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

[worstblogever]

So this insipid wanker is back in DC, doing things like this:

• December 18th, 2019: Schweikert ignores his Congressional duty to hold a president who has been proven to commit high crimes and misdemeanors accountable and votes against the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
• May 15th, 2020: Schweikert votes against the HEROES Act, to further support the healthcare industry and citizens affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
• January 7th, 2021: David Schweikert votes for the objection to the electoral college’s votes in the 2020 election, a failure to send any sort of message that he wasn’t intimidated or sympathetic to those who attacked the Capitol to attempt a violent coup.
• January 13th, 2021: Rep. Schweikert votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, because the Republican Party no longer feels like they should be accountable for anything, including failed coups that result in the deaths of both their participants and police officers.
• February 4th, 2021: David Schweikert votes to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s committee assignments, because he wouldn’t want her to be accountable for all the bigoted remarks and conspiracy theories she’s spread online (probably because she’s a kindred spirit).
• February 25th, 2021: Schweikert votes against HR 5, the latest version of the Equality Act, that would provide workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans.
• March 3rd, 2021: Rep. Schweikert votes against HR 1, a bill created to prevent the corruption of money in politics, and protect voter access to the ballot box.
• March 3rd, 2021: David Schweikert votes against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
• March 10th, 2021: Schweikert votes against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, because he feels people deserve to die in poverty during a pandemic.
• March 17th, 2021: Rep. Schweikert votes against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• May 19th, 2021: Rep. Schweikert votes against HR 3233, the creation of a commission to investigate the Capitol Attack.
• May 20th, 2021: Schweikert is one of 63 Republicans who vote against the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act.
• November 5th, 2021: David Schweikert votes against HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• March 31st, 2022: Schweikert votes against HR 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would limit the cost that drug companies could list insulin at to $35 and make sure no diabetic was priced out of surviving their condition. Bill Davidson would rather they be gouged by pharmaceutical giants and/or die.
• May 18th, 2022: David Schweikert is one of 192 Republicans who votes against HR 7790, to create supplemental funding for infant formula (while claiming to be pro- life).
• May 18th, 2022: Rep. Schweikert votes against HR 350, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, because these days, a plank of the Republican Party is ostensibly domestic terror.
• May 19th, 2022: Schweikert votes against HR 7688, a bill which would help prevent gas companies from gouging customers on prices.
• July 15th, 2022: David Schweikert votes against House Amendment 262, which would require the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Secretary of Defense to publish a report on the infiltration of American law enforcement by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, offer measures to be taken to remove them from their ranks, and prevent further infiltration by others.
• July 13th, 2022: Schweikert votes against the Honoring Our PACT Act, to provide healthcare to veterans affected by toxic burn pits while serving in the War on Terror that leave them more susceptible to forms of cancer.
• July 19th, 2022: Rep. Schweikert is one of 157 Republicans who votes against the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which would codify same sex marriage into law nationally.
• July 21st, 2022: Schweikert is one of 195 Republicans who votes against the Right to Contraception Act, which codified the right of Americans to have access to birth control.

David Schweikert is keeping keeping his fingers crossed on what the new Congressional map looks like in 2020, because his district has trended more Democratic over the past two election cycles, and for whatever reason, he has always trended further right. He has, however, been oddly quiet since talking to the local press asked why he voted for the objection to Pennsylvania’s electoral votes in the 2020 election, and he claimed that he had been shown an "entire three, four-inch binder of the fact tree, and they built a great argument on the fact tree."

But that is, of course, bulls***, and we know everyone in the GOP caucus was well aware Trump’s “Big Lie” was only that based on the Jan. 6th hearings.

So could there be an upset in Arizona, and could Jevin Hodge finally sweep David Schweikert out of Congress in AZ-6? Man, we hope so. And the local media seem to think so.

But we definitely would like to see him gone, as we have to agree based on all our recap with whomever assessed he was an “egregious ***hole”.

[Dalak]

On the subject of evolution and homosexuality, I found this article quite interesting: Scientists explore the evolution of animal homosexuality

TLDR Homosexuality is found in many other species and it's not even limited to mammals. IMO If it was such an evolutionary disadvantage we wouldn't see it so much in nature.

[Mister Mets]

Okay, one, you keep speaking of being LGBTQ+ as if it is approximately some kind of illness. Yes, gender dysphoria may require medical intervention, but I feel like the conversation about that totally ignores the entire existence of the field of mental health. It is not as if medical doctors are just transitioning kids left and right like giving out flu shots. You actually need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and ... you know, maybe trust those licensed professionals who have devoted their lives to understanding the human mind?

Because through all of our entire LGBTQIA2S+ population ... the fields of psychology and mental health do not classify any of these orientations or identities as pathological. They are not diseases to be treated or cured. (Okay, again, gender dysphoria may call for medical intervention, but as Tendrin said, the dysphoria is treatable. That a person is not cisgendered is, nonetheless, not an illness.)

And two, I wouldn't be sure about the evolutionary advantage part. If you're thinking of evolutionary success as requiring nothing more than successful impregnation, then sure -- cishet gets the advantage, there. But the human animal did not become the dominant species on the planet just because we can mate really well. It's not even just the opposable thumbs. But our social capacity, which has allowed for collaboration over lifetimes, creating villages to nations to a world economy and communication network, rather than peaking at being a pack or a herd -- that's how we got so far, so arguably, our that is our greatest evolutionary advantage.

If our ability to interact and connect with such complexity is indeed key to our success as a species -- how do you know us non-cishet are not an essential aspect of that complexity?

Like, you are thinking it's a disadvantage if an individual is gay, because they're less likely to mate and produce physical offspring. But our society is obviously and by necessity more complex than the nuclear family, two-parents-and-kids system, which some folks seem to think of as the only "natural" human system. But I personally think it is possible that as systems grow larger and more complex ... well, the need for yet more cishet breeders perhaps does not continue just endlessly. Maybe variation happens because it allows the human system greater flexibility and adaptation? Which does sound like an evolutionary advantage, right?

It's a fair point that it could be helpful from an adaptation perspective, although it would be interesting how it expresses itself in a genetic sense.

The point of the comparison to type-one diabetes isn't to suggest that LGBTQIA2S+ are some kind of disorder, but to show a population that is able to live rich, fulfilling lives in modern society that would not be able to survive at most points in the past.

I get that the comparisons to genetic conditions can also seem reductive, although it's the main way to get benchmarks on the question of how often we should see a trait get expressed within the larger population.

I'm curious why 20 years. Why does it matter to the discussion at the moment, what will the numbers in 20 years be?



I agree. I think, if I was looking at the situation from purely logical and evolutionary perspective, I think we could maybe assume that the nature is trying to slow down the rapid increase of population in the last century, by making more people gay or trans, therefore less likely (though not completely unable) to have biological children. The planet is getting overpopulated really fast.
To be clear, this is not my opinion, because I don't really believe in any greater power and see things as more random, just providing an alternative look at it.

In twenty years, we'll likely have some answers on the long term benefits and disadvantages of approaches taken with trans youth today. We'll know whether identification rates are consistent over the years, which medical interventions will be most effective and which interventions will be more regretted.

[Dalak]

It's a fair point that it could be helpful from an adaptation perspective, although it would be interesting how it expresses itself in a genetic sense.

The point of the comparison to type-one diabetes isn't to suggest that LGBTQIA2S+ are some kind of disorder, but to show a population that is able to live rich, fulfilling lives in modern society that would not be able to survive at most points in the past.

I get that the comparisons to genetic conditions can also seem reductive, although it's the main way to get benchmarks on the question of how often we should see a trait get expressed within the larger population.

You've also compared teaching kids about LGBT during Pride month to teaching about deadly diseases and adultery with a prostitute, this is not your first time making such offensive comparisons.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Speaking of Musk and Twitter, what are the odds that the dumbass will shut up after getting roasted like he did with his arrogant "advice" to end the war?

He probably got an ego boost from Russia's reply

Kremlin happy with Musk's tweets

The Kremlin labels the latest tweets by Tesla CEO Elon Musk about the war in Ukraine "very positive", Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said.

Source: Peskov, quoted by RIA Novosti

Quote from Peskov: "We noticed that this initiative of Musk’s has been keeping people up at night in Europe, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States. First of all, it [the mentioned initiative – ed.] kept the bots up all night, as they actively participated in the voting.

It is very positive that a person like Musk is looking for peaceful ways out.

Unlike professional diplomats, Musk tries to find ways to achieve peace. And achieving peace without fulfilling Russia's conditions is impossible."

Details: Peskov claimed that people have allegedly already spoken out in "referendums", so the Kremlin does not support Musk's proposal for new "elections".

[Tendrin]

You've also compared teaching kids about LGBT during Pride month to teaching about deadly diseases and adultery with a prostitute, this is not your first time making such offensive comparisons.

Some very revealing comments.

[Dalak]

Some very revealing comments.

And of course his more recent comments about New Drag vs Old Drag which ignored how kids were shown Drag for decades without complaint before the current political polarization. At the time it was even clearly specified that we were discussing child-friendly Drag shows like the Bingo games held in a church and not actual sex shows.

[Mister Mets]

You've also compared teaching kids about LGBT during Pride month to teaching about deadly diseases and adultery with a prostitute, this is not your first time making such offensive comparisons.

It's more about figuring out precedents, which are based on what people talk about, and sometimes those things are not nice.

Figuring out how people think about other stuff is an important step in being able to persuade them. By focusing on what you think the wrong person might infer, you may make it more difficult to get someone with a different frame of reference to understand where you're coming from.

With the type on diabetes comparison, it's useful for anyone advocating for trans rights to be able to reference a significant population that would not have been able to prosper before significant medical discoveries.

And of course his more recent comments about New Drag vs Old Drag which ignored how kids were shown Drag for decades without complaint before the current political polarization. At the time it was even clearly specified that we were discussing child-friendly Drag shows like the Bingo games held in a church and not actual sex shows.

A week ago you said that no one is arguing that drag is an offshoot of vaudeville.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ag#post6208158

And now you're claiming that modern drag is the same thing as what kids have been shown for decades (IE- modern vaudeville) and that my failure to recognize this is so significant that it's worth bringing up a week later.

There may be a way to square the circle if we can look at major examples of kids shown drag without complaint from a few decades ago (turn of the millennium seems like a good benchmark) to demonstrate that these are closer to drag than to vaudeville.

[Dalak]

It's more about figuring out precedents, which are based on what people talk about, and sometimes those things are not nice.

Figuring out how people think about other stuff is an important step in being able to persuade them. By focusing on what you think the wrong person might infer, you may make it more difficult to get someone with a different frame of reference to understand where you're coming from.

With the type on diabetes comparison, it's useful for anyone advocating for trans rights to be able to reference a significant population that would not have been able to prosper before significant medical discoveries.

When the only comparisons you can come up with regarding teaching about LGBT and/or kids deciding to transition are negative ones it is very descriptive of what you think of them and not a 'some' time thing. Note that you brought these up, no one made you.

A week ago you said that no one is arguing that drag is an offshoot of vaudeville.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ag#post6208158

And now you're claiming that modern drag is the same thing as what kids have been shown for decades (IE- modern vaudeville) and that my failure to recognize this is so significant that it's worth bringing up a week later.

There may be a way to square the circle if we can look at major examples of kids shown drag without complaint from a few decades ago (turn of the millennium seems like a good benchmark) to demonstrate that these are closer to drag than to vaudeville.

Vaudeville was brought up to show that drag and other sexualized content was shown to kids that far back, and you leapt on it as a big distraction from the subject then and now to demand there is or isn't a direct connection between them. You were asked the difference between New Drag and Old Drag and the best you could come up with was (paraphrased) "It wasn't aimed at children". Then vaudeville was brought up to counter that narrative, as well as children's cartoons. You also seem to be arguing that I am not specifically discussing kid-friendly Drag as I made clear more than once, but if you aren't it's hard to tell for me. BTW Bugs Bunny was/is still popular and has been part of several Looney Toons related new material on top of continuing reruns like That's Opera Doc.

I'll note you still didn't respond to how it was pointed out you left out context after claiming you did not in the post you bring up here.

E:

[kidfresh512]

It's more about figuring out precedents, which are based on what people talk about, and sometimes those things are not nice.

Figuring out how people think about other stuff is an important step in being able to persuade them. By focusing on what you think the wrong person might infer, you may make it more difficult to get someone with a different frame of reference to understand where you're coming from.

With the type on diabetes comparison, it's useful for anyone advocating for trans rights to be able to reference a significant population that would not have been able to prosper before significant medical discoveries.


A week ago you said that no one is arguing that drag is an offshoot of vaudeville.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ag#post6208158

And now you're claiming that modern drag is the same thing as what kids have been shown for decades (IE- modern vaudeville) and that my failure to recognize this is so significant that it's worth bringing up a week later.

There may be a way to square the circle if we can look at major examples of kids shown drag without complaint from a few decades ago (turn of the millennium seems like a good benchmark) to demonstrate that these are closer to drag than to vaudeville.

That is the main problem you have. I am gay I don't NEED to persuade you of a damn thing. You act like you are entitled to "understand". All you need to know is we are human beings who deserve happiness and not to have our rights trampled. You don't need to agree with anything beyond that. You do not personally need to go to drag shows, you don't have to read gay books or watch gay media if you don't want too.

Same as anyone advocating books to be burned or making up false accusations of "grooming" to cover for plain homophobia. But, oh no lets not actually call them homophobic! Same as racists who act racist and do racist things, but the minute they are actually called what they are "playing the race card".

The problem with homophobia in practice is that these people feel they need others to "justify themselves". Or even worse they don't like something so they will make it their mission to legislate their beliefs on others. They cannot prove that others living their lives has any tangible effect on their daily existence. So they manufacture problems like "grooming". Or "woke" as a cover of not wanting to see any depictions of minorities or underrepresented groups having their stories told in media.

The solution to this would be mind your own business. If parents want to show their kids that people have different backgrounds, that you can be nice and accepting of those people. You can go read a book or listen to a story at a Drag Hour. That has no effect on these people that "protest and intimidate" with hate. They do it because they enjoy the hate, the threats, they enjoy trying to demean and make others feel small. The typical attributes of a common bully.

That "entitlement" that everything and everyone needs to conform to what "you believe". Or what can be "proven" to you is nothing but arrogance. And it is a primary attribute of the GOP and the base that feeds off hate. You see it applied in so much of their policy. The feeling that the country is "theirs". "Others" need to know their place or accept what they are given.

Don't kneel for black lives, be happy you are allowed to play and entertain "us".

Ironically the true threat to people isn't a drag queen reading a book demonstrating in live action inclusiveness and acceptance. It is the parents teaching their kids to HATE those people. Trying to legislate their happiness, no you can't say gay in a school, or have a picture of your significant other. Those people are the true danger to society. Not a random gay couple, or trans person trying to live their lives in peace.

[Mister Mets]

When the only comparisons you can come up with regarding teaching about LGBT and/or kids deciding to transition are negative ones it is very descriptive of what you think of them and not a 'some' time thing. Note that you brought these up, no one made you.



Vaudeville was brought up to show that drag and other sexualized content was shown to kids that far back, and you leapt on it as a big distraction from the subject then and now to demand there is or isn't a direct connection between them. You were asked the difference between New Drag and Old Drag and the best you could come up with was (paraphrased) "It wasn't aimed at children". Then vaudeville was brought up to counter that narrative, as well as children's cartoons. You also seem to be arguing that I am not specifically discussing kid-friendly Drag as I made clear more than once, but if you aren't it's hard to tell for me. BTW Bugs Bunny was/is still popular and has been part of several Looney Toons related new material on top of continuing reruns like That's Opera Doc.

I'll note you still didn't respond to how it was pointed out you left out context after claiming you did not in the post you bring up here.

We seem to be arguing past one another. I think there's some category creep in your definition of drag to include things that are not widely understood as being in the same genre as drag queen story hour. We could look at specific examples of the things you believe are equivalent to drag queen story hour from decades ago, but so far, it seems to me that the examples of drag content that children have been exposed to a few decades ago were more inspired by vaudeville than what we would identify as modern drug culture. When Warner Brothers animators were illustrating Bugs Bunny wearing a dress in 1957's What's Opera Doc?, I don't think they and the audience understood that in the context of drag culture.

That is the main problem you have. I am gay I don't NEED to persuade you of a damn thing. You act like you are entitled to "understand". All you need to know is we are human beings who deserve happiness and not to have our rights trampled. You don't need to agree with anything beyond that. You do not personally need to go to drag shows, you don't have to read gay books or watch gay media if you don't want too.

Same as anyone advocating books to be burned or making up false accusations of "grooming" to cover for plain homophobia. But, oh no lets not actually call them homophobic! Same as racists who act racist and do racist things, but the minute they are actually called what they are "playing the race card".

The problem with homophobia in practice is that these people feel they need others to "justify themselves". Or even worse they don't like something so they will make it their mission to legislate their beliefs on others. They cannot prove that others living their lives has any tangible effect on their daily existence. So they manufacture problems like "grooming". Or "woke" as a cover of not wanting to see any depictions of minorities or underrepresented groups having their stories told in media.

The solution to this would be mind your own business. If parents want to show their kids that people have different backgrounds, that you can be nice and accepting of those people. You can go read a book or listen to a story at a Drag Hour. That has no effect on these people that "protest and intimidate" with hate. They do it because they enjoy the hate, the threats, they enjoy trying to demean and make others feel small. The typical attributes of a common bully.

That "entitlement" that everything and everyone needs to conform to what "you believe". Or what can be "proven" to you is nothing but arrogance. And it is a primary attribute of the GOP and the base that feeds off hate. You see it applied in so much of their policy. The feeling that the country is "theirs". "Others" need to know their place or accept what they are given.

Don't kneel for black lives, be happy you are allowed to play and entertain "us".

Ironically the true threat to people isn't a drag queen reading a book demonstrating in live action inclusiveness and acceptance. It is the parents teaching their kids to HATE those people. Trying to legislate their happiness, no you can't say gay in a school, or have a picture of your significant other. Those people are the true danger to society. Not a random gay couple, or trans person trying to live their lives in peace.

I understand there's no need to persuade you, but it's still advantageous to persuade others. Swing voters exist. What they believe matters.

It's helpful for Republicans when their opponents are less able to message to swing voters.

[JackDaw]

It's more about figuring out precedents, which are based on what people talk about, and sometimes those things are not nice.

Figuring out how people think about other stuff is an important step in being able to persuade them. By focusing on what you think the wrong person might infer, you may make it more difficult to get someone with a different frame of reference to understand where you're coming from.

With the type on diabetes comparison, it's useful for anyone advocating for trans rights to be able to reference a significant population that would not have been able to prosper before significant medical discoveries.


A week ago you said that no one is arguing that drag is an offshoot of vaudeville.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ag#post6208158

And now you're claiming that modern drag is the same thing as what kids have been shown for decades (IE- modern vaudeville) and that my failure to recognize this is so significant that it's worth bringing up a week later.

There may be a way to square the circle if we can look at major examples of kids shown drag without complaint from a few decades ago (turn of the millennium seems like a good benchmark) to demonstrate that these are closer to drag than to vaudeville.

Don’t know how different US theatre scene is to UK, but drag acts and other cases where men played women or women played men have been a staple of various forms of entertainment for at least last hundred years and nobody I know “bats an eyelid”.

The most obvious example is the annual Christmas pantomime (specially designed for kids, of course) where roles like the Ugly Sisters are invariably played by men, and Prince Charming played by a woman.

Over the years a fair number of male comedians on tv comedy shows have regularly played women in comedy sketches…Les Dawson and Roy Barraclough often did for example. Again growing up when (alas) I attended an all boys school playing women roles in plays didn’t stress anybody out…it was just seen as a challenge to acting ability.

[Dalak]

We seem to be arguing past one another. I think there's some category creep in your definition of drag to include things that are not widely understood as being in the same genre as drag queen story hour. We could look at specific examples of the things you believe are equivalent to drag queen story hour from decades ago, but so far, it seems to me that the examples of drag content that children have been exposed to a few decades ago were more inspired by vaudeville than what we would identify as modern drug culture. When Warner Brothers animators were illustrating Bugs Bunny wearing a dress in 1957's What's Opera Doc?, I don't think they and the audience understood that in the context of drag culture.

Kids don't need to understand what cross dressing means in the context of 'Drag Culture', they just need to learn that people who dress up differently than they (Drag) or 'like' people they aren't used to (LGBT) aren't to be hated for it. What does that teach them about sexuality that the nuclear family unit shown in media doesn't? As they continue to grow and learn more about more mature relationships you can educate them about LGBT ones at the same time in the same manner. BTW you asked for Modern so I found modern for you. You might have missed it as I edited in later.

As for arguing past one another, I'll believe that when you stop making negative comparisons to LGBT issues, defending clear transphobes, and demanding proof that people being more comfortable reporting themselves as they are isn't abnormal.

[Jack Dracula]

Not related to the current conversation, but we have a 4-way tie going in the Cover Contest thread and it’d be great if someone would cast the deciding vote.

[Catlady in training]

A great bit of trolling, showing that sometimes Twitter can be good for something:

A joke has started I think two days ago, by some Polish twitter user about Kaliningrad (that piece of russian land between Poland and Lithuania) becoming part of Czech Republic after a successful referendum. It has now gone viral, with an "official" twitter account of the region: https://twitter.com/KralovecCzechia
and an official website: https://visitkralovec.cz/#news

A lot of real accounts have joined in on the fun, offering train connection, delivery, job searching, etc. for the new region. Even some government accounts have posted comments which looked as if it was a real thing.
Amazing!