Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

bilby · Wednesday at 1:47 PM

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Derec · Wednesday at 1:48 PM

GenesisNemesis said:
Nope. There's no objective measure of who is on any part of the political spectrum,

The political spectrum is indeed a crude measure at best. The two-dimensional political compass is better, but still not perfect.

but as far as I can tell conservatives tend to believe highly in nationalism "'Murica is greatest country in the world!" (and whatnot),

They indeed do go overboard, but then again, the fauxgressives go overboard in the opposite direction about how horrible US is. Oh, and I have only ever seen "Murika" used by the left (Elixir is very fond of it for example).

a traditionalist belief system (blue hair is bad and scary!),

The hair thing is used to mock stereotypical features of a certain kind of fauxgressive. And likewise, fauxgressives will often mock conservatives for their stereotypical features like, I don't know, oversized pickup trucks.

"strong borders" (gubmit can do whatever they want to them illegals! And whatnot),

I think strong borders are important for a sovereign country. I can still object to things like sanctuary cities and "catch and release" and a the same time object to how Trump's ICE is going about enforcing immigration laws.

being "tough on crime" (i.e. basically allowing cops to do whatever the fuck they want),

Again, being a moderate independent, I see it in a more nuanced way. Cops should obviously not be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. Not even conservatives advocate that. They do advocate criminalizing too many things though.
I am for smart approach to crime. On serious crimes we need to be tougher. Especially for teenagers who in many cases face hardly any consequences even for things like carjackings.
4 teens released to parents after arrest for carjacking in northeast Baltimore

CBS News said:
Around 12:45 p.m., officials found the [carjacked] vehicle in the 5400 block of York Road where they arrested a 15-year-old girl and three 15-year-old boys.
The three boys are not strangers to law enforcement and have prior handgun violation, burglary and aggravated assault arrests, according to police.
Officers took all four teens to the Juvenile Justice Center where they were released to the custody of their parents, police said.

You don't have to be a conservative to find soft-on-crime policies like this idiotic.
But there are too many things made illegal that should not be. I am also in favor of bail reform, as long as it is implemented well. The NY law was definitely not a good one. It forbade judges from imposing bail or jail even when the suspect is arrested over and over again, which career criminals then use to maximum effect. The NY law also forbids judges from considering danger to community as a factor in bail/jail decisions.

to name a few things that can make a "conservative" a conservative.

All of these issues have extreme fauxgressive and conservative positions, but also a wide range of moderate positions in between the extremes.

Jarhyn · Wednesday at 2:10 PM

Loren Pechtel said:
crazyfingers said:

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Click to expand...

Exactly where I stand. How does it harm me? Yeah, a guy tried to pick me up once. So what? It is something that should be disclosed promptly in romantic situations, otherwise it's a total so-what. You want something illegal, either show me the victim(s) or the undue risk of victims. That someone finds the implied or stated message offensive is not enough. That it causes questions that make parents squirm is not enough.

Imagine for a moment that someone "changing genders" consequentially means that 1: they are very much already neuro-atypical; 2: the probably aren't taking risks of any new family happening from their sexual liasons.

These two populations intersect to create a powerful economic potential that can elevate while families and segments of society, like a spear to penetrate whatever ceiling of reproductive behaviors create between the poor and the wealthy.

If you are wealthy and you hate the poor as the wealthy do often, then you ARE harmed by them. They are a cheat code for a genetic system to divide and conquer the problem of success and child rearing unto success.

Politesse · Wednesday at 2:14 PM

bilby said:
Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

Derec · Wednesday at 2:25 PM

Toni said:
If a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a waitress because she can earn more money in Germany than she can in Poland but instead is forced into working as a prostitute, it's trafficking. Period.

[Emphasis added]
Prohibitionist studies you are so fond of quoting define "trafficking" as any moving for purposes of sex work, even if voluntary and autonomous.
"Human Trafficking" Has Become a Meaningless Term

If a 15 year old run away is taken under the wing of an older person, who cares for them and provides them something like a home: roof, food, and then begins to pressure them into having sex with a friend because 'they need the money' and it turns into a regular thing, then, that's trafficking. And in the US, illegal as a 15 year old cannot legally consent to sex work.

And nobody here is advocating for that. But that is not a reason to criminalize consensual sex work, or to pretend that consensual adult sex workers are all victims without agency, and who should not have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Derec · Wednesday at 2:36 PM

Loren Pechtel said:
Many of us do not think it's being remotely expansive, but rather that you are not recognizing the signs.

That may apply now, but the fact is that "fascist" has been thrown around for so long and so carelessly, it may be a "boy who cried wolf" type of thing.

The Republicans use more hidden language but they aren't too far behind Islam. We have major Republicans saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Which major Republicans?

We have some saying birth control should be outlawed--you shouldn't be having sex if you're not open to a baby. We have some who say all abortions should be prohibited. "Medical reasons" are always just an excuse to let the slut escape her punishment, there are no medical reasons. And we have that legislator in Florida who objects to the left's scare tactics about what an abortion ban means interfering with her getting an abortion for her ectopic pregnancy.

All bad things for sure, but nothing like actual Taliban banning girls from going to schools or rescuers from touching (and thus rescuing) women after an earthquake.

And when you hang a "pig" sign on a cow you can get bacon.

Technically, there is halal beef bacon.

laughing dog · Wednesday at 3:15 PM

thebeave said:
crazyfingers said:

ZiprHead said:

Click to expand...

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? There is no hate expressed by CK or RG with reference to people changing their genders.

CK ironically calls lots of people sick which is hateful.

But to his credit, he didn’t murder a puppy because he was embarrassed by its behavior.

Toni · Wednesday at 3:19 PM

Derec said:
Toni said:

If a Polish woman moves to Germany to work as a waitress because she can earn more money in Germany than she can in Poland but instead is forced into working as a prostitute, it's trafficking. Period.

Click to expand...

[Emphasis added]
Prohibitionist studies you are so fond of quoting define "trafficking" as any moving for purposes of sex work, even if voluntary and autonomous.
"Human Trafficking" Has Become a Meaningless Term

If a 15 year old run away is taken under the wing of an older person, who cares for them and provides them something like a home: roof, food, and then begins to pressure them into having sex with a friend because 'they need the money' and it turns into a regular thing, then, that's trafficking. And in the US, illegal as a 15 year old cannot legally consent to sex work.

Click to expand...

And nobody here is advocating for that. But that is not a reason to criminalize consensual sex work, or to pretend that consensual adult sex workers are all victims without agency, and who should not have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Again, my problem with legalized prostitution is that it doesn’t satisfy the demand and in fact creates a demand for illegal stuff—too young, or to take risks that no one should have to take: sex without a condom and threats of violence which still exist even with legalization, and wage theft that can amount to slavery.

I know that is not what you are advocating. I’m just saying that it doesn’t remove the problems associated with criminalized sex work ( minus being arrested for prostitution). I’m certain there are sex workers who do not suffer these harms but many do, even in legalized settings.

Toni · Wednesday at 3:23 PM

laughing dog said:
thebeave said:

crazyfingers said:

ZiprHead said:

Click to expand...

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? There is no hate expressed by CK or RG with reference to people changing their genders.

Click to expand...

CK ironically calls lots of people sick which is hateful.

I was unaware that women sat around and did nothing. I don’t know for certain what Kirk meant by ‘taking care of things the way we used to in the 50’s and 60’s means’ to Kirk, who was not a well educated person, but if sounds very much as though he’s alluding to lynchings and dogs and fire hoses and cross burnings used to suppress especially black people.

crazyfingers · Wednesday at 3:52 PM

Toni said:
laughing dog said:

thebeave said:

crazyfingers said:

ZiprHead said:

Click to expand...

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? There is no hate expressed by CK or RG with reference to people changing their genders.

Click to expand...

CK ironically calls lots of people sick which is hateful.

Click to expand...

I was unaware that women sat around and did nothing. I don’t know for certain what Kirk meant by ‘taking care of things the way we used to in the 50’s and 60’s means’ to Kirk, who was not a well educated person, but if sounds very much as though he’s alluding to lynchings and dogs and fire hoses and cross burnings used to suppress especially black people.

I don't know how a reasonably well informed person would interpret his comment except exactly as you describe.

Elixir · Wednesday at 4:01 PM

I was unaware that women sat around and did nothing. I don’t know for certain what Kirk meant by ‘taking care of things the way we used to in the 50’s and 60’s means’ to Kirk

Maybe something like this?

crazyfingers · Wednesday at 4:36 PM

Elixir said:
I was unaware that women sat around and did nothing. I don’t know for certain what Kirk meant by ‘taking care of things the way we used to in the 50’s and 60’s means’ to Kirk

Click to expand...

Maybe something like this?

View attachment 52206

Ha.

My grandma is in this picture. But I think that it's from the 1930's or 1940's. There were lynching and cross burnings, etc.. then too.

crazyfingers · Wednesday at 4:59 PM

I believe that Trump's using incendiary speech to provoke violence. At what point does his incendiary speech create a clear and present danger and warrant prosecution? He is trying to create violence. I'd say it already warrants impeachment.

thebeave · Wednesday at 5:10 PM

Elixir said:
I was unaware that women sat around and did nothing. I don’t know for certain what Kirk meant by ‘taking care of things the way we used to in the 50’s and 60’s means’ to Kirk

Click to expand...

Maybe something like this?

View attachment 52206

My mom was in a women's sewing group like that. They called it "stitch and bitch".

Loren Pechtel · Wednesday at 5:29 PM

Elixir said:
Loren Pechtel said:

"trafficking" is vastly overreported,

Click to expand...

Source please.
And how do you/they know how much trafficking is NEVER reported, if it was never reported?
I suspect the opposite is true and trafficking is VASTLY underreported, but I look forward to learning novel ways to know things like that.
I believe that some - maybe even most reported trafficking might be fuzzily defined as prostitution or not depending on venue and other things, but you are making a straightforward assertion that you KNOW how much trafficking goes unreported.
What makes you say that?

It's vastly overreported because most "trafficking" busts are just prostitution.

Loren Pechtel · Wednesday at 5:45 PM

Derec said:
Again, how do you define "pimp"? Just because sex workers work in an establishment does not mean they are there against their will. And many "anti-pimping" laws apply to people employed by the sex worker too, not the other way around.

Simple test: Is the compensation fair? I have seen repeated criticism that the Nevada brothels are very unfair because the cost is 50%. But various other personal service professions have similar costs. Some places have 50% gets you a workstation with the fixed tools for things like massage, hair, nails and the like.

(And it's not that I like prostitution--it's one of these things I think causes less harm legalized.)

Toni · Wednesday at 5:47 PM

Traditionally, a woman never sat idle. If all the cooking, washing, child minding and laundry was done, she might have a bit it time to sit. That was occupied by mending and knitting and darning socks or, if she was lucky, decorative needle work.

Loren Pechtel · Wednesday at 5:57 PM

Derec said:
You don't have to be a conservative to find soft-on-crime policies like this idiotic.
But there are too many things made illegal that should not be. I am also in favor of bail reform, as long as it is implemented well. The NY law was definitely not a good one. It forbade judges from imposing bail or jail even when the suspect is arrested over and over again, which career criminals then use to maximum effect. The NY law also forbids judges from considering danger to community as a factor in bail/jail decisions.

While I agree on multiple arrests note that "tough" on crime often makes things worse. Especially with drugs.

Note that the bail problem is actually a symptom of a deeper problem: being held in jail prior to trial had actually become the primary punishment for many lesser crimes--by the time they were tried they were sentenced to time served. This is very bad for society, it means the innocent who get scooped up along with the guilty likely face a higher punishment (because they won't plead to something they didn't do) than the guilty who will likely plead and if they don't they still likely end up with no more time behind bars. Bail reform removed this huge pressure to take a plea and exposed the fact that the system can't actually handle that many cases. The answer is not to throw out bail reform (although I do think repeat offenders need to be handled differently) but to fix the rest of the system.

Loren Pechtel · Wednesday at 5:58 PM

Jarhyn said:
Loren Pechtel said:

crazyfingers said:

I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape and so hateful that some people change their genders.

Same as back in the 1980's when I became aware that gay people existed.

Back then my attitude was, OK. It's not a problem. Leave them alone. It's not a problem.

With trans again, OK. They changed gender. Not a problem for anyone.

I don't understand why some people get so bent about this. I have to think that these people who get bent are seriously fucked up ethically.

Click to expand...

Exactly where I stand. How does it harm me? Yeah, a guy tried to pick me up once. So what? It is something that should be disclosed promptly in romantic situations, otherwise it's a total so-what. You want something illegal, either show me the victim(s) or the undue risk of victims. That someone finds the implied or stated message offensive is not enough. That it causes questions that make parents squirm is not enough.

Click to expand...

Imagine for a moment that someone "changing genders" consequentially means that 1: they are very much already neuro-atypical; 2: the probably aren't taking risks of any new family happening from their sexual liasons.

These two populations intersect to create a powerful economic potential that can elevate while families and segments of society, like a spear to penetrate whatever ceiling of reproductive behaviors create between the poor and the wealthy.

If you are wealthy and you hate the poor as the wealthy do often, then you ARE harmed by them. They are a cheat code for a genetic system to divide and conquer the problem of success and child rearing unto success.

I do agree it means they take their genes out of the system but I don't see the cheat code unless you're talking about not being saddled with oops babies.

Loren Pechtel · Wednesday at 5:59 PM

Politesse said:
bilby said:

Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.

Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.

Click to expand...

Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.

I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Fair dinkum thinkum

Contributor

Wizard

Lux Aeterna

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Meow

Made in America

Meow

Meow

Contributor

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Contributor

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator