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

[Dalak]

I did not use “mutilation” to refer to the trans community.
Even with the use/ mention distinction, I haven’t made any claim about the larger trans community.
The only time I’ve said the word or a variation would be appropriate in this context would be if someone comes to regret that decision, although I haven’t suggested they’re representative of the trans community.

Nope, you brought it up by saying "no one's arguing she's wrong on mutilation", and then defended it by saying that fact-checkers didn't bring it up without any mention of regret or anything else until after the backlash.

I don’t get what “So you DO know what law she broke after all?” refers to. You mentioned incitement in posts, as did others.

Because if you realized the law she broke was what I mentioned when you'd previously replied to it, you never would have replied asking what law she broke as I quoted unless it was you being obtuse for a purpose. Kinda like you are right now.

I recognize how hard it is to nail Trump down on incitement charges on January 6. This is why I’m curious about how you would prosecute someone else for that. What guidelines should be given to prosecutors? Hell, what guidelines should social media platforms follow on this narrow question?

The difficulty nailing down Trump isn’t an excuse to avoid discussing the difficulty prosecuting someone else. It’s more of an example that some outcomes people want are tougher than they anticipated.

If you use it to somehow portray LoTT as not being guilty of inciting violence because of the difficulty in prosecution, as you often do when any conservative is being credibly accused of actual things they are doing, then it is being used to shut down honest discussion of her actions and why she was banned alongside your obtuseness. If Trump's too far for you how about Tucker Carlson or any of the talking heads at Faux News or OAN that get away with inciting violence?

I said it’s not part of modern drag and appeared to be a road comedy. If you can demonstrate that Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo are drag queens, or that Stockard Channing and Gwyneth Paltrow’s mom are drag kings, I will reevaluate.

I stand by what I said at the time.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6255912

What you also said in the same post was "It's a bit of a distinction without a difference." so you were admitting it's all defined by you rather than the actual definition. A way for you to throw out anything that disagreed with what you want Modern Drag to be (Read: Accepted) fits the distraction angle. It seems you'd prefer to discuss minutia like that rather than discuss how conservative focus on Drag is leading to violence and literal acts of terrorism and make light of them as expected.

[thwhtGuardian]

In this context, we can understand why someone would believe it's mutilation, which is why the factchecks sidestep that argument.
.

One question is whether the account was incorrect in describing services available at Boston Children's hospital and Children's National Hospital. No one's arguing that she's wrong about mutilation. The main argument is that while the Center For Gender Surgery is within the pediatric hospital Boston Children's Hospital, they do not provide hysterectomies for minors.

The nuance would be in the difference between what I've said and your summary of it.


Fact-checkers don't seem to want to make the argument that anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilations is messed up.



I can understand the argument that the objection is to the language she uses. I've said it before.


In my first comments on it, I mentioned that aspect of problem.



I can understand a regulation that going forward anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilation will be banned from social media platform. That policy should be stated clearly. It would also suggest that a different version of the account, who relays the same information with much more careful commentary, wouldn't be banned.

So what's the policy solution?

There is also a distinction between use and mention with objectionable words, and this word has not been established as so taboo that it can't be mentioned in this context.

"Don't defend people who say transphobic things" has a potential flaw in that it could be read as preventing anyone from pointing out when detractors of a transphobe are mistaken on a specific point.

I haven't offered any opinion on whether a word applies when describing mastectomies performed on minors, mainly because I'm still figuring out aspects of the question. If someone is in need of the procedure, the word "mutilation" is wrong. I suppose it would apply if patients come to regret it.

I have mentioned that she’s bad. In my first comment on her, I noted that she sometimes adds mocking and derogatory commentary, and I later noted that the nasty things she says about people are why social media platforms ban her.

It is morally wrong to criticize people who are correct. Facts matter, even if a particular fact is to point out that a particular criticism of a terrible person is misguided. This is a line that we should strive to never cross, because why on Earth should anyone take you seriously if you ever hold it against someone that they’re making accurate points?

I did not use “mutilation” to refer to the trans community.
Even with the use/ mention distinction, I haven’t made any claim about the larger trans community.
The only time I’ve said the word or a variation would be appropriate in this context would be if someone comes to regret that decision, although I haven’t suggested they’re representative of the trans community.

There’s little point in discussing the shortcomings of the woman behind libsoftiktok. There’s major agreement on that, especially on this forum. But if someone’s calling for a policy solution, be it from social media platforms or the government, the specifics matter. And they should be carefully thought out. Otherwise, we’re encouraging sloppiness.

Children complain about what they want without considering costs. We are adults. We should be able to discuss tradeoffs and specifics.


I don’t get what “So you DO know what law she broke after all?” refers to. You mentioned incitement in posts, as did others.

I recognize how hard it is to nail Trump down on incitement charges on January 6. This is why I’m curious about how you would prosecute someone else for that. What guidelines should be given to prosecutors? Hell, what guidelines should social media platforms follow on this narrow question?

The difficulty nailing down Trump isn’t an excuse to avoid discussing the difficulty prosecuting someone else. It’s more of an example that some outcomes people want are tougher than they anticipated.

I said it’s not part of modern drag and appeared to be a road comedy. If you can demonstrate that Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo are drag queens, or that Stockard Channing and Gwyneth Paltrow’s mom are drag kings, I will reevaluate.

I stand by what I said at the time.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6255912

This isn't a use/ mention issue, you did more than simply quote someone who used a harmful word: you actively defended that usage in each of the posts I just quoted above.

Saying "we can understand why someone would believe it's mutilation" is defending its use. There's no reason to believe gender affirming care is mutilation, and no reason to understand why a reasonable person would think otherwise. Period.

Saying, "Fact-checkers don't seem to want to make the argument that anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilations is messed up." leads the reader to believe that the person saying this likewise doesn't think it's messed up to refer to gender affirming care as mutilation.

Saying that you believe that "this word has not been established as so taboo" also makes the reader feel that you don't think it's a harmful term to use.

Don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, either own it and face the consequences or realize you were wrong to use and defend a hateful term and apologize.

[Tami]

Some local news

Rizzo’s Tiff with the Morris GOP

And the combatants are the Morris County Republican Committee and Phil Rizzo, who popped onto the scene in the spring of 2021 when he unsuccessfully ran for governor in that year’s primary. After getting a bit more than 25 percent of the vote, he sought a CD-7 seat earlier this year.

That brought him to last March’s GOP nominating convention seeking support from Morris Republicans.

The county committee says Rizzo “sponsored” a table at the event in hopes of swaying supporters at a cost of $1.500.

But Rizzo never paid; so says the committee.

Given the fact everyone involved here are Republicans, you may think this would be one of those disputes that would be amicably settled over time.

Not so.

Frustrated by Rizzo’s alleged stubbornness, the county took him to court.

[Username taken]

I'm still trying to understand the whole Hunter Biden laptop thing.

Why is it so important? Does it actually have anything that implies the President himself did some illegal things?

If it doesn't, then what is the point of the entire thing?

[Tami]

I'm still trying to understand the whole Hunter Biden laptop thing.

Why is it so important? Does it actually have anything that implies the President himself did some illegal things?

If it doesn't, then what is the point of the entire thing?

It has no point. It's pointless. It's so lacking in a point as to be dull. Just as dull-witted as the Republicans seem to think their base is. They assume that this will be another Benghazi and would harm Biden Politically. That assumes that the Republican base really is dull-witted enough to not realize that this is a waste of time and an excuse by Congressional Republicans to slack off and not do any actual, real work.

[numberthirty]

I'm still trying to understand the whole Hunter Biden laptop thing.

Why is it so important? Does it actually have anything that implies the President himself did some illegal things?

If it doesn't, then what is the point of the entire thing?

That coin could have more than just one side, no?

(Not saying that the whole thing is not just a bit more complicated than that. Just pointing out the obvious when it comes to what you posted there...)

[lilyrose]

It's really dumb because it's not about Joe himself. It's like trying to take down Bill Clinton by focusing on what a loser his brother Roger was. It's just never gonna matter, no matter how "bad" you think Hunter is as a person or whatever.

[The Cool Thatguy]

What kills me about these made up controversies is how Republicans is that they think Democrats will sell out the country for pennies, while the Trumps doing worse for millions.

Hunter committed treason for 50K, but why question Jared's billion dollar deal?

And Hillary 'sold' that uranium mine for a few 100K, while who cares about Trump's millions of dollars in debt to who knows?

[Mister Mets]

Nope, you brought it up by saying "no one's arguing she's wrong on mutilation", and then defended it by saying that fact-checkers didn't bring it up without any mention of regret or anything else until after the backlash.



Because if you realized the law she broke was what I mentioned when you'd previously replied to it, you never would have replied asking what law she broke as I quoted unless it was you being obtuse for a purpose. Kinda like you are right now.



If you use it to somehow portray LoTT as not being guilty of inciting violence because of the difficulty in prosecution, as you often do when any conservative is being credibly accused of actual things they are doing, then it is being used to shut down honest discussion of her actions and why she was banned alongside your obtuseness. If Trump's too far for you how about Tucker Carlson or any of the talking heads at Faux News or OAN that get away with inciting violence?



What you also said in the same post was "It's a bit of a distinction without a difference." so you were admitting it's all defined by you rather than the actual definition. A way for you to throw out anything that disagreed with what you want Modern Drag to be (Read: Accepted) fits the distraction angle. It seems you'd prefer to discuss minutia like that rather than discuss how conservative focus on Drag is leading to violence and literal acts of terrorism and make light of them as expected.

I mentioned her use of a word, which is different from using the word.

The point on fact-checkers was that they generally deal with objective facts, rather than whether a word is appropriate. It's not up to them to say that mastectomies on minors count as mutilation. That's for editorial writers, ombudsmen and the style guide.

Regarding incitement to violence, it seems difficult to set a precedent that someone who is posting commentary critical of an organization is calling for violence against them even if their comments come in the wake of a tragedy. Any policy of treating that as incitement could also be used against people critical of the police if there are anti-police riots, and other situations. So I did want you to clarify that you think she meets the legal standard for prosecution of incitement to violence, and that she should be prosecuted for it. It wasn't clear to me that you believed that.

Asking for a clear standard that can be used to prosecute the likes of Trump, Carlson and Raichik is not shutting down a conversation. It's an essential question, and there are multiple potential answers (IE- The standard that a prosecutor should use to go after Carlson is X, The law should be changed to Y) unless you're using heated rhetoric that isn't meant to be taken literally.

No one here tried to offer a working definition of drag as a genre. I'll look at some definitions.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles...opular-culture

What Is Drag?
Drag is a gender-bending art form in which a person dresses in clothing and makeup meant to exaggerate a specific gender identity, usually of the opposite sex.

While drag’s main purpose has been for drag performance and entertainment, it is also used as self-expression and a celebration of LGBTQ+ pride. A typical drag show will include lip-syncing or dance, and performers often have elaborate clothing, hair, and makeup.

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-.../what-is-drag/

Drag
Drag is the aerodynamic force that opposes an aircraft’s motion through the air. Drag is generated by every part of the airplane (even the engines!). How is drag generated?

Okay, that one's not very helpful.

https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-is-a-drag-queen/

History of Drag Queen and Kings
Drag is not a new thing, especially in Western culture. Since women were not allowed to perform in theaters in ancient days, men had to take over and assume women’s roles. Drag was common in ancient Greece and also in the Shakespearean era. In the 19th century, drag queens began to use the platform as a representative art, especially in vaudeville shows. Later in the early 1880s, William Dorsey Swann, the first drag queen, held drag balls at his home.

In the early 20th century, drag was included in the LGBTQ+ community- a community discriminated against in the United States – and was longer among the recognized entertainment in the U.S. This led to drag performances becoming a nightlife thing, especially in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City.

After the famous 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City through the early 1990s, gay pride and gay culture were recognized, and so was the drag culture. Films such as Paris Is Burning, and The Birdcage helped in making drag recognizable in American culture.

Misconception About Drag Queen
The biggest misconception about drag is that men can only perform it. This is far from the truth. Anyone who feels marginalized or misunderstood by family and society can become a drag queen or king. Drag is for innovative people who desire to be seen and known by people from near and far.

Given that we live in a world of technology, everything is possible. Most drag performers are taking to social media to showcase their talent and capability. Whether costume making, makeup talent, or performing skills, drag performers’ capabilities are endless, men and women are not limited when it comes to performing. The only thing standing between them and fame is talent and memorability.

Is Drag Queen or King Same As Being Transgender?
Though drag queens and kings are part of the LGBTQ+ community, they are not necessarily transgender. Trans women are not cross-dressers or drag queens. As said before, drag queens are mainly gay men, dressing like women while performing.

On the other hand, drag kings are women who dress like men for purposes of acting. Ensure that you differentiate between trans people, cross-dressers, and drag queens and kings before using a certain term on an individual. Remember that being trans does not necessarily mean dressing up in different genders’ clothes.

https://people.southwestern.edu/~bed...ger/adore.html

What does being a Drag Queen mean?

In the most basic understanding a drag queen is a man who dresses up as a woman in order to perform. These performances have historically taken place in gay clubs but with the advent of RuPaul's Drag Race, and its spin off show, Drag U, drag queen culture is becoming increasingly mainstream. There is not a lot of academic work done on drag queens so my primary source for imagining drag as more than performance is "Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret", which is a study by Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor about the drag queens who perform at the 801 in the Keys and the audience that comes to watch them perform. Through this book Rupp and Taylor argue that drag performances are "political events in which identity is used to contest conventional thinking about gender and sexuality" (Rupp & Taylor 2). They further argue that drag shows are able to be read for "serious political purposes" (Rupp & Taylor 3) because they are entertainment.

Drag is its own art form. So it's not film or cartoons. There is a political bent to it, which is going to lead to pushback.

The idea that drag queen story hour is the same thing as Looney Tunes cartoons, or a movie where Cary Grant dressed like a woman is dishonest. I think you guys recognize that.

[Mister Mets]

I'm still trying to understand the whole Hunter Biden laptop thing.

Why is it so important? Does it actually have anything that implies the President himself did some illegal things?

If it doesn't, then what is the point of the entire thing?

There are a few aspects to it.

One question is the extent to which Hunter Biden is enriching himself because his dad is a powerful politician.

Politicians run on their families, and it's not great for a President to have a son who was going on a crack bender while pushing 50.

The media did seem to downplay the story, based on transparent lies about it being Russian misinformation.

As I said before, this is something Republicans can easily overreach on, but it would be better if Hunter Biden's background were more like one of the Romney sons.

This isn't a use/ mention issue, you did more than simply quote someone who used a harmful word: you actively defended that usage in each of the posts I just quoted above.

Saying "we can understand why someone would believe it's mutilation" is defending its use. There's no reason to believe gender affirming care is mutilation, and no reason to understand why a reasonable person would think otherwise. Period.

Saying, "Fact-checkers don't seem to want to make the argument that anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilations is messed up." leads the reader to believe that the person saying this likewise doesn't think it's messed up to refer to gender affirming care as mutilation.

Saying that you believe that "this word has not been established as so taboo" also makes the reader feel that you don't think it's a harmful term to use.

Don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, either own it and face the consequences or realize you were wrong to use and defend a hateful term and apologize.

Defending usage is still mentioning the word, although I wouldn't even say I was defending the usage. I was considering how it is treated in the American context, which is a question of fact rather than the question of how it should be treated.

I was noting her comments about mutilation while trying to figure out what explicit standards you and others here want applied to her, in the context of noting that she was wrong on at least one specific point as there was no evidence that Boston's Children's Hospital performed hysterectomies on minors. That's the context in which I noted the fact-check didn't mention mastectomies. My query was whether you think her mistake on hysterectomies is enough by itself to merit penalties on social media platforms, with the obvious follow-up question of whether other factual mistakes should be treated the same way.

I think you're reading things into my comments that weren't there. Swing voters believe things that are ugly. Fact-checkers don't necessarily want to alienate a large segment of their audience. If words are treated differently without any warning, there is often a backlash. If someone reads something into my comments beyond what I said, that's on them, just as it's not the fault of progressives if conservatives misunderstand what they literally say because they're primed to view it ungenerously.

I think this is largely about a conflict in how we see things. I prefer clearly articulated standards. You guys prefer evolving standards determined by people who are politically simpatico to you.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So what level of political office did Hunter Biden get under his father ? What cabinet position does he hold ?

[numberthirty]

So what level of political office did Hunter Biden get under his father ? What cabinet position does he hold ?

When it comes to what is currently in the news?

Non-issue.

That someone could have thrown some money around "Off Of The Books..." is.

Is there anything thus far that seems to seriously point to that?

Not so much.

Doesn't really change that a member of an office holder's family does not need to actually be handed an office for something corrupt/illegal to take place.

[Username taken]

There are a few aspects to it.

One question is the extent to which Hunter Biden is enriching himself because his dad is a powerful politician.

Politicians run on their families, and it's not great for a President to have a son who was going on a crack bender while pushing 50.

The media did seem to downplay the story, based on transparent lies about it being Russian misinformation.

As I said before, this is something Republicans can easily overreach on, but it would be better if Hunter Biden's background were more like one of the Romney sons.

I hope there's more to it than that.

Seriously, we can't hold a 70+ year old man accountable for what his 50+ year old man does in his private life.

Now, if Hunter Biden did something illegal that Joe Biden was involved in, then that could be something damaging.

Beyond that, a 40 or 50-something-year-old Hunter Biden going on a coke bender is really not important nor is it anyone's business. That's entirely a matter that Hunter Biden needs to sort out on his own.

[The Cool Thatguy]

There are a few aspects to it.

One question is the extent to which Hunter Biden is enriching himself because his dad is a powerful politician.

Politicians run on their families, and it's not great for a President to have a son who was going on a crack bender while pushing 50.

The media did seem to downplay the story, based on transparent lies about it being Russian misinformation.

As I said before, this is something Republicans can easily overreach on, but it would be better if Hunter Biden's background were more like one of the Romney sons.

You do know that Hunter isn't Joe's only child, right? That his other son served honorably?

I guess Republicans don't care about US soldiers after they hit the dirt.

[Kirby101]

If the family of a politician using the family name was a concern, every Senator and most Congress people should be investigated. Boards of Directors are full of people because of their family name and connections.
Now when a family member works in the politician's office and uses that position to enrich themselves, that is a problem.
Hunter Biden did not do that, Jared and Ivanka did.