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

[Zauriel]

So. Herschel Walker paid for an abortion in 2009 and the woman kept the receipt for the abortion, a copy of the cheque Herschel signed and the get-well card he sent her... Herschel still says it did not happen. His formerly supportive influencer son Christian is losing it and calling his dad a horrible person while airing dirty laundry.

.[/URL]

Herschel Walker's son Christian accuses him of being "not a family man", right after publicly supporting Herschel's senate candidacy.

Raphael Warnock's ex-wife accused him of running over her foot, although the medics couldn't find any signs of injury on her. But Raphael was reported to not have been paying child support. What a responsible family man.

So what's the difference between those two fine gentlemen who have been accused of domestic abuse against their wives?

Well, I don't care about Herschel or Raphael. I don't care which of them wins the Georgia US senatorial election unless it is won by a third party candidate.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...rtion-00060160
The Politico article makes a mention:
"If Herschel Walker wins his race, it won’t be the first time a conservative candidate has overcome accusations of funding abortions. Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) has served in Congress since 2011, despite reports in 2012 that he paid for his ex-wife’s abortions and had pressured a woman he had a sexual relationship with to get an abortion. He subsequently faced tough primary challenges in 2014 and 2016, but prevailed."

[CaptainEurope]

Your both-siding is, again, noted.

[hyped78]

It's always been like this. Gay is not a disease that's been spreading. The population is the same, the only thing that's changing is how we understand and express aspects of identity. I mean, it's not the only thing, but no -- as much as things have changed on the planet in the last couple hundred years, that is an infinitesimally small window of time to introduce substantial change into a population of billions.

The idea is all the more ludicrous if we're suggesting ... well:



... are we really considering if a population size of 300 million would have significant evolutionary change in a space of -- do those generations cover maybe 100 years?

I think the timetable for substantial evolutionary change is -- you know, longer than that anyway, and especially if we're talking a population that large and varied. Single generations of humans are living 100 years. There has not been near enough time to drastically change the population, from Traditionalists to Z.

That doesn't seem possible to me. But more trying to understand than convince here really, so ... yeah, just saying, I don't see how someone can look at this and think it's not a change in how people identify. The other explanation does not make sense.

It's certainly not a "disease", or a "condition" or anything like that. Let me make that clear.

Regarding the numbers... I don't know. While it's 1) Clear that it's easier to identify as LGBTQ+ today vs. 50 years ago, it's also 2) Simplistic to consider that the real (not identified) % of LGBTQ+ in a given population is more or less the same today as it was decades, or a century ago - why would that be? What is the "invisible hand" at play here that makes sure that the % of real LGBTQ+ folks in a country is the same decade after decade?

So I think it's probably a combination of both. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with 16% of Gen Z being LGBTQ+, but I wouldn't dismiss it as solely identification.

[Adam Allen]

It's certainly not a "disease", or a "condition" or anything like that. Let me make that clear.

Regarding the numbers... I don't know. While it's 1) Clear that it's easier to identify as LGBTQ+ today vs. 50 years ago, it's also 2) Simplistic to consider that the real (not identified) % of LGBTQ+ in a given population is more or less the same today as it was decades, or a century ago - why would that be? What is the "invisible hand" at play here that makes sure that the % of real LGBTQ+ folks in a country is the same decade after decade?

So I think it's probably a combination of both. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with 16% of Gen Z being LGBTQ+, but I wouldn't dismiss it as solely identification.

What invisible hand? 100 years is not enough time for a human population to evolve.

I mean, leaving aside the differences produced by nutrition, medication and all that -- do you think a human today is evolutionarily different than one from 200 years ago? I don't think evolution works that fast. So -- like, nothing has needed to keep us from changing, except that there's not enough time?

I mean, I just Googled, "How long does human evolution take" and it says "approximately six million years." That doesn't seem the right ballpark to you? Or are we talking about different things, somehow?

Edit: To be clear, I'm saying we probably have roughly about the same percentage of LGBTQ+ folks as, I guess, six million years ago, since that's apparently how long it would take for it to really be different.

[Dalak]

This is likely to continue to be a subject for study. I'm not sure we have evidence that all of what's going on with animals is functionally similar to what's going on with humans. Indiscriminate mating would explain bisexual or nonbinary individuals, but it doesn't apply to much of the LGBTQIA2S+ population, which is more discriminating than animals.

If the studies already provided (and the more out there to find if you are genuinely interested in the subject) aren't enough for you, that's not a problem with the Science.

This is a change in goalposts from the earlier point that Bugs Bunny is understood as drag, and that to suggest it seems to be more inspired by vaudeville is so outrageous that it deserves to be called out and condemned a week later.

It's a different argument to say that kids have a different understanding of the context. That's not a point I was disputing.

My reference to audience includes adults as well as older minors.

Point 1: 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.

Point 2: Why it was brought up

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.

Point 3: Why are you discussing adults when we are talking about appropriateness of things for minors, as it was that objection to Drag bingo in a church which caused you to jump in to declare there was some sort of big difference between old stuff and new stuff while continuing to avoid providing any real examples of differences when asked on multiple occasions. Do you have any yet?

Looks like the goalposts are being moved by you while being excused as more gaslighting replies about 'arguing past' each other and other ways to excuse your reframing of things. As for the "After a week" issue, I spent the better part of 4 days of that week without power thanks to a hurricane but that doesn't matter when remembering the past informs people of how to interpret the present and future. Remembering what people said a week or years ago matters: Look at court cases or modern politics for great examples. Even regular people on the street or posters on a comic book forum need such critical thinking skills in order to avoid misinformation, which is being spread more often and more perniciously than ever.

[Adam Allen]

Humanity has not physically evolved in six million years, but clearly we have made substantial social progress during this time. And I tl;dr my earlier post, I do not think queer folk have been some genetic accident or vestigial feature to humanity this whole time. Considering the insane progress the human race has made -- again, I think the non-cishet have always been a part of human families/culture/communication/social evolution, and since our social ability has evolved so exponentially -- you know, maybe gay is good.

It's a thought.

[hyped78]

What invisible hand? 100 years is not enough time for a human population to evolve.

I mean, leaving aside the differences produced by nutrition, medication and all that -- do you think a human today is evolutionarily different than one from 200 years ago? I don't think evolution works that fast. So -- like, nothing has needed to keep us from changing, except that there's not enough time?

I mean, I just Googled, "How long does human evolution take" and it says "approximately six million years." That doesn't seem the right ballpark to you? Or are we talking about different things, somehow?

Edit: To be clear, I'm saying we probably have roughly about the same percentage of LGBTQ+ folks as, I guess, six million years ago, since that's apparently how long it would take for it to really be different.

I don't think it's that simple. You're assuming that same-sex behavior is fully determined by biology/DNA. I'm not a scientist but it's much more complex than just that, it's not like some folks have a 'gay gene' and that's it. This is a large scale study on the topic:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10....cience.aat7693
"Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior"

The summary is: human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, because human sexual attraction is decided by a combination of all of these factors.

While biology doesn't change over decades (the point that you're mentioning), psychology and life experiences certainly do.

[Tendrin]

Humanity has not physically evolved in six million years, but clearly we have made substantial social progress during this time. And I tl;dr my earlier post, I do not think queer folk have been some genetic accident or vestigial feature to humanity this whole time. Considering the insane progress the human race has made -- again, I think the non-cishet have always been a part of human families/culture/communication/social evolution, and since our social ability has evolved so exponentially -- you know, maybe gay is good.

It's a thought.

There is ample evidence for the existence of trans and other gender non-conforming people throughout history. There's a reason 'Sappho and her friend' is a thing, after all.

edit: corrected for the proper name of the phenomenon/meme ;P

[hyped78]

There is ample evidence for the existence of trans and other gender non-conforming people throughout history. There's a reason 'Sappho and her roommate' is a thing, after all.

I'm not disputing that - and I don't think anyone, in good faith, can dispute that

[Tendrin]

I'm not disputing that - and I don't think anyone, in good faith, can dispute that

You'd be surprised how many people are willing to ignore the obvious.

[hyped78]

You'd be surprised how many people are willing to ignore the obvious.

I mean... homosexuality and existence of trans people in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome is a well-known fact, for example!

[BeastieRunner]

Two spirit people among the Native American, too.

They even had a word for it.

[Tendrin]

Two spirit people among the Native American, too.

They even had a word for it.

Heck, there are plenty of modern cultures that have 'third genders' too.

[hyped78]

Doocy: "You said Biden was responsible for gas prices coming down. Is he responsible for gas prices going up?"

Jean-Pierre: "It's a lot more nuanced than that."

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/sta...g_back_up.html

[hyped78]

Two spirit people among the Native American, too.

They even had a word for it.

Interesting. I've heard/ read the word but I didn't know what it meant.