All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[scourge]

If you'll notice, I posted my comment the same minute you posted yours, so I didn't have time to see yours.

That said, it's entirely possible that I won't be persuaded by an argument in an article, just as it's possible that you won't always be persuaded by an article I post.

I'm not sure your sources make much of an effort to persuade anyone in the middle. It's preaching to the choir, and doesn't really contradict my earlier description.

Considering how your description is entirely false and seems to exist only in the heads of people defending the horribly anti-LGBTQ+ views they likely share with her...yes it does.

[Kirby101]

You characterize Libs on Tik Tok as defending parents against Gay and Trans grooming from teachers. You sure you want to stick with that?

[Gray Lensman]

How so? In what ways am I mistaken or misleading?

All of them.

You don't even need to check the links, just do a quick search on Google to learn about the horrors that account owner is responsible for.

[babyblob]

Here is some Anti LTGBQ+ crap from Bobert.

"A "kid-friendly" drag show in Texas was guarded by masked ANTIFA guards armed with AR-15's. Remember, they only want YOUR guns. They want to use theirs to protect their depravity."

And even with stuff like this being said all the time by the GOP they still claim not to be the party of hate and people still defend them with things like this night club shooting happens.

Hate crimes are up for the 4th year in a row. Asians, Jewish, LTGBQ+. And yet the GOP gets to spread their hate and lies.

AOC called her out at least.

You have played a major role in elevating anti-LGBT+ hate rhetoric and anti-trans lies while spending your time in Congress blocking even the most common sense gun safety laws.

You don’t get to “thoughts and prayers” your way out of this. Look inward and change.

[Catlady in training]

From what I’ve heard, the vote to bring back Trump was only 51 percent, hardly an overwhelming margin. But then, if the yes votes were only 5 percent, Musk would STILL have reinstated him. In my opinion, that was a done deal from the day Musk officially took over.

Notice he waited until many people left Twitter to hold that poll.

... a whole bunch of stuff

Damn, he found this thread too.

[Catlady in training]

Another mass shooting. This one in a gay bar in Colorado.

5 have been killed and 18 injured.

How horrible. My condolences to the victims' loved ones and the entire community.
As has been said, what is wrong with people?

[Mister Mets]

Considering how your description is entirely false and seems to exist only in the heads of people defending the horribly anti-LGBTQ+ views they likely share with her...yes it does.

Her commentary is not mocking and derogatory?

I'm interested in that argument in favor of Libs on Tik Tok, although it does not seem likely to be popular on this board.

You characterize Libs on Tik Tok as defending parents against Gay and Trans grooming from teachers. You sure you want to stick with that?

Er, that's not what I said.

[scourge]

Her commentary is not mocking and derogatory?

I'm interested in that argument in favor of Libs on Tik Tok, although it does not seem likely to be popular on this board.

Nice try, but just trying to nitpick a tiny thing out to defend yourself won't fly.

You went for trying to defend her as just posting "dumb comments from liberals"...like she's some innocent person. Then bringing up preferences of parents like they matter.

Defending a vile, openly bigoted loser like Raichik at all...there is no "in favor" of her. You're just on the wrong side if you're with her.

[Malvolio]

If you'll notice, I posted my comment the same minute you posted yours, so I didn't have time to see yours.

That said, it's entirely possible that I won't be persuaded by an argument in an article, just as it's possible that you won't always be persuaded by an article I post.

I'm not sure your sources make much of an effort to persuade anyone in the middle. It's preaching to the choir, and doesn't really contradict my earlier description.

You said, "...dumb comments from liberals." You didn't say that anyone else called the comments dumb. You called them dumb.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

How horrible. My condolences to the victims' loved ones and the entire community.
As has been said, what is wrong with people?

In a word….HATE. Nothing more complicated than that.

[Mister Mets]

You said, "...dumb comments from liberals." You didn't say that anyone else called the comments dumb. You called them dumb.

I think the majority of the posts on Libs of Tiktok are dumb comments by liberals, a colloquial term to describe people on the left, although I understand the use of the designation "classic liberal" for reasonable people who wish to use arguments to persuade and who think that we should be able to argue stuff (which is honestly my view.) If you'd rather say dumb leftists or something else, that's fine.

I'll maintain that generally the initial comments are unwise.

The Advocate article posted by Kirby101 suggests it is 25 times Liboftiktok was at its worst. So it's not a response to typical posts, which would be a legitimate strategy to point out that a popular website is wrong. Someone could say that they'll look at 25 consecutive posts from a random period to see if these are particularly outrageous as a way to defend strident liberals on Tiktok. Instead, the Advocate article picks 25 of what they say are the worst posts. So the idea is that these are the posts that no reasonable person can think are problematic. Rafael Warnock should be comfortable sharing the article and saying that anyone who has a problem with any of it shouldn't bother voting for him in an important election.

I don't think those posts meet that standard. It seems reasonable to think kids shouldn't be touching crotches at drag queen story hour, even if they're naturally drawn to shiny things, or that books about drag queens shouldn't be recommended to three year olds, or that school libraries shouldn't draw attention to books in which minors describe performing oral sex when they were six.

If anyone thinks I misunderstood or misconstrued something, what exactly is it?

[Mister Mets]

Nice try, but just trying to nitpick a tiny thing out to defend yourself won't fly.

You went for trying to defend her as just posting "dumb comments from liberals"...like she's some innocent person. Then bringing up preferences of parents like they matter.

Defending a vile, openly bigoted loser like Raichik at all...there is no "in favor" of her. You're just on the wrong side if you're with her.

My view is that it is okay for her to point out controversial things that teachers, doctors and affiliated professionals post on Tiktok for public consumption. That argument against her doesn't fly.

It's better to note that she says some nasty things in the process about people who aren't that outrageous. That's more relevant to why social media platforms ban her.

[Tendrin]

Look: it is not a coincidence that the people targeted by this account, painted as 'groomers' on a regular basis by it and its fans, are inundated with threats of violence. Stop defending this.

[scourge]

My view is that it is okay for her to point out controversial things that teachers, doctors and affiliated professionals post on Tiktok for public consumption. That argument against her doesn't fly.

It's better to note that she says some nasty things in the process about people who aren't that outrageous. That's more relevant to why social media platforms ban her.

You're defending an openly bigoted, homophobic, transphobic ******* who tries to doxx people and get them fired for being LGBTQ+...promotes and now GLOATS about violence against the LGBTQ+ community...pals around with other bigots and vile scum. There is no "she's just posting about controversial people!" BS. Especially when her and apparently your whole idea of "controversial things" is supporting and protecting LGBTQ+ people. There is no argument in favor of her.

[Tami]

My view is that it is okay for her to point out controversial things that teachers, doctors and affiliated professionals post on Tiktok for public consumption. That argument against her doesn't fly.

It's better to note that she says some nasty things in the process about people who aren't that outrageous. That's more relevant to why social media platforms ban her.

Admit it Mets, you could have chosen a better example of whatever it was that you were trying to talk about. I'm sure there are other influencers out there that would have been less divisive. The easiest way to win an argument is to present it in such a way as to make it hard for others to disagree with it.