech fights to keep conservative speakers on campus who are being attacked by left-leaning students -- but in this case they are defending the LGBT student organizations' rights after they were censured over the video. I generally support FIRE, but I'm not endorsing everything they say here.
As a Christian, people can mock whatever they like, I don't have to give them my money or time.
Wonder if the "Stunning & Brave" assholes who mock CHristianity only on days that end with a Y would do so with Islam tho.
A law isn't going to fix this.
They need to be afraid of the consequences.
Greetings!
Mocking Christianity. Fuck them. Let them be bathed in napalm.
Gee, do you notice how everyone is sure to be respectful of Islam? I wonder why that is? ;D
Christians should be more like Islam. The scum that mock Christianity should fucking pay a severe price.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
No. Performing this kind of sexualized show in the presence of minors is inappropriate. The performers and venue knew this.
Quote
In this case, the issue of kids seeing sexualized lipsynching is complicated by controversy over the mockery of Catholic practice.
I've read up more about it from some news articles here:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/tennessee-tech-probing-campus-drag-show-mocking-christianity.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-drag-was-pushed-back-into-shadows-tennessee-2023-03-25/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252259/drag-show-tennessee-tech-blasted-for-mocking-catholic-faith
https://www.thefire.org/news/tennessee-tech-still-investigating-enforcing-event-ban-lgbtq-and-theater-groups-hosted-drag
FIRE, the org in the last link, is most commonly involved in free speech fights to keep conservative speakers on campus who are being attacked by left-leaning students -- but in this case they are defending the LGBT student organizations' rights after they were censured over the video. I generally support FIRE, but I'm not endorsing everything they say here.
And your bullshit never stops.....
During our back and forth about your deliberate misinterpretation of the law and its status, you never once mentioned religion. Now that you have read the reportage on the incident that brought the law about and see that it was the arrogant stupidity of the drag performers themselves that pissed off enough people to get the attention of local government, you want to move the goalposts so that we are distracted by the mockery of Christianity that also happened.
I'm concerned with behavior that supports grooming kids, I'm not worried about Christianity. Why? Christianity is a big religion, it can take care of itself and has been for thousands of years. Really, just look at the fuckup the LA Dodgers managed to do - Christians up, drag queens down.
Now, I know you'd like me to forget about SB3 and the idiotic mess that drag queens make, but I'm locked in here. Let's keep talking about that TQ+.
Are you "Stunning and Brave" enough to do so with intellectual honesty?
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots.
The reason drag features in those pieces of entertainment is because it's inherently inappropriate. Someone is transgressing against social norms. And that's the point of drag. To transgress against social norms.
QuoteWhat should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
No. What should be named is the transgressive social politics of Drag Queen Story Hour.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
No. Performing this kind of sexualized show in the presence of minors is inappropriate. The performers and venue knew this.
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
All along, this is what I've been saying. The criteria should be equal for LGBT and straight performers.
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
All along, this is what I've been saying. The criteria should be equal for LGBT and straight performers.
No. Drag is, by its very nature, different. As pointed out about, it is socially transgressive, and its roots are sexual in nature. The fact that you want to blind yourself to that does not make it false.
Children should not be encouraged to break rules that they aren't old enough to understand in the first place. But you (and the groomers) want them to, so they can shape those transgressions for political or sexual purposes. Drag shows are inherently both, and
should be singled out. It's that simple.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 02:39:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
OK, groomer.
Thanks for proving that most accusations from people like you are confessions. If your reaction to Mulan, Bugs Bunny and even Victor/Victoria is "OMG! Teh Qweerz R aftur teh KIDZ!" then
you're the one who needs to be kept 501' away from schoolyards. I hope the Amber Alert System is up and running in your area: With creeps like you on the loose, the authorities will need it soon!
Now go play in traffic.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
All along, this is what I've been saying. The criteria should be equal for LGBT and straight performers.
No. Drag is, by its very nature, different. As pointed out about, it is socially transgressive, and its roots are sexual in nature. The fact that you want to blind yourself to that does not make it false.
Children should not be encouraged to break rules that they aren't old enough to understand in the first place. But you (and the groomers) want them to, so they can shape those transgressions for political or sexual purposes. Drag shows are inherently both, and should be singled out. It's that simple.
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does
this really give you sexual urges?
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 04:09:44 PM
The group you are talking about isn't all of drag. If the law was amended, it wouldn't ban the Kinky Boots musical, for example -- because that show is squarely PG. The group being discussed is highly sexualized drag.
Really? Well then let's just take a look at the drag show incident which led to the Tennessee bill being passed and discuss it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11197833/Tennessee-Tech-slammed-putting-campus-drag-mocking-Christianity-kids-present.html#:~:text=Tennessee%20Tech%20is%20slammed%20for%20putting%20on%20campus%20drag%20show,while%20children%20handed%20him%20money
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
No. Performing this kind of sexualized show in the presence of minors is inappropriate. The performers and venue knew this.
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
For minors. You like to keep forgetting that very important distinction.
QuoteThen would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
No, because drag performances rely upon being transgressive as their appeal. They work because men wearing women's clothing is
not normal.
Why you want to normalize the abnormal behavior of a few is why this is grooming and why parents are rightfully concerned about stranger danger to their children. If drag is considered normal and acceptable for minors, it could lead to other crimes where minors are the victims - like felony luggage theft.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11507755/Republicans-demand-non-binary-drag-queen-FIRED-DOE-stealing-womans-luggage.html
Let's use Dylan Mulvaney as an example. His performances are arguably not sexual, but are still very offensive because of how he uses drag to create a caricature of women's behavior. If anything, Dylan Mulvaney's insulting portrayal of womanhood is almost racial in its sterotyping - it isn't 'blackface' in a minstral show, it is 'womanface' in a drag show. Seeing how using Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesmodel for Bud Light has caused a great deal of economic damage to Anheuser-Busch and its distributors, it does appear that drag should be illegal in some cases that don't involve minors....
https://www.outkick.com/anheuser-busch-ceo-brendan-whitworth-bud-light-summer-tour/
QuoteAll along, this is what I've been saying. The criteria should be equal for LGBT and straight performers.
No. You've also tried to move the goalposts when your argument was falling on its ass.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 02:39:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
OK, groomer.
Thanks for proving that most accusations from people like you are confessions. If your reaction to Mulan, Bugs Bunny and even Victor/Victoria is "OMG! Teh Qweerz R aftur teh KIDZ!" then you're the one who needs to be kept 501' away from schoolyards. I hope the Amber Alert System is up and running in your area: With creeps like you on the loose, the authorities will need it soon!
Now go play in traffic.
I was wondering when you would crawl out from underneath your rock again. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? You seem to be very constipated.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
All along, this is what I've been saying. The criteria should be equal for LGBT and straight performers.
No. Drag is, by its very nature, different. As pointed out about, it is socially transgressive, and its roots are sexual in nature. The fact that you want to blind yourself to that does not make it false.
Children should not be encouraged to break rules that they aren't old enough to understand in the first place. But you (and the groomers) want them to, so they can shape those transgressions for political or sexual purposes. Drag shows are inherently both, and should be singled out. It's that simple.
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does this really give you sexual urges?
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
So we all agree tha men wearing women's clothes should be mocked and laughed at...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 03:53:39 PM
So we all agree tha men wearing women's clothes should be mocked and laughed at...
In comedy settings, sure. I don't think it's a good idea to ridicule trannies or fags in public who are minding their own business any more than it's wise to make fun of bald men with toupees (or worse yet, comb-overs), or women with fake tits or fake blond hair.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 03:53:39 PM
So we all agree tha men wearing women's clothes should be mocked and laughed at...
In comedy settings, sure.
How appropriate.
https://www.thewrap.com/john-cleese-monty-python-life-of-brian-loretta-scene/
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 02:39:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
OK, groomer.
Thanks for proving that most accusations from people like you are confessions. If your reaction to Mulan, Bugs Bunny and even Victor/Victoria is "OMG! Teh Qweerz R aftur teh KIDZ!" then you're the one who needs to be kept 501' away from schoolyards. I hope the Amber Alert System is up and running in your area: With creeps like you on the loose, the authorities will need it soon!
Now go play in traffic.
I was wondering when you would crawl out from underneath your rock again. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? You seem to be very constipated.
Friendly reminder that Elfdart is a retard and that the left ALWAYS conflates an innocent or seemingly innocent thing with one that isn't to play bailey and motte with you.
They KNOW what were talking about, they know they have no argument, ergo: OMG Muh Buggs Bunny!
Do not let them distract you or derange the conversation.
More brainwashed nonsense from leftist retards pretending to be erudite and sophisticated. Someone said the world is nothing more than a bad movie, and at this point I'm inclined to agree.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 12:53:58 PM
Children should not be encouraged to break rules that they aren't old enough to understand in the first place. But you (and the groomers) want them to, so they can shape those transgressions for political or sexual purposes. Drag shows are inherently both, and should be singled out. It's that simple.
Dat.
It's about stealing children from their parents. Indoctrinating them before they have the capacity to set boundaries for themselves.
Quote from: Brad on June 18, 2023, 06:18:07 PM
More brainwashed nonsense from leftist retards pretending to be erudite and sophisticated. Someone said the world is nothing more than a bad movie, and at this point I'm inclined to agree.
Ah, but it IS erudite and sophisticated.
The WEF and UN want to see pedophilia decriminalized around the world so the erudite and sophisticated can finally do what want in the open instead of having to hide lest the "unsophisticated" decide to break out the millstones.
And that's all the Tranny movement really is... another screw to drive acceptance of depravity closer to the elite's NAMBLA/Lolita dreams.
Quote from: Chris24601 on June 18, 2023, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 18, 2023, 06:18:07 PM
More brainwashed nonsense from leftist retards pretending to be erudite and sophisticated. Someone said the world is nothing more than a bad movie, and at this point I'm inclined to agree.
Ah, but it IS erudite and sophisticated.
The WEF and UN want to see pedophilia decriminalized around the world so the erudite and sophisticated can finally do what want in the open instead of having to hide lest the "unsophisticated" decide to break out the millstones.
And that's all the Tranny movement really is... another screw to drive acceptance of depravity closer to the elite's NAMBLA/Lolita dreams.
This. Exactly this. And the leftists who defend it are either groomers or useful idiots. I actually despise the idiots more. The groomers are evil and depraved, but they are honest about their evil. The idiots will ignore, excuse, and fight for the groomers, all while pretending not to hear the evidence against them. Then, after the pedos get their way, they will act
shocked that they were lied to. All tosatisfy their own ego, so they can pretend they are good people, all while they help the very worst...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 18, 2023, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 17, 2023, 02:39:24 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
I would say that drag and non-drag performances should be restricted equally.
There is nothing about drag that is inherently inappropriate. Drag is in G-rated media like Bugs Bunny and Mulan -- or PG media like Victor/Victoria and Kinky Boots. What should be named is the sexuality of the performance, not drag or non-drag.
OK, groomer.
Thanks for proving that most accusations from people like you are confessions. If your reaction to Mulan, Bugs Bunny and even Victor/Victoria is "OMG! Teh Qweerz R aftur teh KIDZ!" then you're the one who needs to be kept 501' away from schoolyards. I hope the Amber Alert System is up and running in your area: With creeps like you on the loose, the authorities will need it soon!
Now go play in traffic.
I was wondering when you would crawl out from underneath your rock again. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? You seem to be very constipated.
Friendly reminder that Elfdart is a retard and that the left ALWAYS conflates an innocent or seemingly innocent thing with one that isn't to play bailey and motte with you.
They KNOW what were talking about, they know they have no argument, ergo: OMG Muh Buggs Bunny!
Do not let them distract you or derange the conversation.
Thanks for the warning, but I stopped taking Elfdart seriously years ago.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does this really give you sexual urges?
Does not the law provide the condition "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"?
So no, Monty Python or Bugs Bunny cross dressing would not violate the law.
Quote from: DocJones on June 18, 2023, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does this really give you sexual urges?
Does not the law provide the condition "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"?
So no, Monty Python or Bugs Bunny cross dressing would not violate the law.
Greetings!
Exactly, Doc Jones! like there has ever been anything sexual about Bugs Bunny? It is amazing and mind boggling watching these retarded Leftists jump and screech in order to protect fucking Drag Queens and degenerates having access to children!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2023, 06:39:53 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 12:53:58 PM
Children should not be encouraged to break rules that they aren't old enough to understand in the first place. But you (and the groomers) want them to, so they can shape those transgressions for political or sexual purposes. Drag shows are inherently both, and should be singled out. It's that simple.
Dat.
It's about stealing children from their parents. Indoctrinating them before they have the capacity to set boundaries for themselves.
no doubt. there's simply no other purpose for the whole drag queen schtick. whatever useful and appropriate things those dudes can teach the kids can just as well be done by their teachers - no cross dressing required.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
No. Performing this kind of sexualized show in the presence of minors is inappropriate. The performers and venue knew this.
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
For minors. You like to keep forgetting that very important distinction.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Having a woman in a corseted outfit gyrating sexily in front of kids isn't appropriate. That's what I thought you agreed about. In all the cases I've seen, it still wouldn't be appropriate if a non-transgender woman instead of a drag queen. Because sexualization of kids is wrong.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
No, because drag performances rely upon being transgressive as their appeal. They work because men wearing women's clothing is not normal.
Why you want to normalize the abnormal behavior of a few is why this is grooming and why parents are rightfully concerned about stranger danger to their children.
This isn't about normal or abnormal. It's about sexualization. Sex is normal and natural among adults -- but it isn't appropriate for kids to see it.
I'm saying that sexualization of children is wrong regardless of whether it is drag or non-drag, straight or LGBT.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:26:05 PM
Yeah, I'm open to discuss it. The first question for me is - do you think this would be appropriate if only it was a woman in a corseted outfit under a nun's habit instead? That's been my issue about the criteria. The rules should be the same for LGBT and hetero.
No. Performing this kind of sexualized show in the presence of minors is inappropriate. The performers and venue knew this.
Great. So you agree that neither the man in a corseted outfit nor a woman in a corseted outfit is appropriate.
For minors. You like to keep forgetting that very important distinction.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Having a woman in a corseted outfit gyrating sexily in front of kids isn't appropriate. That's what I thought you agreed about. In all the cases I've seen, it still wouldn't be appropriate if a non-transgender woman instead of a drag queen. Because sexualization of kids is wrong.
Except that you have been arguing for drag performances in front of kids for this entire conversation. Drag performances designed to normalize the sexualization of children.
Quote
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 18, 2023, 03:31:58 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Then would you agree with me that a law should be defined in reference to the sexuality of the performance, then, and not drag or not?
No, because drag performances rely upon being transgressive as their appeal. They work because men wearing women's clothing is not normal.
Why you want to normalize the abnormal behavior of a few is why this is grooming and why parents are rightfully concerned about stranger danger to their children.
This isn't about normal or abnormal. It's about sexualization. Sex is normal and natural among adults -- but it isn't appropriate for kids to see it.
I'm saying that sexualization of children is wrong regardless of whether it is drag or non-drag, straight or LGBT.
So you are
NOW saying that the sexualization of children via drag show performances is abnormal. I'm glad we cleared that up, professor.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
This isn't about normal or abnormal.
Yes, it is.
You don't get to decide what "it" is about, especially for the parents and communities that are objecting. It is about normalizing abnormal behavior, so as to groom politically or sexually (or both). And they aren't having it!
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 19, 2023, 10:27:14 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
This isn't about normal or abnormal.
Yes, it is. You don't get to decide what "it" is about, especially for the parents and communities that are objecting. It is about normalizing abnormal behavior, so as to groom politically or sexually (or both). And they aren't having it!
Greetings!
That's right, Eirikrautha. Jhkim keeps trying to dance and squirm and misdirect about a host of other things.
PARENTS and CITIZENS that are OUTRAGED don't give a fuck about the other things Jhkim is crying about. What they want is something done about the degenerate Drag Queen BS being pushed in every school across this country, promoting degeneracy to children. By the STATE. By the local SCHOOLS, parks, and community centers.
THAT is the ISSUE--and THAT is the PRIORITY.
It is not ignorance on Jhkim's part. It is willful obfuscation and misdirection, all because he does not want the smoke and FIRE being brought against the degenerates. I know. It's so sad and frustrating seeing him defend groomers and degenerates.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 03:12:43 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Having a woman in a corseted outfit gyrating sexily in front of kids isn't appropriate. That's what I thought you agreed about. In all the cases I've seen, it still wouldn't be appropriate if a non-transgender woman instead of a drag queen. Because sexualization of kids is wrong.
Except that you have been arguing for drag performances in front of kids for this entire conversation. Drag performances designed to normalize the sexualization of children.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 03:12:43 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
Sex is normal and natural among adults -- but it isn't appropriate for kids to see it.
I'm saying that sexualization of children is wrong regardless of whether it is drag or non-drag, straight or LGBT.
So you are NOW saying that the sexualization of children via drag show performances is abnormal. I'm glad we cleared that up, professor.
I feel like I have said this same thing many times, but I will try again.
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan, and PG-rated drag like Victor/Victoria, as well as R-rated and X-rated drag.
The problem is R-rated and X-rated drag -- like the Caba Baba Rave where parents brought their kids to. That sort of material is wrong for kids regardless of whether it is X-rated drag or X-rated heterosexual, non-drag. If there's an X-rated drag queen performance, the organizers could just substitute a woman into the same costume and performance, then it is no longer drag -- but that doesn't make it appropriate for kids. It's still inappropriately sexual.
Thus, the criteria should not be whether it is drag or not. The criteria should be about sexualization.
(accidental post)
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 11:48:45 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 03:12:43 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Having a woman in a corseted outfit gyrating sexily in front of kids isn't appropriate. That's what I thought you agreed about. In all the cases I've seen, it still wouldn't be appropriate if a non-transgender woman instead of a drag queen. Because sexualization of kids is wrong.
Except that you have been arguing for drag performances in front of kids for this entire conversation. Drag performances designed to normalize the sexualization of children.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 03:12:43 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 02:10:18 AM
Sex is normal and natural among adults -- but it isn't appropriate for kids to see it.
I'm saying that sexualization of children is wrong regardless of whether it is drag or non-drag, straight or LGBT.
So you are NOW saying that the sexualization of children via drag show performances is abnormal. I'm glad we cleared that up, professor.
I feel like I have said this same thing many times, but I will try again.
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan, and PG-rated drag like Victor/Victoria, as well as R-rated and X-rated drag.
The problem is R-rated and X-rated drag -- like the Caba Baba Rave where parents brought their kids to. That sort of material is wrong for kids regardless of whether it is X-rated drag or X-rated heterosexual, non-drag. If there's an X-rated drag queen performance, the organizers could just substitute a woman into the same costume and performance, then it is no longer drag -- but that doesn't make it appropriate for kids. It's still inappropriately sexual.
Thus, the criteria should not be whether it is drag or not. The criteria should be about sexualization.
And since in the law says "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" you have no argument to oppose Drag being enumerated alongside strippers, etc.
It's not singling out Drag, it's enumerating it alongside OTHER adult "entertainment" performers.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2023, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 11:48:45 AM
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan, and PG-rated drag like Victor/Victoria, as well as R-rated and X-rated drag.
The problem is R-rated and X-rated drag -- like the Caba Baba Rave where parents brought their kids to. That sort of material is wrong for kids regardless of whether it is X-rated drag or X-rated heterosexual, non-drag. If there's an X-rated drag queen performance, the organizers could just substitute a woman into the same costume and performance, then it is no longer drag -- but that doesn't make it appropriate for kids. It's still inappropriately sexual.
Thus, the criteria should not be whether it is drag or not. The criteria should be about sexualization.
And since in the law says "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" you have no argument to oppose Drag being enumerated alongside strippers, etc.
It's not singling out Drag, it's enumerating it alongside OTHER adult "entertainment" performers.
It doesn't treat them equally. To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
That is unequal treatment under the law.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2023, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 11:48:45 AM
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan, and PG-rated drag like Victor/Victoria, as well as R-rated and X-rated drag.
The problem is R-rated and X-rated drag -- like the Caba Baba Rave where parents brought their kids to. That sort of material is wrong for kids regardless of whether it is X-rated drag or X-rated heterosexual, non-drag. If there's an X-rated drag queen performance, the organizers could just substitute a woman into the same costume and performance, then it is no longer drag -- but that doesn't make it appropriate for kids. It's still inappropriately sexual.
Thus, the criteria should not be whether it is drag or not. The criteria should be about sexualization.
And since in the law says "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" you have no argument to oppose Drag being enumerated alongside strippers, etc.
It's not singling out Drag, it's enumerating it alongside OTHER adult "entertainment" performers.
It doesn't treat them equally. To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
Those are unequal cases.
You don't actually know what 'prurient' means, do you?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2023, 01:30:43 PM
And since in the law says "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" you have no argument to oppose Drag being enumerated alongside strippers, etc.
It's not singling out Drag, it's enumerating it alongside OTHER adult "entertainment" performers.
It doesn't treat them equally. To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
That is unequal treatment under the law.
You don't actually know what 'prurient' means, do you?
I am aware, and I'm also aware that the term "prurient" is from the House version of the law. It does not appear in the Senate version (SB3) that was signed into law. I'll try to discuss again in more detail.
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids.
Both of these can be defined as appealing to prurient interest (House bill language) and harmful to minors (SB3 language). However, neither of these are any of a stripper, go-go dancer, or exotic dancer. (Lipsynching isn't dancing.)
Thus #1 is specifically targeted under the law. He is a female impersonator, and thus his performance would be banned.
#2 is not named in any of the clauses, since it is not female impersonation. The state would have to argue that her performance counts as "similar entertainers" in order to prosecute.
That makes #2 would be treated differently under the law than #1.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 11:48:45 AM
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan...
No. Bugs Bunny dresses up like a woman to fool Elmer Fudd. He is not "in drag". The object is to point and laugh. Even kids get that Bug Bunny is being silly. In Mulan, the soldiers dress up as harem women to infiltrate the palace. They are doing something humiliating (and it's even presented as such) because of their loyalty and duty. In none of these cases is the dressing up presented as a serious "lifestyle" or behavior to emulate. That is
not the case with drag queen story hour. No one is telling the kids that they should point and laugh at the silly men in the dresses (which they should).
The only way your point can stand is if you completely ignore some context while focusing on other... hmm, yep, that's your modus operandi! Drag is inappropriate for children. Period.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2023, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 11:48:45 AM
Drag includes a wide variety of possibilities. There is G-rated drag like Bugs Bunny and Mulan, and PG-rated drag like Victor/Victoria, as well as R-rated and X-rated drag.
The problem is R-rated and X-rated drag -- like the Caba Baba Rave where parents brought their kids to. That sort of material is wrong for kids regardless of whether it is X-rated drag or X-rated heterosexual, non-drag. If there's an X-rated drag queen performance, the organizers could just substitute a woman into the same costume and performance, then it is no longer drag -- but that doesn't make it appropriate for kids. It's still inappropriately sexual.
Thus, the criteria should not be whether it is drag or not. The criteria should be about sexualization.
And since in the law says "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" you have no argument to oppose Drag being enumerated alongside strippers, etc.
It's not singling out Drag, it's enumerating it alongside OTHER adult "entertainment" performers.
It doesn't treat them equally. To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
That is unequal treatment under the law.
You must think people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman doing the dancing, it matters that it is an adult show meant to help sexualize children and normalize aberrant behavior. Trying to mask it by saying, "Oh, but it's drag and Bugs Bunny does it so it's innocent" is equal to the bullshit of saying that a man is transitioning to a woman and thus putting him in a woman's prison so as not to offend their pronouns (and then rape occurs)
Drag is equivalent to individual pronouns here. It is an appeal to special treatment for reasons. This is not the claim made for equality of treatment anymore, this is about being given special treatment because they are freaks (pedophile groomers).
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 06:20:49 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 01:55:30 PM
To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
That is unequal treatment under the law.
You must think people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman doing the dancing, it matters that it is an adult show meant to help sexualize children and normalize aberrant behavior. Trying to mask it by saying, "Oh, but it's drag and Bugs Bunny does it so it's innocent"...
I am explicitly saying that it is
not innocent,
not appropriate, and
not acceptable.
My point is exactly what you say -- it doesn't matter if it is a man or woman doing the performance. It should be equally unacceptable for both.
Under Tennessee SB3, only female impersonation is named - so a woman doing the exact same lipsynch number isn't targeted by the law.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 06:20:49 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 01:55:30 PM
To take the example of the Tennessee Tech performance. That was a lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe. If a non-transgender woman did an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit, she would not be in drag. Thus, her performance wouldn't be subject to the same targeting under the law.
That is unequal treatment under the law.
You must think people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman doing the dancing, it matters that it is an adult show meant to help sexualize children and normalize aberrant behavior. Trying to mask it by saying, "Oh, but it's drag and Bugs Bunny does it so it's innocent"...
I am explicitly saying that it is not innocent, not appropriate, and not acceptable.
My point is exactly what you say -- it doesn't matter if it is a man or woman doing the performance. It should be equally unacceptable for both.
Under Tennessee SB3, only female impersonation is named - so a woman doing the exact same lipsynch number isn't targeted by the law.
Yup, you think that people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't just name drag queens you obfuscating shaved gerbil. It also names:
Quote from: TN SB3
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Not to mention that you keep forgetting that:
Quote from: TN SB3
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
You know, the whole sexualization of minors thing that you keep wanting people to be distracted from?
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 07:59:03 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 06:38:17 PM
I am explicitly saying that it is not innocent, not appropriate, and not acceptable.
My point is exactly what you say -- it doesn't matter if it is a man or woman doing the performance. It should be equally unacceptable for both.
Under Tennessee SB3, only female impersonation is named - so a woman doing the exact same lipsynch number isn't targeted by the law.
Yup, you think that people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't just name drag queens you obfuscating shaved gerbil. It also names:
Quote from: TN SB3
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Not to mention that you keep forgetting that:
Quote from: TN SB3
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
You know, the whole sexualization of minors thing that you keep wanting people to be distracted from?
I am opposing the sexualization of minors for
both LGBT and hetero. I will try once again to cover this.
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
Both of these can be defined as appealing to prurient interest (House bill language) and harmful to minors (SB3 language). However, neither of these are any of a stripper, go-go dancer, or exotic dancer. (Lipsynching isn't dancing.)
Thus #1 is specifically targeted under the law. He is a female impersonator, and thus his performance would be banned.
#2 is not named in any of the clauses, since it is not female impersonation.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
It is not named and thus not specifically targeted. In order to prosecute, the state would have to prove to a judge that a sexy lipsynch routine counts as similar enough to stripping to be understood. That is a significant burden on the state.
That is a hurdle that the state does not have to go through for #1.
Thus, #2 is much safer from prosecution.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
It is not named and thus not specifically targeted. In order to prosecute, the state would have to prove to a judge that a sexy lipsynch routine counts as similar enough to stripping to be understood. That is a significant burden on the state.
That is a hurdle that the state does not have to go through for #1.
Thus, #2 is much safer from prosecution.
fair enough. so the law could be worded a little better. okay.
can we get back to the crux of the issue then:
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 19, 2023, 07:59:03 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2023, 06:38:17 PM
I am explicitly saying that it is not innocent, not appropriate, and not acceptable.
My point is exactly what you say -- it doesn't matter if it is a man or woman doing the performance. It should be equally unacceptable for both.
Under Tennessee SB3, only female impersonation is named - so a woman doing the exact same lipsynch number isn't targeted by the law.
Yup, you think that people reading this are idiots.
It doesn't just name drag queens you obfuscating shaved gerbil. It also names:
Quote from: TN SB3
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Not to mention that you keep forgetting that:
Quote from: TN SB3
(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult.
You know, the whole sexualization of minors thing that you keep wanting people to be distracted from?
I am opposing the sexualization of minors for both LGBT and hetero. I will try once again to cover this.
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
Both of these can be defined as appealing to prurient interest (House bill language) and harmful to minors (SB3 language). However, neither of these are any of a stripper, go-go dancer, or exotic dancer. (Lipsynching isn't dancing.)
Thus #1 is specifically targeted under the law. He is a female impersonator, and thus his performance would be banned.
#2 is not named in any of the clauses, since it is not female impersonation.
This is just a word salad from you. The sexualization of minors is the key here in accordance with the law, whether or not they are hetero or LGBTQ+ or sentient toasters for that matter is irrelevant in comparison to the importance of not doing it in front of minors.
And last I looked, professor, you weren't a lawyer. You are just a leftist with kids who feels that your fun may be curtailed by this law - so it scares you and you feel that it must be opposed by any means at your disposal.
Tough luck, gerbil. Woke is rapidly going out of style and its killing businesses in its death throes. This is just the beginning of the end.
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
It is not named and thus not specifically targeted. In order to prosecute, the state would have to prove to a judge that a sexy lipsynch routine counts as similar enough to stripping to be understood. That is a significant burden on the state.
That is a hurdle that the state does not have to go through for #1.
Thus, #2 is much safer from prosecution.
fair enough. so the law could be worded a little better. okay.
can we get back to the crux of the issue then:
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
Indeed, jhkim. Can you answer the questions below? There are quite pertinent to the subject matter.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
Why does a leftist in California feel the need to make 500 posts about a law in Tennessee that affects him in zero way? Imagine being so deluded you don't understand the concept of federalism, except when it comes to stuff like open-carrying firearms or licensing doctors...THOSE things need to be regulated at the state level. But trannies dancing naked in front of kids? THE HORROR if some state outlaws that!
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
It is not named and thus not specifically targeted. In order to prosecute, the state would have to prove to a judge that a sexy lipsynch routine counts as similar enough to stripping to be understood. That is a significant burden on the state.
That is a hurdle that the state does not have to go through for #1.
Thus, #2 is much safer from prosecution.
Is it tho?
Let's see what the prosecutor needs to prove:
It's an Adult entertainer? Yep
The performance appeals to a prurient interest? Yep
Is it simmilar to ANY of the named types of performance? Yep
While someone MIGHT feel like they are safe from the law they aren't and I just proved it. Or are you going to deny ANY of the above assertions?
But I find it interesting that you have moved the goalpost from "It's targeting Drag degenerates!" to "Straight degenerates are sorta, kinda, not realy exempt!".
So, without EVER admiting your first assertion was wrong you have changed to a different one that I have just proved is also wrong. Lets see what's your next Bailey.
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:12:44 AM
(1) A man doing a suggestive lipsynch performance in a corseted outfit under a monk's robe.
(2) A non-transgender woman doing an identical lipsynch number in an identical corseted outfit under a nun's habit.
I'm saying that both of these are wrong and inappropriate for kids. However, under Tennessee SB3, #2 is not targeted.
i'm pretty sure it is. under "or similar entertainers" part.
It is not named and thus not specifically targeted. In order to prosecute, the state would have to prove to a judge that a sexy lipsynch routine counts as similar enough to stripping to be understood. That is a significant burden on the state.
That is a hurdle that the state does not have to go through for #1.
Thus, #2 is much safer from prosecution.
fair enough. so the law could be worded a little better. okay.
Thanks, klava. I feel like at least you are reading what I say. I feel like it is more than a minor wording, as it is in the core definition about what is to be banned.
Quote from: Klava on June 20, 2023, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
As I've said, I don't consider drag queen story hour necessary. I've never been to one. I don't know anyone who's been to one. Since I'm not familiar with them, I have no idea what benefit, if any, one would bring.
Regarding drag, as far as parents go, I wouldn't suggest any benefit of the doubt. Parents in general should be more involved in the media consumed by their kids - especially video games and online material, but certainly live events as well. That goes especially for lawmakers banning material. They should be informed rather than in doubt.
As a parent, I feel like there's too much sex in the media that kids are exposed to -- especially stuff like commercials, Internet videos, and so forth. I think it's even more of a problem for parents today with ubiquitous Internet access. However, I'm also very suspicious of government censorship. So, for example, as my son was growing up, I bought him CDs of hip-hop music with "cleaned" lyrics. Still, I was not on board with the push against rap and hip-hop by the government as represented by Tipper Gore in the 1990s. Those were the same "moral majority" who were for banning and/or restricting D&D.
I'm also suspicious of those who have been for banning supposedly offensive material in the 2010s and 2020s, who are often leftist. Putting offensive material behind an age-filter, say, is a good idea in general -- but I am suspicious of political motives and bias in doing so.
I think it's consistent to want family values for myself and other parents -- but also be suspicious of moral busybodies who proclaim that censorship has to be imposed because of family values. I have no problem banning kids from strip clubs or equally sexual displays like in the Caba Baba Rave in the UK. I just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PMI just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
"Just admit there are heterosexual deviants and pedos!!!!!!!"
You need some fucking help, man.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
I just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
You are being deliberately obtuse here. Prurient heterosexual and LGBT displays in front of minors are being equally banned.
The only difference between now and the recent past is that in the recent past, drag shows and drag queen story hours were given a pass by leftist educators because Pride who ensured that the parents didn't know what was going on. Now that people know that these are groomers targeting kids, with drag queen story hour being the camel's nose in the tent while kids attending drag shows being the whole camel, steps are being taken to remove this crap from the public. If anything, this is all another example of how the LGB needs to jettison the TQ+.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
I just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
You are being deliberately obtuse here. Prurient heterosexual and LGBT displays in front of minors are being equally banned.
Not under Tennessee law SB3. (Also, SB3 doesn't use the word "prurient" - that's been a confusion in this thread because it's from the house version of the bill that wasn't passed into law.) Under SB3, a sexy drag lip sync act is directly targeted, while a sexy non-drag lip sync act isn't targeted. The latter would need the prosecution to legally prove sufficient similarity.
I don't want sexy music numbers as part of all-ages entertainment, but that number done by a woman didn't seem categorically different from lots of the sexual material that kids can easily access on TV or the Internet.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
The only difference between now and the recent past is that in the recent past, drag shows and drag queen story hours were given a pass by leftist educators because Pride who ensured that the parents didn't know what was going on. Now that people know that these are groomers targeting kids, with drag queen story hour being the camel's nose in the tent while kids attending drag shows being the whole camel, steps are being taken to remove this crap from the public. If anything, this is all another example of how the LGB needs to jettison the TQ+.
In this thread, we've seen SHARK declare how homosexuals are sinful degenerates, and oggsmash saying no one who accepts homosexuals is a Christian.
And transgender people aren't particularly behind drag. The vast majority of transgender people have no connection to any drag.
I don't know percentages, but drag queens usually are not transgender. Transgender people are even potentially banned from drag competitions, if they are taking hormones or have had surgery. Drag queens are often gay men (like Harvey Fierstein) but sometimes straight men as well (like Ed Wood). It's a very old style of performer, going back centuries. There was a surge of popularity in the early 1900s, with performers like Julian Eltinge seeing great mainstream success. Victor/Victoria was originally a popular 1933 German film, that was remade in 1982 with Julie Andrews. The new surge of drag popularity is within the left generally, but it doesn't seem particularly connected to transgender people compared to others. In discussion within my personal circles, it is bisexual women who spoke up most in support of drag.
It feels to me that some of current drag show popularity is general outrage culture -- growing from shock jocks in the 1990s to modern-day outrage peddlers and edge lords.
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
I just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
You are being deliberately obtuse here. Prurient heterosexual and LGBT displays in front of minors are being equally banned.
Not under Tennessee law SB3. (Also, SB3 doesn't use the word "prurient" - that's been a confusion in this thread because it's from the house version of the bill that wasn't passed into law.) Under SB3, a sexy drag lip sync act is directly targeted, while a sexy non-drag lip sync act isn't targeted. The latter would need the prosecution to legally prove sufficient similarity.
I don't want sexy music numbers as part of all-ages entertainment, but that number done by a woman didn't seem categorically different from lots of the sexual material that kids can easily access on TV or the Internet.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
The only difference between now and the recent past is that in the recent past, drag shows and drag queen story hours were given a pass by leftist educators because Pride who ensured that the parents didn't know what was going on. Now that people know that these are groomers targeting kids, with drag queen story hour being the camel's nose in the tent while kids attending drag shows being the whole camel, steps are being taken to remove this crap from the public. If anything, this is all another example of how the LGB needs to jettison the TQ+.
In this thread, we've seen SHARK declare how homosexuals are sinful degenerates, and oggsmash saying no one who accepts homosexuals is a Christian.
And transgender people aren't particularly behind drag. The vast majority of transgender people have no connection to any drag.
I don't know percentages, but drag queens usually are not transgender. Transgender people are even potentially banned from drag competitions, if they are taking hormones or have had surgery. Drag queens are often gay men (like Harvey Fierstein) but sometimes straight men as well (like Ed Wood). It's a very old style of performer, going back centuries. There was a surge of popularity in the early 1900s, with performers like Julian Eltinge seeing great mainstream success. Victor/Victoria was originally a popular 1933 German film, that was remade in 1982 with Julie Andrews. The new surge of drag popularity is within the left generally, but it doesn't seem particularly connected to transgender people compared to others. In discussion within my personal circles, it is bisexual women who spoke up most in support of drag.
It feels to me that some of current drag show popularity is general outrage culture -- growing from shock jocks in the 1990s to modern-day outrage peddlers and edge lords.
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
Oh! Won't somebody think of the drag queens!!
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
I wonder WHY would you edit the quote to exclude the relevant parts of what you're saying that I might be answering to but leave other stuff I'm obviously noy answering to.
Let's see IF by putting below and making it impossible to miss you stop lying.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
I just want it clear that heterosexual and LGBT displays should be equally banned.
You are being deliberately obtuse here. Prurient heterosexual and LGBT displays in front of minors are being equally banned.
Not under Tennessee law SB3. (Also, SB3 doesn't use the word "prurient" - that's been a confusion in this thread because it's from the house version of the bill that wasn't passed into law.) Under SB3, a sexy drag lip sync act is directly targeted, while a sexy non-drag lip sync act isn't targeted. The latter would need the prosecution to legally prove sufficient similarity.
I don't want sexy music numbers as part of all-ages entertainment, but that number done by a woman didn't seem categorically different from lots of the sexual material that kids can easily access on TV or the Internet.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 06:34:54 PM
The only difference between now and the recent past is that in the recent past, drag shows and drag queen story hours were given a pass by leftist educators because Pride who ensured that the parents didn't know what was going on. Now that people know that these are groomers targeting kids, with drag queen story hour being the camel's nose in the tent while kids attending drag shows being the whole camel, steps are being taken to remove this crap from the public. If anything, this is all another example of how the LGB needs to jettison the TQ+.
In this thread, we've seen SHARK declare how homosexuals are sinful degenerates, and oggsmash saying no one who accepts homosexuals is a Christian.
And transgender people aren't particularly behind drag. The vast majority of transgender people have no connection to any drag.
I don't know percentages, but drag queens usually are not transgender. Transgender people are even potentially banned from drag competitions, if they are taking hormones or have had surgery. Drag queens are often gay men (like Harvey Fierstein) but sometimes straight men as well (like Ed Wood). It's a very old style of performer, going back centuries. There was a surge of popularity in the early 1900s, with performers like Julian Eltinge seeing great mainstream success. Victor/Victoria was originally a popular 1933 German film, that was remade in 1982 with Julie Andrews. The new surge of drag popularity is within the left generally, but it doesn't seem particularly connected to transgender people compared to others. In discussion within my personal circles, it is bisexual women who spoke up most in support of drag.
It feels to me that some of current drag show popularity is general outrage culture -- growing from shock jocks in the 1990s to modern-day outrage peddlers and edge lords.
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
Can you see now what I'm talking about?
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 20, 2023, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
So, because kids can access porn in the internet we shouldn't ban strippers from performing where children can see them?
Good thing there's not an unequal standard then.
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
Oh! Won't somebody think of the drag queens!!
Selective and deceptive editing, I wonder if Jhkim works as a smear merchant for some lamestream media because he follows their playbook.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:53:41 PM
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
Let's see IF by putting below and making it impossible to miss you stop lying.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
I don't want sexy music numbers as part of all-ages entertainment, but that number done by a woman didn't seem categorically different from lots of the sexual material that kids can easily access on TV or the Internet.
So I take it you read "Internet porn is as bad as the sexy lip sync number" -- that therefore "jhkim thinks there's nothing wrong with either Internet porn or sexy lip sync numbers". That's not what I'm saying. There is nothing in what you quoted to say that.
I am saying that both are bad -- and that Internet porn is far more ubiquitous and accessible to kids. Action should be taken against both.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
Can you see now what I'm talking about?
How are you reading this? So here "puts me off" is "caused me to feel intense dislike or distaste" (cf. #1 in vocabulary.com (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/put%20off)). That means that I dislike the Tennessee legislature for enacting an explicitly unequal law, rather than passing something that would pass constitutional muster and have cross-partisan support.
It does not mean that I support delaying or not doing other action. I support passing clear and practical laws to restrict children to age-appropriate media. Efforts like the Age Appropriate Design Code Act in California, the EARN IT bill, or the Invest in Child Safety Act are all recent attempts. More and better bipartisan effort is needed.
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 01:28:04 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:53:41 PM
jhkim: We should ban both hetero and LGBT porn shows equally, and restrict Internet porn for kids too!
GeekyBugle: You groomer!!! You just want to fuck kids!!! How dare you!!!
Let's see IF by putting below and making it impossible to miss you stop lying.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
I don't want sexy music numbers as part of all-ages entertainment, but that number done by a woman didn't seem categorically different from lots of the sexual material that kids can easily access on TV or the Internet.
So I take it you read "Internet porn is as bad as the sexy lip sync number" -- that therefore "jhkim thinks there's nothing wrong with either Internet porn or sexy lip sync numbers". That's not what I'm saying. There is nothing in what you quoted to say that.
I am saying that both are bad -- and that Internet porn is far more ubiquitous and accessible to kids. Action should be taken against both.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2023, 09:29:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 09:21:20 PM
Regardless, if an equal standard and equal enforcement results in more banning of LGBT material, that's fine by me. But declaring up front an unequal standard for banning puts me off.
Can you see now what I'm talking about?
How are you reading this? So here "puts me off" is "caused me to feel intense dislike or distaste" (cf. #1 in vocabulary.com (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/put%20off)). That means that I dislike the Tennessee legislature for enacting an explicitly unequal law, rather than passing something that would pass constitutional muster and have cross-partisan support.
It does not mean that I support delaying or not doing other action. I support passing clear and practical laws to restrict children to age-appropriate media. Efforts like the Age Appropriate Design Code Act in California, the EARN IT bill, or the Invest in Child Safety Act are all recent attempts. More and better bipartisan effort is needed.
Action should be taken against both, yes.
Regarding the second part: More selective and deceptive editing Jhkim? Seriously? Why would you edit out this?: "Good thing there's not an unequal standard then."
You're acting exactly like the dirty dirty smear merchants of the MSM.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
As I've said, I don't consider drag queen story hour necessary. I've never been to one. I don't know anyone who's been to one. Since I'm not familiar with them, I have no idea what benefit, if any, one would bring.
Regarding drag, as far as parents go, I wouldn't suggest any benefit of the doubt. Parents in general should be more involved in the media consumed by their kids - especially video games and online material, but certainly live events as well. That goes especially for lawmakers banning material. They should be informed rather than in doubt.
As a parent, I feel like there's too much sex in the media that kids are exposed to -- especially stuff like commercials, Internet videos, and so forth. I think it's even more of a problem for parents today with ubiquitous Internet access. However, I'm also very suspicious of government censorship. So, for example, as my son was growing up, I bought him CDs of hip-hop music with "cleaned" lyrics. Still, I was not on board with the push against rap and hip-hop by the government as represented by Tipper Gore in the 1990s. Those were the same "moral majority" who were for banning and/or restricting D&D.
I'm also suspicious of those who have been for banning supposedly offensive material in the 2010s and 2020s, who are often leftist. Putting offensive material behind an age-filter, say, is a good idea in general -- but I am suspicious of political motives and bias in doing so.
did you watch some of the stuff linked to here by concerned members on what's happening with those bloody shows? even if one percent of that shit is genuine you have a big problem there, man, it's obvious even to this here russkie sitting on the other side of the globe ffs. they are already taking a <checks notes> Giant Cleveland Steamer in your kids' heads and your immediate concern is that some of the paperwork may not have been prepared properly? really? my kids are, thankfully, safely away from all that, but if ANYTHING like that shit was happening in the school my kid was going to i'd personally go there and bash fucking sculls of everyone involved in. but you are worried that wording in the law may be a little off.
jeeeeesus h christ...
Quote from: Klava on June 21, 2023, 02:35:32 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2023, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 03:54:43 PM
- Why is drag queen story hour necessary? What benefit does it bring?
- Drag has long been associated either with mockery or sex. Why should we give drag the benefit of the doubt when choosing what to expose our children to?
As I've said, I don't consider drag queen story hour necessary. I've never been to one. I don't know anyone who's been to one. Since I'm not familiar with them, I have no idea what benefit, if any, one would bring.
Regarding drag, as far as parents go, I wouldn't suggest any benefit of the doubt. Parents in general should be more involved in the media consumed by their kids - especially video games and online material, but certainly live events as well. That goes especially for lawmakers banning material. They should be informed rather than in doubt.
As a parent, I feel like there's too much sex in the media that kids are exposed to -- especially stuff like commercials, Internet videos, and so forth. I think it's even more of a problem for parents today with ubiquitous Internet access. However, I'm also very suspicious of government censorship. So, for example, as my son was growing up, I bought him CDs of hip-hop music with "cleaned" lyrics. Still, I was not on board with the push against rap and hip-hop by the government as represented by Tipper Gore in the 1990s. Those were the same "moral majority" who were for banning and/or restricting D&D.
I'm also suspicious of those who have been for banning supposedly offensive material in the 2010s and 2020s, who are often leftist. Putting offensive material behind an age-filter, say, is a good idea in general -- but I am suspicious of political motives and bias in doing so.
did you watch some of the stuff linked to here by concerned members on what's happening with those bloody shows? even if one percent of that shit is genuine you have a big problem there, man, it's obvious even to this here russkie sitting on the other side of the globe ffs. they are already taking a <checks notes> Giant Cleveland Steamer in your kids' heads and your immediate concern is that some of the paperwork may not have been prepared properly? really? my kids are, thankfully, safely away from all that, but if ANYTHING like that shit was happening in the school my kid was going to i'd personally go there and bash fucking sculls of everyone involved in. but you are worried that wording in the law may be a little off.
jeeeeesus h christ...
Greetings!
Exactly right, Klava my friend! This is all part of the Homosexual propaganda that we have to constantly fight through here. The entire corruption of any sense of normalcy--because these degenerate trannies especially want "Normalcy" entirely redefined to a cultural landscape of absolute degenerate chaos. Ordinary, normal people have to debate with intellectual "White Knights" like Jhkim and play endless rounds of "Whack-a-Mole" just to get the simplest of decent laws passed and established. Imagine some Liberal *Lawyers* that are degenerates and depraved--they are like Jhkim, dialed up to 11.
This is what happens when culture embraces Hyper Individualism and Liberalism. The individual person is granted the ultimate, highest freedom that trumps everything and anyone else. Nationalism, Culture, Religion, Tradition--all of these things must be subjugated to the exaltation of individual desire, expression, and interpretation.
It is a recipe for cultural corruption, chaos, and suicide.
Every tradition, every standard, must be corrupted, and moved constantly to the LEFT, closer and closer to the sewer and then falling into the abyss of destruction.
A cascding consequence and evidence of this process is the exaltation of trannies, the refusal and inability of seemingy normal people that can't identify what a woman is, many that claim that MATH is "White Supremacy and Racist;" Laws are racist; the concept of Objectivity or Objective Truth is "Racist and White Supremacy;" and the entire merit given to people that exalt their own personal "Lived Experience;" "Living THEIR TRUTH!" an whatever the fuck they "Identify as." There are even educated morons that want to believe that men can get pregnant, and that men can menstruate. It is promoting absolute nonsense and insanity. A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
All of this is doing nothing good for our entire society. This is why our country is becoming increasingly angry, hostile, and divided. You have here one portion of society that wants society to embrace being a hedonistic, chaotic sewer, and the rest of normal society that oppose that goal, and want our society to be normal and functional.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Regarding what kids can come across on TV or the internet....NOT IF YOU DO YOUR JOB AS A PARENT. Those are things that I can and do directly control. I do not need some idiot telling my kids its all well and good for a freak to gyrate in the opposite sex's clothes like Buffalo Bill spewing bullshit about there is no normal. There is NO parallel between cheerleaders and such a display as one is normal and one is a freak show pushing an extremely rare behavior out front and center and pretending it is normal. Acting as if they are the same is just yet another episode of moral relativity.
No drag queens on school grounds (including cross dressing teachers), no rainbow flags on school grounds (that thing is a huge shit on Christian belief point blank), no guys in the girls locker rooms or on girls sports teams. None of those are big asks. Keep pushing and there is going to be a breaking point.
Quote from: Klava on June 21, 2023, 02:35:32 AM
did you watch some of the stuff linked to here by concerned members on what's happening with those bloody shows? even if one percent of that shit is genuine you have a big problem there, man, it's obvious even to this here russkie sitting on the other side of the globe ffs. they are already taking a <checks notes> Giant Cleveland Steamer in your kids' heads and your immediate concern is that some of the paperwork may not have been prepared properly? really? my kids are, thankfully, safely away from all that, but if ANYTHING like that shit was happening in the school my kid was going to i'd personally go there and bash fucking sculls of everyone involved in. but you are worried that wording in the law may be a little off.
Yes, I am looking at the links. All of the drag show and drag queen links I have seen are events that parents deliberately take their kids to -- the Argentinian circus show (though not drag), the Caba Baba Rave in the UK, the Plano TX restaurant show, the Tennessee Tech video, the Oregon State show, etc.
That's a problem - but it's a different problem from what you seem to be saying.
I have no concern that, for example, my son would be taken to such an event by his school. I was closely involved with his teachers, and despite being in the SF Bay area which is highly concentrated with LGBT and leftist people, I saw no proclivities to such in any school events. On the other hand, there were tons of kids with cell phones - who are liable to show each other videos that they see online. My kid was a million times more likely to see an obscene online video on a classmate's phone than to attend an inappropriate show live in person.
Regardless of my own family, though, I am concerned for the kids of these parents.
Inappropriate parenting isn't a sudden problem with a quick fix, though. We need action, but it needs to be sustained, well-crafted, and constitutional. Saying it is a sudden new emergency comes across to me as "thousands of kids groomed and sexually assaulted every year is fine and normal, but if any drag queens might be involved, then it's an emergency that needs immediate government action."
Quote from: SHARK on June 21, 2023, 04:46:52 AM
A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
All of this is doing nothing good for our entire society. This is why our country is becoming increasingly angry, hostile, and divided. You have here one portion of society that wants society to embrace being a hedonistic, chaotic sewer, and the rest of normal society that oppose that goal, and want our society to be normal and functional.
Sexualizing and fucking children has always been happening in our society. That doesn't excuse it. It's fucking terrible and action needs to be taken.
The revelations of the 2004 Jay Report on Catholic priests wasn't new priest behavior. It was shining a light on abuse that had been happening for centuries and successfully covered up until then. Tens of thousands of kids are sexually abused every year, the vast majority of them girls abused by adult men - usually family or acquaintances like teachers or priests. This is also not a new thing. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
I may regret this.....
Before we go tearing down every pride flag here, I'd like to say that we shouldn't vilify those LGB people who are anti-woke and anti-groomer. Those who just want to be productive members of society and not treated as special.
I know it is tough with the intellectual dishonesty working overtime in this thread to make the topic unclear and muddy, but there are decent LGB out there who oppose NAMBLA and just want to be good neighbors.
The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 06:03:19 PM
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
You had better supply a quote from SHARK saying priests molesting kids or grown men molesting little girls is normal, otherwise you've just graduated from useful idiot to full on groomer. If you're willing to lie like that about what he said, you are morally depraved, and no Christian...
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 06:03:19 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 21, 2023, 04:46:52 AM
A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
All of this is doing nothing good for our entire society. This is why our country is becoming increasingly angry, hostile, and divided. You have here one portion of society that wants society to embrace being a hedonistic, chaotic sewer, and the rest of normal society that oppose that goal, and want our society to be normal and functional.
Sexualizing and fucking children has always been happening in our society. That doesn't excuse it. It's fucking terrible and action needs to be taken.
The revelations of the 2004 Jay Report on Catholic priests wasn't new priest behavior. It was shining a light on abuse that had been happening for centuries and successfully covered up until then. Tens of thousands of kids are sexually abused every year, the vast majority of them girls abused by adult men - usually family or acquaintances like teachers or priests. This is also not a new thing. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
And yet you keep insisting that Drag Queen Hour and other stuff shouldn't concern parents.
The ONLY reason you find way more girls being abused by teachers is because when it's a female pedo and a male victim it's called "A relationship".
Now, care to provide ANY quote by Shark! or anyone else on his side saying child abuse is fine unless it's by LGBTQ degenerates?
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 21, 2023, 06:32:24 PM
I may regret this.....
Before we go tearing down every pride flag here, I'd like to say that we shouldn't vilify those LGB people who are anti-woke and anti-groomer. Those who just want to be productive members of society and not treated as special.
I know it is tough with the intellectual dishonesty working overtime in this thread to make the topic unclear and muddy, but there are decent LGB out there who oppose NAMBLA and just want to be good neighbors.
The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
1000% This.
I've said several times the activists and the useful idiots are going to unleash a backlash that'll hurt the same people they claim to be worried about.
But everytime we call groomer a groomer what do the LGBTQWERTY activists and their puppets say? Groomer is homophobia, etc.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 21, 2023, 06:32:24 PM
I may regret this.....
Before we go tearing down every pride flag here, I'd like to say that we shouldn't vilify those LGB people who are anti-woke and anti-groomer. Those who just want to be productive members of society and not treated as special.
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2023, 07:25:18 PM
You had better supply a quote from SHARK saying priests molesting kids or grown men molesting little girls is normal, otherwise you've just graduated from useful idiot to full on groomer. If you're willing to lie like that about what he said, you are morally depraved, and no Christian...
Dude. You and other posters have been constantly calling anyone who disagrees about anything a groomer - like in reply #203 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/new-study-proves-pundit-was-right/msg1256261/#msg1256261) where you claimed that Elfdart wanted to groom children. I'm just learning to talk like you do.
If you're going to engage in hyperbolic name-calling, then maybe don't get self-righteous when others talk the same way.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone constantly dismisses and downplays any mention of heterosexual abuse, and also demands that all drag be outlawed -- then as far as I'm concerned, he's defending heterosexual abuse. That's his thing.
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 04:14:06 PM
Inappropriate parenting isn't a sudden problem with a quick fix, though. We need action, but it needs to be sustained, well-crafted, and constitutional. Saying it is a sudden new emergency comes across to me as "thousands of kids groomed and sexually assaulted every year is fine and normal, but if any drag queens might be involved, then it's an emergency that needs immediate government action."
there is a difference between inappropriate parenting and these drag shows in front of kids: inappropriate parenting is just that - inappropriate. it is an agreed upon societal issue which everyone, save for very few antisocial freaks, will recognize as a problem. the issue with drag shows is not bloody shows themselves - they are just an instrument - it's in underlying effort to make inappropriate appropriate. i haven't been asking you (and many many others) to explain to me the particular choice of drag shows to be performed in front of the kids for no reason - you seem to be fixated on the form, when others and myself are trying to make you look at the substance, and, tbh, it's kinda baffling that you continuously refuse to do so. they are trying to manufacture more of what they call "queer" among the kids, this much is so fucking obvious they might as well be screaming it from the rooftops. they are installing political buttons in kids' vulnerable minds to be pushed later, how can you not see it? it's not just another form of bad parenting and education - it's something much more sinister, and that's why it warrants special attention and action.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:37:16 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2023, 07:25:18 PM
You had better supply a quote from SHARK saying priests molesting kids or grown men molesting little girls is normal, otherwise you've just graduated from useful idiot to full on groomer. If you're willing to lie like that about what he said, you are morally depraved, and no Christian...
Dude. You and other posters have been constantly calling anyone who disagrees about anything a groomer - like in reply #203 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/new-study-proves-pundit-was-right/msg1256261/#msg1256261) where you claimed that Elfdart wanted to groom children. I'm just learning to talk like you do.
If you're going to engage in hyperbolic name-calling, then maybe don't get self-righteous when others talk the same way.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone constantly dismisses and downplays any mention of heterosexual abuse, and also demands that all drag be outlawed -- then as far as I'm concerned, he's defending heterosexual abuse. That's his thing.
So you ARE a dirty, dirty smear merchant...
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 06:03:19 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 21, 2023, 04:46:52 AM
A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
All of this is doing nothing good for our entire society. This is why our country is becoming increasingly angry, hostile, and divided. You have here one portion of society that wants society to embrace being a hedonistic, chaotic sewer, and the rest of normal society that oppose that goal, and want our society to be normal and functional.
Sexualizing and fucking children has always been happening in our society. That doesn't excuse it. It's fucking terrible and action needs to be taken.
The revelations of the 2004 Jay Report on Catholic priests wasn't new priest behavior. It was shining a light on abuse that had been happening for centuries and successfully covered up until then. Tens of thousands of kids are sexually abused every year, the vast majority of them girls abused by adult men - usually family or acquaintances like teachers or priests. This is also not a new thing. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
Greetings!
*LAUGHING*!!! Really, Jhkim?
My reputation here is clear, and unambiguous. Everyone that has known me here--many for *YEARS*--KNOWS my reaction to child fuckers, of any colour, kind, or stripe. Whatever flavour. YOU, TOO, should know. You are just being wormy and shrill, like usual in regards to political discussions with you. WHAT IS SHARK'S RESPONSE TO CHILD MOLESTERS, FOR $1000 ALEX!
ANSWER: NAPALM.
I have not "Downplayed" or defended other kinds of child molesters, Jhkim, because it is like apples and oranges with you. Different scales, different scope, different contexts. Apples and Oranges. *Laughing* Really, Jhkim? Defended? That is just lying entirely, Jhkim. That is just fucking pathetic, man. FUCKING WEAK BABY!
What I have done, is not let you bird-dog the discussion down rabbit-trails to different issues, that you want to smoke and dance, to keep the heat and fire from the fucking trannies. Everyone knows how wormy and feminine you are, Jhkim. Your tactics remind me of how women argue and debate things. VERY FEMININE. Everyone knows how you keep trying to conflate the issues, when the protests, the riots, the meetings, the laws--are not about chasing down all of these other bird dog issues--regardless of what merits they may or may not have--and are focused on fucking DRAG QUEENS and TRANNY PROPAGANDA, and GROOMERS!
That is the issue at hand, Jhkim.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
jhkim has, shall we say, jumped the SHARK...
What the literal fuck at this mental breakdown.
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2023, 11:09:48 PM
Why is this a thing?
Like I've said, to destabilize social norms and bring down society so they can rebuild it in their image.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 21, 2023, 06:32:24 PM
I may regret this.....
Before we go tearing down every pride flag here, I'd like to say that we shouldn't vilify those LGB people who are anti-woke and anti-groomer. Those who just want to be productive members of society and not treated as special.
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Quote from: jeff37923The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
I admit, I have no clue who Blair White is, but I agree with their opinion. That video was arguing against drag shows for kids, so it is also in agreement of my above quoted statement.
I'm not getting what your point is here, unless you are saying I have a double standard.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
If it involves minors, it shouldn't be sexualized. Pretty simple to understand.
The LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour are trying to groom our kids.
Quote from: jeff37923The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2023, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 06:03:19 PM
The revelations of the 2004 Jay Report on Catholic priests wasn't new priest behavior. It was shining a light on abuse that had been happening for centuries and successfully covered up until then. Tens of thousands of kids are sexually abused every year, the vast majority of them girls abused by adult men - usually family or acquaintances like teachers or priests. This is also not a new thing. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
And yet you keep insisting that Drag Queen Hour and other stuff shouldn't concern parents.
How many times do I have to keep saying this?
Parents should be concerned. They should investigate their schools and be involved in their kids' education.
I am a parent, and this is exactly what I did. I was concerned about my child's schooling. I volunteered at his school and got involved. I researched and talked with other parents. I reported what
I found for
my kid's school, which is no sexualized drag shows or anything remotely like that. Other parents should do the same, and I'd be interested to hear what they report.
I've also been concerned about the wider world, and have been watching all the videos and links posted in this thread as well as doing my own searches. All of the drag links that have been posted and that I found in my search were events that
parents deliberately chose to take their own kids to. Many posters here are pushing that it's a threat to conservative parents, when it's what a subset of parents are intentionally choosing for their kids.
And as I said, I support banning sexualized displays to minors as long as it is on an equal basis -- LGBT and straight, drag and non-drag. Likewise, there is plenty of sexual abuse that should be prosecuted -- again, equally for LGBT and straight.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2023, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2023, 06:03:19 PM
The revelations of the 2004 Jay Report on Catholic priests wasn't new priest behavior. It was shining a light on abuse that had been happening for centuries and successfully covered up until then. Tens of thousands of kids are sexually abused every year, the vast majority of them girls abused by adult men - usually family or acquaintances like teachers or priests. This is also not a new thing. President Cleveland became executor and provider for his future wife Frances when she was 11 and he was 38, and she would refer to him as "Uncle Cleve". (ref) (https://pastispresent.org/2021/good-sources/uncle-cleve-president-grover-cleveland-his-story-v-the-truth/)
But according to you, all of this is normal and thus good. It's only if LGBT people do it that it's bad.
And yet you keep insisting that Drag Queen Hour and other stuff shouldn't concern parents.
How many times do I have to keep saying this?
Parents should be concerned. They should investigate their schools and be involved in their kids' education.
I am a parent, and this is exactly what I did. I was concerned about my child's schooling. I volunteered at his school and got involved. I researched and talked with other parents. I reported what I found for my kid's school, which is no sexualized drag shows or anything remotely like that. Other parents should do the same, and I'd be interested to hear what they report.
I've also been concerned about the wider world, and have been watching all the videos and links posted in this thread as well as doing my own searches. All of the drag links that have been posted and that I found in my search were events that parents deliberately chose to take their own kids to. Many posters here are pushing that it's a threat to conservative parents, when it's what a subset of parents are intentionally choosing for their kids.
And as I said, I support banning sexualized displays to minors as long as it is on an equal basis -- LGBT and straight, drag and non-drag. Likewise, there is plenty of sexual abuse that should be prosecuted -- again, equally for LGBT and straight.
First: ALL drag shows performed infront of minors should be banned, it's the camel's nose to normalize other things.
Second: No, it's not a threat to conservative parents, it's a threat to the children taken to those events and the children should be removed from those parents and the parents thrown in jail. Or are you now okay with child beauty pageants just because it's the child's parents who enroll them on those?
Third: It is being banned on an equal basis, the law you keep ranting against ENUMERATES plenty of non-drag performers and includes "entertainment" similar to Drag if it appeals to a prurient interest. Yet you keep crying against it BECAUSE it does enumerate Drag degenerates along with non-Drag degenerates.
Fourth: Plenty of those shows have been on school grounds without involvement from the parents.
Fifth: "Non-Sexual Drag shows" are being used to confuse the children and as the foot in the door to normalize way worst things. Need I remind you the exact same assholes pushing for those are also pushing for pornographic content in preschool and elementary school? Books that even teach minors how to do sexting, get on Grindr to get in touch with ADULT gays, that include text and images you can't show/read on Youtube without getting banned because it's explicitly sexual. Therefore, ANYTHING those same degenerates push for, ALL decent people SHOULD be against on principle.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 22, 2023, 11:19:04 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
If it involves minors, it shouldn't be sexualized. Pretty simple to understand.
The LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour are trying to groom our kids.
Quote from: jeff37923The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
Both times you've specified LGB and seperated out the T. I'm trying to figure out if you mean Transgender are all implicit. Your last reply seems to indicate not.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:41:39 AM
Like I've said, to destabilize social norms and bring down society so they can rebuild it in their image.
Historical social norms are *child sexual abuse*.
Juliet was 13 years old. Snow White was 14. In the past, it was normal for adult men to sexualize, molest, and marry girls this young.
This has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22. Even today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
Planned Parenthood materials shared with 9th grade schoolers:
https://twitter.com/MarkFriesen08/status/1671576485856161792 (https://twitter.com/MarkFriesen08/status/1671576485856161792)
Prevalence of Pedophiles among Hetero/Gay populations:
https://twitter.com/whatley_brady/status/1671729669673037824 (https://twitter.com/whatley_brady/status/1671729669673037824)
If the link to the degenerate materials doesn't work for you and you MUST see it to believe it was pure degeneracy:
http://librarypdf.catie.ca/ATI-20000s/26124.pdf (http://librarypdf.catie.ca/ATI-20000s/26124.pdf)
I wonder WHY some istophobes opposse LGBTQWERTY degenerates having access to minors?
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:41:39 AM
Like I've said, to destabilize social norms and bring down society so they can rebuild it in their image.
Historical social norms are *child sexual abuse*.
Juliet was 13 years old. Snow White was 14. In the past, it was normal for adult men to sexualize, molest, and marry girls this young.
This has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22. Even today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
Re Juliet & Snow White: You're aware people married younger because life expectancy was way lower right? Especially for the woman who really risked dying during childbirth.
Quote
From the 1500s onward, till around the year 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age. Though it's hard to imagine, doctors only began regularly washing their hands before surgery in the mid-1800s
So, at 15 you were about half way between birth and death... But do keep being disingenuous.
Especially when it was YOU who spoke about "Historical social norms" and then said it was "child abuse" without taking into consideration the very real life expectancy issue, I'm sure marrying at 30 was totally an option to most men and women back then.
As for the story you linked... It clearly says that to get married by your own volition you have to be 18, but I'm sure the young girl & her baby would have been better off without the father present...
As for the fucking degenerate shagging a 14 year old girl... If it was MY daughter and she wasn't pregnant... (Insert Shark!'s favourite punishment mode).
But to you a single mother and a baby without father is better than a shotgun wedding, are you sure you're worried about child brides or about the men who get them pregnant?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
I think you misunderstood me. If a LGBTIA+ person is
not buying into the woke shit, let them be. Those that are in the war against normal people should be dealt with harshly.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 12:22:11 PM
Parents should be concerned. They should investigate their schools and be involved in their kids' education.
I am a parent, and this is exactly what I did. I was concerned about my child's schooling. I volunteered at his school and got involved. I researched and talked with other parents. I reported what I found for my kid's school, which is no sexualized drag shows or anything remotely like that. Other parents should do the same, and I'd be interested to hear what they report.
I've also been concerned about the wider world, and have been watching all the videos and links posted in this thread as well as doing my own searches. All of the drag links that have been posted and that I found in my search were events that parents deliberately chose to take their own kids to. Many posters here are pushing that it's a threat to conservative parents, when it's what a subset of parents are intentionally choosing for their kids.
And as I said, I support banning sexualized displays to minors as long as it is on an equal basis -- LGBT and straight, drag and non-drag. Likewise, there is plenty of sexual abuse that should be prosecuted -- again, equally for LGBT and straight.
First: ALL drag shows performed infront of minors should be banned, it's the camel's nose to normalize other things.
...
Fourth: Plenty of those shows have been on school grounds without involvement from the parents.
Fifth: "Non-Sexual Drag shows" are being used to confuse the children and as the foot in the door to normalize way worst things. Need I remind you the exact same assholes pushing for those are also pushing for pornographic content in preschool and elementary school? Books that even teach minors how to do sexting, get on Grindr to get in touch with ADULT gays, that include text and images you can't show/read on Youtube without getting banned because it's explicitly sexual. Therefore, ANYTHING those same degenerates push for, ALL decent people SHOULD be against on principle.
As I said, I went with my extended family to go see the Kinky Boots musical back in 2014 -- including my son who was 14 at the time. Everyone pretty liked it, and I thought it was between a very tame PG-13 at most. So, according to you, I am one of these degenerate groomers, and I was trying to sexualize my son.
Banning the Kinky Boots musical, I claim, is not about protecting kids. It's engaging in a self-righteous tirade like the moral majority who wanted to ban D&D -- while failing to target the actual abusers.
It's like attacking all LGBT people. By doing so, it's just attacking people who would otherwise agree with you. LGBT people don't want people messing with their kids. They want to raise their kids in a safe environment. But also, LGBT parents don't want their kids being told that being gay is degenerate sin, or that all drag is evil pedophilia.
---
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Second: No, it's not a threat to conservative parents, it's a threat to the children taken to those events and the children should be removed from those parents and the parents thrown in jail. Or are you now okay with child beauty pageants just because it's the child's parents who enroll them on those?
Third: It is being banned on an equal basis, the law you keep ranting against ENUMERATES plenty of non-drag performers and includes "entertainment" similar to Drag if it appeals to a prurient interest. Yet you keep crying against it BECAUSE it does enumerate Drag degenerates along with non-Drag degenerates.
Regarding #2, yes - taking kids to X-rated drag shows should be illegal, as should taking kids to X-rated non-drag shows. And yeah, I'd support banning child beauty pageants too, like they are banned in France. (ref) (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/france-bans-child-beauty-pageants-america-unlikely-to-follow-10155596/)
Regarding #3, I don't think we're going to resolve the legal interpretation, so I'll just agree to disagree.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 12:22:11 PM
Parents should be concerned. They should investigate their schools and be involved in their kids' education.
I am a parent, and this is exactly what I did. I was concerned about my child's schooling. I volunteered at his school and got involved. I researched and talked with other parents. I reported what I found for my kid's school, which is no sexualized drag shows or anything remotely like that. Other parents should do the same, and I'd be interested to hear what they report.
I've also been concerned about the wider world, and have been watching all the videos and links posted in this thread as well as doing my own searches. All of the drag links that have been posted and that I found in my search were events that parents deliberately chose to take their own kids to. Many posters here are pushing that it's a threat to conservative parents, when it's what a subset of parents are intentionally choosing for their kids.
And as I said, I support banning sexualized displays to minors as long as it is on an equal basis -- LGBT and straight, drag and non-drag. Likewise, there is plenty of sexual abuse that should be prosecuted -- again, equally for LGBT and straight.
First: ALL drag shows performed infront of minors should be banned, it's the camel's nose to normalize other things.
...
Fourth: Plenty of those shows have been on school grounds without involvement from the parents.
Fifth: "Non-Sexual Drag shows" are being used to confuse the children and as the foot in the door to normalize way worst things. Need I remind you the exact same assholes pushing for those are also pushing for pornographic content in preschool and elementary school? Books that even teach minors how to do sexting, get on Grindr to get in touch with ADULT gays, that include text and images you can't show/read on Youtube without getting banned because it's explicitly sexual. Therefore, ANYTHING those same degenerates push for, ALL decent people SHOULD be against on principle.
As I said, I went with my extended family to go see the Kinky Boots musical back in 2014 -- including my son who was 14 at the time. Everyone pretty liked it, and I thought it was between a very tame PG-13 at most. So, according to you, I am one of these degenerate groomers, and I was trying to sexualize my son.
Banning the Kinky Boots musical, I claim, is not about protecting kids. It's engaging in a self-righteous tirade like the moral majority who wanted to ban D&D -- while failing to target the actual abusers.
It's like attacking all LGBT people. By doing so, it's just attacking people who would otherwise agree with you. LGBT people don't want people messing with their kids. They want to raise their kids in a safe environment. But also, LGBT parents don't want their kids being told that being gay is degenerate sin, or that all drag is evil pedophilia.
---
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Second: No, it's not a threat to conservative parents, it's a threat to the children taken to those events and the children should be removed from those parents and the parents thrown in jail. Or are you now okay with child beauty pageants just because it's the child's parents who enroll them on those?
Third: It is being banned on an equal basis, the law you keep ranting against ENUMERATES plenty of non-drag performers and includes "entertainment" similar to Drag if it appeals to a prurient interest. Yet you keep crying against it BECAUSE it does enumerate Drag degenerates along with non-Drag degenerates.
Regarding #2, yes - taking kids to X-rated drag shows should be illegal, as should taking kids to X-rated non-drag shows. And yeah, I'd support banning child beauty pageants too, like they are banned in France. (ref) (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/france-bans-child-beauty-pageants-america-unlikely-to-follow-10155596/)
Regarding #3, I don't think we're going to resolve the legal interpretation, so I'll just agree to disagree.
No, besides the groomers and degenerates there's also the well meaning people who don't think things thru or that are easily manipulated by appeals to emotion (so Leftists).
Banning ALL drag from being performed infront of minors isn't an attack on no one but those who want to use it as the camel's nose to groom children.
You can make all the emotional appeals and call me all sotr of names, it won't work, and remember: I was an Atheist during the Atheism+ kerfufle, I was arguing against Christians who made the Slippery Slope "fallacy" (to my shame), and who have been proven right time and again.
Well, "innocent" Drag performed infront of minors is just the camel's nose, it's the start of the next Slippery Slope, that you can't see it (because you're emoting and not thinking) doesn't make it less so.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 03:46:29 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 03:36:50 PM
As I said, I went with my extended family to go see the Kinky Boots musical back in 2014 -- including my son who was 14 at the time. Everyone pretty liked it, and I thought it was between a very tame PG-13 at most. So, according to you, I am one of these degenerate groomers, and I was trying to sexualize my son.
No, besides the groomers and degenerates there's also the well meaning people who don't think things thru or that are easily manipulated by appeals to emotion (so Leftists).
Banning ALL drag from being performed infront of minors isn't an attack on no one but those who want to use it as the camel's nose to groom children.
You can make all the emotional appeals and call me all sotr of names, it won't work, and remember: I was an Atheist during the Atheism+ kerfufle, I was arguing against Christians who made the Slippery Slope "fallacy" (to my shame), and who have been proven right time and again.
Well, "innocent" Drag performed infront of minors is just the camel's nose, it's the start of the next Slippery Slope, that you can't see it (because you're emoting and not thinking) doesn't make it less so.
Fair enough. I guess I'd call you a useful idiot who's following the usual authoritarian playbook.
There's drugs -- so we need to government to not just fight drugs. They need to be able to search everyone for anything related to drugs, and track everyone's money.
There's terrorists -- so we need the government to not just fight terrorists. They need to be able to tap everyone's phones and monitor them to fight radicalization.
Surely if we just keep giving the government more and more power, then the culture will get more moral.
----
I'm not pro-drugs or pro-terrorism. But I think the outrage-driven government empowerment weren't actually benevolent - they were authoritarian power grabs.
You accuse me of emotion, but I think you are emotionally reacting to drag. The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays. Banning previously-legal shows like "Kinky Boots" and "Victor/Victoria" in the name of preventing wrongthink is exactly the above sort of authoritarian overreach.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 22, 2023, 11:19:04 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
If it involves minors, it shouldn't be sexualized. Pretty simple to understand.
The LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour are trying to groom our kids.
Quote from: jeff37923The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
Both times you've specified LGB and seperated out the T. I'm trying to figure out if you mean Transgender are all implicit. Your last reply seems to indicate not.
I can only speak from personal experience, but out of the six trans I've met and interacted with none of them were what I would call emotionally stable. Now all of them were also post surgery, so I don't know if that makes a difference.
Lumped under the heading of trans we have Dylan Mulvany and the now numerous biological men competing in women's sports who claim to be transitioning but haven't started on hormones or the surgery. These faux trans are more drag queens than anything else, but are still called trans.
So I acknowledge poor wording on my part because the deliberately ambiguous application of the definition of trans in practice does make it difficult to pin down. I try to go more by the person's actions than what they say to define them in my mind because I suspect that how they self identify can change depending on what is most advantageous for them.
QuoteRe Juliet & Snow White: You're aware people married younger because life expectancy was way lower right? Especially for the woman who really risked dying during childbirth.
It's way more complex. Sure life expectancy was way lower - but that mostly due to high infant death and fact most elderly died earlier due to various infections. But if you lived to be 10 then barring some grand plague - your expectancy was quite decent. And in fact obviously marrying 14s was bad solution - because childbirth becomes optimally safe around 18 y.o. so I kinda doubt increased mortality of teen brides really made difference in plus. There were other elements mostly socioeconomical - local traditions, political deals, land ownership that made people quicken it.
That's why high born or rich girls were usually married off earlier than peasant girls - who had to work for their dowry and it often took some time, and pressure for fast alliance or deal was lesser (and 18 y.o. daughter is still useful pair of working hand for farmer).
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:41:39 AM
Like I've said, to destabilize social norms and bring down society so they can rebuild it in their image.
Historical social norms are *child sexual abuse*.
I'm not talking about historical social norms.
QuoteJuliet was 13 years old. Snow White was 14. In the past, it was normal for adult men to sexualize, molest, and marry girls this young.
You do realize Juliet and Snow White are fictional characters?
QuoteThis has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.
And it was largely frowned upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#:~:text=Marriage%20controversy,-Lewis's%20turbulent%20personal&text=She%20is%20Lewis's%20first%20cousin,canceled%20after%20only%20three%20concerts.
QuoteEven today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
I'm not talking about child marriage. I'd ask why you're deflecting from the subject, but we've both been on this message board long enough to recognize that tactic.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 22, 2023, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 22, 2023, 11:19:04 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: BadApple on June 22, 2023, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 01:23:24 AM
So what do we do with the T who are anti-woke and anti-groomer?
Ignore them. Let them live their lives and go on about ours. A huge part of "woke" is social bullying others. The big problem is the T who are the problem are trying to pry into other people's lives and demand that we change for them.
Edit: removed vid
So the LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour would get a pass? I'm trying to understand how this line is drawn.
If it involves minors, it shouldn't be sexualized. Pretty simple to understand.
The LGB who are woke and support activism like Drag Queen Story Hour are trying to groom our kids.
Quote from: jeff37923The ones trying to groom our kids, push trans medical procedures on minors, and claim biological men can compete fairly with women - unleash Hell.
Both times you've specified LGB and seperated out the T. I'm trying to figure out if you mean Transgender are all implicit. Your last reply seems to indicate not.
I can only speak from personal experience, but out of the six trans I've met and interacted with none of them were what I would call emotionally stable. Now all of them were also post surgery, so I don't know if that makes a difference.
Lumped under the heading of trans we have Dylan Mulvany and the now numerous biological men competing in women's sports who claim to be transitioning but haven't started on hormones or the surgery. These faux trans are more drag queens than anything else, but are still called trans.
So I acknowledge poor wording on my part because the deliberately ambiguous application of the definition of trans in practice does make it difficult to pin down. I try to go more by the person's actions than what they say to define them in my mind because I suspect that how they self identify can change depending on what is most advantageous for them.
I agree. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Thanks.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
This has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.
And it was largely frowned upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#:~:text=Marriage%20controversy,-Lewis's%20turbulent%20personal&text=She%20is%20Lewis's%20first%20cousin,canceled%20after%20only%20three%20concerts.
Frowned upon! Well, golly, being frowned on is surely reaction enough. He went on to two dozen gold records, a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, two Grammy Hall of Fame Awards, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and a 1989 biopic about that marriage - that ends with him smiling as he runs out of church to his loving teenage wife.
Do you think that some frowns is the right reaction to his actions? I don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
Even today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
I'm not talking about child marriage. I'd ask why you're deflecting from the subject, but we've both been on this message board long enough to recognize that tactic.
We're talking about protecting children from sexualization. Here's how SHARK put it:
Quote from: SHARK on June 21, 2023, 04:46:52 AM
A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
I actually agree with this part. Normalize sexualizing and fucking children should be banned and crushed.
It should not simply be frowned on.
That goes regardless of whether they are left-wing or right-wing, LGBT or straight - and there are those among all these. LGBT abusers like Kevin Spacey should be prosecuted. If the charges won't stick, their public career should be over. That goes double for politicians like Dennis Hastert or Anthony Weiner. Everyone should get a fair trial over accusations, but if they're found guilty (or confess), then crush them.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
This has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.
And it was largely frowned upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#:~:text=Marriage%20controversy,-Lewis's%20turbulent%20personal&text=She%20is%20Lewis's%20first%20cousin,canceled%20after%20only%20three%20concerts.
Frowned upon! Well, golly, being frowned on is surely reaction enough. He went on to two dozen gold records, a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, two Grammy Hall of Fame Awards, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and a 1989 biopic about that marriage - that ends with him smiling as he runs out of church to his loving teenage wife.
Do you think that some frowns is the right reaction to his actions? I don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
Even today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
I'm not talking about child marriage. I'd ask why you're deflecting from the subject, but we've both been on this message board long enough to recognize that tactic.
We're talking about protecting children from sexualization. Here's how SHARK put it:
Quote from: SHARK on June 21, 2023, 04:46:52 AM
A key element in the process of corrupting our society is the groomers wanting to normalize sexualizing and fucking children. A major step to making that a reality is ensuring their constant access to children, both physically, and intellectually, so that children can be brainwashed and corrupted into embracing a degenerate and depraved lifestyle.
This is all why I believe that all of this degeneracy should be banned, and harshly crushed.
I actually agree with this part. Normalize sexualizing and fucking children should be banned and crushed.
It should not simply be frowned on.
That goes regardless of whether they are left-wing or right-wing, LGBT or straight - and there are those among all these. LGBT abusers like Kevin Spacey should be prosecuted. If the charges won't stick, their public career should be over. That goes double for politicians like Dennis Hastert or Anthony Weiner. Everyone should get a fair trial over accusations, but if they're found guilty (or confess), then crush them.
You do realize that Jerry Lee Lewis rock-and-roll career effectively ended after he married his cousin, don't you?
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 22, 2023, 08:22:29 PM
You do realize that Jerry Lee Lewis rock-and-roll career effectively ended after he married his cousin, don't you?
The scandal put a damper from 1958 to 1964, but his career revived after that. It was in country music instead of rock-and-roll -- but as I said, he still had dozens of hits, gold records, four Grammys, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the happy-ending 1989 biopic. He continued to produced into the 2010s.
From Wikipedia on his later career:
QuoteHis 1964 live album Live at the Star Club, Hamburg is regarded by many music journalists and fans as one of the wildest and greatest live rock albums ever. In 1968, Lewis made a transition into country music and had hits with songs such as "Another Place, Another Time". This reignited his career, and throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, he regularly topped the country-western charts; throughout his seven-decade career, Lewis had 30 songs reach the Top 10 on the Billboard Country and Western Chart. His No. 1 country hits included "To Make Love Sweeter for You", "There Must Be More to Love Than This", "Would You Take Another Chance on Me", and "Me and Bobby McGee".
Lewis's successes continued throughout the decades, and he embraced his rock and roll past with songs such as a cover of The Big Bopper's "Chantilly Lace" and Mack Vickery's "Rockin' My Life Away". In the 21st century, Lewis continued to tour worldwide and released new albums. His 2006 album Last Man Standing was his best-selling release, with over a million copies worldwide. This was followed by Mean Old Man in 2010, another of his bestselling albums.
Lewis had a dozen gold records in rock and country. He won four Grammy awards, including a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and two Grammy Hall of Fame Awards. Lewis was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986, and his pioneering contribution to the genre was recognized by the Rockabilly Hall of Fame. He was also a member of the inaugural class inducted into the Memphis Music Hall of Fame. He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2022. In 1989, his life was chronicled in the movie Great Balls of Fire, starring Dennis Quaid. In 2003, Rolling Stone listed his box set All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology at number 242 on their list of "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". In 2004, they ranked him No. 24 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. Lewis was the last surviving member of Sun Records' Million Dollar Quartet and the album Class of '55, which also included Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, and Elvis Presley.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
This has only slowly changed through 20th century America. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.
And it was largely frowned upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#:~:text=Marriage%20controversy,-Lewis's%20turbulent%20personal&text=She%20is%20Lewis's%20first%20cousin,canceled%20after%20only%20three%20concerts.
Frowned upon! Well, golly, being frowned on is surely reaction enough. He went on to two dozen gold records, a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, two Grammy Hall of Fame Awards, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and a 1989 biopic about that marriage - that ends with him smiling as he runs out of church to his loving teenage wife.
Do you think that some frowns is the right reaction to his actions? I don't.
At 53, both 13 and 22 sound like kids to me. But I have become a grumpy old fart. What is the appropriate legal stance on a 13 and 22 year old getting married? I don't know. Burn them at the stake maybe? Firing squad?
QuoteQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2023, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 02:33:22 PM
Even today, child marriage is still legal in 42 out of 50 states. cf.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/
I support some historical moral values -- but child sexualization isn't one of them. Some norms can and should be destabilized.
I'm not talking about child marriage. I'd ask why you're deflecting from the subject, but we've both been on this message board long enough to recognize that tactic.
We're talking about protecting children from sexualization. Here's how SHARK put it:
I don't care what SHARK said. I try not to read his posts, though he's not annoying enough to have put on ignore yet.
I was originally commenting on the motivations of the queer activists in pushing pornography on children. If you want to go off on a tangent, I'll let you go at it.
Greetings!
Jhkim, your interpretation of social and marriage customs of the past as when girls married at young ages as being "Child Abuse and Oppression" is simply wrong. You are reading modernistic moral choices into the past. Just about everyone was considered to be an adult in their adolescent years--perfectly ready to marry, get a job, or begin running a household and having babies. This social and moral perspective applied more or less equally to both men and women. Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values. Oppression and child abuse had nothing to do with it.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If you want to have a satanic church where men married to one another baptize their "child" and everyone is happy about that knock yourself out. Just keep your twisted morality out of schools and away from other people's kids and we can all play nice. Keep pushing boys in the girls room and trannies entertaining kids and some people are going to get hurt. Permanently.
TIL that jhkim thinks it's an authoritarian overreach to require adult performances to not allow minors.
That's one hell of a hot take.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 23, 2023, 09:02:27 AM
TIL that jhkim thinks it's an authoritarian overreach to require adult performances to not allow minors.
That's one hell of a hot take.
Here is what I said:
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 04:51:01 PM
You accuse me of emotion, but I think you are emotionally reacting to drag. The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays. Banning previously-legal shows like "Kinky Boots" and "Victor/Victoria" in the name of preventing wrongthink is exactly the above sort of authoritarian overreach.
In case you don't recognize the references, "Victor/Victoria" is a comedy starring Julie Andrews and James Garner that was rated PG when it was released in 1982. "Kinky Boots" was originally a British movie rated PG-13 when it came out in 2005, though I was referring more to the musical adaptation that came out in 2012.
And by "explicit sexual displays" - yes, I mean adult performances.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 10:26:09 AM
You accuse me of emotion, but I think you are emotionally reacting to drag. The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays.
No, what we reject is your authority (and competence) to define what is harmful to kids. Drag shows
are harmful to kids. Moments of cross-dressing, especially when humorous, are not, because they are reinforcing the public norms. Kids can watch Bugs Bunny. (Older) kids can watch Mrs. Doubtfire. No kids should be watching a "Drag show", as these
always include sexual dancing, displays, etc. And, since drag queen story hour normalizes drag for kids, it's out, too.
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 04:51:01 PM
The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays.
The government. The same one pushing poison masquerading as vaccines and shutting down skateparks by filling them up with sand? The one sending billions of dollars to the Ukraine to ensure some faggot ass motherfucking Ukrainians have their retirement accounts funded while inflation spirals out of control? That one?
You are real human or simply a meat robot at this point? You have the most retarded possible takes for someone who is allegedly "educated". Actually, your takes line up precisely with the utterly retarded nonsense that fucking dumbasses with degrees from universities seem to always have. It's amazing how brainwashed and stupid you are, and yet completely unable to realize it. Just like all the other leftists who have been brainwashed into thinking they have the moral high ground while they erode Western society into dust. When they line your ass up at the gulag will you even realize the bullet hitting your skull is actually bad for you, or will you think it's the best possible idea because the state deemed it so?
I used to think this sort of shit was obnoxious, now I realize the clowns have taken over so I'm just gonna enjoy the circus.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
No, end of distraction.
Are you going to focus on the discussion or continue to desperately keep moving goalposts until people get bored and just put you on ignore?
Comparing drag to crossdressing is intentionally disingenuous. Drag is explicitly and intentionally sexualized, by admission of it's performers and proponents.
I really don't understand why you Istophobes want to keed the Stunning and Brave Drag Queens away from children.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
No, end of distraction.
Are you going to focus on the discussion or continue to desperately keep moving goalposts until people get bored and just put you on ignore?
Greetings!
Yes, that's right, Jeff! We need to focus on the glorious BBQ! No worming and dancing allowed goddamnit! Jhkim loves being wormy and feminine! Mind boggling how he argues politics just like a woman. ;D *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
Are you going to focus on the discussion or continue to desperately keep moving goalposts until people get bored and just put you on ignore?
The discussion has been about the sexualization of minors. The original topic was about authoritarianism -- and it moved into the subtopic of Tennessee Adult Entertainment act. According to proponents of the law here, it isn't specific to drag.
The stated reason for the law is to protect minors from sexualization. As such, I think it's absolutely central to the discussion to define what is and is not inappropriate sexualization of minors.
For example, in reply #422 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/new-study-proves-pundit-was-right/msg1257342/#msg1257342), GeekyBugle brought up cartoon drawings used in a sex ed class for 15-year-olds in Saskatchewan. I agree that the material was inappropriate - but the line of what is appropriate for a 15-year-old sex ed class is different from what is appropriate for other ages.
At what age is it acceptable for a minor to marry and have sex with an adult? If we say that 13-year-olds shouldn't be seeing sexual material, then obviously they also shouldn't be courted and have sex with adults.
EDITED TO ADD: I say "obviously", but that is my opinion. I think 13-year-olds should be allowed to see PG-13 references, but I don't think they should be allowed to marry an adult.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 23, 2023, 10:31:15 AM
Drag shows are harmful to kids. Moments of cross-dressing, especially when humorous, are not, because they are reinforcing the public norms. Kids can watch Bugs Bunny. (Older) kids can watch Mrs. Doubtfire. No kids should be watching a "Drag show", as these always include sexual dancing, displays, etc. And, since drag queen story hour normalizes drag for kids, it's out, too.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2023, 12:42:17 PM
Comparing drag to crossdressing is intentionally disingenuous. Drag is explicitly and intentionally sexualized, by admission of it's performers and proponents.
I picked my recent examples of "Victor/Victoria" and the "Kinky Boots" musical because they are specifically about flamboyant drag queens, not just generic cross-dressing. I claim it's fine to consider them PG, but it shouldn't be considered criminal to show to either to a 14-year-old. I claim shows should be banned based on the sexuality shown. Note that the Tennessee law doesn't use either "drag" or "cross-dressing" as terms, but instead says "male or female impersonators".
To Ratman - How would you define the difference between drag and cross-dressing? Are you saying cross-dressing in front of minors acceptable as long as it isn't drag? What line do you propose?
To Eirikrautha - Your example of
Mrs. Doubtfire is interesting. In many other cross-dressing comedies like
Tootsie or
She's the Man, the protagonist gives up cross-dressing in the end. In
Mrs. Doubtfire, the protagonist Daniel originally adopts his cross-dressing persona as a disguise -- but in the end, he keeps it and turns it into a professional act for kids.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 01:26:00 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
Are you going to focus on the discussion or continue to desperately keep moving goalposts until people get bored and just put you on ignore?
The discussion has been about the sexualization of minors. The original topic was about authoritarianism -- and it moved into the subtopic of Tennessee Adult Entertainment act. According to proponents of the law here, it isn't specific to drag.
The stated reason for the law is to protect minors from sexualization. As such, I think it's absolutely central to the discussion to define what is and is not inappropriate sexualization of minors.
For example, in reply #422 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/new-study-proves-pundit-was-right/msg1257342/#msg1257342), GeekyBugle brought up cartoon drawings used in a sex ed class for 15-year-olds in Saskatchewan. I agree that the material was inappropriate - but the line of what is appropriate for a 15-year-old sex ed class is different from what is appropriate for other ages.
At what age is it acceptable for a minor to marry and have sex with an adult? If we say that 13-year-olds shouldn't be seeing sexual material, then obviously they also shouldn't be courted and have sex with adults.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 23, 2023, 10:31:15 AM
Drag shows are harmful to kids. Moments of cross-dressing, especially when humorous, are not, because they are reinforcing the public norms. Kids can watch Bugs Bunny. (Older) kids can watch Mrs. Doubtfire. No kids should be watching a "Drag show", as these always include sexual dancing, displays, etc. And, since drag queen story hour normalizes drag for kids, it's out, too.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2023, 12:42:17 PM
Comparing drag to crossdressing is intentionally disingenuous. Drag is explicitly and intentionally sexualized, by admission of it's performers and proponents.
I picked my recent examples of "Victor/Victoria" and the "Kinky Boots" musical because they are specifically about flamboyant drag queens, not just generic cross-dressing. I claim it's fine to consider them PG, but it shouldn't be considered criminal to show to either to a 14-year-old. I claim shows should be banned based on the sexuality shown. Note that the Tennessee law doesn't use either "drag" or "cross-dressing" as terms, but instead says "male or female impersonators".
To Ratman - How would you define the difference between drag and cross-dressing? Are you saying cross-dressing in front of minors acceptable as long as it isn't drag? What line do you propose?
To Eirikrautha - Your example of Mrs. Doubtfire is interesting. In many other cross-dressing comedies like Tootsie or She's the Man, the protagonist gives up cross-dressing in the end. In Mrs. Doubtfire, the protagonist Daniel originally adopts his cross-dressing persona as a disguise -- but in the end, he keeps it and turns it into a professional act for kids.
You know, when you quote me, you should include all of the quote.
Quote from: jeff37923 that jhkim ignored in a fit of intellectual dishonesty
No, end of distraction.
So, you are going to conflate Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his underage cousin back in the fifties with Drag Queens grooming kids seventy years later. That the hill you are going to die on?
OK, is marrying a minor in Tennessee a problem now?
Quote from: Tennessee Marriage Law
Minimum Age of Applicants
It is unlawful for any county clerk or deputy county clerk in this state to issue a marriage license when either of the contracting parties is under the age of seventeen (17) years, or where one of the parties is at least seventeen (17) years of age but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the other party is four (4) or more years older than the minor party. Any marriage contracted in violation of this provision may be annulled upon proper proceedings. T.C.A. § 36-3-105. However, a marriage entered into in violation of this section is valid until set aside by a court. The court has discretion whether to set aside the marriage, and the court is not required to declare the marriage void. Further, cohabitation after attaining marriageable age may validate the marriage. See Keith v. Pack, 182 Tenn. 420, 187 S.W.2d 618 (1945).
When either applicant is under the age of eighteen (18), the parents, next of kin, guardian or party having custody of the applicant shall join in the application, under oath, stating that the applicant is seventeen (17) years of age or over and that the applicant has their consent to marry. The term "parent" or "parents" is defined in T.C.A. § 36-3-106 to mean a person or persons listed as a parent on the child's birth certificate or who have been adjudicated to be the legal parent of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction. If the applicant is in the legal custody of any public or private agency or is in the legal custody of any person other than a parent, next of kin, or guardian, then such person or the duly authorized representative of such agency shall join in the application with the parent, next of kin, or guardian stating, under oath, that the applicant has their consent to marry. The parents, guardian, next of kin, other person having custody of the applicant, or duly authorized representative of a public or private agency having legal custody of the applicant may join in the application either by personal appearance before the county clerk or deputy county clerk, or by submitting a sworn and notarized affidavit. This provision does not apply to applicants who are in the legal custody of the department of mental health and mental retardation. Consent also is not required if the minor applicant has been emancipated, by court order or by previous marriage. T.C.A. § 36-3-106.
Nope! It is illegal and a marriage license will not be issued!
So shut the fuck up about Jerry Lee Lewis and lets get back to drag queens sexualizing our kids in the here and now. OK, groomer?
A blogger I still read had a problem with a similar leftist commenter on his site. The politics of the guy weren't the problem. The problem was that the guy was atrociously bad at debate and persisted in numerous dishonest tactics, which he catalogued.
#1 The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
#2 The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#3 The "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
#5 The "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
#8 The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
#9 The "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. He simply asserts that the other side is what he doesn't like his side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#10 The "Brave Sir Robin" response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
#11 The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. Found for the first time in this thread from December '09
#12 The "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.
Numerous examples of many of these standard responses are to be found in the epic-length comment thread to this post.
Goodness, this seems familiar...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1672125057521315842
100% nothing add or disturbing about this whatsoever. None. If you disagree, it means you support priests diddling kids and marrying 8 year olds, dude.
EDIT: Oh, and also this. Shocked I tell you, shocked! Well, not that shocked: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-democrat-transgender-state-rep-shocking-criminal-past-arrested-child-pornography-charges
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
In response, many posters have just been name-calling and what-abouting -- with "OK groomer" and other shit rather than actually stating a position about any of this.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female pberformer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
In response, many posters have just been name-calling and what-abouting -- with "OK groomer" and other shit rather than actually stating a position about any of this.
Get fucked. I've answered each one of your bullshit questions and you have not answered any, just deflected the inquiry.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 06:31:22 PM
Get fucked. I've answered each one of your bullshit questions and you have not answered any, just deflected the inquiry.
Fuck you too, jeff. Repeatedly in this conversation, you've come at me saying I'm lying about some subpoint -- like Judge Parker's ruling or Jerry Lee Lewis' career. Then when I argue with you and show evidence to back up what I said, you get angry and claim that I'm deflecting from the main point, when it was you who started the side argument.
SHARK claims that society used to be more moral back in the 1950s, and that today there is moral breakdown being caused by the mainstream of LGBT activists. That degenerates and child abusers are found today, while back when gay people were thrown in jail, things were better.
---
I claim that we see degeneracy today is because there has
always been degeneracy. It's only rose-colored glasses that there wasn't rampant degeneracy back in the 1950s, including child sexual abuse. Sexual abuse isn't exclusive to the left or the right. There are plenty of Democratic politicians and LGBT figures who have been child abusers, and there have also been plenty of conservative abusers - Catholic priests, Republican politicians, and so on.
Back in the 1950s, there was more hushing up of when priests or politicians or others would abuse children. That's not better - it's worse. It's the modern push to protect children and expose child abusers that lead to Catholic priest scandals and others. Dennis Hastert was Republican Speaker of the House for eight years (1999-2007). He was outed as a serial child molester only in 2015 thanks to modern investigation - when he molested numerous boys he was coaching in the 1970s.
There has been a ton of activism to change things to protect children -- including by raising the age of consent and age of marriage, sex ed programs teaching kids to speak up if they are abused ("Bad touch!"), and breaking up sex trafficking. These are not partisan efforts. We need more of it.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 01:26:00 PM
The discussion has been about the sexualization of minors. The original topic was about authoritarianism -- and it moved into the subtopic of Tennessee Adult Entertainment act. According to proponents of the law here, it isn't specific to drag.
So, you are going to conflate Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his underage cousin back in the fifties with Drag Queens grooming kids seventy years later. That the hill you are going to die on?
OK, is marrying a minor in Tennessee a problem now?
Child marriage is still a problem nationally - and because of interstate transport, adults can still take minors to other states to get married, like Heather in the Frontline article. Thankfully, because of activists, Tennessee marriage law was reformed in 2018.
QuoteMay 22, 2018
Gov. Bill Haslam on Monday signed a bill into law that prohibits the marriage of minors under the age of 17 in Tennessee.
The governor's signature marks the conclusion of a months-long campaign to end child marriage in the state after the nonprofit organization, Unchained at Last, and two Democratic lawmakers brought attention to the issue in February.
The latest version of the law passed through the legislature in April and is now in effect.
The nonprofit pointed out that previous law allowed a judge to waive the minimum age limit for marriage if guardians of a child consented. The group found the loophole had allowed numerous cases of children 16 and younger to marry and cited higher divorce rates and instances of abuse for married minors.
The new law prohibits anyone under the age of 17 from marrying in Tennessee and anyone under 18 from marrying someone who is four or more years older.
The new law also addresses concerns from some lawmakers that a minor could become trapped in a marriage until they turn 18. The law grants the married minor all the rights and responsibilities of an adult, except for constitutional or statutory age requirements, such as voting and the use of alcoholic beverages.
Source: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/22/governor-signs-law-banning-tennessee-child-marriage/632925002/
Note Donna Pollard in the video of the article as she describes being groomed, married, and abused by her former counselor.
Grooming is a real problem - by both straight and LGBT abusers. I think bipartisan efforts among people who oppose this sort of grooming and abuse should be the way forward.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 06:31:22 PM
Get fucked. I've answered each one of your bullshit questions and you have not answered any, just deflected the inquiry.
Fuck you too, jeff. Repeatedly in this conversation, you've come at me saying I'm lying about some subpoint -- like Judge Parker's ruling or Jerry Lee Lewis' career. Then when I argue with you and show evidence to back up what I said, you get angry and claim that I'm deflecting from the main point, when it was you who started the side argument.
SHARK claims that society used to be more moral back in the 1950s, and that today there is moral breakdown being caused by the mainstream of LGBT activists. That degenerates and child abusers are found today, while back when gay people were thrown in jail, things were better.
---
I claim that we see degeneracy today is because there has always been degeneracy. It's only rose-colored glasses that there wasn't rampant degeneracy back in the 1950s, including child sexual abuse. Sexual abuse isn't exclusive to the left or the right. There are plenty of Democratic politicians and LGBT figures who have been child abusers, and there have also been plenty of conservative abusers - Catholic priests, Republican politicians, and so on.
Back in the 1950s, there was more hushing up of when priests or politicians or others would abuse children. That's not better - it's worse. It's the modern push to protect children and expose child abusers that lead to Catholic priest scandals and others. Dennis Hastert was Republican Speaker of the House for eight years (1999-2007). He was outed as a serial child molester only in 2015 thanks to modern investigation - when he molested numerous boys he was coaching in the 1970s.
There has been a ton of activism to change things to protect children -- including by raising the age of consent and age of marriage, sex ed programs teaching kids to speak up if they are abused ("Bad touch!"), and breaking up sex trafficking. These are not partisan efforts. We need more of it.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 01:26:00 PM
The discussion has been about the sexualization of minors. The original topic was about authoritarianism -- and it moved into the subtopic of Tennessee Adult Entertainment act. According to proponents of the law here, it isn't specific to drag.
So, you are going to conflate Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his underage cousin back in the fifties with Drag Queens grooming kids seventy years later. That the hill you are going to die on?
OK, is marrying a minor in Tennessee a problem now?
Child marriage is still a problem nationally - and because of interstate transport, adults can still take minors to other states to get married, like Heather in the Frontline article. Thankfully, because of activists, Tennessee marriage law was reformed in 2018.
QuoteMay 22, 2018
Gov. Bill Haslam on Monday signed a bill into law that prohibits the marriage of minors under the age of 17 in Tennessee.
The governor's signature marks the conclusion of a months-long campaign to end child marriage in the state after the nonprofit organization, Unchained at Last, and two Democratic lawmakers brought attention to the issue in February.
The latest version of the law passed through the legislature in April and is now in effect.
The nonprofit pointed out that previous law allowed a judge to waive the minimum age limit for marriage if guardians of a child consented. The group found the loophole had allowed numerous cases of children 16 and younger to marry and cited higher divorce rates and instances of abuse for married minors.
The new law prohibits anyone under the age of 17 from marrying in Tennessee and anyone under 18 from marrying someone who is four or more years older.
The new law also addresses concerns from some lawmakers that a minor could become trapped in a marriage until they turn 18. The law grants the married minor all the rights and responsibilities of an adult, except for constitutional or statutory age requirements, such as voting and the use of alcoholic beverages.
Source: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/22/governor-signs-law-banning-tennessee-child-marriage/632925002/
Note Donna Pollard in the video of the article as she describes being groomed, married, and abused by her former counselor.
Grooming is a real problem - by both straight and LGBT abusers. I think bipartisan efforts among people who oppose this sort of grooming and abuse should be the way forward.
Because you are deflecting and lying you shitweasel. Judge Parker's ruling doesn't mean jack shit because the bill is slated to be argued in the next higher court and will continue to be until it reaches the Supreme Court. YOU were the fuckstick who brought up child marriage and Jerry Lee Lewis and have yet to relate it back to drag queens in schools influencing little kids even though you created that derailment of the conversation and ran for the hills with it.
If this hasn't fully demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty to people, then nothing will.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 23, 2023, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 11:50:35 PM
Socially, you were expected throughout society to be married by 20. The sooner the better, so 13, 14, 15, 16, were prime years to be married, especially so for women, as dying young was a fairly common concern. An unmarried woman at 25 was generally considered a spinster, and she must be fat and ugly, or otherwise disagreeable. Likewise, men were encouraged to be older so as to be accomplished, and able to take care of a wife and children. So, it was not uncommon for a husband to be the same age as his wife, or even older, often between 5 and 10 or 15 years older. Again, this was one because women like older men naturally, but more importantly, society wanted to be sure that the man had established himself in a career and the community, and had demonstrated his good character and ability to provide for a wife and family. The customs in earlier eras before now were very practical and pragmatic, and also far more grounded in common sense, wisdom, and morality than most of the modern society now. Marriage and social customs from before, in the 19th century and such--extending into the 20th century--were all an expression of these social and moral dynamics and values.
So today in a place where it was legal, do you think it should be considered acceptable if a 22-year-old man courts and marries a 13-year-old girl?
No, end of distraction.
Are you going to focus on the discussion or continue to desperately keep moving goalposts until people get bored and just put you on ignore?
Too late. He's been there for awhile now with me. Once you understand he's addicted to social acceptance from people who will always hate him you realize there's nothing worth hearing.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/12/07/dining/AS-olive-oil-fried-egg/merlin_195254193_650a29e7-3d2c-4b62-9735-a9a1999d8fff-blog480.jpg)
This is your brain on California Lefty agitprop and Unitarian "tolerance"
Any questions?
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 01:26:00 PM
To Ratman - How would you define the difference between drag and cross-dressing? Are you saying cross-dressing in front of minors acceptable as long as it isn't drag? What line do you propose?
In this context, cross dressing is when a person dresses and adopts the typical mannerisms of the opposite sex. Usually to "pass" as a member of the opposite sex. Either an actor plays a role of the opposite sex, or a character disguises themselves as a member of the opposite sex as a part of a story. This is your Mulans, Mrs. Doubtfires, and Bosom Buddies, for some examples.
Drag is the exaggeration of sexual dress and mannerisms, usually as part of a stage performance where the aim of the performance is to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
The line I draw is the attempt to push boundaries with children in an attempt to indoctrinate them into "queer culture".
QuoteDQSH grew from queer author Michelle Tea's personal desire to connect her toddler with queer culture.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 02:12:32 AM
In this context, cross dressing is when a person dresses and adopts the typical mannerisms of the opposite sex. Usually to "pass" as a member of the opposite sex. Either an actor plays a role of the opposite sex, or a character disguises themselves as a member of the opposite sex as a part of a story. This is your Mulans, Mrs. Doubtfires, and Bosom Buddies, for some examples.
Drag is the exaggeration of sexual dress and mannerisms, usually as part of a stage performance where the aim of the performance is to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
The line I draw is the attempt to push boundaries with children in an attempt to indoctrinate them into "queer culture".
QuoteDQSH grew from queer author Michelle Tea's personal desire to connect her toddler with queer culture.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
From your quote, we're talking about LGBT parents teaching
their own kids queer culture. For this:
- If they're using R-rated or X-rated material, like the Caba Baba Rave - then ban it and/or remove their parental rights. The same goes for parents who dress their toddlers up as prostitutes (literally) for child beauty pageants.
- If they're using only age-appropriate material, then it is allowed. Parents have a right to raise their kids in their own culture. Certain conservative parents can teach their kids that being gay is evil; and conversely LGBT parents can teach their kids that being gay is good.
- Neither should be able to indoctrinate others kids, though both can exercise equal free speech.
Some posters have been characterizing drag story hours as luring unattended young children off the street, but overwhelmingly what I see in my searches of the topic is parents
choosing to bring their kids to such events.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on drag events. To the extent that organizers violate these rules, they should be banned and prosecuted. If they stay within them, though, it should be legal.
---
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 02:12:32 AM
In this context, cross dressing is when a person dresses and adopts the typical mannerisms of the opposite sex. Usually to "pass" as a member of the opposite sex. Either an actor plays a role of the opposite sex, or a character disguises themselves as a member of the opposite sex as a part of a story. This is your Mulans, Mrs. Doubtfires, and Bosom Buddies, for some examples.
Drag is the exaggeration of sexual dress and mannerisms, usually as part of a stage performance where the aim of the performance is to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
The line I draw is the attempt to push boundaries with children in an attempt to indoctrinate them into "queer culture".
QuoteDQSH grew from queer author Michelle Tea's personal desire to connect her toddler with queer culture.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
From your quote, we're talking about LGBT parents teaching their own kids queer culture. For this:
- If they're using R-rated or X-rated material, like the Caba Baba Rave - then ban it and/or remove their parental rights. The same goes for parents who dress their toddlers up as prostitutes (literally) for child beauty pageants.
- If they're using only age-appropriate material, then it is allowed. Parents have a right to raise their kids in their own culture. Certain conservative parents can teach their kids that being gay is evil; and conversely LGBT parents can teach their kids that being gay is good.
- Neither should be able to indoctrinate others kids, though both can exercise equal free speech.
Some posters have been characterizing drag story hours as luring unattended young children off the street, but overwhelmingly what I see in my searches of the topic is parents choosing to bring their kids to such events.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on drag events. To the extent that organizers violate these rules, they should be banned and prosecuted. If they stay within them, though, it should be legal.
---
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
No, we're talking about "queer" degenerates
grooming "teaching" other peoples kids "queer culture".
I'd like someone to define what "queer culture" is, because it looks nebulous enough to include any abnormal sexual activity.
Some parents are choosing to permanently mutilate their children and enact irreversible changes in them. Some choices shouldnt be allowed.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:10:27 AM
I'd like someone to define what "queer culture" is, because it looks nebulous enough to include any abnormal sexual activity.
It only looks that way because it is you bigot!
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:10:27 AM
I'd like someone to define what "queer culture" is, because it looks nebulous enough to include any abnormal sexual activity.
Queer culture is the activist position that society must tear down social norms and replace them with acceptance of pretty much anything goes.
The Lindsay videos I've lined to before go into it. It's not an easy topic, because there's so much obsfucation on the topic. Probably because when you put it plainly, people actually understand it and reject it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
He's just trying to derail the conversation (again) Victor/Victoria DOESN'T appeal to a prurient interest and he knows it.
He's also super concerned about the Cowboys Cheerleaders but has no problem with the Kinky Boots, because it's not women showing panties but guys showing the package:
Well, if the cheerleaders should be banned from performing infront of minors then so should his "family friendly" degenerate show.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
He's just trying to derail the conversation (again) Victor/Victoria DOESN'T appeal to a prurient interest and he knows it.
I know. I think there is some value in these kinds of discussions in order to sharpen arguments and clarify the issues. If one is gonna debate things, I think one should make the best argument they can.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
He's just trying to derail the conversation (again) Victor/Victoria DOESN'T appeal to a prurient interest and he knows it.
I've been citing "Victor/Victoria" exactly
because it is PG-rated. To repeat the context:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
To Ratman_tf: Victor/Victoria is a 1982 comedy film starring Julie Andrews and James Gardner. It is loosely based on a 1933 German film, and set at a drag theater in 1930s Paris. Andrews stars as a down-on-her-luck singer who befriends a drag performer. They hit on the trick to have her pretend to be a male drag performer ("a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman"). Hilarity ensues when a gangster played by Gardner is attracted to her.
As I stated, it is rated PG. I don't claim that it is prurient. I do claim that it is about drag.
Some posters have been saying that drag is inherently sexual and thus no drag should be seen by any minors.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
He's also super concerned about the Cowboys Cheerleaders but has no problem with the Kinky Boots, because it's not women showing panties but guys showing the package:
...
Well, if the cheerleaders should be banned from performing infront of minors then so should his "family friendly" degenerate show.
So, that is exactly what I'm saying. Yes, I agree completely with this. If the cheerleaders should be banned, then so should Kinky Boots. They should be judged on the same standard.
EDITED TO ADD: To be clear, I'm not saying that either the cheerleaders "Tailgate" number or the Kinky Boots musical should be banned. I'd consider them both PG or PG-13 at most. The point is that they should both be judged on the same standard.
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
He's just trying to derail the conversation (again) Victor/Victoria DOESN'T appeal to a prurient interest and he knows it.
I've been citing "Victor/Victoria" exactly because it is PG-rated. To repeat the context:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
To Ratman_tf: Victor/Victoria is a 1982 comedy film starring Julie Andrews and James Gardner. It is loosely based on a 1933 German film, and set at a drag theater in 1930s Paris. Andrews stars as a down-on-her-luck singer who befriends a drag performer. They hit on the trick to have her pretend to be a male drag performer ("a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman"). Hilarity ensues when a gangster played by Gardner is attracted to her.
As I stated, it is rated PG. I don't claim that it is prurient. I do claim that it is about drag.
Some posters have been saying that drag is inherently sexual and thus no drag should be seen by any minors.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
He's also super concerned about the Cowboys Cheerleaders but has no problem with the Kinky Boots, because it's not women showing panties but guys showing the package:
...
Well, if the cheerleaders should be banned from performing infront of minors then so should his "family friendly" degenerate show.
So, that is exactly what I'm saying. Yes, I agree completely with this. If the cheerleaders should be banned, then so should Kinky Boots. They should be judged on the same standard.
EDITED TO ADD: To be clear, I'm not saying that either the cheerleaders "Tailgate" number or the Kinky Boots musical should be banned. I'd consider them both PG or PG-13 at most. The point is that they should both be judged on the same standard.
Greetings!
I disagree. They should not be judged by the same standard. They are entirely different. Cheerleaders are *Normal*, healthy, and good. DRAG SHOWS, on the other hand, and deviant, and degenerate.;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
The original topic is much wider than just drag story hours for young kids, though. I can't tell from your statement what should be allowed or not more broadly. For example, should "Victor/Victoria" or "Kinky Boots" be banned for all minors, despite being rated as PG in the past?
I have no knowledge of either, so I have no opinion.
He's just trying to derail the conversation (again) Victor/Victoria DOESN'T appeal to a prurient interest and he knows it.
I've been citing "Victor/Victoria" exactly because it is PG-rated. To repeat the context:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
To Ratman_tf: Victor/Victoria is a 1982 comedy film starring Julie Andrews and James Gardner. It is loosely based on a 1933 German film, and set at a drag theater in 1930s Paris. Andrews stars as a down-on-her-luck singer who befriends a drag performer. They hit on the trick to have her pretend to be a male drag performer ("a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman"). Hilarity ensues when a gangster played by Gardner is attracted to her.
As I stated, it is rated PG. I don't claim that it is prurient. I do claim that it is about drag.
Some posters have been saying that drag is inherently sexual and thus no drag should be seen by any minors.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 09:05:23 PM
He's also super concerned about the Cowboys Cheerleaders but has no problem with the Kinky Boots, because it's not women showing panties but guys showing the package:
...
Well, if the cheerleaders should be banned from performing infront of minors then so should his "family friendly" degenerate show.
So, that is exactly what I'm saying. Yes, I agree completely with this. If the cheerleaders should be banned, then so should Kinky Boots. They should be judged on the same standard.
EDITED TO ADD: To be clear, I'm not saying that either the cheerleaders "Tailgate" number or the Kinky Boots musical should be banned. I'd consider them both PG or PG-13 at most. The point is that they should both be judged on the same standard.
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Likewise while we find cheerleaders sexually desirable, I have never seen a cheering routine be sexual. I've never seen a cheering routine that was done to get the crowd sexually aroused, but I've seen plenty that got the crowd excited for the team being represented.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Once again:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
jeff37923, you suggest that people here only want to ban overtly sexual drag -- not PG-rated drag like "Victor/Victoria". But this is contradicted by other posters here. SHARK's position is
"Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period." GeekyBugle suggests banning all drag being performed in front of minors.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 03:46:29 PM
Banning ALL drag from being performed infront of minors isn't an attack on no one but those who want to use it as the camel's nose to groom children. (...) Well, "innocent" Drag performed infront of minors is just the camel's nose, it's the start of the next Slippery Slope
"Victor/Victoria" is PG-rated drag for minors. So it is exactly what is referred to in the Slippery Slope which should be banned.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 18, 2023, 06:17:53 PM
Friendly reminder that Elfdart is a retard and that the left ALWAYS conflates an innocent or seemingly innocent thing with one that isn't to play bailey and motte with you.
They KNOW what were talking about, they know they have no argument, ergo: OMG Muh Buggs Bunny!
Do not let them distract you or derange the conversation.
No asshole, I'm using obvious examples of why cranking out the latest witch hysteria is at best unwise and at worst the first card in a fascist version of Three-Card Monte, where bashing queers is just the warm-up act. Scratch a fag-basher and a Nazi bleeds.
QuoteI'm concerned with behavior that supports grooming kids, I'm not worried about Christianity. Why? Christianity is a big religion, it can take care of itself and has been for thousands of years.
Like the BILLIONS of dollars of hush money and out-of-court settlements they've paid to keep their victims quiet?
Quote from: DocJones on June 18, 2023, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does this really give you sexual urges?
Does not the law provide the condition "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"?
So no, Monty Python or Bugs Bunny cross dressing would not violate the law.
And that is what makes the law too vague to be enforced. Potter Stewart, the right-wing Supreme Court justice wrote many years ago (Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964) that by law it's almost impossible to define obscenity or pornography (material that exists only to serve a
prurient interest). If the legislators in Tennessee were interested in keeping kids away from truly obscene or pornographic live shows, and not just groping for a tool to bash queers and trannies, there is a way they could have written such a law. But it's kind of obvious that drag show hysteria is about the latter.
Quote from: Brad on June 23, 2023, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 04:51:01 PM
The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays.
The government. The same one pushing poison masquerading as vaccines and shutting down skateparks by filling them up with sand? The one sending billions of dollars to the Ukraine to ensure some faggot ass motherfucking Ukrainians have their retirement accounts funded while inflation spirals out of control? That one?
You are real human or simply a meat robot at this point? You have the most retarded possible takes for someone who is allegedly "educated". Actually, your takes line up precisely with the utterly retarded nonsense that fucking dumbasses with degrees from universities seem to always have. It's amazing how brainwashed and stupid you are, and yet completely unable to realize it. Just like all the other leftists who have been brainwashed into thinking they have the moral high ground while they erode Western society into dust. When they line your ass up at the gulag will you even realize the bullet hitting your skull is actually bad for you, or will you think it's the best possible idea because the state deemed it so?
I used to think this sort of shit was obnoxious, now I realize the clowns have taken over so I'm just gonna enjoy the circus.
So we're just a step away from the gulag because:
1) Vaccines
2) They shut down a skateboard park in San Clemente, CA for six weeks -three years ago
3) The US is giving weapons to Ukraine to try to fight off a Russian invasion, and apparently Ukrainians are homos.
4) Inflation
5) Jhkim doesn't buy into the latest scare campaign ginned up by fascists.
And here I thought it was the commies who did the gulags.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 25, 2023, 09:36:48 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 18, 2023, 06:17:53 PM
Friendly reminder that Elfdart is a retard and that the left ALWAYS conflates an innocent or seemingly innocent thing with one that isn't to play bailey and motte with you.
They KNOW what were talking about, they know they have no argument, ergo: OMG Muh Buggs Bunny!
Do not let them distract you or derange the conversation.
No asshole, I'm using obvious examples of why cranking out the latest witch hysteria is at best unwise and at worst the first card in a fascist version of Three-Card Monte, where bashing queers is just the warm-up act. Scratch a fag-basher and a Nazi bleeds.
QuoteI'm concerned with behavior that supports grooming kids, I'm not worried about Christianity. Why? Christianity is a big religion, it can take care of itself and has been for thousands of years.
Like the BILLIONS of dollars of hush money and out-of-court settlements they've paid to keep their victims quiet?
Quote from: DocJones on June 18, 2023, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on June 18, 2023, 03:24:38 PM
What exactly is "sexual in nature" about members of Monty Python dressing up like old ladies? I mean, does this really give you sexual urges?
Does not the law provide the condition "... who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest"?
So no, Monty Python or Bugs Bunny cross dressing would not violate the law.
And that is what makes the law too vague to be enforced. Potter Stewart, the right-wing Supreme Court justice wrote many years ago (Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964) that by law it's almost impossible to define obscenity or pornography (material that exists only to serve a prurient interest). If the legislators in Tennessee were interested in keeping kids away from truly obscene or pornographic live shows, and not just groping for a tool to bash queers and trannies, there is a way they could have written such a law. But it's kind of obvious that drag show hysteria is about the latter.
Quote from: Brad on June 23, 2023, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2023, 04:51:01 PM
The government should act against what is known harmful to kids -- child abuse and explicit sexual displays.
The government. The same one pushing poison masquerading as vaccines and shutting down skateparks by filling them up with sand? The one sending billions of dollars to the Ukraine to ensure some faggot ass motherfucking Ukrainians have their retirement accounts funded while inflation spirals out of control? That one?
You are real human or simply a meat robot at this point? You have the most retarded possible takes for someone who is allegedly "educated". Actually, your takes line up precisely with the utterly retarded nonsense that fucking dumbasses with degrees from universities seem to always have. It's amazing how brainwashed and stupid you are, and yet completely unable to realize it. Just like all the other leftists who have been brainwashed into thinking they have the moral high ground while they erode Western society into dust. When they line your ass up at the gulag will you even realize the bullet hitting your skull is actually bad for you, or will you think it's the best possible idea because the state deemed it so?
I used to think this sort of shit was obnoxious, now I realize the clowns have taken over so I'm just gonna enjoy the circus.
So we're just a step away from the gulag because:
1) Vaccines
2) They shut down a skateboard park in San Clemente, CA for six weeks -three years ago
3) The US is giving weapons to Ukraine to try to fight off a Russian invasion, and apparently Ukrainians are homos.
4) Inflation
5) Jhkim doesn't buy into the latest scare campaign ginned up by fascists.
And here I thought it was the commies who did the gulags.
Hey retard, let me explain some things very slowly to you, maybe then you might stand a chance to understand:
Drag =/= "Trannies"
Queers =/= LGBT
From what the Queers say and push maybe some of them deserve some legal bashing (as in throw them in jail for pedos and dog fuckers).
I love to remind you that Che, and every other commie scum murdered way more gays than the other type of socialists (Nazis and Fascists). Given that I'm not (and never was) a socialist or commie scum of ANY type it's YOU who is closer ideologically to the WWII baddies you love to compare everybody else. Fuck you idiots even push for Völkisch equality unironically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_equality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_equality)
While the commie scum all over the world was happily murdering gays you idiots were applauding them.
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 01:42:06 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Once again:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
jeff37923, you suggest that people here only want to ban overtly sexual drag -- not PG-rated drag like "Victor/Victoria". But this is contradicted by other posters here. SHARK's position is "Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period." GeekyBugle suggests banning all drag being performed in front of minors.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2023, 03:46:29 PM
Banning ALL drag from being performed infront of minors isn't an attack on no one but those who want to use it as the camel's nose to groom children. (...) Well, "innocent" Drag performed infront of minors is just the camel's nose, it's the start of the next Slippery Slope
"Victor/Victoria" is PG-rated drag for minors. So it is exactly what is referred to in the Slippery Slope which should be banned.
I love how you quote my post but deliberately ignore the distinction I made in that same post between female impersonators and drag queens.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 01:42:06 AM
jeff37923, you suggest that people here only want to ban overtly sexual drag -- not PG-rated drag like "Victor/Victoria". But this is contradicted by other posters here. SHARK's position is "Fucking ban all Drag Shows. Period." GeekyBugle suggests banning all drag being performed in front of minors.
...
"Victor/Victoria" is PG-rated drag for minors. So it is exactly what is referred to in the Slippery Slope which should be banned.
I love how you quote my post but deliberately ignore the distinction I made in that same post between female impersonators and drag queens.
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmE0YWZlMDQtNTI2OC00NDgxLTk1YjAtYjljZGZhMjVlYmNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjAwODA4Mw@@._V1_.jpg)
These are professional entertainers in elaborate opposite-sex costumes. Your distinction earlier was:
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 02:12:32 AM
In this context, cross dressing is when a person dresses and adopts the typical mannerisms of the opposite sex. Usually to "pass" as a member of the opposite sex. Either an actor plays a role of the opposite sex, or a character disguises themselves as a member of the opposite sex as a part of a story. This is your Mulans, Mrs. Doubtfires, and Bosom Buddies, for some examples.
Drag is the exaggeration of sexual dress and mannerisms, usually as part of a stage performance where the aim of the performance is to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
This is not like Mulan, Mrs. Doubtfire, or Bosom Buddies. The movie is set in a stage theater where there are stage performances by female impersonators in elaborate costumes. From the movie:
Quote from: Victor/VictoriaRobert Preston: Perfect. That's just low enough to be a touch masculine. Now remember, when you're dancing, make it broader, with tons of shoulder. Remember, you're a drag queen.
EDITED TO ADD: Skimming the 1982 movie again, the actual drag performers are more perfunctory in the background than I remembered - so it isn't a good example. It is about a drag theater, and Julie Andrews is pretending to be a drag queen, but her numbers are made palatable since she isn't actually a drag queen. So it's conceptually more difficult. There was a 1995 stage musical of it - maybe I'm remembering more actual drag from the stage version.
I still think Kinky Boots and the musical are good examples and involve genuine drag. (Thanks to GeekyBugle for the video from the musical, for those who aren't familiar.)
The general point is still - if there is a new performance that isn't one of these specific cases, what are the rules to distinguish? Should the Kinky Boots musical be banned?
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
Quote from: DocJones on June 25, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
Oh, now that is unfair! You know how jhkim likes to ignore inconvenient truths that blow holes in his arguments....
Quote from: DocJones on June 25, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
But it's still a PG-rated movie, so the movie showing that number is intended for older children.
Still, there are enough complications with Victor/Victoria that Kinky Boots is a better example of a PG film about drag (see my edited to add in the post above).
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: DocJones on June 25, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
Oh, now that is unfair! You know how jhkim likes to ignore inconvenient truths that blow holes in his arguments....
The American movie is based on a degenerate movie from the decadent days of the Weimar republic.
"We're here! We're queer! We're coming for your children!" chanted during Drag March in New York Pride Celebration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-drag-marchers-chant-were-coming-your-children-during-pride-event
Harmless joke or telegraphing a punch?
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: DocJones on June 25, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
But it's still a PG-rated movie, so the movie showing that number is intended for older children.
Children were not taken to seedy nightclubs to watch degenerates on stage even in in the movies.
Parents knew better. Obviously the rating was inappropriate.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 09:30:42 PM
"We're here! We're queer! We're coming for your children!" chanted during Drag March in New York Pride Celebration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-drag-marchers-chant-were-coming-your-children-during-pride-event
Harmless joke or telegraphing a punch?
I'm sure it's just a joke....
https://twitter.com/Margueritestern/status/1672722625628364800 (https://twitter.com/Margueritestern/status/1672722625628364800)
Just tidying up here....
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 01:09:59 PM
I love how you quote my post but deliberately ignore the distinction I made in that same post between female impersonators and drag queens.
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmE0YWZlMDQtNTI2OC00NDgxLTk1YjAtYjljZGZhMjVlYmNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjAwODA4Mw@@._V1_.jpg)
These are professional entertainers in elaborate opposite-sex costumes. Your distinction earlier was:
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2023, 02:12:32 AM
In this context, cross dressing is when a person dresses and adopts the typical mannerisms of the opposite sex. Usually to "pass" as a member of the opposite sex. Either an actor plays a role of the opposite sex, or a character disguises themselves as a member of the opposite sex as a part of a story. This is your Mulans, Mrs. Doubtfires, and Bosom Buddies, for some examples.
Drag is the exaggeration of sexual dress and mannerisms, usually as part of a stage performance where the aim of the performance is to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
He's Ratman_tf. I'm jeff37923.
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: DocJones on June 25, 2023, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 08:39:18 PM
"Victor/Victoria" is set in a theater of professional entertainers who dress in elaborate costumes to perform as members of the opposite sex. Here's Robert Preston from "Victor/Victoria":
Did you notice that, in the movie, there were no children in the audience?
But it's still a PG-rated movie, so the movie showing that number is intended for older children.
Still, there are enough complications with Victor/Victoria that Kinky Boots is a better example of a PG film about drag (see my edited to add in the post above).
So why did you use Victor/Victoria as an example in the first place?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 23, 2023, 05:51:18 AM
If you want to have a satanic church where men married to one another baptize their "child" and everyone is happy about that knock yourself out. Just keep your twisted morality out of schools and away from other people's kids and we can all play nice. Keep pushing boys in the girls room and trannies entertaining kids and some people are going to get hurt. Permanently.
Greetings!
That's right, my friend!
Stay cool, Stay Strapped, and Stay Dangerous. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 26, 2023, 06:24:03 AM
He's Ratman_tf. I'm jeff37923.
Whoops. Sorry about that. My bad. I'll go over what you said below.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 26, 2023, 06:24:03 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2023, 09:18:36 PM
Still, there are enough complications with Victor/Victoria that Kinky Boots is a better example of a PG film about drag (see my edited to add in the post above).
So why did you use Victor/Victoria as an example in the first place?
To review, how I used it as an example:
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2023, 04:16:45 PM
I feel like I've been saying the same thing for a while, and it isn't complicated.
- Showing X-rated or R-rated sexual material to children - like the Caba Baba Rave - is wrong, should be banned and punished, regardless of drag or not.
- PG material like "Victor/Victoria" or the "Kinky Boots" musical should stay PG.
- The standards of what is too sexualized should be the same for LGBT and straight for all ages. Substituting a born-female performer shouldn't make a banned drag show permissible.
As for why Victor/Victoria -- it's a PG romantic comedy centered on drag performance. Yes, I say "drag" because that's what the movie itself says -- Robert Preston's line "
Remember, you're a drag queen." To review the plot:
- Julie Andrews is a down-on-her-luck singer who is taken in by gay nightclub owner Robert Preston.
- After she's mistaken for a man when wearing his clothes, he hits on the scheme for her to pretend to be a drag queen. (He uses the terms "female impersonator" and "drag queen" both.)
- Gangster James Gardner is attracted to her when she performs as a drag queen, and pursues her.
- She keeps up the ruse for a while, but they eventually sleep together. Gardner's bodyguard walks in on them in bed together in the morning and thinks Gardner is gay. He it impressed and admits that he is also gay. ("if a guy like you has got the guts to admit he's gay...so can I.")
- Gardner's jealous girlfriend is on the verge of discovering as well and gets a doctor sent to confirm, and in the end Andrews quits the act and Preston takes it on - playing it for comedy.
Again, Robert Preston in the final number:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmE0YWZlMDQtNTI2OC00NDgxLTk1YjAtYjljZGZhMjVlYmNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjAwODA4Mw@@._V1_.jpg)
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Claiming that it's only for adults is talking about fictional characters. The movie was rated PG, and it was also adapted into a 1995 musical stage production that children could view. So it has been considered acceptable for older children.
Regarding the bolded part, that's exactly what I have been saying. It's PG and it's not inappropriate for older kids.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 1970, 05:53:00 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Claiming that it's only for adults is talking about fictional characters. The movie was rated PG, and it was also adapted into a 1995 musical stage production that children could view. So it has been considered acceptable for older children.
Regarding the bolded part, that's exactly what I have been saying. It's PG and it's not inappropriate for older kids.
See, this is you being deliberately obtuse. You know that I was referring to the female impersonator shows being performed in front of adults audiences and not children because you bolded the section right before where I pointed that out. You even quoted it.
It's like you aren't even trying to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 25, 2023, 11:50:01 AM
Hey retard, let me explain some things very slowly to you, maybe then you might stand a chance to understand:
Drag =/= "Trannies"
Queers =/= LGBT
Maybe you should pass this revelation on to the other fag-bashers in this thread.
QuoteFrom what the Queers say and push maybe some of them deserve some legal bashing (as in throw them in jail for pedos and dog fuckers).
Why single out queers who do this? Anyone who molests kids or animals should be locked up.
QuoteI love to remind you that Che, and every other commie scum murdered way more gays than the other type of socialists (Nazis and Fascists).
Citation needed. No, PragerU doesn't count.
QuoteGiven that I'm not (and never was) a socialist or commie scum of ANY type it's YOU who is closer ideologically to the WWII baddies you love to compare everybody else. Fuck you idiots even push for Völkisch equality unironically.
Socialists and commies were the enemies of the Axis, and did most of the fighting against Hitler and Mussolini. Like most closet-case fascists, you'll never forgive them for it. That's why you have to lie and regurgitate Nazi propaganda and Holocaust denial. You might have pulled off being more coy about being a fascist, but your demented hatred of fags made your true sympathies leap to attention like Dr Strangelove's arm.
QuoteWhile the commie scum all over the world was happily murdering gays you idiots were applauding them.
Feel free to cite examples. No, pro-Nazi websites don't count.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 26, 2023, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 1970, 05:53:00 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Claiming that it's only for adults is talking about fictional characters. The movie was rated PG, and it was also adapted into a 1995 musical stage production that children could view. So it has been considered acceptable for older children.
Regarding the bolded part, that's exactly what I have been saying. It's PG and it's not inappropriate for older kids.
See, this is you being deliberately obtuse. You know that I was referring to the female impersonator shows being performed in front of adults audiences and not children because you bolded the section right before where I pointed that out. You even quoted it.
It's like you aren't even trying to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jeff! I'm still trying to understand what the nuances and "movie critic"-like. reviews of films or musicals of some stupid "Kinky Boots" has fuck-all to do with CHILDREN being sent to PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and supervised by minions that are PAID BY TAXPAYERS money so that they can fucking ignore and insult parents by brainfucking their kids with tranny groomers being brought in to put on Drag Shows and fucking degenerate Drag Queen Story Hours?
They are entirely unrelated topics, like apples and oranges.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 26, 2023, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 1970, 05:53:00 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Claiming that it's only for adults is talking about fictional characters. The movie was rated PG, and it was also adapted into a 1995 musical stage production that children could view. So it has been considered acceptable for older children.
Regarding the bolded part, that's exactly what I have been saying. It's PG and it's not inappropriate for older kids.
See, this is you being deliberately obtuse. You know that I was referring to the female impersonator shows being performed in front of adults audiences and not children because you bolded the section right before where I pointed that out. You even quoted it.
I just replied about your claim of adult audience. Victor/Victoria was rated PG and thus watched by plenty of children. Having a fictional audience inside the fiction of the show (i.e. 1930s Paris nightclub) doesn't change that real children were in the real audience watching the performance (i.e. 1980s American movie theater).
I have stated many times that in my opinion, Victor/Victoria is reasonably rated at PG, and I think it should remain that way. Do you agree with this?
Greetings!
The idea that the Communists or Sociaists did more to defeat the Nazis, the Fascists--themselves also largely Sociaists--is Commie-Boo Kool-Aid propaganda.
This video discussing history of World War II demonstrates that entire ideological fallacy quite thoroughly.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
Some posters have been characterizing drag story hours as luring unattended young children off the street, but overwhelmingly what I see in my searches of the topic is parents choosing to bring their kids to such events.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on drag events. To the extent that organizers violate these rules, they should be banned and prosecuted. If they stay within them, though, it should be legal.
No, we're talking about "queer" degenerates grooming "teaching" other peoples kids "queer culture".
Regarding public schools...
Again, I can't speak for all schools in the country. But when my son went to elementary school,
no one was allowed to participate in any after-school events or field trips without parental permission. I was very involved my son's education, and I never saw anything like this.
GeekyBugle - can you cite events for elementary-school-age children where kids were lured into participating in drag events without parental consent?
Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2023, 05:49:23 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 24, 2023, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
Some posters have been characterizing drag story hours as luring unattended young children off the street, but overwhelmingly what I see in my searches of the topic is parents choosing to bring their kids to such events.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on drag events. To the extent that organizers violate these rules, they should be banned and prosecuted. If they stay within them, though, it should be legal.
No, we're talking about "queer" degenerates grooming "teaching" other peoples kids "queer culture".
Regarding public schools...
Again, I can't speak for all schools in the country. But when my son went to elementary school, no one was allowed to participate in any after-school events or field trips without parental permission. I was very involved my son's education, and I never saw anything like this.
GeekyBugle - can you cite events for elementary-school-age children where kids were lured into participating in drag events without parental consent?
You mean besides the Drag Queen Story Hour?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents (https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents)
https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration (https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration)
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism (https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism)
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html)
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/ (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/)
https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/ (https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/)
I wonder why you're limiting it to elementary school?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drag-queen-straddles-girl-north-carolina-public-school-video-shows (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drag-queen-straddles-girl-north-carolina-public-school-video-shows)
Dude, you really need to learn not to ask a question unless you already know the answer.
Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2023, 05:35:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 26, 2023, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 1970, 05:53:00 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 24, 2023, 11:33:54 PM
You did notice that Victor/Victoria was about female impersonators performing tame unsexualized choreographed dance numbers in front of adults and thus is acceptable while Drag shows which we find unacceptable have been overtly sexual and performed in front of kids?
Claiming that it's only for adults is talking about fictional characters. The movie was rated PG, and it was also adapted into a 1995 musical stage production that children could view. So it has been considered acceptable for older children.
Regarding the bolded part, that's exactly what I have been saying. It's PG and it's not inappropriate for older kids.
See, this is you being deliberately obtuse. You know that I was referring to the female impersonator shows being performed in front of adults audiences and not children because you bolded the section right before where I pointed that out. You even quoted it.
I just replied about your claim of adult audience. Victor/Victoria was rated PG and thus watched by plenty of children. Having a fictional audience inside the fiction of the show (i.e. 1930s Paris nightclub) doesn't change that real children were in the real audience watching the performance (i.e. 1980s American movie theater).
I have stated many times that in my opinion, Victor/Victoria is reasonably rated at PG, and I think it should remain that way. Do you agree with this?
You know, that trick didn't work before so I don't see why you think doubling down is going to work now.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 09:30:42 PM
"We're here! We're queer! We're coming for your children!" chanted during Drag March in New York Pride Celebration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-drag-marchers-chant-were-coming-your-children-during-pride-event
Harmless joke or telegraphing a punch?
I think it's an intentional provocation. They know what it sounds like, and they don't care, because they're assholes.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 27, 2023, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 09:30:42 PM
"We're here! We're queer! We're coming for your children!" chanted during Drag March in New York Pride Celebration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-drag-marchers-chant-were-coming-your-children-during-pride-event
Harmless joke or telegraphing a punch?
I think it's an intentional provocation. They know what it sounds like, and they don't care, because they're assholes.
Which is indicative of the problem with TQ+ in general to me. Gender dysphoria is a mental disease that can lead to self-mutilation and drag queens specialize in being drama queens, so you get crazy attention seeking behavior out of that TQ+ segment of the LGBTQ+, often to their detriment.
Quote from: SHARK on June 26, 2023, 05:36:42 PM
Greetings!
The idea that the Communists or Sociaists did more to defeat the Nazis, the Fascists--themselves also largely Sociaists--is Commie-Boo Kool-Aid propaganda.
This video discussing history of World War II demonstrates that entire ideological fallacy quite thoroughly.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If by 'defeated the Nazis' they mean 'acted as bullet catchers because Stalin was a strategic retard', I guess it fits.
But the hilarious assertion that socialists were somehow ideologically opposed to the Nazis is pure fiction. It was two gangs, duking it over turf; neither was the good guy.
I often remark on the 30's and the rise of the NSDAP. One of the major factors was Antifa (a communist subsidiary) fighting it out with the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts) in the streets. And Antifa made such asses of themselves that they made the NSDAP look good.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 27, 2023, 10:53:05 AM
Quote from: SHARK on June 26, 2023, 05:36:42 PM
Greetings!
The idea that the Communists or Sociaists did more to defeat the Nazis, the Fascists--themselves also largely Sociaists--is Commie-Boo Kool-Aid propaganda.
This video discussing history of World War II demonstrates that entire ideological fallacy quite thoroughly.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If by 'defeated the Nazis' they mean 'acted as bullet catchers because Stalin was a strategic retard', I guess it fits.
But the hilarious assertion that socialists were somehow ideologically opposed to the Nazis is pure fiction. It was two gangs, duking it over turf; neither was the good guy.
I often remark on the 30's and the rise of the NSDAP. One of the major factors was Antifa (a communist subsidiary) fighting it out with the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts) in the streets. And Antifa made such asses of themselves that they made the NSDAP look good.
Greetings!
Exactly, Ghostmaker!
The Communist Soviets certainly suffered more casualties--though that does not mean that they actually did *more* to defeat the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascists during World War II. The Historian Tik step by step breaks down the entire Commie-Boo/Socialist argument and thoroughly destroys their fallacious argument. As usual, Elfdart is wrong.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 26, 2023, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2023, 05:49:23 PM
Regarding public schools...
Again, I can't speak for all schools in the country. But when my son went to elementary school, no one was allowed to participate in any after-school events or field trips without parental permission. I was very involved my son's education, and I never saw anything like this.
GeekyBugle - can you cite events for elementary-school-age children where kids were lured into participating in drag events without parental consent?
You mean besides the Drag Queen Story Hour?
First, thanks. I asked for examples, and you have provided some.
To reiterate, my generalization is that drag story hours are generally about parents intentionally taking their kids to such events -- just like how Ratman_tf describes the founding of the idea by Michelle Tea for her own toddler. I read your six examples and even there - most (though not all) are pre-announced, optional events that parents can either opt into or opt out of.
That said, I agree about two of your examples: The Toronto case where the school originally made the event (which included a drag story hour) optional -- but then the school board overruled it. Also, the case of the East Harlem principal in drag at the talent show was a surprise. These two cases are clearly overstepping the bounds - and I agree they should be stopped. These are outliers, though, compared to all the parents intentionally taking their kids.
That doesn't mean one can't object to it - but parents choosing events for their kids is a different problem than schools forcing events on parents.
Numbering your links:
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 26, 2023, 06:30:43 PM
(1) https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents (https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents)
(2) https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration (https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration)
(3) https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism (https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism)
(4) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html)
(5) https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/ (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/)
(6) https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/ (https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/)
- (1) From the story, parents were sent notification and were told they "can opt their children out if they so choose".
- (2) The headline proclaims that students were forced, but none of the article content or quotes says this. According to the article, outcry started on the Internet after the event already happened. The article has no quotes from objecting parents. So it's undefined, but it seems to me like a misleading headline.
- (3) An optional event announced in advance, that was canceled. From the article: "Beth Essex, the school's interim principal, issued a statement about the cancellation of the optional event earlier this month."
- 4 and 5 I discuss above and agree with
- (6) The article describes an announcement for an after-school event that went out to parents, inviting them to come.
Even if there are other cases, I don't think the generalization is correct that kids at these story hours are primarily being taken without their parents' permission. So the primary issue is parents intentionally taking their kids.
Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2023, 11:41:24 AM
Greetings!
Exactly, Ghostmaker!
The Communist Soviets certainly suffered more casualties--though that does not mean that they actually did *more* to defeat the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascists during World War II. The Historian Tik step by step breaks down the entire Commie-Boo/Socialist argument and thoroughly destroys their fallacious argument. As usual, Elfdart is wrong.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The idea that the USSR did more to defeat the Nazis than anyone else is also laughable due to the fact that the USSR was allied with the Nazis for the first couple years of the war. Imagine how much easier it would have been to defeat the Nazis had the Soviets not sided with them!
Elfdart is a low quality troll, an idiot, or both.
Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 11:48:19 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 26, 2023, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2023, 05:49:23 PM
Regarding public schools...
Again, I can't speak for all schools in the country. But when my son went to elementary school, no one was allowed to participate in any after-school events or field trips without parental permission. I was very involved my son's education, and I never saw anything like this.
GeekyBugle - can you cite events for elementary-school-age children where kids were lured into participating in drag events without parental consent?
You mean besides the Drag Queen Story Hour?
First, thanks. I asked for examples, and you have provided some.
To reiterate, my generalization is that drag story hours are generally about parents intentionally taking their kids to such events -- just like how Ratman_tf describes the founding of the idea by Michelle Tea for her own toddler. I read your six examples and even there - most (though not all) are pre-announced, optional events that parents can either opt into or opt out of.
That said, I agree about two of your examples: The Toronto case where the school originally made the event (which included a drag story hour) optional -- but then the school board overruled it. Also, the case of the East Harlem principal in drag at the talent show was a surprise. These two cases are clearly overstepping the bounds - and I agree they should be stopped. These are outliers, though, compared to all the parents intentionally taking their kids.
That doesn't mean one can't object to it - but parents choosing events for their kids is a different problem than schools forcing events on parents.
Numbering your links:
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 26, 2023, 06:30:43 PM
(1) https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents (https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-queen-story-hour-graders-philadelphia-school-outrages-parents)
(2) https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration (https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-elementary-schools-brings-drag-performance-for-student-pride-celebration)
(3) https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism (https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/elementary-school-cancels-after-school-pride-fest-event-over-social-media-threats-drag-queen-story-hour-self-defense-nail-polish-gender-affirming-care-transgender-lgbtq-plus-rights-portland-police-public-safety-health-terrorism)
(4) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/06/06/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry.html)
(5) https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/ (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-elementary-kids-get-surprise-drag-queen-performance-talent-show/1700057/)
(6) https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/ (https://www.thepublica.com/1718-2/)
- (1) From the story, parents were sent notification and were told they "can opt their children out if they so choose".
- (2) The headline proclaims that students were forced, but none of the article content or quotes says this. According to the article, outcry started on the Internet after the event already happened. The article has no quotes from objecting parents. So it's undefined, but it seems to me like a misleading headline.
- (3) An optional event announced in advance, that was canceled. From the article: "Beth Essex, the school's interim principal, issued a statement about the cancellation of the optional event earlier this month."
- 4 and 5 I discuss above and agree with
- (6) The article describes an announcement for an after-school event that went out to parents, inviting them to come.
Even if there are other cases, I don't think the generalization is correct that kids at these story hours are primarily being taken without their parents' permission. So the primary issue is parents intentionally taking their kids.
You saw the Highschool one right? I mean kids at highschool aren't so young but still lapdances?
EVEN if we concede that Drag Queen Story Hour is as innocent as they and you claim, it's the nose of the cammel, normalize Drag so latter you can push your crotch onto a teenaged girl, have them read pornographic books with instructions to use Grinder so they can have sexual encounters with adults.
Your main point of contention is that this isn't so "Muh Slippery Slope Fallacy!", well, excuse us if we don't believe you, we have seen what these degenerates do and push (Including diddling kids), we're not falling for the same trick again.
Now, "parents taking them" so you're now saying that children beauty pageants are okay? I mean it's the parents pushing their little girls into the hands of the pedos!
Can't have your cake and eat it too, either "Theparents took them" is or isn't an acceptable excuse, choose wisely.
Quote from: Elfdart on June 26, 2023, 05:13:12 PM
Feel free to cite examples. No, pro-Nazi websites don't count.
Meaning you will only accept websites that agree with you, you're a retard, history is there and anyone can search it. But do keep on sucking the commie scum dick.
BTW, don't bother answering, putting you on ignore, you're not worth my time.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 27, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
EVEN if we concede that Drag Queen Story Hour is as innocent as they and you claim, it's the nose of the cammel, normalize Drag so latter you can push your crotch onto a teenaged girl, have them read pornographic books with instructions to use Grinder so they can have sexual encounters with adults.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 27, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
Now, "parents taking them" so you're now saying that children beauty pageants are okay? I mean it's the parents pushing their little girls into the hands of the pedos!
I have never claimed that Drag Queen Story Hour is innocent and fine; or that it's fine whatever parents do with their own children. There should be a line between what is age-appropriate and not, and plenty of shit falls on the wrong side of the line and should be banned.
I don't like child beauty pageants either -- and that's the point. There should be standards that are age-appropriate and equal for LGBT and straight.
Yes, I took my son when he was 14 to see the Kinky Boots musical, and I maintain that was reasonable and age-appropriate. You call me a groomer and that it is part of a slippery slope to normalize drag. I say that when you call this evil grooming, you're putting all LGBT people and allies in the side against you -- when plenty of them would be in favor of stricter controls around sexualizing kids -- opposed to the fringe of actual groomers and molesters.
Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 27, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
EVEN if we concede that Drag Queen Story Hour is as innocent as they and you claim, it's the nose of the cammel, normalize Drag so latter you can push your crotch onto a teenaged girl, have them read pornographic books with instructions to use Grinder so they can have sexual encounters with adults.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 27, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
Now, "parents taking them" so you're now saying that children beauty pageants are okay? I mean it's the parents pushing their little girls into the hands of the pedos!
I have never claimed that Drag Queen Story Hour is innocent and fine; or that it's fine whatever parents do with their own children. There should be a line between what is age-appropriate and not, and plenty of shit falls on the wrong side of the line and should be banned.
I don't like child beauty pageants either -- and that's the point. There should be standards that are age-appropriate and equal for LGBT and straight.
Yes, I took my son when he was 14 to see the Kinky Boots musical, and I maintain that was reasonable and age-appropriate. You call me a groomer and that it is part of a slippery slope to normalize drag. I say that when you call this evil grooming, you're putting all LGBT people and allies in the side against you -- when plenty of them would be in favor of stricter controls around sexualizing kids -- opposed to the fringe of actual groomers and molesters.
I'm NOT calling you a groomer, I'm telling you we have seen this exact same movie before and we're not falling for the slippery slope "fallacy" again.
Normalizing Drag to elementary school children IS the camel's nose, you might not see or believe it, doesn't change the fact.
As for LGBT "and allies" putting themselves against me... Funny you mention that GaysAgainstGroomers is on MY side, so are plenty of trans, lesbians and even Drag Queens (I need to find the video).
What is age appropriate with the company of a parent for a 14 year old isn't the same as for elementary school children.
Need I remind you I used to be an edgy Atheist? I was on the other side of this discussion, I called fag bashers and lunatics and cried about the slippery slope fallacy. Then I recovered my faith. Then the activists started pushing to normalize pedophilia, zoophilia and incest, started pushing pornographic materials to elementary school children and to put them on hormones and to mutilate them...
The exact same activists pushing for all of that ARE pushing for the normalization of Drag for small children, for the normalization of kink for small children and you want me to believe that's not the camel's nose?
If a small child can make an informed decision and consent to hormones and sexual mutilation why can't the child consent to sex?
No, Jhkim, the activists do not speak for the people they claim to speak for, speaking against the activists doesn't mean speaking against ALL the LGBT "communiteh", by comparing the ACTUAL groomers with the LGBT it is YOU who are making them a diservice.
Why are some Drag Queens so interested in performing in front of minors? WHY?
Why are the activists pushing pornography to minors?
Why are they pushing kink to minors?
Why are they giving them instructions to get on Grindr to have access to ADULT gay men?
So, when I speak against the child molesters in ANY Church I am speaking against the whole Church?
Edited to add:
Found the story about the Drag Queen:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-performer-speaks-out-allowing-kids-attend-drag-shows-adult-venue (https://www.foxnews.com/media/drag-performer-speaks-out-allowing-kids-attend-drag-shows-adult-venue)
Regarding your questions why people do drag story hours, GeekyBugle --
I can't answer that, having no experience of the events. I did read this article by Louise Perry for The New Statesman. Perry quotes Kitty Demure, and largely agrees with Demure's idea that the main motivation is provocation of conservatives. According to Perry, the event she attended had nothing outrageous, and the performer was even a "female queen" - so not a female impersonator at all, but rather a non-transgender woman dressed in drag style.
She concludes with a negative view of story hours as pointless and deliberate provocation, but she also doesn't seem to think that her son was harmed by going to the event.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/08/drag-queen-story-hour-uk
(full text below since the link requires registration)
QuoteWhat my toddler and I learned at Drag Queen Story Hour
Usually, being the mother of a toddler puts one at a disadvantage in the world of journalism. Long hours, travel and tight deadlines are all radically incompatible with being home at 5pm for the dinner and bedtime routine. The sudden interest in Drag Queen Story Hour, however, has made a child companion an unexpectedly useful accessory for journalists in the field.
Drag Queen Story Hour events invite children to enjoy a story read by a performer in drag. This summer, a touring group called Drag Queen Story Hour UK has brought the originally American franchise to this country and with it an American style of culture war – and British journalists have been eager to report on the action. But you can't very well show up to a children's event without a child. Enter my 15-month-old son – the Woodward to my Bernstein.
I should start by saying that we witnessed nothing outrageous at the Drag Queen Story Hour we attended. There have been several controversial incidents in the US over the past three years, however – some of which have been picked up by the mainstream press, including apparently incriminating images that have sparked outrage and debate.
Earlier this year, footage from an event in Dallas showed children handing out dollar bills to drag queens marching down a runway topped with a neon sign reading "It's not gonna lick itself". And last July Redbridge council launched an investigation after a performer at a children's event held at Goodmayes Library in east London was photographed wearing a rainbow monkey suit with exposed fake nipples, fake buttocks and a fake penis.
Protests at these events have become heated. In the US, the right-wing group the Proud Boys stormed a reading in a library near San Francisco in June. Drag Queen Story Hour UK, meanwhile, claimed on 18 July that a "far-Right neo-Nazi group" had block-booked 2,000 tickets to try to prevent its tour from going ahead. Ten days later, police had to escort the drag performer Sab Samuels to safety after a group of about 25 protesters gathered outside a Drag Queen Story Hour event in Bristol.
When my son and I arrived at our own Drag Queen Story Hour event in a London suburb, this backlash was the subject of conversation among the cluster of parents gathered outside. The consensus was that the controversy was driven by right-wing media. "It's all just a confected culture war," remarked one mother, to nods from the others. Everyone seemed excited.
I had wondered if the event might attract a lot of same-sex couples, but looking around that didn't appear to be the case – and among our audience the fashion choices seemed on the conventional side. And, despite the event being held in a very diverse area, everyone was white.
Our compère joked that the drag queen was late because vacuum cleaners were on sale in the local shop – the kind of sexist joke that would normally raise gasps in a crowd like this. We were all asked to call out the performer's name and in she came. To my surprise, it turned out that our drag queen was a woman.
Adorned in a 1950s-style petticoated dress and high heels, with a blonde bouffant and exaggerated make-up, this performer was a "female queen". (Female queens account for a small proportion of drag performers and are not always welcome on the drag scene.) She shimmied around the room, singing a song for the children. The experience was much like any other kind of playgroup. The only difference was that this playgroup leader had dressed up as a caricature of an airheaded woman obsessed with housework and looking pretty. Who, exactly, was this event for? What was its purpose?
In 2020 an American drag queen who opposes these events, and goes by the name of Kitty Demure, released a video addressed to "heterosexual women" considering taking their children to a Drag Queen Story Hour reading: "I understand that you might want to look like you're with it, that you're cool... And honestly you're not doing the gay community any favours. In fact, you're hurting us."
Demure explained that these events function as a progressive provocation, a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of conservatives. It was inevitable that adding risqué nightclub entertainers to children's events would result in occasional boundary transgressions like the ones we've seen (fake penises and the like), which would inevitably invite outrage. Thus the Drag Queen Story Hour phenomenon rains down fire on a form of entertainment that has traditionally been the preserve of gay men.
The point, supposedly, is to challenge gender norms, but the event we attended did nothing of the sort. We were a bunch of white, middle-class heterosexuals who had brought our children along to watch a woman put on a bizarrely exaggerated display of femininity.
Sitting in that stuffy room, I realised that this phenomenon has nothing to do with children – and everything to do with their parents. There is always enjoyment to be had in feeling deliciously transgressive while staying safely within the bounds of conventionality. Drag Queen Story Hour presents the perfect opportunity to do just that.
Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 05:17:35 PM
Regarding your questions why people do drag story hours, GeekyBugle --
I can't answer that, having no experience of the events. I did read this article by Louise Perry for The New Statesman. Perry quotes Kitty Demure, and largely agrees with Demure's idea that the main motivation is provocation of conservatives. According to Perry, the event she attended had nothing outrageous, and the performer was even a "female queen" - so not a female impersonator at all, but rather a non-transgender woman dressed in drag style.
She concludes with a negative view of story hours as pointless and deliberate provocation, but she also doesn't seem to think that her son was harmed by going to the event.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/08/drag-queen-story-hour-uk
(full text below since the link requires registration)
QuoteWhat my toddler and I learned at Drag Queen Story Hour
Usually, being the mother of a toddler puts one at a disadvantage in the world of journalism. Long hours, travel and tight deadlines are all radically incompatible with being home at 5pm for the dinner and bedtime routine. The sudden interest in Drag Queen Story Hour, however, has made a child companion an unexpectedly useful accessory for journalists in the field.
Drag Queen Story Hour events invite children to enjoy a story read by a performer in drag. This summer, a touring group called Drag Queen Story Hour UK has brought the originally American franchise to this country and with it an American style of culture war – and British journalists have been eager to report on the action. But you can't very well show up to a children's event without a child. Enter my 15-month-old son – the Woodward to my Bernstein.
I should start by saying that we witnessed nothing outrageous at the Drag Queen Story Hour we attended. There have been several controversial incidents in the US over the past three years, however – some of which have been picked up by the mainstream press, including apparently incriminating images that have sparked outrage and debate.
Earlier this year, footage from an event in Dallas showed children handing out dollar bills to drag queens marching down a runway topped with a neon sign reading "It's not gonna lick itself". And last July Redbridge council launched an investigation after a performer at a children's event held at Goodmayes Library in east London was photographed wearing a rainbow monkey suit with exposed fake nipples, fake buttocks and a fake penis.
Protests at these events have become heated. In the US, the right-wing group the Proud Boys stormed a reading in a library near San Francisco in June. Drag Queen Story Hour UK, meanwhile, claimed on 18 July that a "far-Right neo-Nazi group" had block-booked 2,000 tickets to try to prevent its tour from going ahead. Ten days later, police had to escort the drag performer Sab Samuels to safety after a group of about 25 protesters gathered outside a Drag Queen Story Hour event in Bristol.
When my son and I arrived at our own Drag Queen Story Hour event in a London suburb, this backlash was the subject of conversation among the cluster of parents gathered outside. The consensus was that the controversy was driven by right-wing media. "It's all just a confected culture war," remarked one mother, to nods from the others. Everyone seemed excited.
I had wondered if the event might attract a lot of same-sex couples, but looking around that didn't appear to be the case – and among our audience the fashion choices seemed on the conventional side. And, despite the event being held in a very diverse area, everyone was white.
Our compère joked that the drag queen was late because vacuum cleaners were on sale in the local shop – the kind of sexist joke that would normally raise gasps in a crowd like this. We were all asked to call out the performer's name and in she came. To my surprise, it turned out that our drag queen was a woman.
Adorned in a 1950s-style petticoated dress and high heels, with a blonde bouffant and exaggerated make-up, this performer was a "female queen". (Female queens account for a small proportion of drag performers and are not always welcome on the drag scene.) She shimmied around the room, singing a song for the children. The experience was much like any other kind of playgroup. The only difference was that this playgroup leader had dressed up as a caricature of an airheaded woman obsessed with housework and looking pretty. Who, exactly, was this event for? What was its purpose?
In 2020 an American drag queen who opposes these events, and goes by the name of Kitty Demure, released a video addressed to "heterosexual women" considering taking their children to a Drag Queen Story Hour reading: "I understand that you might want to look like you're with it, that you're cool... And honestly you're not doing the gay community any favours. In fact, you're hurting us."
Demure explained that these events function as a progressive provocation, a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of conservatives. It was inevitable that adding risqué nightclub entertainers to children's events would result in occasional boundary transgressions like the ones we've seen (fake penises and the like), which would inevitably invite outrage. Thus the Drag Queen Story Hour phenomenon rains down fire on a form of entertainment that has traditionally been the preserve of gay men.
The point, supposedly, is to challenge gender norms, but the event we attended did nothing of the sort. We were a bunch of white, middle-class heterosexuals who had brought our children along to watch a woman put on a bizarrely exaggerated display of femininity.
Sitting in that stuffy room, I realised that this phenomenon has nothing to do with children – and everything to do with their parents. There is always enjoyment to be had in feeling deliciously transgressive while staying safely within the bounds of conventionality. Drag Queen Story Hour presents the perfect opportunity to do just that.
That MIGHT be one reason, but you're just speculating, addmitedly so am I, but I do have countles examples (like the one I shared with a male thristing his crotch into a teen girl) of more severe stuff. Ergo my conclusion that it's to normalize other stuff (as we have seen them pushing for) needs the least ammount of logical jumps and has the most evidence to back it up.
So I conclude that it is the camel's nose to latter push other stuff, like we have seen them do with pornographic materials, kink, sexting and hookup apps where minors can go to find adults to hook up. Like we see in every pride event where nude or semi-nude adults twerk in front of minors, where they trust their fake penises into their faces, to the beneplacit and applause of the degenerate doing it, the child's parents and the organizers of the event.
Then, when WE complain about all this degeneracy and say (correctly and rightly so) that DQSH is just the camel's nose to follow with more degenerate and depraved shit people like you call us gay bashers, when it's not all LGBT, we never said it was and we just want to ban minors from attending such degenerate events/shows.
Why do they want so much to perform infront of minors?
Does the Church turn people into filthy child molesters or the child molesters are attracted to a place where they have access and the cover of respectability?
Does Disney turn people into child molesters? Or are the child molesters attracted to a place with access and cover?
Do schools turn people into child molesters or are child molesters attracted to a place with access, cover and power over children?
Why, when most parents don't want THOSE shows on their school, they get so agravated? Why do they want so badly to have access to minors?
Did you notice the DQ said Drag was inherently an adult thing? So why do some Drag Performers want to perform infront of minors so badly? And why, not knowing the answer, are you so quick to jump to their defense?
One of the differences between a liberal and a conservative is we have a stronger revulsion mechanism, lots of stuff we find revolting you guys don't, which IMHO leaves you open to being blind sided, especially when it's your political "enemies" calling stuff out.
IDGAFF what two adults do on the privacy of their bedroom as long as both consent to it. But I don't want to see it either, it's revolting, so I tolerate but not accept (except my family but those wouldn't dream with fucking infront of me thank God). You on the other hand are way more open to all kinds of stuff, you also place "fairness", "equality" and "progress" before any other value (you the liberals as a rule), with a blatant disregard to tradition and purity some even go as far as to say those are automatically bad things.
Furthermore you do not understand conservatives, you're unable to predict our position as demonstrated by the "gotcha" of child pageants. While we can predict yours with a high degree of accuracy. BECAUSE we do understand you.
Add to that the scientific FACT that progressivism either attracts or turns people into lunatics. Your house is infested with bugs and you refuse to turn on the light, and call all sort of names those who dare tell you so.
Saddly, in the near future we'll be able to say (once more) told you so, and you'll say we're just picking the nuts... Well, why is it so freaking easy to find them nuts?
Furthermore, why is it we can all agree that the prists that molest children should get a 4 bore slug to the head? But you refuse to concede there's bad actors on your side and tell us we're just gaybashing when we call out the bad actors?
Would you say the same to the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans that are on OUR side? To their face?
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 27, 2023, 06:07:01 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 27, 2023, 01:30:45 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 25, 2023, 09:30:42 PM
"We're here! We're queer! We're coming for your children!" chanted during Drag March in New York Pride Celebration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-drag-marchers-chant-were-coming-your-children-during-pride-event
Harmless joke or telegraphing a punch?
I think it's an intentional provocation. They know what it sounds like, and they don't care, because they're assholes.
Which is indicative of the problem with TQ+ in general to me. Gender dysphoria is a mental disease that can lead to self-mutilation and drag queens specialize in being drama queens, so you get crazy attention seeking behavior out of that TQ+ segment of the LGBTQ+, often to their detriment.
Again, I disagree. I think it's the Q, as in the political activist identity. I think the LGB are just a guilty, just as loud, and just as obnoxious.
Since my thread about it never got approved I'll share the article here.
The left's push to normalize pedophilia is true.
https://reduxx.info/queer-academic-recommends-pedophilia-be-taught-in-schools-as-an-innate-sexuality/ (https://reduxx.info/queer-academic-recommends-pedophilia-be-taught-in-schools-as-an-innate-sexuality/)
Don't worry, I have much more evidence and some of it quite horrific and much older.
Drag story hour is great for kids, but...
Kirk Cameron is denied story-hour slot by public libraries for his new faith-based kids book (https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/kirk-cameron-denied-story-hour-slot-public-libraries-faith-kids-book)
Four children found at a drag party complete with a dead body!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12223171/First-responders-horrified-children-trans-drag-party-dead-body-drugs-sex-toys.html
Queer Theory Pedophilia Jeopardy, with Prof Derrick Jensen!
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1674866914311430144 (https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1674866914311430144)
If you can't see the video because you're not on the twatter just copy the twitter link and go to https://ssstwitter.com/ (https://ssstwitter.com/) it will download the video for you.
Delete