Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

I feel like one solution would just be to have an all gender restroom while keeping the other restrooms separate. Of course people on both sides may not like that idea. And it's also way too advanced of an idea so it's not likely to happen.

Perfectly happy to support a third unisex restroom option. Most gender critical people would be tickled with that as an option.

Guess who rejects that option?

 

[Emily Lake]

You cannot protect women in bathrooms from rape by banning transwomen from ladies rooms

Let's say that tomorrow, a new law is passed that lets any male use the women's room if they wish. There are still rooms labeled "mens" and "womens", but males can use whichever they would like to.

Do you think this law will:
A) Reduce the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?
B) Increase the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?
C) No change to the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?

Please include your rationale for which option you choose as the most likely impact of that law on women.

 

[Emily Lake]

Weird because you haven't told that to any of the right wing nuts here.

Who are these right wing nuts you speak of that frequent IIDB?

 

[Emily Lake]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

I wonder if transgender might actually be a form of DSD, just in the brain rather than the anatomy.

DSDs are by definition disorders of the sexual reproductive system, hence the name, but a lot of people have explored the idea that intersexuality in general is connected to transgendered persons. For instance, that ambiguity of endocrinal sex might impact something like patterns of thought and self-perception even if they did not impact gross anatomy at all. From my standpoint as a social scientist, "transgender" would still be referring to something different than "intersex" even if they were always connected. Sex and gender are not ultimately synonyms, and "transgendered" in particular is a very Western concept that does not map on easily to other cultures.

Lots of people have speculated all sorts of things. Such imagined potential maybe explanations aren't a great basis for public policy, nor are the a good basis for ignoring what we actually know of biology and evolution.

 

[Emily Lake]

And that sub-point created a sub-sub-point: her complaining about us questioning her position on abortion

Be accurate: It's me complaining about your continued mischaracterization of my position on abortion.

 

[Emily Lake]

ACTUAL enacted fascist laws and rules in place.

Why bother with that, when you can simply designate your political opposition terrorists,

Examples? Which political party has been designated as a terrorist organization? Which politicians have been designated as terrorists?

send the military to terrorize enemy territory and let ‘em sue, while SCROTUS sits on its ass playing with itself.

What are you even talking about?

If anyone gets in trouble for say, burning down a judge’s house,

Arson is punishable by law, and ought to be.

breaking and entering the Capitol to impede a government function or anything like that … just PARDON!

Oh tnoes! The horror! A president *gasp* pardoned someone, that's never been done before! Obviously that's fascism in action... so yeah, every president in living memory is clearly a fascist!

 

[Emily Lake]

The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi.

Well, not after they lost the war. If it becomes safe to fly the flag again without losing their job, many will fly it just as proudly as they fly the "Confederate flag" now.

Yeah, they just find a new name with the same core behaviors and slightly different window dressing.

It's also one of the reasons that the easiest way to spot them is to spot the political groups whose names do not actually match their behavior, or which have names associated with nationalism and/or populism, while espousing "smaller*" government.

If you find the people seeking to hit social spending, or advocating to make certain human conditions criminal or regulated, completely agnostic to the behavior of the person with that condition, the those people are likely Nazis too.

As it is, Nazis, when they start to precipitate into power within a society, share a number of bedfellows who I will also call Nazis.

These "Nazi bedfellows" will in any era include a large number of false "free people", who believe they value justice and freedom and independence of thought, but whose values in practice skew towards "trains running on time" and re-instating conservative policies according to biases trained into them by religious and cultural sources.

These are, in fact, the majority of Nazis, like the soil in which the roots of the toxic plant of fascist government grows.

The fact is, of you don't want Nazis in your country, you will not be the fertile soil for this.

If you hate Nazis, really, if you want to be remembered not as an individual but as part of a *sort* of individual, as an instance of something we can count on next time, then today you will show that you can reject the comforts and the utilities of the trains running on time because you are one of those who will ultimately blow up the tracks before they can carry trains of people. Name those Nazis as what they are, and speak the words into history necessary to make the next instance of you who reads the words in the next cycle and understand before things get so out of hand as you let them get here.

MAGA are Nazis.

Those who pretend "MAGA" isn't "Nazis" are cheeky Nazis.

Your entire post boils down to "conservatives are nazis, we should make sure that there are no conservatives"

You strenuously object whenever someone boils down your posts to their view of its essence. In this case, the fuel for your boiling is the erroneous conflation of conservative with MAGA. There are plenty of conservatives who did not and do not support Trump.

I know it's difficult to parse, but perhaps you might try reading all of Jarhyn's post?

Seriously, LD, it's not subtle. And it's not like this is the first time he's posted stuff like this, framing conservatives in general as being immaterially different from Nazis. IIRC, Jarhyn has even previously advocated that conservatives and Republicans should be harassed and intimidated so they understand they're not welcome in our society. This isn't a new view that he's sharing here for the very first time.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.

Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.

Racists often make exceptions, ‘for the good ones.’

I'm struggling to say something that is within the bounds, because you just called my family racist, and in a very nasty way.

Viewing something as sinful doesn't equate to hatred. Sometimes it's stupid, definitely, and it can absolutely cause tension and conflict. But it isn't necessarily hate.

My grandfather saw marrying outside of one's race as a sin. It was a stupid position in my view, and in the view of my mom and stepdad.

My grandfather also viewed adultery as a sin. One of his best friends cheated on his wife, and they got divorced. Somehow, crazy as this might seem to those of you who are more invested in hatred toward christianity than in actually understanding other people's perspective... he never hated his friend, even though he saw his actions as sinful.

Me living with my spouse before we got married is also something he viewed as a sin. And I know that some of you can't manage to comprehend that viewing something as sinful doesn't mean you hate the person who did it, but yeah - my grandpa never hated me nor my husband.

Of the three sins listed, WHY would 'marrying outside one's race' be considered sinful? Because I kind of get the other ones even though I don't agree with sin as a concept.

aa

Fuck if I know. There are all sorts of things that people view as sinful that make no sense at all to me. You know, like some religions that think it's sinful for a woman's hair to be visible in public, or that it's sinful to eat lobster.

There's always been that weird disconnect between basic moral strictures that support a functioning society so we don't all kill each other into oblivion... and the rules around absolutely benign things.

 

[Toni]

I have not delved very deeply into Charlie Kirk’s opinions but I do think some of the views he’s quoted as expressing are indeed hateful.

Okay, I get that this is abstract reasoning here, but bear with me.

You perceiving Kirk's views as hateful views is not the same as Kirk advocating hate.

My grandfather believed that miscegenation was sinful. My stepdad is black. My grandfather didn't hate my stepdad.

I can absolutely understand that many people see my grandfather's belief as hateful; my grandfather himself wasn't hateful - he didn't see it as hateful, and he didn't have any hate in his heart toward my stepdad. Doesn't mean there wasn't tension especially early on. There were arguments, there was a lot of anger, it went on for years. It sucked and it was sad and it was painful... but it wasn't hate.

Racists often make exceptions, ‘for the good ones.’

I'm struggling to say something that is within the bounds, because you just called my family racist, and in a very nasty way.

Viewing something as sinful doesn't equate to hatred. Sometimes it's stupid, definitely, and it can absolutely cause tension and conflict. But it isn't necessarily hate.

My grandfather saw marrying outside of one's race as a sin. It was a stupid position in my view, and in the view of my mom and stepdad.

My grandfather also viewed adultery as a sin. One of his best friends cheated on his wife, and they got divorced. Somehow, crazy as this might seem to those of you who are more invested in hatred toward christianity than in actually understanding other people's perspective... he never hated his friend, even though he saw his actions as sinful.

Me living with my spouse before we got married is also something he viewed as a sin. And I know that some of you can't manage to comprehend that viewing something as sinful doesn't mean you hate the person who did it, but yeah - my grandpa never hated me nor my husband.

I’m sorry but declaring that marrying someone outside of your race is a sin is indeed hateful. I will qualify that as in my opinion. I am assuming that your grandfather was a member of a Christian faith—and Jesus never claimed that it was sinful or against God or against Jesus’ teaching to only marry within your own race.

Let ok, I get it. I grew up Southern Baptist-adjacent. I could never bring myself to be baptized. I’ve made no secret that the grandfather I loved wasn’t just a racist but a member of the Klan ( which we did not know until adulthood, long after he had died.) I spent my entire adolescence arguing with my father about civil rights and racial equality. I never told anybody about the person who tried to rape me because his family was religious and mine was not ( plus a lot of complicated family reasons—it would have blown up important family relationships, for starters). My father’s third(!!!) wife told me, years after my dad was dead that he never thought my marriage would last. Because we had lived in sin and I was pregnant when we got married. This was not a secret to me, although my father never said it to me. But it was clear that to him, I was a fallen woman that no decent man could truly respect. The kicker is that of all of our siblings between me and my husband, we’re the only ones still married. And what I have never told my father’s widow is that if he hadn’t gotten so ill, he’d have divorced her just as he did his other two wives. I love her, but she’s pretty damn racist as well, which is especially difficult because one of her granddaughters is the mother of five kids, three of whom by a black man and she’s never married either of the fathers of her children. Those are just a few high points.

I loved all of those people but they were racist as fuck. My deep and profound respect for them for succeeding despite some pretty big obstacles does not mean I didn’t view them as racist. Indeed, I deeply loved them and am extremely grateful to them and have a great deal of admiration for them. But that does not blind me to the fact that they viewed non-white people as inferior—a view central to racism.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are what you claim to hate.

Trump called people that voted against him "vermin" and said he "hates" his opponents.

That doesn't counter my post at all, you know.

The irony is that you don't make a peep when Trump does it.

If Trump decides to post here, I will give him an earful.

Are you guys all not getting this? I'm calling you guys out for being sanguine about inflammatory language and inciteful rhetoric. I'm lecturing you for being seemingly okay with instigation from the people that you yourselves express support for.

I haven't called out AOC for saying stupid shit, or Maxine Walters, or even Trump. They all say stupid shit, and I'd love it if they would knock it the fuck off. But I'm not interacting with any of them - I'm interacting with you.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are what you claim to hate.

Trump called people that voted against him "vermin" and said he "hates" his opponents.

That doesn't counter my post at all, you know.

The irony is that you don't make a peep when Trump does it.

All I see from these people is tone-policing the left. They never do any tone-policing of the right.

If any rightists start posting here saying vile things, I'll tone police them too.

 

[Politesse]

You are what you claim to hate.

Trump called people that voted against him "vermin" and said he "hates" his opponents.

That doesn't counter my post at all, you know.

The irony is that you don't make a peep when Trump does it.

All I see from these people is tone-policing the left. They never do any tone-policing of the right.

If any rightists start posting here saying vile things, I'll tone police them too.

Like that it's wrong to unfairly tar someone's reputation by saying they "raped" a woman, when they only used their fingers to violate her?

 

[Politesse]

That's called intersex, not transgender.

So (A) it's all in their mind.

It would be best not to confuse the two situations,

So keep it simple. (A) or (B), yes or no.
That's the problem.

An 'identity' would be Superman or Clark Kent. But just one physical person.
Your identity is your problem, nobody else gives a shit.
Nobody ever talks about intersex, but that's a physical reality. That, I could have sympathy for.
I have no sympathy for folks who think they are in the wrong body. That is just woo. Don't insist I agree with your beliefs.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Believe it or not, the mind is in fact a body part.

Which is why anorexics are actually for realsies fat, and we should all be affirming their identities and pitching in for their weight loss programs.

How does that follow from the mind being a part of the body? Eating disorders are living proof that minds do not exist in isolation, nor only approachable through humanistic mysticism.

Which you'd realize, if you were thinking for half a second instead of just bleating out PragerU aphorisms about attack helicopters, gender fluids, and anorexia. I know you have a brain, use it for once! Letting someone else talk through you is unbecoming of any literate person.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are what you claim to hate.

Trump called people that voted against him "vermin" and said he "hates" his opponents.

That doesn't counter my post at all, you know.

The irony is that you don't make a peep when Trump does it.

All I see from these people is tone-policing the left. They never do any tone-policing of the right.

If any rightists start posting here saying vile things, I'll tone police them too.

Like that it's wrong to unfairly tar someone's reputation by saying they "raped" a woman, when they only used their fingers to violate her?

What on earth does this have to do with anything in this thread?

 

[Emily Lake]

That's called intersex, not transgender.

So (A) it's all in their mind.

It would be best not to confuse the two situations,

So keep it simple. (A) or (B), yes or no.
That's the problem.

An 'identity' would be Superman or Clark Kent. But just one physical person.
Your identity is your problem, nobody else gives a shit.
Nobody ever talks about intersex, but that's a physical reality. That, I could have sympathy for.
I have no sympathy for folks who think they are in the wrong body. That is just woo. Don't insist I agree with your beliefs.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Believe it or not, the mind is in fact a body part.

Which is why anorexics are actually for realsies fat, and we should all be affirming their identities and pitching in for their weight loss programs.

How does that follow from the mind being a part of the body? Eating disorders are living proof that minds do not exist in isolation, nor only approachable through humanistic mysticism.

Which you'd realize, if you were thinking for half a second instead of just bleating out PragerU aphorisms about attack helicopters, gender fluids, and anorexia. I know you have a brain, use it for once! Letting someone else talk through you is unbecoming of any literate person.

The brain is a part of the body, but the mind is not greater than the body. And brains lie all the time. Like a LOT. But somehow, we're all supposed to surrender our boundaries because some people insist that their minds have a magical essence that makes them the opposite sex so now they can get their dicks out in front of nonconsenting women.

What a person adopts as their psychological identity (as opposed to observable identifiers) doesn't alter reality, and it certainly doesn't supplant the reality that everyone else observes.

Gender identity is unverifiable, subjective, and is almost always based on regressive stereotypes about the opposite sex. I genuinely, sincerely do not care what anyone's gender identity is for them. It's irrelevant to me, and it should be irrelevant to everyone. I do, however, very much care about those few areas of life where sex - actual real objective sex - matters. And I very strongly object to giving males of the species a legal right to violate women's boundaries on the basis of their unverifiable, subjective feelings about what they wish they were but aren't.

Happy to extend the sizing options for clothing and shoes. Not willing to let free-swinging penises in my showers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get Charlie Kirk was a dick, but this derail seems a bit too literal

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi.

Well, not after they lost the war. If it becomes safe to fly the flag again without losing their job, many will fly it just as proudly as they fly the "Confederate flag" now.

Yeah, they just find a new name with the same core behaviors and slightly different window dressing.

It's also one of the reasons that the easiest way to spot them is to spot the political groups whose names do not actually match their behavior, or which have names associated with nationalism and/or populism, while espousing "smaller*" government.

If you find the people seeking to hit social spending, or advocating to make certain human conditions criminal or regulated, completely agnostic to the behavior of the person with that condition, the those people are likely Nazis too.

As it is, Nazis, when they start to precipitate into power within a society, share a number of bedfellows who I will also call Nazis.

These "Nazi bedfellows" will in any era include a large number of false "free people", who believe they value justice and freedom and independence of thought, but whose values in practice skew towards "trains running on time" and re-instating conservative policies according to biases trained into them by religious and cultural sources.

These are, in fact, the majority of Nazis, like the soil in which the roots of the toxic plant of fascist government grows.

The fact is, of you don't want Nazis in your country, you will not be the fertile soil for this.

If you hate Nazis, really, if you want to be remembered not as an individual but as part of a *sort* of individual, as an instance of something we can count on next time, then today you will show that you can reject the comforts and the utilities of the trains running on time because you are one of those who will ultimately blow up the tracks before they can carry trains of people. Name those Nazis as what they are, and speak the words into history necessary to make the next instance of you who reads the words in the next cycle and understand before things get so out of hand as you let them get here.

MAGA are Nazis.

Those who pretend "MAGA" isn't "Nazis" are cheeky Nazis.

Your entire post boils down to "conservatives are nazis, we should make sure that there are no conservatives"

You strenuously object whenever someone boils down your posts to their view of its essence. In this case, the fuel for your boiling is the erroneous conflation of conservative with MAGA. There are plenty of conservatives who did not and do not support Trump.

I know it's difficult to parse, but perhaps you might try reading all of Jarhyn's post?

I did. Your boiled essence is pure balderdash. There is no mention of conservatives. Maybe you should take your own advice. I repeat - there are plenty of conservatives who are not MAGA.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The thing is few would actually admit to being a Nazi.

Well, not after they lost the war. If it becomes safe to fly the flag again without losing their job, many will fly it just as proudly as they fly the "Confederate flag" now.

Yeah, they just find a new name with the same core behaviors and slightly different window dressing.

It's also one of the reasons that the easiest way to spot them is to spot the political groups whose names do not actually match their behavior, or which have names associated with nationalism and/or populism, while espousing "smaller*" government.

If you find the people seeking to hit social spending, or advocating to make certain human conditions criminal or regulated, completely agnostic to the behavior of the person with that condition, the those people are likely Nazis too.

As it is, Nazis, when they start to precipitate into power within a society, share a number of bedfellows who I will also call Nazis.

These "Nazi bedfellows" will in any era include a large number of false "free people", who believe they value justice and freedom and independence of thought, but whose values in practice skew towards "trains running on time" and re-instating conservative policies according to biases trained into them by religious and cultural sources.

These are, in fact, the majority of Nazis, like the soil in which the roots of the toxic plant of fascist government grows.

The fact is, of you don't want Nazis in your country, you will not be the fertile soil for this.

If you hate Nazis, really, if you want to be remembered not as an individual but as part of a *sort* of individual, as an instance of something we can count on next time, then today you will show that you can reject the comforts and the utilities of the trains running on time because you are one of those who will ultimately blow up the tracks before they can carry trains of people. Name those Nazis as what they are, and speak the words into history necessary to make the next instance of you who reads the words in the next cycle and understand before things get so out of hand as you let them get here.

MAGA are Nazis.

Those who pretend "MAGA" isn't "Nazis" are cheeky Nazis.

Your entire post boils down to "conservatives are nazis, we should make sure that there are no conservatives"

You strenuously object whenever someone boils down your posts to their view of its essence. In this case, the fuel for your boiling is the erroneous conflation of conservative with MAGA. There are plenty of conservatives who did not and do not support Trump.

I know it's difficult to parse, but perhaps you might try reading all of Jarhyn's post?

I did. Your boiled essence is pure balderdash. There is no mention of conservatives. Maybe you should take your own advice. I repeat - there are plenty of conservatives who are not MAGA.

There are plenty. Clearly they're not motivated enough to take over their party though.

 

[southernhybrid]

The thing that girls and women need to learn is how to stand up to bullies.

Yeah, all those women who are sexually assaulted and raped every year, they just need to learn how to stand up to their attackers. It's their own fault for not being strong enough.

I never said it was their fault. I said that all of us women need to learn how to stand up to bullies because in the majority of cases it weakens the bully and stop his aggression. Look at Trump for example. All of those who have stood up to him are doing better compared to those who gave in to his demands. Once you give in to a bully, they want more and more and more. I wan't only talking about sexual assault. I was talking about all kinds of bullying. My late father never tried to sexually assault his daughters, but he was a bully and I'm the one who stood up to him and told him off. It worked. It worked when I shamed the man who threatened to rape me. It worked when I've told nasty doctors off etc. It might not always work, but it's the best defense we women have, so we can at least learn or train ourselves to do that. We can also take self defense courses. I've never done that but one is offered at our senior center. There are many things women can to do to help us stay safe.

I recall when one of my female high school teachers told us that the one thing a bad man is afraid of is a bad woman. She told us how she had scared off a man who had threatened to assault her. I don't remember all of the details as I was in high school in the mid 60s, but what she told us had a lot of truth in it.

No offense Emily, but you often have a way of misinterpreting what another posters writes. Of course, it's never the woman's fault if someone attacks her. I'm just encouraging us all to learn how to ward off the bullies, as it usually works. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Elixir]

all those women who are sexually assaulted and raped every year, they just need to learn how to stand up to their attackers.

Wouldn't hurt* if they did.
*Except possibly the attacker.
If Trump had been kicked in the balls then kneed in the teeth by one of his victims early on, it might well have been his last victim.
Males who physically attack females are typically cowards.

But yeah - it's very true that guys shouldn't attack women. So lets try to change the eons of habitual behavior by males that is born of sexual dimorphism. Good luck with that. It's the same conditioning that keeps most women from kicking attackers in the balls and kneeing them in the teeth.