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

[thwhtGuardian]

This would be more category creep.

They're going with a definition of grooming that fits ideological indoctrination.

In fairness, much of the media has gone with a broader definition of "grooming." I wrote about this three years ago before it became an alt-right talking point.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5038996

Even if we go with your so called definition, it is objectively false. Being around gay people isn't going to indoctrinate you into being gay, and being taught that being gay is okay isn't indoctrination either it's just a flat fact. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Period. And if someone thinks saying that or teaching that is wrong then they are bigots.

Again, this is pretty simple, cut and dry stuff.

[Jack Dracula]

I've edited the post you quoted to include the actual punishments for Terrorism and Inciting Violence so even if convicted of those crimes LoTT wouldn't have a life sentence that's so easy to appeal as you mention.



And as an aside, in response to direct quotes of right-wing users of the word Groomer & Evil using it against the LGBTQ+ community it's been declared Category Creep.

That’s very interesting, thanks. I think the subs (m), (n), and (EE) may apply under certain circumstances.

[Dalak]

Even if we go with your so called definition, it is objectively false. Being around gay isn't going to indoctrinate you into being gay, and being taught that being gay is okay isn't indoctrination either it's just a flat fact. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Period. And if someone thinks saying that or teaching that is wrong then they are bigots.

Again, this is pretty simple, cut and dry stuff.

It seems quite simple to me.

That’s very interesting, thanks. I think the subs (m), (n), and (EE) may apply under certain circumstances.

E: normally denotes what I edited, and EE is an Extra Edit. I don't know what those subs mean I'm afraid.

[scourge]

Getting rid of him won't hand the Dems a win, so he'll be replaced easily enough.

Its true he'll be replaced but at least that specific nutjob is gone rather than them circling the wagons and defending him endlessly.

[Adam Allen]

She claimed that a secret LGBTQ+ conspiracy of high-level indoctrinators composed of doctors and social workers was responsible for the increase in gender-affirming care access to children.

Carlson acknowledged that having one's child want to kill themselves is "a parent's worst nightmare," and the far-right Fox pundit said he would do anything to prevent that for his kids, but in the same breath, he joined Raichik in invalidating studies that show that young people who do not receive gender-affirming care have higher incidences of suicidal ideation.

"The doctors and social workers -- there's a lot of pressure to do this as quickly as possible," Raichik said.

"They're just evil," Raichik said, referring to the LGBTQ+ community. "They're bad people. They're just evil people, and they want to groom kids. They're recruiting."

That seems to be more opinions than things that are objectively untrue.

Yeah, Holy Shit.

There is a "standard of accuracy" to apply about whether doctors and social workers have a secret hidden agenda that is harming kids?

It is an opinion, not objectively untrue, that doctors and social workers are devoted to harming people?

What the ever loving fuck? This is what's wrong with conservatives. FFS.

[Mister Mets]

Holy shit.

You left out some relevant parts of the post.

RIP



As I quoted & bolded you saying you started your post after Tendrins, I believe you are lying here.

Requiring people to discuss the details of policy in order to discuss politic or current events here isn't reasonable, and it's quite rude when you claim that simply asking you to review evidence you asked for is a rude and unreasonable request on your time. You can choose to wade into the minutiae of policy that will never be implemented, but trying to require others to do the same is crossing a fairly obvious line.

It's a typo. I started my post before Tendrin posted his.

I do think it's valid in a discussion on current events to respond on the implications of someone's opinion.

If someone says in a public forum that they would like a person to be arrested, it seems valid to consider the consequences of that, in terms of how to use existing laws or how to craft new laws.

I know some people don't think through their opinions, but it should be fair to call them out on it, or to mention potential downsides that other people are comment on. Maybe they still think it's worth the tradeoff, or they can figure out a way to square the circle.

Ah, yes. Showcasing the empathy of a true Republican. Stay classy, Mets!

Do you disagree?

Different type of news: "Tupac Shakur: Las Vegas police arrest man over 1996 shooting of rapper"

https://news.sky.com/story/tupac-sha...apper-12972517

27 years later...!

That's weird.

You’re wrongly assuming policies would be carelessly thought out.
I’ve already suggested the instances of doxxing could be interpreted as Reckless Endangerment and prosecuted as such. Child Endangerment could be added depending on the situation.
No one but you mentioned deplatforming or life imprisonment, although the former may be expected if the Endangerment charges stick.

Others specifically mentioned deplatforming.

I'm considering the typical penalties for terrorists.

A factual question regarding doxxing would be the extent to which this person released private data (addresses, phone numbers) rather than sharing something posted on a public forum, or at a place open to the public.

Some right-wing nutjob did a Youtube video about comments I made about him on this thread years ago. I didn't like it, but it's not doxxing.

[Mister Mets]

Wait, what??

These are just opinions and not objectively untrue?

I want to be very specific here so I'll ask this out right: You think that isn't objectively untrue? What about that isn't objectively untrue?

It's ugly, but it's an opinion. I certainly think she's wrong, even going with the most generous interpretation of what she's saying on a Fox News interview (IE- If she might mean something different by the "LGBTQ community" than everyone who is LGBTQ, and "recruitment" refers to making people more comfortable identifying as LGBTQ."

One wrinkle would be the common understanding that sexuality exists on a spectrum, which does suggest that bisexual or pansexual people who might otherwise be happy with a partner of the opposite sex/ gender are more likely to find partners of the same sex/ gender in a society in which it's acceptable. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's still an opinion.

There's a potential trap of pressure to define a widely shared opinion as a fact, and we should to avoid this. For example, I think all of us agree that Abraham Lincoln was a good (or better) President. But that is an opinion. It's hard to stand out with an opinion about how Lincoln was awesome, since many informed people agree, but you can differentiate yourself by insisting that everyone treat this as a fact, and it gives you the opportunity to go after other Lincoln aficionados for a lack of purity.

This may be one way group polarization occurs where groups of like-minded people get more extreme than any one individual.

Since we're talking a lot about this, I'll also make a distinction between an opinion and a belief. A belief is ultimately based on a factual question, but we may not get to know the answers. Does God exist? Is Jesus Christ his only son? Was Mohammed his prophet? Have aliens visited Earth? Who was Jack the Ripper?

Yeah, Holy Shit.

There is a "standard of accuracy" to apply about whether doctors and social workers have a secret hidden agenda that is harming kids?

It is an opinion, not objectively untrue, that doctors and social workers are devoted to harming people?

What the ever loving fuck? This is what's wrong with conservatives. FFS.

Not a fan of the woman, but she didn't say that doctors and social workers are devoted to doing things they know to be harmful.

[Panfoot]

Fuck fucks sake, it's not an opinion it's hate speech.

[Dalak]

Its true he'll be replaced but at least that specific nutjob is gone rather than them circling the wagons and defending him endlessly.

Until they get rid of the ones who matter (Paxton, Santos, Trump, etc), I'm not giving them credit for the small fish.

Yeah, Holy Shit.

There is a "standard of accuracy" to apply about whether doctors and social workers have a secret hidden agenda that is harming kids?

It is an opinion, not objectively untrue, that doctors and social workers are devoted to harming people?

What the ever loving fuck? This is what's wrong with conservatives. FFS.

The Category Creep on display is a stunning attempt to keep conservative terrorists from being complained about online by focusing on policy that will never be implemented thus not affect said terrorists in the slightest. Pointless busy work added to shut-down conversations about conservative terrorism & multiple posts trying to minimize it isn't debating in good faith.

It's a typo. I started my post before Tendrin posted his.

I do think it's valid in a discussion on current events to respond on the implications of someone's opinion.

If someone says in a public forum that they would like a person to be arrested, it seems valid to consider the consequences of that, in terms of how to use existing laws or how to craft new laws.

I know some people don't think through their opinions, but it should be fair to call them out on it, or to mention potential downsides that other people are comment on. Maybe they still think it's worth the tradeoff, or they can figure out a way to square the circle.

I don't accept that this was simply a typo, simply due to the preponderance of evidence your behavior in the past has provided. I believe you are lying and gaslighting to cover for it.

I also don't think you have tried to 'call out' anyone for not thinking things through, just keep bringing up the same question you bring up every time "What Policy would stop her" no matter what answers you've gotten previously or at-the-time. All to keep defending indefensible statements, people, and organizations in many questionable ways which often contradict how you treat liberals in similar situations (as has been pointed out). Just like loaded questions, you keep asking others to do things you'd refuse to do and call Rude if others asked you to do them. No matter how often you do things like this you expect us to accept that you are genuine in your statements on Decorum and focusing on what is right over being on the 'right side', and it's not an insult to point these things out

To be fair, calling out others for not thinking things through is something I support in general but I don't think you are doing that based on your past behavior & posts on the subject.

Others specifically mentioned deplatforming.

I'm considering the typical penalties for terrorists.

A factual question regarding doxxing would be the extent to which this person released private data (addresses, phone numbers) rather than sharing something posted on a public forum, or at a place open to the public.

Some right-wing nutjob did a Youtube video about comments I made about him on this thread years ago. I didn't like it, but it's not doxxing.

If you were a target of LoTT unlike that nutjob they'd not just focus on comments you made, but whip up their followers by claiming you are an Evil Groomer indoctrinating children (Like so many others, and they don't just leave it at one accusation/post) and release the information of where you teach as well. Thus the people who are being incited are given a location they know they can find you and can proceed to call in bomb threats and worse totally disrupting your work life at a minimum. That isn't something I believe you would mention like 'some right-wing nutjob' to dismiss what LoTT is doing to people. If any of the posters on this forum did that we'd be banned and likely have authorities notified of our actions, but you are now trying to convince all of us that LoTT isn't as vile as you tried to convince us you felt she was.

I also pointed out the penalties related to Terrorism and Inciting Violence with links, and how none of the Life sentences would apply to her.

On top of that I pointed out how you and the GoP are misrepresenting Fetterman over a nothingburger w/cheese, which is more representative of how you treat liberals. Ex: Sen Feinstein above.

Fuck fucks sake, it's not an opinion it's hate speech.

This is very correct, and frankly stunning to see defended in this way. I wish Mets responded to this sort of thing better (EX: Mutilation) but if the past is any indicator this is another hill he'll die upon.

[Wildling]

"Hey, Jason Voorhees...look at all those teenagers over at Camp Crystal lake!"
"Oh you just went and killed them all? Guess what there's some others on the other side of the lake. Wouldn't it be a shame if you went and killed them all too? Don't worry though, I'm just saying true things." - Chaya Raichik if she were in a horror movie

Everything I see about Chaya Raichik makes me think audiences would cheer if a fictionalized version was in an ironic trap in a Saw movie. Figures Mets would defend the person for 10-20 pages.

[Adam Allen]

Not a fan of the woman, but she didn't say that doctors and social workers are devoted to doing things they know to be harmful.

It's a good thing conservatives know better than doctors and social workers then, I guess. Thank goodness those professionals who devote their lives to caring for others aren't allowed to indoctrinate our kids! Thank you, conservatives! You save us all! From all those nasty educated science people!

[Tendrin]

A middle school near me was evacuated after bomb threats from followers of stochastic terorrist Andy Ngo. <3

It was over a pride flag and LGBTQ books.

[Tendrin]

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...cksliding-gai/

Democracy is increasingly under threat worldwide. The trend is striking: 80 percent of the global population now lives in a country that is experiencing some restriction on freedoms, which is the highest proportion since 1997.1 At the same time, democratic backsliding has come in tandem with a rise in state-sanctioned rhetoric and policymaking that directly targets lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons.

Using data from the LGBTI Global Acceptance Index and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, this report examines the relationship between indicators of liberal democracy and acceptance of LGBTI people globally. We pay particular attention to how democratic backsliding may be associated with changes in attitudes towards LGBTI people and their rights. We highlight four countries— Indonesia, Brazil, Poland, and Ghana—to describe the complex dynamics at play when anti-LGBTI rhetoric and policymaking are deployed in the context of rising authoritarianism. To our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes the specific relationship between democratic backsliding and social acceptance of LGBTI people and their rights from a cross-national perspective.

Study links democratic backsliding to rises in anti-LGBTQ attitudes.

[BeastieRunner]

Scott Hall flipped on Trump.

[worstblogever]

Scott Hall flipped on Trump.

Probably not this one, I'm guessing.