Drag Shows for Children Under Fire in Texas
Plus: Proud Boys indicted for seditious conspiracy, the FDA prepares to crack down on almond milk, and more...

I regret to inform you that Texas is at it again. "It" being absurd and melodramatic culture-warmongering, of course. In this latest round, Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton is trying to ban minors from seeing drag queens, in response to a Dallas bar's "Drag the Kids to Pride" event, which it billed as "a family friendly drag show."
"Drag shows are no place for a child. I would never take my children to a drag show and I know Speaker Dade Phelan and my Republican colleagues wouldn't either," Slaton tweeted on Monday. "I will be filing legislation to address this issue."
A press release attached to Slaton's tweet says he was moved to act "following several news stories and videos over the weekend in which underage Texas children were subjected to inappropriate sexual content by adults."
"The events of the past weekend were horrifying and show a disturbing trend in which perverted adults are obsessed with sexualizing young children," said Slaton.
But it sure seems like Slaton is the one who's gratuitously sexualizing things here.
While it's unclear exactly what "horrifying" events Slaton is responding to, many conservatives—including U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.)—were recently outraged over reports of a drag show for kids that was held at a Dallas gay bar last weekend.
It should be illegal to take children into Drag Queen shows and strip clubs.
And there should be no federal funding for any school that intentionally confuses children about gender/sexuality.
Any teacher or school employee caught doing so should be fired and lose all benefits.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene???????? (@RepMTG) June 6, 2022
The event was swarmed with protesters, despite the fact that the performers were clothed and engaging in nonsexual dancing. Some kids in attendance tipped the drag performers with dollar bills, which—despite its association with strip clubs—is not in itself a sexual thing (we hand dollars to street performers, too, don't we?). The most risqué thing about the event was a neon sign on the bar's wall which said "it's not gonna lick itself"—a message that most certainly went over small children's heads and, in any event, is no worse than things older children might see on TV.
That might all be too torrid for a lot parents—which is fine! No one has to bring their kids to a Pride week drag show. But the idea that it should be illegal is also silly, and smacks more of anti-LGBTQ prejudice than anything else. After all, we don't see Slaton asking for kids to be banned from Hooters or other establishments with scantily clad staff and winks and nods to sexuality.
Another outrage this weekend concerned an image shared by the Babylon Bee's Seth Dillon, who described it as "a small child — perhaps 5 or 6 — stuffs money into the underwear of a nearly naked drag queen as parents look on, smiling."
The image was in actuality a woman performing at a burlesque brunch.
Again, some parents may still find this inappropriate. But it has nothing to do with drag queens.
A small child — perhaps 5 or 6 — stuffs money into the underwear of a nearly naked drag queen as parents look on, smiling. pic.twitter.com/oCcuABAGwz
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) June 6, 2022
Baked into all of this outrage is the idea that drag performances are always too racy for under-18-year-old eyes. But dressing in drag isn't an overtly sexual act and while drag shows often contain sexual humor and themes, this is far from a requirement. Drag performances and events can certainly be tailored toward children or all-ages audiences (including the drag queen story hours at libraries that so riled folks up a few years back).
Social conservatives may object to their children being exposed to cross-dressing in general, but this doesn't make drag inherently sexual and letting minors see drag performers doesn't necessarily mean exposing them to anything lewd or lascivious. Parents are perfectly free not to take their children to events with drag performers, but parents should also be free to do so, too.
FREE MINDS
Proud Boys indicted on sedition charges. Four members of the Proud Boys and the group's former chair, Enrique Tarrio, have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their role in the January 6 riots last year. "The men had already been charged in an earlier indictment filed in March with conspiring to obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election," notes The New York Times.
The new indictment marked the second time a far-right group has been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. In January, Stewart Rhodes, the leader and founder of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, was arrested and charged along with 10 others with the same crime.
The charge of seditious conspiracy — which can be difficult to prove and carries particular legal weight as well as political overtones — requires prosecutors to show that at least two people agreed to use force to overthrow government authority or delay the execution of a U.S. law. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
It was not immediately clear what evidence led to the new charges, but the indictment underscored the central role played by the Proud Boys in the effort to forestall President Donald J. Trump's defeat and "oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force" by storming the Capitol.
The charges come as Congress is preparing for the first public hearing on the events of January 6. "Several major networks and cable news programs are expected to carry the first hearing live in its prime-time slot," notes the Associated Press. "The committee is also expected to live-stream it on C-SPAN and on its YouTube page."
FREE MARKETS
The FDA prepares to crack down on almond milk. In what has to be one of the silliest—yet ongoing—government crusades of the past decade, U.S. regulators are set to end the scourge of nondairy products referring to themselves as milk. (So much eyeroll.) Reports suggest that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "is preparing to rule that the word 'milk' on labels must be confined to animal products," reports Reason's Scott Shackford. "If true, this would mean that almond milk would have to go by another name and cannot be marketed in such a way to suggest that it's similar to dairy milk."
"It's all part of the FDA's silly, condescending treatment of consumers that just so happens to benefit powerful, entrenched agriculture interests using the government to attack competitors," notes Shackford.
As nut milks and other vegan and vegetarian alternatives to animal-based products have become more popular over the past decade or so, the purveyors of milk, meat, and other animal-based products have seized on the idea that limiting the labels these products can use will somehow undercut them. As a result, we've seen all sorts of lawsuits, lobbying, and related government action against veggie "meat," nut "milks," vegan "mayo," etc.
Of course, people tend to buy these products precisely because they are not made with animal products. Forcing them to change their labels may be burdensome and costly to their manufacturers—and temporarily confuse consumers in the short term, when their favorite almond milk is suddenly an "almond drink"—but seems unlikely to actually make a dent in the number of people trading meat and dairy for plant-based alternatives.
QUICK HITS
• The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation case has serious implications for freedom of the press, notes Freddie deBoer. "Heavyhanded defamation lawsuits with multimillion-dollar judgments risk creating a powerful chilling effect that could prevent anyone (again, not just victims) from freely and forcefully telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts," he writes.
• Bad news for (bad) plans to create a global minimum tax.
• "Over 45,000 Americans have applied to help resettle Ukrainians in the United States since the Uniting for Ukraine program began," reports Reason's Fiona Harrigan.
• Angeli Gomez, the mother of two students at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, talks to the press about rushing into the school to save her children while a gunman was inside. "The entire interview is a damning indictment of law enforcement's mishandling of the shooting," writes Reason's Robby Soave, "but one new detail bears particular emphasis: According to Gomez, the police subsequently contacted her and said that the media attention she was generating for criticizing them could lead to obstruction of justice charges."
• Continuing its track record of performative nonsense aimed at social media, Texas is investigating Twitter bots:
Today I'm investigating Twitter for potentially misleading Texans on the number of its "bot" users. I have a duty to protect Texans if Twitter is misrepresenting how many accounts are fake to drive up their revenue.https://t.co/OZbwdV3pnY
— Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) June 6, 2022
• Michael Lowe "spent 17 days in a New Mexico jail because American Airlines wrongfully accused and identified him to police as a shoplifter at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport," reports the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Lowe is now suing American Airlines.
• British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has survived a no-confidence vote. "The vote, 211 to 148, fell short of the majority of Tory lawmakers needed to oust Mr. Johnson," notes The New York Times. "But it laid bare how badly his support has eroded since last year, when a scandal erupted over revelations that he and his senior aides threw parties at 10 Downing Street that violated the government's lockdown rules."
• A week after Georgetown University said Ilya Shapiro could resume duties at Georgetown Law following an investigation into his tweet about Supreme Court nominees, Shapiro has resigned. "It has become apparent that my remaining at Georgetown has become untenable," he wrote in a statement.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I regret to inform you that Texas is at it again.
To be fair, the wall said, "It's not gonna lick itself!"
AYFKM? See the picture of the 5-year stuffing a guys thong with a dollar bill? Sickening.
This is Ok, ENB? Really? Can't wait to see what you do with your kid.
this whole shit show is literally grooming. What other perverted performance can we now force other people kids to see.
How about grooming kids to be capitalists, and forcing them to spend an afternoon making, selling, and buying things--and keeping the profits?
Lemonade stands? Oh wait, democrats have regulated those out of existence in their towns.
Look, I grew up in New Orleans where I saw all kinds of titties and debauchery at Mardi Gras parades and never once did I think as a child: "this is scary." People should stop begging the state to parent for them. If you think taking a kid to a drag brunch is harmful, don't take them. If they see a titty or a butt on any sex/gender, just talk to them about it. Titties and butts. We've all got them in some capacity.
Kids have smart phones now. Drag shows and brunches are so mild compared to what they see on the little screen in their pockets. Should we regulate and mandate that? Should we say "kids can't have smartphones or use the internet because someone might try and groom them?"
If we're going to wring hands about this, we should wring hands about Hooters letting kids in and unfettered internet use. What a boring and useless thing to be worried about.
You seem to be okay with exposing children to pornography. (see Dizzle's reply below on the nature of drag shows). Is that the case?
"See the picture of the 5-year stuffing a guys thong with a dollar bill? Sickening."
Where is this picture? The only one I have seen was the one above, which is a kid putting money in a burlesque cis-woman's bikini.
Now that said, is this acceptable? I don't think I would take my kid to a burlesque show, whether or not it was dudes/gals.
But then, I have taken my kids to Moroccan restaurants where they have belly dancers who also get tipped in the thong. To me, the context is important. Play acting being in a strip club *is* different from being in a restaurant with dancers.
I don't want the government legislating which of these situations is acceptable and which isn't. I think reasonable parents will draw their line in different places. And even unreasonable parents ought to have the right to draw their line at "pretend your kid is shopping for meat in the red light district". That's for them to deal with.
"tipped in the thong."
^-------Band name?
::rolls eyes::
Nasty Pig! what else? Hairy back and ass are extra
https://store.nastypig.com/products/launch-thong
Yeah, I don't think a law is appropriate here. But holy shit, what the hell is wrong with people?
And again, I think Libertarians would have a lot more credibility if they didn't endlessly try to gaslight folks. ENB clearly wants middle america to believe there is nothing wrong with kids sitting in a seedy bar like they are on a bachelor party.
To me, this is just as bad as DeSantis getting into a first amendment fight with Disney. It distracts from the libertarian issues at play. Rather than convincing a bunch of parents that they aren't seeing what they are clearly seeing, ENB should be focusing on the fact that it is parents' decision how to raise their kids. But for some reason, she wants to argue the former instead of the latter, and it basically ensures that half of the country is going to look at her and Reason, and Libertarians side-eyed for the foreseeable future.
At what point of sexualizing children SHOULD the state get involved, if at any?
Because this has reached the point were children are coming into physical contact (when putting bills in underwear) with adults in their underwear to the cheering of other adults.
Try as they might, marriage by young kids is categorically shunned, sex is not appealing, the US fertility rate (1.6) has been below the replacement rate (2.1) for decades, reaching its lowest in 2020, which translates into ENB and Scott Shackford having to find new material to massage as drama queens. Those TRANS bitches are our only hope!
The U.S. fertility rate hit a record low in 2020 — just as it did in 2019, and 2018. Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have accelerated this decline, the drop has been underway for years. The total fertility rate — the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime — now sits at 1.64 children per woman in the U.S. Not only is this the lowest rate recorded since the government began tracking these stats in the 1930s, but it’s well below the so-called “replacement-level fertility” of about 2.1.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-low-can-americas-birth-rate-go-before-its-a-problem/
"At what point of sexualizing children SHOULD the state get involved, if at any?"
I am very, very skeptical of the state getting involved, because the point we set will not be the point that they enforce. We have seen the government look the other way for YEARS while real, illegal, abuse was happening at the hands of Epstein, the US Gymnastics Doctor Assad, and others. All that same time, they persecuted parents who didn't vax their kids on time or let them walk home from a park.
There is context involved in these judgements, and the government is terrible at judging context. I see a difference between a kid tipping a belly dancer at a Moroccan restaurant, and a kid tipping a dancer at a venue meant to look like a strip club. Can the government see the difference? Hell no.
So at no point should the government get involved? Just want to make sure I’m clear on your position.
The state should get involved when there is demonstrable harm done to children. You can do all kinds of stuff to kids that might mess them up later in life. I think to criminalize something you need a lot more than "this might lead to some bad decisions later".
Right. Again, we give wide latitude to Trustees, and that is a pretty comparable metaphor for the *legal* relationship between a child and their parents. In general the ethical considerations include:
1) Is there a conflict of interest? Are you putting your own wealth or gratification ahead of child's?
2) Is there gross negligence? Is it reasonable to assume that the child will be hurt if you allow some action to happen?
3) Are you protecting the beneficiary from the manipulations or harm of other third parties?
I think it is pretty reasonable to see why outright molestation by the parent ( or with the consent of the parent) runs afoul of #1 and #3. But teaching them about sex at an early age? I don't think it is a good idea, but I also don't think it runs afoul of those ethical concerns.
There are grey areas, I know. But in a world where Japanese parents often bathe with their kids up into highschool; where Moroccan restaurants have scantily clad belly dancers; where kids watch cheesy horror films; in this world, there is so much grey area that I am unwilling to give the government the power to micromanage this stuff. And yes, that means some kids might have suboptimal childhoods. And in some cases their parents might abuse their Trust and actually cross lines that are not acceptable. That is the cost of freedom.
And I’m genuinely curious at what point something like this becomes molestation.
I’ll have to admit ignorance with the belly dancer analogy. I’ve been to Moroccan restaurants and other places that had belly dancers. I’ve never seen a child tip the dancers. But you concede it’s different so let’s set that aside.
This case specifically. As long as everyone is clothed, even in lingerie, and the contact with the child is only at the waist?
What if the child is told to rub genitals through clothing? Or is nudity required? Or actual intercourse?
Still curious about Zeb’s definition of “demonstrable harm done to children.”
And Overt’s definition of molestation.
Our baseline is adults in lingerie dancing around while children are handed dollar bills and told to place them in the adults waistband by their parents (or guardians) while other adults cheer them on for putting the dollar bill in the adults waistband.
Which of these facts needs to increase to what level to become “demonstrable harm” or molestation enough to get the state involved?
Gotta agree with you, as usual Zeb. A law seems absurd, but at the same time the situation they're trying to legislate is also absurd.
People should be able to do things like this with their kids if they want, I suppose, but at the same time one wonders how this is fine for CPS yet people have their kids taken away from them just for letting them outside by themselves.
I lived in the DFW area for years, and I'm assuming this bar is in Deep Ellum which is frankly not a place I'd take kids with or without drag queens. I've seen some pretty fucked up shit in that area. I could be wrong, the story doesn't really seem to specify, but since it's Dallas it seems like a safe bet.
And lastly, kids can't 'legally' watch pornography which kind of makes me wonder why it's somehow 'better' to have them view half-naked women right up close and stuff dollar bills in their underwear.
Truly, we live in bizarro-world.
And this is also why the government needs to get the fuck out and ENB needs to stop trying to insist that "it isn't that bad, ya Prudes!"
I mean my kids see half naked women (and men) every time we go to the beach. In my mind, it isn't the amount of skin showing that is the problem. It is the context and the activities. Kids digging in the sand and building sand castles with their parents is not a sexualized activity. Pretending to fling singles at a stripper is a sexualized activity.
Agreed. The government shouldn't be the arbiter of purity or anything like that.
That said, I've been to burlesque shows at bars in Deep Ellum (the very area I suspect all this happened in) and all of them featured nudity and none allowed kids.
The idea of a burlesque show for kids is a little bizarre, since if you've ever seen one of those shows they are highly inappropriate for kids with or without nudity. I wouldn't say they are 100% sexual in nature, but it's certainly a big part of those shows.
If a parent wants to take their kid to the strip club while they have a few drinks, I suspect CPS would be so far up their ass it would take a proctologist to remove them. Thus the idea the government shouldn't be involved is already moot: most voters seem to think they absolutely should be involved regardless of what libertarians think about the issue.
A drag show for kids is less egregious I suppose, just because in those shows I've never seen any nudity and they are usually just some dudes in dresses singing songs.
It might be weird, but it's also not really sexual in my view. It's about as weird as famous comedians making movies where they play a woman like Eddie Murphey or even Robin Williams. You could take your kid to a musical and there's about as much chance of seeing a dude wearing a dress.
but at the same time one wonders how this is fine for CPS yet people have their kids taken away from them just for letting them outside by themselves
^This. The law is not supposed to be arbitrary. When it is, it sets off alarm bells for intelligent people.
If leaving a sleeping child strapped into a car seat in a locked car for 5 minutes to run into a store and pick up a cake is child endangerment, then taking a child to a burlesque show and allowing them contact with the performers should certainly be considered child endangerment. The increased risk of children submitting to molestation by directly exposing them to increasing amounts of sexualized behavior is much higher than the increased risk of a child coming to harm while secured in a locked vehicle.
I realize the population in general might be bad at assessing risk, but it should absolutely be part of any legal assessment of what is and isn't dangerous for kids. That being said, I would be hard pressed to find that the increased risk of either of the above scenarios justifies interference by the state.
Most of the gay bars are over by Cedar Springs. So a little bit less sketchy than Deep Ellum.
Still wouldn’t take my young children to a fucking bar though.
Can't wait to see what you do with your kid.
It helps if you hear it in Barney's voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOi_iPNC50
If people see nothing wrong with having children tuck dollar bills into the thong of a "drag queen", then there is no hope for them. These are the same people who think school field trips to a bar is perfectly fine, but scream and protest if the same children are taken to a farm owned by a pastor of a church.
Something is seriously wrong with our nation and I think at this point it is beyond repair. We need to split up into five or six territories and let each territory form its own government.
Commenter_XY commented before reading. Imagine dat.
ENBs opinion columns tend to be waaaay too long but I do try to read them.
I have read her advocating for sex workers and for contracts between consenting adults but am unaware of her ever advocating for sex workers to be or to work with minors.
Do you have any examples?
I truly hope enbs kid gets groomed
She'll probably do it herself. Other kids mow lawns, ENB's kid turns tricks downtown.
All this time, I've been wondering: Will Texas also be outlawing children from seeing Curly Howard from The Three Stooges or "Uncle Miltie" Milton Berle in drag?
Rare Three Stooges Comedy Scenes! (From "Time Out For Rhythm", 1941)
(Fast Forward to 11:35)
https://youtu.be/EJBz3mk_0w4
Uncle Miltie is Auntie Mildred
https://youtu.be/yfemsVOgSFU
Because the Three Stooges and Uncle Milty stripped in bars grinding their gold sequined grape huggers in childrens faces.
Totally same same.
Dressing in drag (a.k.a. "burlesque" or "impersonation") and having as much as one Homosexual patron in a club, hotel, or restaurant was actually criminal in New York City pre-Stonewall Uprising, regardless of children being involved.
As repressive as New York City was and is, it's a small wonder New Yorkers put "fuck" in between every word in a sentence. I bet children hear far more of that than they ever encounter drag queens.
I say all this to point out that Authoritarians and Totalitarians don't need to evoke "for the children" to be repressive assholes, and too many Texans sound like just that type.
Dressing in drag (a.k.a. "burlesque" or "impersonation") and having as much as one Homosexual patron in a club, hotel, or restaurant was actually criminal in New York City pre-Stonewall Uprising, regardless of children being involved.
Your point being?
What is "it"?
Which or what "it?"
California State Senator is thinking about requiring Drag Queens to be part of K-12 school curriculum: https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1534224620504555520
Apparently the same guy who decriminalized the knowing transmission of AIDS (that is, having unprotected sex with someone even though you know you have AIDS)
No surprise that pedo bug-chaser Scott Weiner is pushing this.
"It's not gonna lick itself!"
This is what Lizzie whispers to her fellow sisters of Sappho while her extraordinarily strange, creepy-ass looking beard is on the other side of town going nuts on a bathhouse glory hole.
Go on...
I have to wonder if this is deliberately satirical. In some circumstances, I could agree. Let's be honest with ourselves, drag queen story time is about as harmful as the storyteller at the Renaissance fair with the fairy wings and elf ears.
However, here, the pairing of absolutely off the wall photographs with completely indignant language is so jarring that I cannot understand the doublethink. This wasn't a talent show or a costumed performance. It was a strip-show.
If it was just presented as a stripper party without the rainbow paint, would people think this was okay? Absolutely not! Then, why are we encouraging children to participate in the same thing?
In regards to drag time story hour, the reader was going commando and "accidentally" showed the family jewels, if you get what I'm saying.
Drag shows are no place for a child.
Everyone was up in arms about the freaky clowns of the 2016 Playground Clown Panic, but you add fake tits and suddenly everyone's okay with them being around your kids.
To be fair, tits usually do make things better.
"If you've seen one, you want to see them all." -my grandma
Does or did she include herself seeing her own breasteses?
If so, Hey, now, Grandma! 🙂
????
*OK sign*
I don't even make the clown comparison to be disparaging. They're literally in costume with caricature makeup and wigs. It's a subset.
To be clear, my point was about the overlapping sources of nonsensical panics and what should be panicked about, I don't make the *OK sign* to be disparaging to black people either.
Racist.
Sure ya don’t.
Only a racist would say that.
The image was in actuality a woman performing at a burlesque brunch.
Yes, yes. We all know now that anyone can be a woman if he puts his mind to it.
And no kid is too young to learn the lesson of "The Crying Game".
Does it make it better if it was a biological female in a thong they were stuffing bills into? Not in my opinion.
In fact, it lends credibility. Kids don't belong in burlesque shows either.
I regret to inform you that Texas is at it again
Fuck off groomer.
You're wanted back at The Unz Review.
No one has to bring their kids to a Pride week drag show.
As long as your social credit score can take the hit.
Hmm, the one country where they actually have social credit scores has a government running the social credit system that is quite homophobic.
ESG exists here already.
Caw caw!
Do you have to work at being willfully obtuse to peoples jokes, or were you born this idiotic?
Hey Peanuts isn't this Biden economy amazing? Liberal capitalists Bezos, Buffett, Page, Brin, and Zuckerberg made a bunch of money yesterday which means everything is great. And since I support the same political party they do, their financial success reflects positively on me.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
"Liberal capitalists Bezos, Buffett, Buttplug, Page, Brin, and Zuckerberg made a bunch of money yesterday"
You missed the latest billionaire so I added him in for you. Made his money counting rigs and investing it in spitting tabaccy futures.
Appears Lebrondo made the list too.
I'm beating the s&p by 6%. Not that that's a great return.
Most index funds are beating the ESG developed funds as well.
The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation case-
Stop right there.
Proud Boys indicted on sedition charges.
I look forward to the buried follow up when this goes nowhere.
At least for the ones who were FBI informers.
It will depend on if they can get the trial moved out of DC, if not then they will get life even if they were not guilty.
As soon as they decided not to vote (D) they were guilty.
Yeah, it sucks getting arrested in a foreign land where they all hate Americans.
Before we decide who did what let's get these resolved:
80 ‘Suspicious Actors’ and ‘Material Witnesses’ Under Scrutiny by Jan. 6 Defense Attorneys
The FBI refuses to deny any involvement in events on January 6 - American Thinker
I will continue to point this out until someone gives me a plausible response.
The J6 crowd passed in front of FBI headquarters as it moved down Pennsylvania Ave to the Capitol. Why didn't they respond to calls for assistance unless they had agents operating in the crowd?
Am I the only person who remembers back when John Adams passing the Alien and Sedition act to punish political enemies was considered one of the darkest parts of early American history? Second only the the mess surrounding Burr's Vice Presidency?
sedition? is that even a thing anymore? to dredge that one up takes a looooong reach. like the use of the term insurrection for jan 6 rather than riot or protest. our language has been debased to the point of 1984 levels...
Several major networks and cable news programs are expected to carry the first hearing live in its prime-time slot...
At the expense of any inconvenient news items of the day.
Also at the expense of ratings.
Nothing says "serious investigation" quite like a primetime TV special.
Nothing says we're part of the blue machine like suspending primetime TV to air a hearing.
Now to just have every witness curse incessantly for their entire testimony.
"Well, fucking chairperson, I fucking..."
FWIW I have a fantasy where I have to testify in front of a House committee and I refer to Gym Jordan as a "Dexter-looking motherfucker".
It is being produced by an ex ABC executive. Can’t believe the US has come to this, scripted show trials. Do they not realize that most people can see through this?
Not in prime coastal markets, they can't.
Can they? I’m not convinced. I believe this will be a paragraph in the chapter about the end of this country in a future history book.
I believe this will be a paragraph in the chapter about the end of this country in a future history book published in China
LOL! Please stick around. These comments definitely need more wry observational humor and a lot less of the performative absurdity.
I disagree, even in the Soviet Union when they had show trials like this the common people knew it was bunk. They just said nothing as they did not have freedom of speech. Will see if that is enough to expose these show trials or if a compliant media will succeed in brainwashing the American public.
We’ll see, I hope I’m wrong. Even if many people do see though, Peter Navarro has already been frog marched off a plane by the DOJ and half the country seems to be cheering this.
Remember, they’ve already convinced a large portion of the country that anything related to Bad Orange Man is settled through their propaganda, including this publication.
Go ask the random person on the street about the legitimacy of the last election. About 1/6 in question. About Trump being to blame for Covid. Etc etc.
So many people have ALREADY bought into the assumptions this showtrial is based off. Confirmation bias is a bitch.
There's no peaceful solution, but we love to live in denial.
Avoiding reality, choosing submission, is still violent...
Avoiding reality, choosing submission, is still violent...
Which segues nicely to life on the internet.
They hired a media ceo to make sure it is a circus.
This...is the definition of a show trial.
Bread & circuses except we can't afford the bread.
But circuses aren’t a problem; we have plenty of clowns!
Much better to hold a show trial to indict the other party as a bunch of seditious un-American's than deal with little problems like rising inflation and the absolutely predictable results of the far-lefts anti-energy policies.
Listening to Democrats talk about rising energy prices and the rate of inflation is literally them pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining. They blame everyone but themselves, which is pretty hilarious since anyone with a basic understanding of economics saw this coming months, if not years, ago. Most of us we're predicting this result years ago when the printing presses were going 'brrr' under Trump, and Biden double or tripled down on that and told us as much right off the bat.
Republicans certainly deserve blame there as well, but one notes Republicans are routinely attacked for being pro-oil and despising social spending and, well, oil and record spending is what we're talking about.
The fact people can't see that is depressing. There isn't anyone 'good' to vote for, really, but if I have to choose there actually is a lesser evil in this two party dichotomy. The fact a lot of people are in favor of the party that is actively fucking them over into becoming a 3rd world shithole is amazing.
I guess abortion is more important than being able to heat your home and buy food to some people. Specifically, people who probably don't have to worry about the prices of those things like young far leftists living off their rich parents money in major urban centers.
More to the point, for years many Democrats have told us increasing the price of gasoline was a direct goal.
Ctrl+F "weigel" = 0 results
Nothing about former Koch-funded libertarian / current Bezos-employed MSM progressive Dave Weigel? I know how seriously ENB takes sexist jokes so I'm surprised she didn't find this newsworthy.
#WeigelShouldKnowBetter
That’s gonna leave a mark
I had to look that one up.
Good joke. Offensive, hilariously so, and a shot across the bow for the old fashioned (like before 5 years ago) man-woman culture wars.
Definitely something wapo should punish someone for. Progressives don't have humor.
I knew OBL would stick his Koch in the comments somewhere! Too juicy for him to pass up.
The FDA prepares to crack down on almond milk...
"My almond has nipples, Greg..."
Don't get them started on chestnut milk.
But do let them finish with chinnut milk.
Yikes. That's not scheduled until next year.
Groomer!
Premature.
Given the current destruction of language to accommodate the trans activists chestnut milk has me quite confused. Is the delivery platform different on the two models or are we even talking about human milk at this point?
That's an awful lot of resolute assumptions for somebody who's confused about whether 2+2=5 or not.
Don't be silly, 2+2 = 22.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw
Over 45,000 Americans have applied to help resettle Ukrainians in the United States...
Before realizing it's June and switched to hosting gays instead.
Ugaynians
We're going to need a whole new flag.
I bet if you look hard enough someone’s already combined the Ukrainian and rainbow flag.
I bet if you look hard enough someone's already combined the Ukrainian and rainbow flag and been stabbed in the head for it.
One can only hope.
Will only accept Ukrainian females between 18 and 25 though.
How many are lonely guys hoping for some hot Ukrainian babe to be sent their way?
Well considering all the men were conscripted and can’t leave…
And everyone will be happy until the nice cute female Ukrainian refugee you welcomed into your home runs off with your hubby.
Good times, indeed!
Sexy trans goat shows under fire in Texas.
...
The image was, in actuality, of a child tucking dollar bills into a scantily-clad doe's g-string. And there's nothing wrong with that, right? We hand homeless people dollar bills and feed goats a the "petting" zoo, right?
Do you get in the morning and deliberately suffer head trauma to be this stupid or does it come naturally?
Definitely helps the cause when she's out there letting us know there's nothing wrong with a kindergartener stuffing the g-string of a tranny.
My point, though, was that her utter lack of principles not only hurts her trannie argument but undermines her other arguments as well. Is she advocating that slipping money into women's underwear is entirely non-sexual and as acceptable means of transacting as dropping coins into a street performers' hat or direct electronic deposit to her bank account. In good faith, I assume she's not but, then, she's not making a good faith argument.
I hope so - creepy bosses across the country are looking forward to this new method of handing out paychecks!
What? Its totally non-sexual! You said!
When pay day becomes lap dance day.
Oh, HELL, no!!!
In my day, a woman saying "Stuffing dollars into a g-string is like dropping money into a hat." constituted affirmative consent.
Yeah, that was my thought as well. The fact that the child is putting a dollar bill in a real woman’s panties isn’t really better.
We were assured 40 years ago that the L & G crowd were just like us. They just wanted to be free to love who they love and go to work without being attacked or ridiculed. Any argument about degraded moral standards was branded as conspiratorial slippery-slope fallacy.
Yet, here we are. Gender fluidity is being taught in schools and exposure to sex in public is being normalized. 20% of an entire generation of kids claim to be aberrant in their sexual attraction.
Somebody was lying.
Nooooooooo!!!
20% of an entire generation of kids claim to be aberrant
in their sexual attractionon campus we say >50% of our university students are aberrant. Our observations are likely skewed because we aint Ivy League (a good thing?). Kids today prefer to text professors than meet during office hours, prefer virtual instruction than in class attendance, and uncharitable online professor reviews are de rigueur. These kids are not emotionally nor intellectually evolved to handle life.
Bring back evolutionary forces. Natural selection is desperately needed today
Also vision quests, missions, crusades, and wars of convenience for armies full of draftees. Anything to get 18 year olds away from civilization, and into environments that might weed out the dumb and crazy. After that, maybe some can go to college.
The L & G community ARE just like us. The vast majority aren’t involved in this shit. It’s too bad they aren’t as vocal as the sick fucks pushing the current agenda.*
*I’m not convinced that the current agenda isn’t being primarily pushed by the perverted elite in order to keep everyone at each other’s throats, much like the race hustlers.
Yes, I know a bunch. And they are just like us. So who was lying?
Hint, the ones who came in to help them organize and then transformed those organizations for their own use after they had fulfilled their original purpose. See ACLU as primary example.
I'm not convinced your distinctions make much of a difference. At the very least, I'd need some sort of evidence that "the vast majority aren’t involved in this shit" and, even then, the "vast majority" assertion is highly dubious. It's akin to saying "the vast majority of people who get married don't get divorced".
Take Scott for example. Does he get discounted for being a journalist activist despite being a homosexual or does he get not counted, counted, and then not counted as he 'evolves' from 'gay rights now!', to 'except when it forces private businesses to do things against their will', to 'unless we're grooming kids in schools'.
The homosexuals I know don't march in the street, but they absolutely despise DeSantis and will let you know about it, absolutely want to hire more diverse employees, treating women as men, even going so far as imitatively contort themselves to absurd ideological cardboard cutouts when you talk about what's OK to teach kids in school and when between sex and religion. That is, they may not be on board with teaching sex ed to kindergarteners, but they think sexual diversity should be a more generally addressable topic in school and still bristle at the notion of consenting adult Mormons having more than one spouse or grooming teenage girls to be wives.
The vast majority aren’t involved in this shit. It’s too bad they aren’t as vocal as the sick fucks pushing the current agenda</emm
We are not involved in this stuff because it is all internet driven which is all detached from every day life. We arent as vocal because we have more pressing matters in our lives just as you do, e.g. your not slamming the podium at the White House about gun control like Matthew McConaughey, driving trucks around DC to protest COVID vaccines, screaming at school board meetings with other parents about CRT, etc.
At my Catholic church, there are about a dozen gays and lesbians, most of us married, over age 50. Aside from our professional jobs, we take care of our spouses, our sick in-laws, help organize lay ministries at church (homeless clothing drive, food pantry, prison ministry, visit the sick, etc), and some like me are involved in medicine caring for patients, involved in bench-top preclinical research studies, teaching trainees, and volunteering to treat the poor, the uninsured, recently arrived immigrants, etc. I post on here between my many job related tasks to vent.
Gays like me have a life that is rich, goal oriented and has purposeful meaning. Then there are the empty alphabet types who have made political movements their religion like Scott S.
""It" being absurd and melodramatic culture-warmongering, of course."
Yup, young kids at drag shows "tipping" them like strippers. Nothing to worry about.
Well it *is* absurd culture-warmongering. But ENB just thinks it is on one side.
Seriously.
Can we just not sexualize children? Like... at all? Just give 'em their first decade to be children and not think about those things.
They'll be unable to think about anything else soon thereafter. Leave the poor bastards alone until then.
^F'n A, man. F'n A.
I'm even willing to be more cavalier than that. Give them the first decade and, agreed, not every conceivable situation that contains the words 'child' and 'nudity' inevitably ends with a psychologically broken child and shouldn't be treated as such. But, absolutely let's not pretend that low bar is our goal.
As someone else stated yesterday, once you let go of the spoon on that grenade, putting the pin back in does you no good.
It is only a war if somebody resists the aggressors, in her view.
Go back to Jezebel or whatever other leftist publication you came from you leftist groomer. Maybe go home, murder your kid in solidarity with abortion rights and celebrate on twitter, that seems all the rage these days.
The pride event last weekend in West Hollywood didn’t necessarily have to be a case study in exhibitionism. Yet it was.
Texas is over reacting but the sexual branding of “pride” is a choice by the lgbt community.
Ditto their odd "Trannies Above All Else" mentality.
Texas is over reacting but the sexual branding of “pride” is a choice by the lgbt community.
Better characterized as a controversy in the "lgbt community." I've known more gay people than not who strongly dislike "Pride" for this exact reason - i.e. that the whole point of the gay rights movement was to decouple the idea of homosexuality from kink, which the Pride Parade undoes in a quite dramatic and public fashion every year.
"Proud Boys indicted on sedition charges."
Weird. Nothing about the laughable political prosecutions.
Sedition against the Democratic party. Protesting elections is okay when they do it. So is seditious fraud.
Why is the proud Boys branding of pride bad while the fag brand of pride good?
"Shut up" they explained.
And went on to elaborate, FYTW.
Could be the ol' "who would they like to have a beer (or glass of Chardonnay) with" thing.
"The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation case has serious implications for freedom of the press, notes Freddie deBoer. "Heavyhanded defamation lawsuits with multimillion-dollar judgments risk creating a powerful chilling effect that could prevent anyone (again, not just victims) from freely and forcefully telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts," he writes."
Oh NO! Defamation might cause the press to do its fucking job for a change?
My reading of that statement is that you couldn't pay deBoer multiple millions of dollars to agree on basic facts. Apparently, #metoo didn't crash and burn hard enough to kill every last passenger.
It's a short read and a worthwhile persepctive. DeBoer's against both sides of the lawsuit (and the MeToo movement generally) though he appreciates why Depp felt the need to sue. But for leftist and libertarian reasons he's against strengthening of defamation as a concept.
The immediately preceding statement:
I don't see anything at all libertarian about the view. It reads very much like a post-modern Marxist shitting in one hand and wishing in print. Sure, there is some Christian virtue in forgiveness and live and let live, but the case and story start with a specific voiding of 'live and let live'. Moreover, we explicitly do not live in a Christian Theocracy and when someone is harmed by words or deeds, the state is obligated to honor petitions, mete judgement, and assess remunerations. And this role predates Christianity by millenia. Even if you felt we should live in an idyllic theocracy and/or governments shouldn't hear grievances, to say "I've looked at the Depp/Heard case and believe we should abandon Civil Law." is profoundly unwise and profoundly biased.
Yeah, the whole thing kicked off specifically because Heard MeToo'd Depp and caused him to lose film roles. Depp is still a box office draw, and making him industry poison was directly interfering in his livelihood.
Depp gained a lot more by airing the relationship's dirty laundry in public than he lost, even though he likely knew that he wouldn't come out looking all that good himself. He chose to take that hit because, ultimately, "giving something up to the blade" in the legal sense would end up showing what a psycho lying whore Heard really is.
No, no it's not. The stupid dipshit didn't even bother to ascertain basic fucking facts in the case before writing his article. He "doesn't have a clue" how the ACLU is involved when the ACLU wrote most of the Op-Ed at the center of the defamation claim and there was potentially about 3.2 million dollars in it for them along with #MeToo clout chasing. Of course, AH didn't actually pay it. She has a bit of a problem understanding the difference between the words pledge and donate you see, and testified for a good 6 minutes about that very fact on the witness stand. Fun times. He also somehow doesn't understand, perhaps having failed math in elementary school, that the size of the resulting judgements had to do with the amount of money they both made. AH's 2 million compromise verdict was the amount she made on Aquaman 2. The case also does very little, if anything at all to strengthen defamation as a concept, because most defamation defendants don't A)File a counterclaim claiming a medical condition that forces the court to order them to undergo a psychological evaluation which they obviously falsify, B)Submit multiple pieces of laughably falsified evidence to the court, and C)Get up on the stand not once but twice and very clearly lie through their teeth the entire time.
Let's not forget that people with multi-million dollar contracts sue for those contracts value when breached, the horror. It's not like some diner waitress was hit with this judgement in a non-dischargeable way for no reason.
Oh NO! Defamation might cause the press to do its fucking job for a change?
DeBoer is echoing the same complaints that Taylor Lorenz did when she badly fucked up her own coverage on it. Even in the event that journalists show up to these things, it's usually to sit around for about an hour to get enough to frame the narrative they want to push, not actually report the facts. Lorenz and her colleagues are competing with people who are livestreaming the event all day and making comments based on them as they unfold. Same shit happened with the Rittenhouse trial--the people who watched it on Rekieta's feed, for example, got a much more accurate picture of the evidence and trial events than anyone who just tuned in to the network or cable news, or read about it in the paper.
Because they will sit around for 8 hours or more commenting on this stuff, they are far more informed and in a better position to cultivate trust in their reporting than Lorenz or most other mainstream journalists. Which is specifically why Lorenz tried to discredit them in her article to begin with.
"Continuing its track record of performative nonsense aimed at social media, Texas is investigating Twitter bots"
LIBERTARIAN FOR FRAUD UNITE!!!
Glad to know there is nothing a business can do that "libertarians" will oppose.
I mean it is the exact same issue Theranos was sued for. Fraud. A misstatement of their capabilities and business results.
I don’t think ENB is smart enough to realize this issue is about fraud.
"Michael Lowe "spent 17 days in a New Mexico jail because American Airlines wrongfully accused and identified him to police as a shoplifter at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport," reports the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Lowe is now suing American Airlines."
Wait til you hear what happened to trespassers on 1/6/21.
"How about a $200 travel voucher?"
Reason is not familiar with that.
Hey, they mentioned the Proud Boys being charged. What more do you want?
It's amazing how Reason writers can find all sorts of cases of law enforcement or prosecutorial abuse, but when it comes to those defendants charged on January 6th, their attitude is "forget the trial, hang them now"!.
Enrique Tarrio wasn't even in D.C. on January 6th. You have others who were invited in by D.C. police, wandered around the Capitol while staying inside the rope lines, and then exited the building after 15 minutes or so. These people are being charged with crimes and are being held in jail. Meanwhile, the lawyers who threw molotov cocktails into a police car are going to be given a slap on the wrist and sent their merry way.
We now have political prosecutions in our nation and Reason thinks that is a good thing and something to be celebrated.
A letter from one of the J6 protestors sentenced to 4 years in a plea for facing 20 years over non violent acts.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1534161245686874114
But the purpose of showing little kids how to stuff dollars into the G-strings of tranny performers is to teach them about capitalism!
#1: In general, parents ought to be allowed to raise their kids how they see fit. Sending this to the government for legislative relief is stupid.
#2: These parents should be completely disgusted with themselves. And it becomes increasingly difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to parents who are choosing to expose their kids to sexually explicit behavior.
It isn't the "Drag" part that is my problem. Contrary to what ENB said, this was a sexual situation. The queens I saw were dressed in fishnet stockings with their bare asses hanging out, and corsets showing ample "cleavage".
These kids are playacting being in a strip club. They are putting kids in a seedy bar, with adults who dressed in sexually suggestive garb, and telling them to make it rain. This is depraved behavior. It is completely inappropriate for kids. And I would say that if it was a little boy giving dollars to a woman doing a pole dance.
This whole "But we give money to street performers" bullshit is some flagrant nonsense. I also give money to my barista. And my CPA. And my landscaper. But see, that is different, because- and maybe it is a bit confusing for ENB- THESE KIDS AREN'T PRETENDING TO GIVE MONEY TO STREET PERFORMERS. They aren't pretending to buy coffee, or do their taxes, or get their lawn mowed. These kids are paying scantilly clad, sexually suggestive adults to dance for them in a seedy bar.
What the fuck, ENB?
These parents are most likely breaking their arms slapping themselves on the back at how enlightened and accepting they are.
While virtue signaling pictures of how woke they are (at their children’s expense) on instagram.
La Cage Aux Folles it ain't.
My reaction exactly, Overt. Normalizing that behavior is sickening, completely warped, and devoid of any common sense, or morality.
“Devoid of Common Sense or Morality “ should be ENB’s tagline
Sounds like the motto of the Sex Workers of America union.
It isn't the "Drag" part that is my problem. Contrary to what ENB said, this was a sexual situation. The queens I saw were dressed in fishnet stockings with their bare asses hanging out, and corsets showing ample "cleavage".
This falls, a bit, for the 'there are 5 lights' newspeak. Time was, and still really is, people dressed as the opposite sex non-sexually, were cross-dressers and dressing in drag meant rather explicitly what you entail.
What the fuck, ENB?
I hope every man in every facet of her life pays her by tucking bills into her grannie panties so that, when she complains, they can just say "It's non-sexual. I give people on the street money too."
It's not gonna gaslight itself.
ENB's shameless dissembling here is why the Kulture Warz continue. She can't just say, "Hey look, let parents raise their kids how they want." No. She needs to sit there and tell you that some dude strutting around in high-heels with fishnet stockings and whore-makeup is the same as a busker doing drums on the street.
But every single parent in Flyover country looks at that shit and is appalled. I live in the Left Coast and *I* am appalled. And when ENB says "Hey guys, ignore what you see on that video, and instead believe my highly sanitized description", it smacks of propaganda. It smacks of Walter Duranty describing the Holodomore as "logistical challenges".
There is a difference between saying, "I can understand why you object to this content, but we should allow people to raise kids how they want" and saying "This isn't nearly as bad as you think- stop being so stuffy and uptight!" The latter is what every leftist is doing while trying to push their culture on the country. The former should be the distinguishing step of Libertarians. Instead, ENB gets on and acts just like the SJW Kulture Warriors that conservatives fear, and then throws her hands up when her message doesn't resonate.
Well said.
Yep. As has been noted repeatedly, ENB is a propagandist, and is not a libertarian.
If we buy she read this and took it to heart
If only*
Not to be all Marsellus Wallace, but this is why I now am in the "Fuck Pride" camp. For several years now it's gone way past "We just want to live!" to a combination of "We demand compliance in all areas with whatever deliberately provocative, fucked-up bullshit we've decided to taunt people with today, including bragging about how we're coming for your kids!" with "But don't ever object to or even simply point out what we're doing, even by showing videos of it or quoting us word for word, or we'll denounce you as a bigot!" No gay or lesbian person I know even attends Pride events anymore. They don't think it has (or want it to have) anything to do with them.
-1 gimp.
June is Shame Month.
And beyond that, let's imagine this was the tamest performance imaginable. Let's imagine they were there reading children's books to the kids.
WHY did someone feel the need to host an event for kids at a bar? This is explicitly an adult venue for adults to be adults and to consume adult beverages. Every picture I've seen has had several adult beverages being consumed clearly in the frame, and yet they advertised as a "Bring your kids!" type event. Why do they feel the need to advocate for kids to be brought into an adult environment?
The only motivation I can see is messaging. They want to say it's just a fun event for kids when it's clearly propagandizing. More cynically, perhaps it's an attempt to force the conservative response of "This is not okay," so they can just say that they're being oppressed and not allowed to speak.
I dunno. I live in a red state where it is quite common for kids to hang out with their parents at the brew pub.
Again the gaslighting. The mere presence of alcohol doesn't make it an adult environment, it's the type of venue and entertainment. They sell copious amounts of beer at ballparks as well, and there's nothing wrong with a dad having a beer and watching a ballgame with his kid.
If the brew pub is a place that serves full meals, a dad can bring his family there to have a family experience where he gets to try a few different local brews with his dinner, but the experience is a family experience, not an adult one. Just because there's a bar in the Applebees doesn't make it a bar.
How do we know the bar where this drag event took place isn’t also a pub where food is served?
The food is not going to lick itself.
Unfortunately this comment went screaming over Dee’s head. Of course that happens a lot to people who are intentionally obtuse so they can make disingenuous arguments.
You told me about a hypothetical that you said is an adult environment. I said it's not necessarily an adult environment based on certain factors.
This event clearly WAS an adult environment, providing adult entertainment in an adult-styled venue, but aiming that adult environment and entertainment at children. That's the problem. If you're telling me the brew pubs you're visiting that have kids going to them are also adult venues, then that's shitty. It's not the same thing as taking my kid out to Taco Joe's where I can get a decent microbrew with some wings while watching the local team.
I suppose it depends on whether you consider drinking itself to be an adult activity, just as sexuality is considered adult. Sounds like you, personally, don't consider the presence of drinking as adult, but I know people who would. (I.e. I know quite a few LDS members.)
Here, Dee is pretending that the line between drinking in front of children and having sex in front of children is a hard line to draw.
That’s how disingenuous she is.
Dee is pretending that the line between drinking in front of children and having sex in front of children is a hard line to draw.
I will concede that the line gets harder to draw the more you drink. But when you have to impede normal brain function for it to make sense, that justifies it even less.
Denny’s serves beer and wine. There is even one near me that offers liquor. Denny’s still cultivates a family friendly environment. The lack of drag shows is probably a factor.
Note the leftist-like deflection that White Mike employs here.
It's just gaslighting. "This is just like that other thing!"
No. It clearly isn't.
And he did it again in your comment to you. "HURR HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FOOD ISN'T SERVED THERE?" Anything to stand up for his lefty boos sexualizing little kids.
Mike Laursen is, at best, an enthusiastic groomer.
Groom and Doom
"More cynically, perhaps it's an attempt to force the conservative response of 'This is not okay,' so they can just say that they're being oppressed and not allowed to speak."
Now you're playing chess in the correct dimension.
Yep, that's exactly what their motivation is for. Their manic obsession with the oppressor/oppressed construct demands that they create situations where any pushback against them doing whatever the hell they feel like doing is "marginalizing" them.
I've mentioned before that they are trying to create a society just like the Twilight Zone episode where the little kid psychically destroys anyone who causes him the slightest bit of discomfort or tells him "no, you can't do that." Pretty ironic that Rod Serling was a leftist and ended up accurately predicting how his political progeny would end up acting.
Quoting from the article:
But it sure seems like Slaton is the one who's gratuitously sexualizing things here.
I was actually just listening to James Lindsay's bit this morning on Gayle Rubin's 1984 article that basically established queer theory as an academic construct, and he points out how manically obsessed that queer and gender activists are with introducing little kids to sex and sexualization. Their ideology is based off of normalizing perversion, but especially in insinuating this stuff in little kids in order to brainwash and confuse them about their biological sex and make them more open to being treated as sexual creatures (yes, "grooming"). They get particularly huffy at the idea that children's innocence to this stuff should be protected, which is why they are constantly trying to do things that undermine it.
He's mentioned that a lot of this is rooted in long-time marxist tactics of weaponizing sexuality to undermine existing systems, but the modern version is more directly tied to Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization," where he laid out the intellectual case for harnessing sexual libido energies in the Boomers as a subversive force against capitalism.
One tactic that they predictably go to, so much so that you could set your watch to it, is claim that anyone complaining about this normalization of sexuality in little kids is the actual pervert. They do this to deflect from their blatant child grooming in the hopes that you'll shut up and let them continue to do disgusting shit like put kids in a strip club-like atmosphere, or talk about how being "uncomfortable in your body" means they're actually transgender, and "don't tell your parents about this, because they won't understand, it will be our little secret. We're the only ones that really understand you."
Keep in mind, these are the same people who argue that little kids should be exposed to sexual "kink." It's sounds stupid, but ultimately it's all in the service of trying to bring about their dumb marxist cult utopia. It's a means to an end, although they think they'll have the side benefit of indulging in their own dysfunctional hedonism, a narrative that was badly undermined when the AIDS epidemic exploded not too long after Quinn's essay was published, and it turned out most of the spread was happening in gay bathhouses and from needle sharing by drug users.
The fact that ENB is parroting these deflections is quite depraved, to be honest.
Just to emphasize the point, Rubin's work is unironically cited by NAMBLA, which should tell you all you need to know about the motivations of the queer theorists.
That John Money is not better known as the creepy shit creep that he was (he was the Godfather of gender theory) shows how effective the Left is at sanitizing their history.
His gravesite is in the Karori cemetery, if you ever feel the need to visit New Zealand and take giant shit on it as part of your itinerary.
"#1: In general, parents ought to be allowed to raise their kids how they see fit. Sending this to the government for legislative relief is stupid."
Yes, especially if we make is easier for 18 year olds to sue their parents for dysfunction, based on what they saw "fit".
if we make is easier for 18 year olds to sue their parents for dysfunction
More like, if we make it harder to enforce anti-bullying rules when these kids act out within their cohort and the other kids do what kids naturally do when faced with aberrant behavior.
Want your freedom to act like a perv? Then accept the freedom of others to ostracize and ridicule you.
The event was swarmed with protesters, despite the fact that the performers were clothed and engaging in nonsexual dancing. Some kids in attendance tipped the drag performers with dollar bills, which—despite its association with strip clubs—is not in itself a sexual thing (we hand dollars to street performers, too, don't we?).
This could be the biggest bullshit lie Enb has ever told. The men were wearing women's lingerie. They were dancing suggestive. Giving dollars to street performers is not the same as dollars to strippers on stage. The sign in the picture tells kids to lick it. We know what it is. The kids were brought up on stage.
What the actual fuck.
The sign in the picture tells kids to lick it. We know what it is.
There's a word for this. I think it starts with a "g".
Starts with outright pedophilia. No euphemisms needed.
"Government"?
Will Reason's annual webathon be funneled through ENB's underwear while she's wearing them? Asking for my teenage son.
I would pay them to not post the pictures if that is their intent.
Proud Boys indicted on sedition charges. Four members of the Proud Boys and the group's former chair, Enrique Tarrio, have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their role in the January 6 riots last year. "The men had already been charged in an earlier indictment filed in March with conspiring to obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election," notes The New York Times.
Is reason actually fine with this? There was no sedition. They didn't have weapons. There was no attempt at sedition. This is political targeting. And what about the 100 or so non violent actors arrested and in solitary who are facing 4 year plea deals. 2 years more than the NY lawyers fire bombing cop cars.
JesseAZ, I think I'd like to see the elements that define seditious conspiracy before dismissing it.
That said, it is bulllshit. We had seditious conspiracy throughout the entire term of POTUS Trump. No one has answered for that.
Andrew Mccarthy had an article on it i believe. Very few sedition charges have even been tried in history. The parameters of this case do not fall under those other cases.
Here is the link.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/capitol-riot-prosecutors-run-a-big-risk-in-pursuing-a-sedition-case/
Mccarthy has one of the few cases of successful charges of sedition. So he understands the law.
JesseAZ, I think it is a much closer call on whether it meets the elements laid out in the law. You can adopt the most unfavorable interpretation at every juncture, and get there. I will say, I personally think it is political targeting.
I will continue to trust the people who have successfully prosecuted the law and have questions as Mccarthy does.
If this falls under sedition almost any lawsuit that modifies elections, keeps candidates off ballots, etc could be extended to sedition.
It is a road I dont want the government even looking at. It is the road Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, and others have already gone down.
We have multiple high level democrats openly stating right wing news in media is a threat to government and democracy.
This is not a tool I want unsheathed.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to take Reason terribly seriously as a libertarian publication anymore. If you're favorable to the ideas of political prisoners, sedition prosecutions and short circuiting due process, it's pretty hard to take your claims of libertarianism very seriously.
No shit. I mean, how dare they print a little blurb that contains a few dry facts? The fact that they didn't express outrage is proof that they fully support this prosecution.
What they don't say says waaaaaay more than anything they actually do say.
And if they dare to say they don't support these prosecutions they're lying. Don't listen to what they say. Listen to what they don't say.
Libertarians tend to be against political prosecutions. Why most people say you aren't one.
Oh look. JesseAz is making shit up and lying again. What a surprise.
But he's not.
I never said I supported the prosecutions. In fact I've said many times that the insurrection stuff is bull. They did some trespassing, vandalism, and interfered in government business. But sedition? Come on. That's dumb.
You have never said that. Stop fucking lying.
I've said that many times, and I'm saying it again right now.
But go ahead and do your thing. Insist that what I say isn't what I mean and replace it with a straw man. Drudge up some irrelevant quote of mine. Make some stuff up.
And when you're done act all smug, like a leftist who just finished using fallacies to "win" and argument.
Shut up you lying homeless autist.
Stop lying.
Cite one time you've said it in the past. Of you've said it many times it should be easy.
I don't keep a catalog of my posts. That's what trolls do.
Normal people remember the stuff they've said. Trolls don't.
Cite your proof liar. I cited mine with you making fun of someone for 5 years for having feet on your queens desk.
You claim you have said it all the time. It should be easy to prove it if you aren't lying here.
If you guys weren't spreading lies you'd have nothing to say.
What lies? Give one example.
When you said I support the prosecutions.
You've spent about 20 comments here attacking everyone that mentions it and defending reason for ignoring them.
If you don't support the prosecutions you're doing a great job of pretending that you do.
Wrong again. I've been pointing out how you and your buddies are liars who attack strawmen.
What strawman, you liar? Are you saying that Reason isn't ignoring the Jan 6 prosecution implications? Because that's obviously BS.
Are you going to admit to being a liar and apologize, then start acting like a civilized human being?
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Whew! I'm out of breath!
You have laughed at those being prosecuted as shown below.
Stop fucking lying. Everyone here knows you are.
What lies? I've never lied here sarcasmic, while you in your drunken rages certainly have and I can post plenty of examples if you want.
Dude, you lie every time you make a comment about what I supposedly think or believe.
JesseAz, calling me a liar is hilarious at this point. Because I'm only a liar when I disagree with the strawmen of your creation.
As far as your "gotcha" goes, anyone with a brain sees I was being, I dunno, sarcasmic.
All you're doing right now is proving to the world that you're a piece of shit liar.
Keep it up.
Please.
Sarcasmic reminds of a former friend who has damaged his brain through substance abuse. This person, even when sober, has bizarre, logical lapses in thinking, and either lies, or invents details from conversations that are untrue. Like agreeing to do something in a week, then claiming I said three weeks. Or insisting a lengthy conversation never took place. Even though it was over the phone and obviously proven by my phone’s call log.
Sarc may really believe the bullshit he spews.
Dude, you lie every time you make a comment about what I supposedly think or believe.
I asked for an example. Not a wild slimebag accusation.
I've cited my proof. You refuse to prove your assertions. One of us has evidence. The other is a chronic liar who claims word for word postings of his past comments are lies.
Ted,
Sarc has been caught lying literally in the same thread just a few posts apart. It is a mental illness for him.
My former friend was like that. It was bizarre. I had to cut him off after he started creating problems for me.
It won’t stop with Sarc. He will never mute you.
And next time the subject comes up, what I just said will have gone down the memory hole and you'll be insisting I support the prosecutions. Why? Because you're a piece of shit liar.
I will say you were backed into a corner to say it after lying about your previous statements.
Where is you past citations?
Of course you will. That's what you always say when I argue with your strawmen.
Where are your past comments? You know they don't exist.
Every libertarian should be outraged over 4 year plea deals for non violent acts, months with no court dates, year of solitary confinement, beatings of these prisoners, etc.
You are not.
In fact you laugh at them, see here.
https://reason.com/2022/04/13/bidens-plan-to-ease-gas-prices-will-save-drivers-a-few-cents-at-some-pumps-2-months-from-now/?comments=true#comment-9445165
All because you despise them. So let them be abused by the government. Youre a piece of shit.
Oh look! An irrelevant quote! Right on time!
You're doing good! Now make up some more stuff! Tell me I'm a liar and tell me what I really think!
Seems pretty relevant:
What a farce! The guy was nothing but a peaceful tourist! Everyone puts their feet on her desk! Besides, what about the summer rioters, huh? Why aren't they being prosecuted, huh? It's all political! They're political prisoners! It's just like East Germany!"
You do understand that I was mocking you and your buddies, right?
Autist take.
You say this whenever you are called put for your shit authoritarian takes.
So fuck off.
You're mentally retarded if you can't see that what I said wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Contrary to your claim you're clearly mocking the victims of political prosecutions.
I know that it was typed hours ago, practically forever, but did you forget the start of this?
JesseAz
June.7.2022 at 10:38 am
Libertarians tend to be against political prosecutions. Why most people say you aren't one.
sarcasmic
June.7.2022 at 10:41 am
Oh look. JesseAz is making shit up and lying again. What a surprise.
ML, are you retarded? Seriously.
JesseAz's clear implication was that I support political prosecutions and am therefore not a libertarian.
My response was to point out that he's making shit up and lying, because he's making shit up and lying.
When you attack people for being outraged over political prosecutions you are defending them. Full stop. Just like you did with masks.
Youre attacking those you now claim to agree with. You defend this magazine for ignoring it. You make fun of those suffering from the prosecutions. You've laughed at babbit being shot. Please tell me how this behavior says you are against the abuse. Please do explain.
Your comment makes it crystal clear that you support them. Who do you think you're tricking? People can read five comments up.
I'm that thread I posted he defended the abuse for many posts before getting backed into a corner.
"The fact that they didn't express outrage is proof that they fully support this prosecution."
For a libertarian magazine with a libertarian mandate? Yes.
Reason isn't supposed to be just another MSNBC clone, Sarc. It's got a mandate.
"No shit. I mean, how dare they print a little blurb that contains a few dry facts?"
Do they do that for any stories involving trannies? Pot? Any of their pet causes?
No?
This is why people note it.
Unless your mind works like Tony's, inaction does not equal action.
Ignoring a story is an editorial act dummy. They are intentionally ignoring one of the largest abuses in history. And aside from that people like Sullum did in fact support the attacks against these people in their articles post j6.
I was talking about this particular piece today. But you knew that, which is why you had to move the goalposts.
Got any more fallacies up your sleeve?
Why do you pretend there isn't a history of editorial acts and comments that exist? Is it so you can hide behind your lies and claim you never said things? What a fucking idiot you are.
Why do you move the goalposts, change the subject, and attack strawmen?
History does not reset to zero every single day, you realize.
Bringing up past articles when talking about a specific paragraph or two is moving the goalposts and changing the subject.
What goal post? I've been consistent about this story being ignored here. Youre the one who made the claim that only this piece counts. You moved the fucking goal post moron.
The only one making the claim only this story counts is you sarc. Stop being a fucking retard. Nobody else is arguing solely about today's round up.
What the fuck.
Keep on huffing that gas you're gaslighting with. With any luck it'll destroy what few brain cells you have left and you'll be unable to post any more.
I see this all the time: “Why doesn’t Reason speak out against X with outrage?!”
Never mind that Reason never does outrage on any topic. The friggin’ magazine is called, “Reason”, after all, not “Emote!”
lol
So overt political prosecutions are "emotional" and not of interest to an ostensibly libertarian magazine.
Duly noted. Thanks for demonstrating to everyone exactly what you guys are.
lmao! You and your buddies are frothing at the mouth over the J6 stuff, and you accuse level headed people of being emotional?
Too funny!
It is sickening that the only cops you have ever supported are the ones going after conservatives you despise.
Oh look. Another lie.
Keep making stuff up! It's all you've got!
So you're claiming that you never said Ashli Babbitt deserved what she got?
Girls who dress slutty and get passed out drunk at parties shouldn't be surprised if bad things happen. Is that saying that they deserve it? No. Is that absolving rapists of fault? Hell no. There is a thing called inviting trouble.
What Babbitt did was unwise. She invited trouble. Trouble found her.
Now compare that to your argument about cops shooting dogs (which I incidentally agreed with) yesterday.
Babbit was unarmed, there were police on the other side of the door who gave implied permission, and nobody was in danger.
Also, I'm definitely saving this one.
Girls who dress slutty and get passed out drunk at parties shouldn't be surprised if bad things happen. Is that saying that they deserve it? No. Is that absolving rapists of fault? Hell no. There is a thing called inviting trouble.
Wow.
The piece of shit can't help not being a piece of shit.
Keep on huffing that gas you're gaslighting with.
"Never mind that Reason never does outrage on any topic."
Please. ENB's screed against the legislators in Texas is outrage. Is it frothing at the mouth? No, but it is full of emotional descriptors like "regret" and "absurd and melodramatic".
She is not just exasperated that the Legislators would try and legislate morality (as any libertarian should be) but also that people would object to kids being groomed like this in the first place (which is her tiresome propensity to confuse her libertarian views with her libertine views).
She literally wrote “(So much eyeroll.)” in the roundup today. Dee’s a fucking moron.
Hydrogen Dioxide doesn’t read any of the cop articles here
Miss Scott's "coverage" of gay issues?
Their coverage of Trump?
Global warming?
Immigration?
Hahahahahahahaha
Fuck you are one disingenuous motherfucker.
Sometimes what you choose to ignore DOES say a lot about you, IF you choose to highlight the same kind of injustice for a group you align with more.
Spending paragraph after paragraph lambasting Conservative Texans for “fighting the culture war”, and then writing a two line blurb about political prosecutions seems a tad off for an ostensibly libertarian writer or publication.
"Yeah, it's pretty hard to take Reason terribly seriously as a libertarian publication anymore."
Vox Lite.
How long until Reason comes out for common sense gun control? 6 months? A year?
I'm looking for the part of the article that says Reason supports these prosecutions. I'm not seeing it.
You mean the part where they don't denounce the prosecutions?
Oh yeah, failure to condemn equals support.
Can you name how many prosecutions they report on that they did not outright and vocally oppose?
Failure to express sufficient opposition equals support?
That's Tony logic. He says not giving is taking and not taking is giving.
So when you and your buddies say failure to condemn equals support and failure to support equals condemnation, you're engaging in a leftist fallacy.
Sufficient?? Try any.
Still doesn't matter. You say someone didn't do what you wanted them to do, then you make up a strawman to explain it.
It's all you've got. If you had to argue with what people actually said you'd go home crying. So instead you argue against stuff you make up.
"you make up a strawman to explain it."
And what is a "strawman" here? Are you saying that the government isn't enacting a political prosecution? Are you saying it's okay for a magazine with a libertarian mandate to ignore political prosecution and the suspension of habeas corpus in America?
I'm saying that when someone doesn't do something, like Reason staff not getting emotional about the J6 prosecutions, JesseAz makes up the reasons why, argues against them, and smugly declares victory while you go along for the ride.
You're both piece of shit liars.
Are you saying it's okay for a magazine with a libertarian mandate to ignore political prosecution and the suspension of habeas corpus in America?
I'm saying that, unlike you and JesseAz, I don't presume to know what they think or why they do what they do.
You do presume to know what they think which is why you're so ferociously defending them.
Time to stop lying, sarcasmic.
Alright. You wanna go full retard, be my guest. Over and out.
I like how sarc makes up his bullshit argumentation of my statements which are clear above while crying like a bitch that I do that to him despite using his direct statements.
You revel around in shit and hypocrisy sarc.
It doesn't matter because it makes your argument idiotic?
Are editorial decisions a willful act or not?
Come on Sarc. This is one of the biggest events in the country. It is like a tap dance how they are avoiding talking about the Jan 6 prosecutions. It is absolutely noteworthy that no one at Reason is willing to opine on it.
Now that is an honest observation. And I agree.
By problem is with the strawman slayers who explain exactly what Reason's opinion is, based upon what wasn't said, and then argue against what they just made up. Then they accuse anyone who disagrees of being a liar, and when someone does opine and it conflicts with the strawman they will be called a liar.
It's tiresome.
*My*
Shorter sarcasmic: I'm trolling.
It is the same observation you are attacking others for.
Are you even capable of honesty?
“Now that is an honest observation. And I agree.”
FFS sarc you just spent hours arguing against this exact observation. So broken.
Do you understand what an editorial process is dummy? Ignoring the story is an intentional act.
I'm glad you know the minds and intentions of the editorial staff. Your mind reading abilities are truly astounding.
Wow, talk about disingenuous.
I'm not the one going around making stuff up, attributing it to others, arguing against it, and declaring victory.
Do you even know what you're arguing about?
You're saying that the fact that a ostensibly libertarian magazine is ignoring political prosecutions and the abandonment of habeas corpus that is appearing in every newspaper across the country right now, isn't indicative of an agenda.
That can't possibly be true and you know that.
I'm arguing about you and JesseAz and the rest saying things like:
"You didn't say your opinion about xyz, so now I'm going to explain your opinion and why you have it. Now if you share your opinion and it is in disagreement with what I just made up, you're the liar."
I know you don't see how blatantly dishonest and contemptuous that is, but I hope others do.
Sarc, it’s probably time for you to get a psychological examination and enter a treatment program.
Really not joking about this.
No, you were trolling, sarcasmic, and now you're deliberately rewording and misinterpreting what we said.
The obviously dishonest one here is you.
Agree with Ted. Poor sarc’s had another break.
Is your claim here that nobody at reason knows the story of the J6 prosecutions? That is the only way you can defend it for not being a willful act to not write about it. God damn sarc, please do keep digging. You make yourself look shittier and shittier.
Is your claim here that nobody at reason knows the story of the J6 prosecutions?
I didn't say that.
That is the only way you can defend it for not being a willful act to not write about it.
I'm not defending anything. I'm simply saying that you're a strawman slayer and a liar.
God damn sarc, please do keep digging.
Ummmmm.
You make yourself look shittier and shittier.
Attack a strawman, make stuff up, lie, then declare smug victory.
Good job.
Sarc, you’re making it sound like you give Reason a pass on this just to spite Jesse?
Because that's exactly what he's doing, Ted.
Trolling and still trying to play the victim.
Let me rephrase it more simply.
Ignoring a story is a willful act.
Which word are you struggling with?
Oh, let me see if I can try this.
In today's Reason Roundup, ENB ignored the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs. Therefore we can conclude that Reason is totally in favor of the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Did I do that right?
No. No you didn’t. You’re not good at this Jeff.
Being both dumb and dishonest makes life hard.
And Jeff does what sarc does, claims only today matters despite nobody else confining the discussion to today other than sarc.
Do idiot leftist liars all have a journalist to feed them the same bullshit?
They’ve moved past morning emails to group DM’s.
Citation on the 2 lawyers.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/firebombing-protesters-lying-fbi-agents-two-tier-justice-system-sharpens
Oh wow. The Democratic midterm victory is going to be even bigger than I realized.
Not only can Democrats run on Biden's fantastic record, but now I also hear they might make the election all about the HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTION on 1 / 6! This is such a smart move; Jan. 6 is literally all my progressive friends talk about.
#BlueWave2022
I live in anticipation of reading your posts on November 9th.
Will it be a stolen election, only with Democrats hurling the accusations this time around?
I'm thinking.
You guys are assuming there will not be a national COVID-climate change-LGTBXYZ-energy crisis-18 wheeler convoy-January 6 redux-abortion access emergency that will postpone the election until polling numbers improve.
The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation case has serious implications for freedom of the press, notes Freddie deBoer. "Heavyhanded defamation lawsuits with multimillion-dollar judgments risk creating a powerful chilling effect that could prevent anyone (again, not just victims) from freely and forcefully telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts," he writes.
The Washington Post willingly posted and published defamatory lies from an activist. How are they not liable?
The ACLU shouldn't get away with the what they did either.
Agreed.
They didn't bother to question the lies so they had no basis to assume they were lies. This is a problem with Sullivan, it incentivizes journalists to be ignorant of inconvenient facts if they are printing as activists and not seekers of truth
Bad news for (bad) plans to create a global minimum tax.
Democrats campaigned on this during the election. Maybe if you actually listened to them.
You, again, ignore the power of mean tweets.
I am properly shamed again.
Continuing its track record of performative nonsense aimed at social media, Texas is investigating Twitter bots:
Nonsense? This is common regulatory coverage of businesses lying to investors. It effects advertiser rates and investment dollars.
Are other businesses allow to commit fraud as well?
Reason will defend big tech no matter what. The end.
It is part of the AG's job to investigate these allegations. Why is that in question at all?
See my comment directly above yours.
Axios reports on internal conflicts for the J6 committee. It has turned into two primary arguments: passing the democrat backed voting laws and convicting and harming trump.
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/05/january-6-committee-electoral-college-reforms
Basically millions spent to try to harm an individual and advertise for a law that already failed congress.
The second that they put Liz Cheney on the committee everyone knew exactly what the committee was really about.
Team Cheney doesn't want them to push the anti-electoral college suggestions because it will discredit their revenge.
The Democrats who own the media don't care.
They need to tie every comment made by every Democrat on the committee around her neck like a noose. She has few problems condemning Republicans she opposes but does not have much negative to say about any Democrats
She's already doomed in the next election, it's just a question now of how big her defeat will be.
"While it's unclear exactly what "horrifying" events Slaton is responding to"
Meanwhile, in the same article...
A small child — perhaps 5 or 6 — stuffs money into the underwear of a nearly naked drag queen as parents look on, smiling."
Totes unclear ENB.
If there was ever a civilization that deserved an invasion of Ostrogoths, it's ours.
if not the Ostrogoths maybe turning some towns into pillars of salt might set things straight for a few years
Funny. Apparently, Reason was part of a group that tried to get a documentary about the canceling of Nick Fuentes removed from the line-up at the Atlas Film Festival at Freedom Fest, claiming they didn't want to "give a platform to a white supremacist". Now, I'll be quite honest, I don't know much about Mr. Fuentes or if he is, in fact, a white supremacist. But, let's take the claim at face value and assume he is. I think it's now safe to say that Reason is okay with child sexual grooming, but considers racism beyond the pale. Maybe it's me, but that doesn't sound quite like the hill libertarians should be looking to die on.
Tried to find a cite for this but couldn't.
The one thing I noticed in every article they repeat the fact he is a white supremacist without giving any actual examples or quotes over and over. Never followed the kid but have no idea what the truth here is.
I'm going off of an e-mail I got from the Peter Quinones Show (formerly Last Man Behind the Wall). Again, I don't really know all that much about Fuentes. For all I know, he could well be a white supremacist. But, I don't think it really matters. From what I can tell he's only ever been guilty of "thought crimes".
I think he's an early MAGA cheerleader who is ardently in favor of border enforcement so ... white supremacist!
They also called out MTG (or maybe the Boebeck chick, I forget which one) for attending a “white nationalist” conference. They did give a link for that: to a CBS article calling it a white nationalist conference with no evidence. A ten second google and scan of the events webpage showed it was attended by several black people and at least one Asian woman.
Any claim by Reason of white nationalism or white supremacy should be ignored out of hand until they can show some honesty on the subject.
Here’s the link where it’s discussed.
https://youtu.be/4naSSyTh2HY
Any cite you can link to that Reason did this?
Or asking a different way, where did you hear this and can you share your source of information?
Shut up bitch
He literally posted where he got it from 2 minutes before your sea lion act.
I think you mean the Anthem Film Festival?
I think it's now safe to say that Reason is okay with child sexual grooming, but considers racism beyond the pale.
Well, and for the Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party, it appears to be the exact opposite.
But chemjeff doesn't troll people.
Or lie.
And he’s totally kewl, and not fat at all. He also invented the fish sticks joke by himself.
Collectivistjeff isn't nearly as intelligent as cartman
Wondering where the Republican party was when millions of American children were exposed to Milton Berle or Flip Wilson. I loved Geraldine and little did I know I was being groomed. That probably why I don't give a shit about kids at drag shows today.
Your examples are not even remotely comparable. Please.
Were Milton Berle or Flip Wilson half naked and having kids stuff dollars in their crotch?
No, but same question about this Texas drag show…
The videos are online dummy.
Yes. Anymore intentionally obtuse questions, bird?
Goddamn, do you TRY to find new ways to embarrass yourself?
Never waste an opportunity to point out how your opposition is batshit crazy.
Remind me of when Flip Wilson and Uncle Milty stripped off their kit and gyrated their crotches in kids faces, again.
Stop pretending that this is just about men in dresses.
plus - the only reason it was considered comedy was because it was obviously about how absurd it is for men to dress in womens clothing. Thats just reinforcing social norms - not trying to tear them down or set up new ones.
should have actually read one comment more! my point was mostly already made just below
The fact that you think men wearing dresses is normal behavior and not presented as a comedic absurdity for laughs really explains your politics.
What you are missing is that Drag Queens typically are intended to elicit a comic response. This is not just about men dressing up as a women, but in doing it in a flamboyant and comic style. So I would say they are the same.
A trans-women would likely dress and act in a manner that expected for cis women. You might or might not even know that they were born a different biological gender.
What you are lying about is that Drag Queens typically are intended to elicit a comic response.
Dame Edna was comedic drag. Devine was sociopolitical drag. Athletic guys gyrating and dry humping in feathered g-strings are neither. It's sexual and you know it.
Curious; is there anything you won't compromise in the interest of accommodation and getting along?
A trans-women would likely dress and act in a manner that expected for cis women. You might or might not even know that they were born a different biological gender.
LOL, no, it's pretty obvious. Biology doesn't lie, and neither do man-hands.
Wondering where the Republican party was when millions of American children were exposed to Milton Berle or Flip Wilson.
And don't forget Jack Lemon and Tony Curtis in Some Like it Hot. Or Adam Sandler portraying his own sister. Big Momma? Don't get me started on that groomer. And how bout that Eddie Murphy, not only a woman but a chubby one too. A two-fer as it were. And who could forget those Bosom Buddies with Tom Hanks, or those wacky Sorority Boys.
Funny, can't put my finger on just what those many portrayals had in common. Anyone?
Let's not forget that in early theater young boys played the women's roles. So, you have a twofer with a boy playing Ophelia and the kids in the audience watching it. It a wonder civilization survived?
So drag queens are today's Shakespearean actors. That's your argument. Uh...okay.
As you like it fits nicely with your take. A man playing a woman dressed as a man. Very Victor/Victoria. And yes, yet another comedy of absurdity.
"Let's not forget that in early theater young boys played the women's roles."
Oh wow! You do know that those boys often prostituted to men immediately after shows, right? Talk about making your opponents point for them.
"Heavyhanded defamation lawsuits with multimillion-dollar judgments risk creating a powerful chilling effect that could prevent anyone (again, not just victims) from freely and forcefully telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts," he writes.
I thought the outcome of the case was that her version was not "truth."
I would never take my child to a drag queen show and I will introduce legislation about this issue
I agree that there should be no mandates for kids to go to drag queen shows. Unless they also require masks.
Seems like quite a stretch for a joke, since no mask mandate ever made it mandatory for anyone to go anywhere. In fact, mask mandates were often paired with orders to stay at home.
Airplane mandates didn't exist?
Seriously? You know we all lived through the last two years, right? Like, we were forced to wear masks to buy food?
Mike: See, masks were no big deal because you didn't have to wear one while under house arrest.
Masked worked so well for covid (ignore the new study showing masks increased infection as people rebreathed droplets containing the virus) that Biden and the CDC are pushing mandates over 22 cases of monkey pox.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/cdc-raises-monkeypox-alert-level-advises-travelers-to-wear-masks-despite-it-not-being-airboprne/
Crazy since we know how the monkeypox is transmitted. Mask won't protect you from the acts that can transmit it or are all these flights mile high orgies. I might be missing out on something here, think I'll book a flight
Crazy since we know how the monkeypox is transmitted. Mask won't protect you from the acts that can transmit it or are all these flights mile high orgies.
True, but a condom might, just like a certain other disease that gets spread primarily though not exclusively through sexual behavior.
Yeah, we knew how AIDS was transmitted too, but Fauci refused to admit it.
Coming soon: ass masks.
Well, the only real point to masks was to keep people alarmed, since there were never enough actual sick people around.
Correct
The New York Times says the positive outcome of the housing crisis and inflation induced poverty is communal living.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/magazine/new-york-roommates.html
You'll own nothing and love it.
Baseball players are being attacked for not participating in celebrating pride month. Would the outraged people feel the same if MLB had a Christian day where all players wore crosses on their uniforms?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/gay-pro-baseball-player-loses-it-over-rays-refusing-to-wear-lgbtq-pride-night-logo-trashes-faith-concerns-deems-players-homophobic
The players should take a knee when the pride flag is displayed.
Could you imagine the burst blood vessels?
A minor league player is going off on the players as well.
Remember when gay marriage et al was just about "tolerance"?
Inclusion now means mandatory participation. Everyone MUST be included in our pageant. Bake that cake or else.
Get in line and march. Everyone should know it is their endgame. It is the endgame of every Marxist regime ever.
"I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory."
-- Bob Hope, 1975
Tolerance for me but not for thee.
"It was not immediately clear what evidence led to the new charges . . . "
My first guess? Boden's poll numbers.
" . . . telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts . . . "
Bad news Freddie; truth has no versions, and facts don't need you agreement, they just exist.
This.
Anyone who claims that truth is relative has been lying.
Sure, truth is one thing and there aren't different versions of it. But it is very rare that anyone really knows what the truth is.
After the past few years, you should be very wary of anyone claiming to be an arbiter of truth.
But that's why we have courts. So I probably mostly agree.
New migrant caravan promises to be the largest ever.
https://justthenews.com/world/foreign-desk/migrant-caravan-traveling-through-mexico-us-could-soon-be-largest-ever
If you don't want people to move to the US, the solution seems obvious. Just translate ENB's post to Spanish and give a copy to everyone in the caravan. They'll all read it, say "They want to do _what_ with our kids?", and go somewhere else.
"Fuck these gringos, at least the cartels won't turn our kids in to prostitutes."
The drag show with kids thing is super weird. I wouldn’t take my kids to a rowdy bar. I wouldn’t take them to Hooters either, which still seems less rowdy than stuffing dollars in a cross dresser’s pantyhose.
But I’m also not going to tell other parents how to raise their children, especially not with the force of a government gun barrel. Statist losers.
When it often leads to permanent disfigurement if a child through drugs and surgery it is important to protect the kids. We don't support female circumcision, sex with, or physical abuse of minors for the same reason
Lighten up Francis. That slope got awfully slippery awfully quick.
And “think of the children!” is statist go-to #1. I’ll be damned if the state is going to tel me how to raise my kids.
How do you determine what is a proper reason to take kids away from 'bad' parents? Is there ever a reason in your world? Is there some damage we can anticipate to the children that warrants such an intervention? If so, where do you draw the line?
I'm not necessarily saying this reaches that level... but damn! its soooo repugnant I couldn't work up too much sympathy for parents that promote such garbage.
Yes, there’s a line. And no, this isn’t particularly close to said line. You’ve got to feed them. You can’t hit them too hard. You can’t sexually molest them.
Exposing them to “bad” ideas never gets there.
But you can give them life altering drugs and surgery? What the actual fuck.
When did he say that? He said he didn't want a law against taking them to a rowdy bar with drag queens. Nothing about gender transitioning "therapies".
I said it and then he called it a slippery slope. This is what he attacked in my comment.
When it often leads to permanent disfigurement if a child through drugs and surgery
And he said to lighten up.
Show me the study that says taking kids to drag shows often leads to permanent disfigurement in a child through drugs and surgery.
The difficult questions regarding gender transition treatments for minors are a separate matter. They should be individualized and proceed cautiously (and as always, without the State butting in to tell you what is or isn’t the best course of action).
None of which has anything to do with dudes dancing in women’s clothes.
Exposing them to bad ideas never gets there...
because kids are instantly able to defend their developing morality and sense of reality from outrageous assaults as well as adults? Because when they are being groomed they can instantly tell [due to their worldly-wise nature] and will, of course, reject their trusted parents delusive program to develop with no crippling issues whatsoever?
Can monsters be created without outright violence?
Again, I'm going to go so far as to say this IS a case of that... but I think you're being a little too cavalier in brushing the concerns of others off.
"Show me the study"
Nice appeal to authority/experts.
How progressive.
Show me the study
We already have White Mike and Joe Friday. If common sense offends you then kindly fuck off and die.
And, just a hint, when your handle is clearly an inside reference too clever for anyone outside to understand, you might be a performative shitweasel.
@Ersatz
A couple things, in what world do you live in that children blindly follow their parents. Most kids by the time their teens reflexively rebel against their parents.
Second, even if I accept your premise I’m NEVER giving someone else the authority to dictate what I teach my kids to develop their morality and sense of reality, and sure as hell not government. I can think these people are weirdos and say so without asking big government daddy to come in and start regulating “moral” parenting.
@nardz
Or make something resembling a logical argument. This leap is like a Jedi saying “I fear it will rain” and Yoda being like “Fear! He’s a Sith, kill him!”
@Chuck
We have far different interpretations of what constitutes common sense. But at least we can both agree that one of us doesn’t have it.
@Chuck
We have far different interpretations of what constitutes common sense. But at least we can both agree that one of us doesn’t have it.
"Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a performative shitweasel, that to open it and remove all doubt."
Oh, and when a never-before-seen anonymous shitposter shows up and swings his dick around like he is a regular in this stinky little locker room, it is usually suspected that it is one of the usual shitposters vainly attempting to paint his previously failed ideas in a new light.
Lighten up Francis. That slope got awfully slippery awfully quick.
I’ll be damned if the state is going to tel me how to raise my kids.
without asking big government daddy to come in and start regulating “moral” parenting.
An inappropriate Stripes reference followed by a fallacy committed by misapplying a fallacy, clearly overcompensating defensiveness regarding children not previously entered into evidence and a reference to 'big government daddy'. Let the speculation begin!
@ Chuck
I hate to disappoint you, but I’ve been around for a long while. See e.g.
https://reason.com/volokh/2017/01/25/jewecology-a-new-word-that-mig/
“@Ersatz
A couple things, in what world do you live in that children blindly follow their parents. Most kids by the time their teens reflexively rebel against their parents.”
The whole point of this fucking conversation is we’re talking about children well below teenage.
Now this is a fun stretch of what I said. I said what the trans community is encouraging them to do through transitioning.
Maybe instead of tea time with trannies take a basic reading comprehension course.
What slope? Gender transition drugs are being supported by HHS. HHS is also asking for federally funded surgery.
The slope is already a cliff dumbass.
When they start handing out Lupron at the entrance to the gay bar, then we can talk about those things. Until then, your connection about weird drag Queen kid shows and hormonal transgender treatments is a huge slippery slope.
your connection about weird drag Queen kid shows and hormonal transgender treatments is a huge slippery slope
'Huge slippery slope' in proximity to the rest of your comment comes across as highly sexualized.
'comes across as highly sexualized'
Now you have me doing it, you pervert!
I just don't think you should be advertising "Bring your kids to this strip show!"
We have rules against advertising certain products-namely cigarettes-to avoid preying on children. I think that this goes too far in many degrees but I agree with the principle-don't advertise adult products to kids.
My question here isn't whether parents have the right, but what kind of venue should be allowed to host people who want to do sexy performative dancing for kids. It's fine if they want to do sexy dancing, put on their shows, and don't care if kids happen to be in an audience, but I think it's really sketchy that they WANT to put on a performance specifically to have kids watching. I think any venue should really have a lot more restraint about letting people like that actually get close to children.
If they primarily serve alcohol then many states require it to be 21 or over at all times. I know on arizona that the point at which liquor sales exceed 50% of revenue, it becomes adults only. Working at a campus restaurant/bar this was generally 9pm where kids were no longer legally allowed to be there. And the liquor board enforced this.
Not sure if this place sold any food.
If you watch the clip that ENB linked to, it’s a stretch to call the dancing sexy. The dancer is wearing a costume much like you might see at, say, Cirque de Soleil.
If someone does consider the dancing in the video sexy, it might say more about the person watching.
I wouldn’t take my kids to this show, either, but I’m guessing the message the show was trying to send is, “Drag queens are just normal people.”
"it’s a stretch to call the dancing sexy. The dancer is wearing a costume much like you might see at, say, Cirque de Soleil."
You sickening liar. You disgusting apologist.
Who on earth do you imagine that you're tricking???
it’s a stretch
The sickos are hiding their disgusting pervert thoughts about the kids right in their comments!
“Drag queens are just normal people. Here, watch this show!”
Ok.
And that message they are sending is a lie, of course.
"If you watch the clip that ENB linked to, it’s a stretch to call the dancing sexy."
And here we have it again. It cannot be "Look, let parents do what they want." No. It's "You are wrong to object to this. What you see happening isn't actually what is happening. The problem is you."
Predictable that this comes from Mike.
Not just Mike, it is ENBs (and by extension) Reason's position as well.
If you look at the one clip and ignore all the others available. She chose that clip precisely for idiots like yourself.
Agreed.
It is a big strech from government should butt out because this is the parent's decision to ENB's stance government should butt out because this kind of behave is ok and should be normalized.
When it comes to sexuality and prepubescent kids society has long ago decided that the parents don't get to make the decisions exclusively.
That's why fathers who molest them and mothers who prostitute them end up in jail.
^this^
I’m not sure that’s Liz’s position. But if it is, then I will have to defer to her expertise on drag shows. I’ve never been to one and don’t plan on taking my kids to one anytime soon.
I might rewatch the Birdcage though (Gene Hackman in drag is definitely not sexy).
Suppose you're also against laws prohibiting parents from fucking their children too then
This is disgusting, but a far cry from child rape or forced prostitution.
How far?
Be specific
6 miles.
So about 20-30 minutes for most adults.
So Beth honey, your position is "Kill em before they escape the womb and groom 'em if they do?"
What the HELL is wrong with you?????
Well now, answering that is going to take a while. Where to start?
Michael Lowe "spent 17 days in a New Mexico jail because American Airlines wrongfully accused and identified him to police as a shoplifter at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport..."
American Airlines really had to work hard to find creative new ways of sucking even more.
veritas.
Jailing customers on false charges is certainly new and inventive.
American Airlines and Hertz have teamed up to increase your chances of being arrest on false charges while on vacation.
Hehe! Beat me to it!
...According to Gomez, the police subsequently contacted her and said that the media attention she was generating for criticizing them could lead to obstruction of justice charges."
She claims a judge was going to reduce her probation but I wouldn't bank on that if I were her.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has survived a no-confidence vote.
But he has Long COVID.
As do we all by now.
I regret to inform you that New York is at it again.
"Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers"
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislative-package-strengthen-gun-laws-and-protect-new-yorkers
Pretty sure the Guv in gonna get an A2 reminder yet once more.
Not if John Roberts has any say over it.
Man Clarence Thomas must have been blind luck given how shitty everything that useless family touches becomes.
If this was kids night at an actual strip club involving women dressed in lingerie doing a supposedly PG-rated show, people would feel much the same way. The problem is that you get a certain crowd who decides that since this is an alternative lifestyle, somehow it's not an adult situation, despite being held at an adult venue, featuring adults dancing, serving adult beverages.
And I think they're clearly doing it so they can cry victim. "Why are you so afraid of letting your children learn that trans people exist?" When that's not what's happening. I'm not taking my kids to a strip club regardless of the gender identity of the dancers.
There’s no strip club, or stripping, involved in this scenario at all. Not even on nights when the kids are not there. It’s a gay bar, not a strip club.
https://twitter.com/isabellarileyus/status/1533160447989497856?s=20&t=JDaL1U16ru7XtRwUTaqhlQ
Person in lingerie doing provocative dancing. Yes, it's not definitionally stripping. What do you think is being evoked in this little dance routine as this person is being tipped by kids?
There are "strip clubs" where nudity/topless dancing is not permitted.
White Mike knows but those NAMBLA narratives aren't going to advance themselves.
Strip clubs in areas of Virginia have no nudity. Usually bikinis and lingerie. Mike is just ignorant.
That's not a photo from the bar where the drag event took place.
If you'd simply look at what I linked, you'd see that it clearly IS from the venue, and that it's also a video and not a photo.
You can't even LOOK at what this stuff is, can you?
It’s the same video ENB linked to. A dancer in a leotard, which I described above as something like a kid might see at Cirque de Soleil, doing a non erotic dance.
And my confusion was that I thought you must be talking the _photo_ ENB included in her blog post because the video was quite tame and not stripping nor sexual dancing.
Great, and "It's not going to lick itself" is referring to a lollipop.
Yes, the sign was inappropriate for children, but the specific claim I was addressing was that the drag show took place in a strip club, or a club where stripping has ever been an activity.
Many commenters today seem to be confused about the photo of the dancer. ENB makes it clear that photo is from a different event, but a lot of commenters here seem to have missed that part.
Yeah, that neon sign being very prominent in the pictures I am seeing of this event makes this whole thing almost cartoonishly inappropriate; like a bunch of fundamental Christians or some other similar group set this up just to make the other side look worse.
You would think they would have at least switched it off, knowing that kids would be there.
But they didn't because the left's goal is to turn prepubescent children into sex objects, which Mike knows and enjoys but lies about like the evil clump of cancer cells it is.
Only if you’re being intentionally obtuse are you surprised they left the sign on.
"Biden orders emergency steps to boost U.S. solar production"
[...]
"President Joe Biden ordered emergency measures Monday to boost crucial supplies to U.S. solar manufacturers and declared a two-year tariff exemption on solar panels from Southeast Asia as he attempted to jumpstart progress toward his climate change-fighting goals.
His invoking of the Defense Production Act and his other executive actions come amid complaints by industry groups that the solar sector is being slowed by supply chain problems due to a Commerce Department inquiry into possible trade violations
involving Chinese products..."
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Biden-waives-solar-panel-tariffs-seeks-to-boost-17222239.php
Not sure how this will backfire, but trusting in droolin' Joe to fuck it up somehow.
Must make sure Chinese slave labor gets appropriately rewarded for a system that provides precious little reliable energy.
yay for command and control centralized economy!
Am I the only one who remembers when drag was comedy? Milton Berle? Monty Python? Tom Hanks in Bosom Buddies?
Of course, some didn't think that Monty Python was appropriate for children either.
God I'm getting old.
Bit of a difference, though, isn't there? I don't recall Monty Python or Tom Hanks stripping off their dress and waving their crotch in kids' faces. And if there's a clip of a half-naked Uncle Milty having little kids stuff dollar bills in his crotch, maybe you can provide a link.
That's my point. It was funny because they weren't taken seriously as women and it wasn't sexualized. No one expected Uncle Milty to get it on with Bob Hope.
Now? Anything goes and the more sexual the better. And it's no longer funny.
Nobody in this scenario stripped. As the article clearly states, that photo of a stripper is from an unrelated event.
What's going on in that photo Mike? Can you explain it?
Enb purposefully chose her images. You can watch other videos posted online.
So you’re for this?
Nowadays, anyone on Team Blue would have a blood vessel burst in their brain if they watched the Monty Python episode with Mrs. Niggerbaiter.
The purpose of this drag show was not comedy.
I'm with you. While I wouldn't expose kids to adult clubs, drag things like the ones you mentioned are harmless and hilarious.
I just hope that the perfectly valid goal of keeping children safe does not turn into totally taking the humor out of life.
One thing I've noticed about the Q-Anon "anti-groomer" crowd is not one word on The Roman Catholic global sexual abuse scandal or the sex abuse scandal in The Southern Baptist Convention or the sexual abuse scandal in the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints...unless it's the Tu Quoque Fallacy (and dubious claim) of "Well, other professions abuse more than the Clergy", yada, yada. Basically kindergaten morality.
Your blind hatred for religious people is allowing you to excuse this obviously pedophiliac show. Exactly the sort of problem that you are saying is a "Tu Quoque Fallacy (and dubious claim) of "Well, other professions abuse more than the Clergy"
I'm not excusing the sexualization of children aspect of this story. I'm simply pointing out that people are using this incident as a pretext for attacking all drag queens and all things non-binary and non-Heterosexual, while also ignoring other real abusers of children.
Apropos of something, Lines between the sexes among children were blurred among Victorians who dressed boys as girls up to age six or seven, while also having stringent gender roles among adults and strict prohibition of Homosexuality and Lesbianism.
Most Victorian-era boys wore dresses and the reasons were practical
Mar 20, 2018 Goran Blazeski
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/03/20/breeching-boys/?andro=1&chrome=1
"One thing I've noticed about the Q-Anon "anti-groomer" crowd is not one word on The Roman Catholic global sexual abuse scandal or the sex abuse scandal in The Southern Baptist Convention or the sexual abuse scandal in the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints"
Tell me you know nothing about what Q-Anon is saying without actually telling me you know nothing about what Q-Anon says. Seriously, have you never seen their rantings about the pope?
I haven't heard of any "bread crumbs " leading to Vatican City, Salt Lake City, Utah, or Augusta, GA or any pizza parlor attacks there. Then again, I try not to steep myself in crazy.
I barely know what ‘Q-anon’ is. Nor do most people. Pretty sure it’s a normal healthy instinct to be horrified at exposing small children to sick shit like this. Also, no one is defending any religious group that is covering for pedophiles. Whereas democrats are giving cover to this sick shit.
Then learn who QAnon is and you'll know they're part of the problem of child sexual abuse.
And yes, people within The Roman Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Convention, the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, Islam, and probably every other religious body that has children covers up for this and both major parties have people who've issued apologetics for both religious and secular abusers.
Teachers molest kids at a far higher rate than any religious organization. So when are you going to call for the abolition of the public education system?
One thing I've noticed about the Q-Anon "anti-groomer" crowd is not one word on The Roman Catholic global sexual abuse scandal or the sex abuse scandal in The Southern Baptist Convention or the sexual abuse scandal in the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints
Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. You see exactly what you expect to see. If you actually read, jokes about priests and altar boys are quite common.
Well, if QAnon regards child sexual abuse between Clergy and children as shits and giggles, then that shows just how serious they are at their professed goals. I would never defer to their lunacy on this or any other subject.
Oh, and QAnon can't keep it's own damn house in order:
QAnon Promoter Found to Be Sex Offender With History of Child Sexual Abuse
BY THOMAS KIKA ON 10/29/21 AT 6:02 PM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-promoter-found-sex-offender-history-child-sexual-abuse-1644105
You really should leave comments about religion to people that haven’t been driven to stupidity by their bigotry. And evidently add Qanon to that list.
It's not bigotry if it's true.
“One thing I've noticed about the Q-Anon "anti-groomer" crowd is not one word on The Roman Catholic global sexual abuse scandal or the sex abuse scandal in The Southern Baptist Convention or the sexual abuse scandal in the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints...unless it's the Tu Quoque Fallacy
By this logic if you can’t fight all sexual abuse you shouldn’t fight any. Unless you’re a religious bigot and think that sexual abuse by a church is worse than sexual abuse by anyone else.
Not true at all. By this logic,,all sexual abuse should be fought...including that within QAnon.
"...Baked into all of this outrage is the idea that drag performances are always too racy for under-18-year-old eyes. But dressing in drag isn't an overtly sexual act and while drag shows often contain sexual humor and themes, this is far from a requirement..."
Keep weaseling, ENB; maybe, just maybe you'll convince yourself that if you hold your mouth just right, most people wouldn't find this beyond the pale.
"California Bill Targets Social Media Companies"
[...]
"Parents have for years worried about the effects of social media on their children. In California, they might soon be able to sue social media companies over it. A bill in the state assembly drafted by Republican Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo County would permit parents to sue for up to $25,000 if their child is deemed “addicted.”..."
https://thebossmagazine.com/social-media-companies-california-lawsuits/#:~:text=Parents%20have%20for%20years%20worried%20about%20the%20effects,to%20%2425%2C000%20if%20their%20child%20is%20deemed%20%E2%80%9Caddicted.%E2%80%9D
Gee, people who shouldn't be parents now get to blame someone else for their failures.
Gee i thought that states trying to regulate social media companies was a total republican thing..
I wonder how many of these proud parents who looked upon this approvingly have serious questions about their child's gender.
I'm betting around 50% are thinking their kid is transgender. Not unlike a NYC cocktail party of elites trying to out woke on another.
More like hoping their kid is transgender. It is the absolute pinnacle of woke virtue signaling to be outwardly proud and supportive of one's transgender kid. Unfortunately for the wokesters and their children, having a transgender child is a necessary condition for one to be the wokest of the woke.
"...The charge of seditious conspiracy — which can be difficult to prove..."
Gee, how about just allowing the judge to convict them of political views the prosecution doesn't like?
Social conservatives may object to their children being exposed to cross-dressing in general, but this doesn't make drag inherently sexual and letting minors see drag performers doesn't necessarily mean exposing them to anything lewd or lascivious. Parents are perfectly free not to take their children to events with drag performers, but parents should also be free to do so, too.
Just so you know, I've been mostly quiet on the whole "groomer schools" phenomenon, but I'm starting to read some of the literature that seems to underpin this. For those curious, there was a seminal paper written by a Marxist theorist named Gayle Rubin titled Thinking Sex. This paper was considered the essential forerunner for Queer Theory and within the paper (which I haven't read yet, but I have been... "introduced to", she essentially discusses the ability of a new kind of sexual openness to be disruptive to capitalism (the goal is always to destroy capitalism) and within it there are apparent defenses of introducing sex to younger and younger school children and what not. Apparently the paper was a major hit with educators and is the basis for "modern queer theory". Oh, and just so you know, 'queer' in the 'queer' theory department does not refer to 'gay'. It is the idea where any sexual 'norm' can be 'queered'. Ie, Queering Colonialism, Queering Math (etc etc). Again, the goal is to create disruptions in Western Capitalist thinking and bring in Marxism.
The assertion that drag "isn't inherently sexual" when discussing this event is gaslighting on Olympian levels. As pointed out above, there's a big difference between men putting on a dress and flouncing around for laughs, and guys putting on hooker gear and encouraging kids to act like they're in a strip club.
Yeah, this isn’t a Monty Python sketch. Children really need to be kept away from this sort of thing, but leftists can’t help themselves.
That's the problem with all of it. It's not about "acceptance/tolerance of marginalized communities." It's about continuously eroding societal norms and breaking down social institutions like family.
This normalization of sexualizing children is a direct attack on families. The drag bullshit accompanies activist teachers telling younger and younger children that their parents can't be trusted, and that they should lie to their parents and hide things from their parents. It's not just the queer theory stuff, either. All the CRT stuff did the same thing, and ALSO encouraged children to look at their families as bad, racist people. Then COVID lockdowns actively and deliberately split families up, both literally and figuratively, by terrifying people into staying away from each other and making covid rules on who you can have in your homes.
The sexualization of children is sick, but it's also a way to divorce the act of sex from procreation and family creation. Look at the language surrounding abortion, equating pregnancy with slavery and the refusal to even use the word "baby." The feminist revolution actively discouraged women from having children and devalued motherhood as something women only did when they couldn't do anything else. My mom was a stay home mom, and I have 4 siblings. I actually had a teacher in HS tell me my mom was brainwashed into thinking all she could do was have babies. (I told her to mind her own business, my mom was awesome and raising 5 kids was a huge accomplishment, and that she chose me over herself and her own gratification because she's a goddam saint.)
The Marxists can't win if middle class people keep insisting on having institutions like families. So they have to tear them down any way they can. As long as the middle class is generally happy and relatively prosperous, Marxism has no foothold, so the goal is destroy the middle class.
Marcuse even admitted that capitalism provides the working class with a pretty nice life, which is a big reason the early marxist revolutions failed to bring about worldwide communism. That's why he said the marxist movement needed to pivot to forming an alliance between upper middle-class white college students and "ghetto populations," and start focusing on cutural marxism rather than economic marxism. It's a lot easier to alienate people from their society when you're constantly bashing that society as unfair.
It's not really an accident that Weather Underground was mostly upper class and upper middle class Jewish college students, and that they tried to insinuate themselves with the Black Panthers before the latter realized how fucking useless and bossy the former were. That's a direct result of Marcuse promoting such alliances.
Whenever Marxism finds its way into the room, subverting parental authority and the primacy of the family is always lurking in the background. Always. It has been pointed out by people I consider Smarter than I Am, that all utopian philosophies (of which Marxism is one) always seek to subvert parental authority... because they have to.
I'm repeating myself here, but I've been doing a lot of reading about Mao's revolution and the Great Leap Forward and the parallels to things like modern Marxist feminism are alarming. What was considered a revolutionary idea in Mao's china sounds a lot like bog-standard upper middle class feminism or today.
Free nursery care and free, compulsory education was provided for families which had two primary functions:
1. Liberate mothers from their domestic chores and maternal duties so they could join the men in the fields in a more egalitarian, equitable distribution of work. The benefit being that they had more labor in the fields.
2. It separated the children from the parents so the state could begin the indoctrination in the Maoist revolutionary ideology.
The Marxists can't win if middle class people keep insisting on having institutions like families. So they have to tear them down any way they can. As long as the middle class is generally happy and relatively prosperous, Marxism has no foothold, so the goal is destroy the middle class.
That must be why communist countries are so accepting of gays.
The gays have already been sidelined by the Marxists. Once they got full recognition by the state through marriage laws and gay rights got popular, they became bourgeois.
That must be why communist countries are so accepting of gays.
Historically, demonizing deviant sexual behavior and minority religious beliefs was a great way of mobilizing the prols against 'other' folks'. Then they just expanded 'other' to mean all their enemies.
But because the majority of prols in America were too well off, the Marxists infiltrated groups who were already 'other', formed coalitions and recruited from there. Now they are in the process of shrinking 'other' by labeling anyone who objects as racists and homophobes.
The methods seem opposite, yet are exactly the same. Because Marxists don't care about principles, only results.
It's everywhere. I haven't really watched many cartoons in the last couple of decades but its not Tom and Jerry or Wiley Coyote and the Roadrunner anymore. Just stupid stuff.
It is absolute indoctrination.
I don't let my grandchildren watch the current "cartoons" when they are at my house. They can watch Bugs Bunny, Wiley Coyote, etc and develop the same warped sense of humor their Grandma has. Plus, they have a better chance of developing a love of classical music while watching Bugs!
Bugs often cross-dressed in a sexual manner. I will say that he only ever did so in self-defense and he always stopped before putting out.
And what I learned from Pepe LePew was that only morally repulsive self-absorbed skunks don't understand the body language of disgust.
(we hand dollars to street performers, too, don't we?) Yes ADULTS do that sometimes and might even let their child put the dollar in the cap if the performer is demonstrating talent on an instrument that takes years to master or perhaps doing clever magic tricks. If you asked 500 people what's a good way to groom children and confuse them about the issue of sexuality, letting them give dollar bills to dancing drag queens would be in the top ten,
Do the kids stuff the dollar bills into a g-string for the street saxophonist?
>>But dressing in drag isn't an overtly sexual act and while drag shows often contain sexual humor and themes, this is far from a requirement.
love how this sentence is directly below the pic of the mostly naked chick? and the little kid
Some kids in attendance tipped the drag performers with dollar bills, which—despite its association with strip clubs—is not in itself a sexual thing (we hand dollars to street performers, too, don't we?). The most risqué thing about the event was a neon sign on the bar's wall which said "it's not gonna lick itself"—a message that most certainly went over small children's heads and, in any event, is no worse than things older children might see on TV.
Look, I wasn't there, and I really want to avoid becoming puritanical about something that might not be sexual but is being blown up by those totally gross, uncool Republicans and ewwww, Marjorie Taylor Greene! I mean, like gross and stuff!
But the above paragraph feels like the actual definition of gaslighting which I hear thrown around a lot by the kids these days.
This feels like it's all very close to tipping from (or maybe this IS the tipping over) "it's not happening" to "Ok, well, it's happening but it's not as bad as you say."
Fuck Joe Biden.
154 days.
>"It" being absurd and melodramatic culture-warmongering, of course.
Are you fucking serious?
1. You pretend to not know what happened there - but you're sure it was wholesome fun.
2. Are we pretending drag isn't about sex?
3. 'Its not gonna lick itself'.
So . . . just because something might have, in some contexts, a non-sexual connotation it is always non-sexual? But the last time I checked, you didn't tip street performers in a bar by sticking dollar bills in their pants
her whole take here is beyond ridiculous.
I usually think the ENB criticisms are too harsh around here but this is just absolute nonsense coming from her today.
Yeah, I don't like to indulge in ENB bashing, either, but this take of hers was spicy enough to break the Scoville chart.
ENB gets bashed because this is a fairly on par take for her, just amped up from 8 to 11. There is literally nothing promoted by the left she will not enthusiastically support.
This isn't the state forcing something on anyone. This is the parents' choice. If you don't think children should be at drag shows, then don't take yours to one. I really really don't think you want the state determining what public performances parents are allowed to bring their kids to. Today it's drag shows. Tomorrow it will be church.
As usual with the troon nonsense, you've given up your principles and interpreted reality backwards for nothing other than your retarded trolling version of sanctimony. Bars all over the country are prevented from distributing alcohol combined with certain forms of nudity. Many, many, many places kids are barred from entering regardless of nudity. Strip clubs, regardless of alcohol consumption, are barred from opening around schools. What's being advocated is that Troons should get special exception because they're just involved in wholesome family fun, despite the fact that many of these people are the same ones who think a hetero strip club shouldn't be able to open up next to their kids' elementary school and liquor stores shouldn't even allow their kids in the door. They aren't exercising for broader individual liberty. If they were, they'd advocate for 'legal, safe, and rare'. They'd advocate for Mormons to groom child brides within the limited communities. They'd advocate for objective inclusion of other things that they find icky. They don't. Moreover, as has been cited here, the literature they cite in support of their position actively calls for using this as a means to destroy other social institutions. It isn't just "They want to groom their kids in peace." it's they want to be able to force your daughters to lose to their sons, force them to use their pronouns, and force you to call it all fair. When, contrary to your and their trolling, it obviously isn't.
You're arguing about and against something completely different. There's a lot to unpack in there so I won't bother trying to address it all aside from the following:
1. It's not trolling. My opposition to state control of what parents want to expose their children to is authentic. Doubt that if you will I suppose, but I am not trying to provoke a reaction out of you or anyone else. I do think people agitating for this sort of control should think twice about the (obviously unintended) implications thereof. It's not a matter of whether that sort of power will be used against you, but when, and it's the sort of power you will find especially difficult to claw back from the state.
2. I wonder if you may be surprised to find that I actually agree with you on most things. If you are imagining me as some kind of leftist who comes here to print Bernie Sanders press releases verbatim into the comment box, you're wrong. That's just the long and short of it. I don't think children should be in strip clubs and kids sticking dollar bills in tranny G-Strings is, in fact, gross. Are there people grooming their own children to be inappropriately sexual? Yes, obviously. Of course. But it's my own personal belief (and you're welcome to disagree, that's the great thing about America) that it's not the state's business how you fuck up your kid's brain, because I do not trust the Top Men to get that right (or even not-catastrophically-wrong) more often than your average parent. Personally, I am actually quite a conservative person, but I've lived long enough to see these things flip around multiple times already. Never put your enemies in cages so sturdy you yourself can't escape them. If that sounds like a recipe for inaction and a preference for doing nothing when "Something Ought To Be Done" "For The Children" well...
...That's why I vote libertarian.
Being more clear: Saying "Today it's drag shows, tomorrow it's churches" in 2022 is very unlibertarian and unprincipled after Churches were closed under law in 2019-2020. You may not agree with the Churches being closed down. You may not agree with "for the children" or "if it even saves one life" but the context is factual and even the notion that "two wrongs don't make a right" favors transgender child groomers who have a socio-religious message they're striving to advance.
As I said, I could understand if ENB or whomever was just advocating for objective adherence to the law in a burrough of Manhattan or whatever, but that's not the case. She's arguing broad social acceptance from Ohio (or DC), in Texas, of an bad faith interpretation of reality and the law. Again, even if you oppose the law, there's plenty of Reason to oppose ENB advocating from Ohio, against Texans, in bad faith.
Being more clear: Saying "Today it's drag shows, tomorrow it's churches" in 2022 is very unlibertarian and unprincipled after Churches were closed under law in 2019-2020. You may not agree with the Churches being closed down. You may not agree with "for the children" or "if it even saves one life" but the context is factual and even the notion that "two wrongs don't make a right" favors transgender child groomers who have a socio-religious message they're striving to advance.
This is where I officially get off the train from 2016+ conservatism. I very strongly believe that two wrongs do not make a right. I don't think there's anything unprincipled about maintaining that position. Principles are what you hold onto even, and especially, when it's not convenient or popular. If there's a socio-religious message worth advancing I would go with this one:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
--Matthew 38-40
If you want to say that's wrong and stupid, perhaps even suicidal, you can make that argument. There sure are lots of counter examples anyone can make that prove that. You can even say that it's not reasonable to hold ourselves to levels of godly purity. But you can't say it's not principled.
You can even say that it's not reasonable to hold ourselves to levels of godly purity. But you can't say it's not principled.
Yes I can. It's a principled Christian stance. It's not a principled libertarian stance. The libertarian stance says "Don't initiate aggression." not "Once aggression has been initiated against you, you are obligated to comply or, at least, not meet it with equal or greater force." And it's not 2016+ conservatism, by your own precepts, were I a Jew who held Isaiah 5 as more canonical than Matthew 38-40 am I as equally undeserving of redemption as someone who disregards both? Does damning those two wrongs equally make a right? If so, is that outcome the derived from your libertarian principles or your Christian principles?
No one is undeserving of redemption. I don't know where you get the idea I'm damning people. What you hold as canon isn't important, the idea is that all people are deserving of respect, even and especially your enemies. Not because you need to love your enemies more than your neighbor, but because of human nature people usually have to work extra hard to treat their enemies with the same kindness they treat their friends. It's a principle of tolerance and it's not directly tied to the NAP. A lot of what I might call "lolbertarians" take the NAP as a carte blanche invitation to retaliate up to whatever level they personally feel they've been transgressed and I don't think that's really the best way to go about it.
If you go through your life vigilantly watching for people to "initiate aggression" towards you so that you can blamelessly attack them back, that's not tolerance. Tolerance is allowing others to do as you would not. One is a personal license for you to do something others don't like, the other is a personal license for others to do something you don't like. It doesn't mean approving of them, but it means giving them space to live as they want, even to cause harm to themselves and to live self destructive lives of vice and sin, and if someone wants to say that's wrong and the sinners should be punished by law I will tell them that's wrong just as I do tell transgender people they are wrong. The wrongs aren't equal, but they don't need to be. You don't refuse to feed the homeless in your town because genocide is happening on the other side of the globe and you're not presently doing anything about that, do you? There is no requirement that every action do the "most" good. Every good action is good no matter how little good it does.
People are likewise free to protest it which ENB disparaged.
Of course. People can protest whatever they want. What's the problem with that?
Tell it to ENB; she had a problem with it.
I really really don't think you want the state determining what public performances parents are allowed to bring their kids to. Today it's drag shows. Tomorrow it will be church.
You are right about that. Just don't be surprised when somebody takes it for the repugnant behavior it is and burns the bar down. The interesting thing about morals is that more than a few people are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the privilege of defining what is morally right. Meanwhile, the perverts retreat to the shadows as soon as they realize they are firmly in the minority.
Hopefully, you will be as willing to speak out against the enhanced sentencing when they label the arson a hate crime.
Ok, it's happening, but it's not as bad as you say.
I really hope ENB doesn’t have children. If she does, I am very afraid for them.
>>Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation case has serious implications for freedom of the press
lol "the press" fucked this up in the first place with that ACLU hit piece.
Baked into all of this outrage is the idea that drag performances are always too racy for under-18-year-old eyes. But dressing in drag isn't an overtly sexual act and while drag shows often contain sexual humor and themes, this is far from a requirement.
Please. Yeah I'm sure all these drag shows with "it won't lick itself" signs in the background are NOT AT ALL sexual.
Just give up already.
'...from freely and forcefully telling THEIR version of the truth ..' which is precisely why we need to got back to the libel and slander laws that served us well for over 200 years and that pre dated the idiotic 'private/public' double standard the S. Ct. pulled out of its rear ends and imposed on society, because it's certainly no where to be found in the US Constitution.
Bad news for (bad) plans to create a global minimum tax.
There should be a global maximum income tax,... of 0
If the democrats ever try to impose an ‘international income tax’ on US citizens, it will be time to remove them all. Forever.
Angeli Gomez, the mother of two students at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, talks to the press about rushing into the school to save her children while a gunman was inside.
This woman is an absolute badass.
MOTHER OF THE YEAR.
Turn her loose on the trannies
sorry i mean to say birthing-person of the year
Was it against the law for the kids to be in the drag queen bar? That's what's been claimed
I hope so. It wouldn’t break my heart to see this bar lose its liquor license and go out of business.
"Over 45,000 Americans have applied to help resettle Ukrainians in the United States since the Uniting for Ukraine program began," reports Reason's Fiona Harrigan.
Good for them! This is how taking in refugees should work in all cases.
It was not immediately clear what evidence led to the new charges, but the indictment underscored the central role played by the Proud Boys
hhaha. there is no evidence of actual sedition what a joke. The proud boys are mostly silly but they certainly dont deserve this political prosecution.
Friends and enemies, that's all that's going on here.
Opposition to child grooming is "culture war nonsense". Fucking crazy.
Next up from ENB: an article about how those icky other libertarians push people away from libertarianism.
Anyway I came to note that the CDC will admit masks are ineffective as long as there's a left wing constituency to appease.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10892987/CDC-backtracks-Agency-drops-advice-travelers-wear-face-masks.html
Plus: isn't it shocking this instance of government corruption didn't make the roundup? Why would libertarians be interested in this?
Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted something. Democracy is in danger.
Well, yeah. They don't have Trump's tweets to whine about any more.
But it sure seems like Slaton is the one who's gratuitously sexualizing things here.
I'm looking at the picture and I assure you it wasn't Slaton gratuitously sexualizing "things" here. What planet is this fool on?
she's on planet "whatever my icky enemies oppose, I am in favor of"
She'll be defending MAPs soon enough...
“On the issue of gas prices, I drove my electric vehicle from Michigan to here last weekend and went by every gas station and it didn’t matter how high it was.”
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1534205274529087488?s=20&t=EzjISPFpnN2ZhSBEZ3pzmQ
To summarize: Let Them Eat Cake.
What a disingenuous shitweasel. Fast charging is still more expensive than gas.
They know that. The poors can go fuck themselves, live stacked on top of each pther in saltine box apartments and take the bus everywhere. What do the proles need cars for anyway?
On the radio this morning, Thomas Massie, who lives a 'greener' life than any of these shitstains, told an interesting story.
His house is powered by the battery from a Tesla S. One charge will power his house, fridge, computers, TVs, everything for three days. That same charge will power a car for 2-3 hours.
FYI the Queer Theorists defend and refer to a concept which they call "cross-generational sexual relationships". That's a lofty academic word for a real straightforward concept. I'll let y'all figure out what that is.
This is always where they been going with their pro grooming agenda.
defend and refer to a concept which they call "cross-generational sexual relationships"
This is Sparta!
The image was in actuality a woman performing at a burlesque brunch.
ENB are you a biologist?
She got it from the comments on the tweet.
Bryan Slaton needs to mind his own damn business, but hell, why would you take your kids to that?
What the hell is wrong with you? God, I sure HOPE this sort of thing would be under fire. It's sickening!
because dragging the kids to a ballgame or for a pony ride or a lake for boating or to the park to throw a frisbee is just not "brave" enough for these creepy virtue signaling assholes. and do NOT minimize the sexual element here. the sign on the wall says "it's not going to lick itself". for those of you who spend more time at church than i do that's a reference to getting your dick sucked, or your snatch et... now you know
drag shows for 5 year old kids...ONLY a twisted creep would endorse that
Guns only if 21 but a jiggle joint is a-okay?
Guns aren't more dangerous than dancing?
No
I didn't know whether to parse that headline:
Drag shows for [children under fire in Texas].
or
[Drag shows for children] under fire in Texas.
or
Drag [shows for children] under fire in Texas.
or
Drag [shows for children] under fire [in Texas].
Is "drag" an adjective or a verb here? Are the shows under fire, or are the children? Is there a fire in Texas that shows for children are being dragged under? Or that you think they should be dragged under?
AFAICT, children just think drag shows are funny, and adults think it's funny that children think drag shows are funny. This is not one of the things I'd complain about when it comes to sexualizing of children, because I don't think it does that. Children are sexualized by adults who think other adults think children are sexy.
Okay groomer.
Children are sexualized by adults who think other adults think children are sexy.
Alright. Last one off the internet turn out the lights. After the assertion of mind control in defense of grooming, I'm ready to shut it down. Just shut it all down. Here's hoping we all wake up in 20 yrs. like hippies in the 80s-90s who looked back at the 60s like "Whoa! Trippy!"
If the true "libertarian" stance here is to permit and promote this kind of garbage, then I'm very happy to say that I'm not a libertarian.
"We just want to teach 1st graders about 'gender identity'," the left said.
"We just want children to go to "pride" parades with creepy (ahem) 'subculture' stuff on open display," the left said.
"We just want 9 year olds on puberty blockers," the left said.
No, enough. I'm done with this. This is utter insanity and depravity. Call me a statist. Call me a bigot or an authoritarian. I don't care any more. The more you understand about the far-left, of "thinkers" like Engels, Hakim Bey, Harry Hay, and Michel Foucalt, then the more you'll understand why the far left is all in favor of promoting this depravity (which would have been socially unthinkable to 99% of the world ten or twenty years ago). And once you see the Engels-Foucalt anti-family "philosophy" for what it is, you have a moral duty to oppose it.
I'll be as blunt as I can: if you think that taking children to "drag queen" shows is okay, if you think that putting children on puberty blockers is okay, or that six year olds need to learn about "gender identity", then you're a monster. And if any of you have ever pondered why there hasn't been any kind of strong, enduring Mass-Awakening of (or realignment to) Libertarianism in the US, then you can thank clowns like Elizabeth here for defending social rot and confusing licentiousness with liberty.
Ah, Reason Magazine defending child abuse. Maybe it's time to cancel my subscription. What a garbage take.
The stripper was a chick at one event and the drag queens were another event. From the story, there was no stripping at the drag queen event and no mention of alcohol.
ENBs story is about the drag queen event and someone getting confused about another event when they thought that chick in the photo getting her shorts stuffed was a dude (totally see why... sheesh).
There were two events. One with alcohol and burlesque chicks and one with clothed drag queens.
I'm not advocating for any of this, btw. I just don't see the issue with ENB and her story.