Drag Shows

[ZiprHead]

Death threat made against Mount Gambier Library staff over drag queen book reading

Police say a death threat has been made against staff at the Mount Gambier Library over hosting a drag queen who is set to read books to "children of all ages" on Saturday.

www.abc.net.au

Police say a death threat has been made against staff at the Mount Gambier Library over hosting a drag queen who is set to read books to "children of all ages" on Saturday.

Dolly Diamond's book reading has garnered controversy in the city in South Australia's south-east ahead of her show, part of the Mount Gambier Fringe.

Similar book readings have attracted protests in the US over the past few months, as well as interstate.

An SA Police spokesman said officers would be "monitoring the community event".

Books she is planning to read include Pig in a Wig, My Unicorn Farts Glitter, Macca the Alpaca, and Morris the Mole.

I love it that there's a book called "My Unicorn Farts Glitter".

 

[ZiprHead]

Undercover agents saw nothing ‘lewd’ at Orlando drag show. Florida is going after venue anyway Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article273247175.html#storylink=cpy

When the historic Plaza Live theater in Orlando hosted an event last December called “A Drag Queen Christmas,” the show drew a full house, noisy street demonstrators — and a small squad of undercover state agents there to document whether children were being exposed to sights that ran afoul of Florida’s decency law. The Dec. 28 performance featured campy skits like “Screwdolph the Red-Nippled Man Deer” and shimmying, bare-chested men who wouldn’t have been out of place at a Madonna concert. Also a hip thrust or two, similar to what is sometimes indulged in by NFL players after a touchdown. All of it was dutifully recorded by the undercover agents on state-issued iPhones. But while the agents took photos of three minors at the Orlando drag show — who appeared to be accompanied by adults — they acknowledged that nothing indecent had happened on stage, according to an incident report obtained exclusively by the Miami Herald.

“Besides some of the outfits being provocative (bikinis and short shorts), agents did not witness any lewd acts such as exposure of genital organs,” the brief report stated. “The performers did not have any physical contact while performing to the rhythm of the music with any patrons.” Army vet, charity fundraiser tell lawmakers why their drag shows shouldn’t be restricted Still, the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation proceeded to file a complaint against the nonprofit that runs Plaza Live, claiming the venue had illegally exposed children to sexual content. The complaint, issued Feb. 3, seeks to strip the small, nonprofit theater of its liquor license — a serious blow that would likely put it out of business. It’s all part of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ statewide crackdown on drag shows, which could escalate further as legislators draft new laws to tighten restrictions on venues that allow minors into those performances. DeSantis has said he believes “sexualized” drag shows are dangerous for kids.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

Has it occurred to you that the implicit message here is that gay men aren't really men, and that this approach excludes gay men from the fraternity of males, and relegates them to the "Other" category, which includes women?

It's pretty much "Well, you're not manly enough to be a man, you're no better than a woman".

 

[Jarhyn]

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

Has it occurred to you that the implicit message here is that gay men aren't really men, and that this approach excludes gay men from the fraternity of males, and relegates them to the "Other" category, which includes women?

It's pretty much "Well, you're not manly enough to be a man, you're no better than a woman".

That effect is created, Tinkerbell style, from such suggestions. Not only do you deny magic, you bring it forth in the form of a vile curse, made true in some part by it's mere hearing.

You are filling in, and making those statements. You Emily Lake, are planting a seed of "you are not manly enough".

It's exactly the sort of essentialism I expected from you though.

You could say exactly the same thing as a description of the consequences of being fucked by a man at all, penis or no.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

Principal resigns after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue

One Florida parent complained Michelangelo's iconic statue amounted to pornography.

www.bbc.com

I think Americans have lost their right to judge what is lewd or not. They clearly can't be trusted to make these kinds of judgements.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

Has it occurred to you that the implicit message here is that gay men aren't really men, and that this approach excludes gay men from the fraternity of males, and relegates them to the "Other" category, which includes women?

It's pretty much "Well, you're not manly enough to be a man, you're no better than a woman".

The sooner we get away from the postmodern fantasy of men and women being equal the better. We have different rules for behaviour for men and women. It's not that one is superior to the other, or worth more. It's simply two different sets of expectations and standards.

We don't worry about women molesting men at parties. Men aren't likely to get upset. And women aren't likely to do it.

Gay men behave differently than straight men. I'm not saying they're like women. They're not. But they are more feminine, on average than straight men. We all know it. Why pretend it's not so?

Annecdote: Or as a gay friend of mine once said, when I asked him about the pictures of him hanging out with Rhianna all night after a Stockholm concert afterparty, "I played the gay card". We both know what that meant. He went full flaming queen when meeting her, and when seen as feminine, was accurately, seen as not a threat. If he'd been a manly man he'd been identified as someone they need to keep an eye on. So he wouldn't have been welcome.

Life isn't fair for anyone and nobody can do what they want. That'll never change.

 

[Jarhyn]

The sooner we get away from the postmodern fantasy of men and women being equal the better.

Any arbitrarily selected individual may be the equal of any other arbitrarily selected individual on any arbitrarily selected category.

We have different rules for behaviour for men and women

You nor Emily have done no work to justify this difference, nor the enforcement of such rules.

t's simply two different sets of expectations and standards

And the existence of these expectations and standards is called "essentialism" and "stereotyping" and both are ethically fraught.

We don't worry about women molesting men at parties.

I do. More, I worry that essentialist viewpoints will drive folks to "apologize" for some molesters and attack others. I blame the essentialism, personally.

Gay men some people behave differently than straight men other people.

Your statement is not actually true as you originally stated. Plenty of gay people behave identically to straight people. It's called "living in the closet", and it's done because... You failed to guess it: essentialism.

Those expectations of yours can go to hell

But they are more feminine, on average than straight men

You cannot use an arbitrarily selected group's central tendency to defend any view that prioritizes observing a group's central tendency over a member's individual qualities.

The average does not inform you of the individual.

I don't know how many times I have seen a piece of media whose message has been "even if you already know the answer you still have an obligation to ask your partner about big financial decisions first". Well, this is another one of those situations.

Even if you think you know the answer, the correct behavior is to assume you do not until that answer is explicit and rendered by the person being wondered about.

To that end you may "know" someone you know has a penis, you could have a mountain of evidence, but you will still be "in the wrong" if you say to any other human that they have one. You have a responsibility to still cast doubt on what you think you know unless they told you themselves.

Hell, they could have told you, and you could STILL be in the wrong by talking about it, unless they told you it was OK.

We all know it. Why pretend it's not so?

Because it is imaginary. You have created an imaginary average through the arbitrary selection of a group and now are expecting everyone to enforce the average against that group you arbitrarily selected.

In order to know "people" you have to know individual persons. Nothing will ever liberate you from the need to not treat people as if they are stereotypes.

People will tell you how they want to be treated, individually, and then it's your job to do that. Some of those descriptions will be stereotypical. Maybe even most of them! But you have the responsibility to treat people as who they are, rather than as who others who are not them are.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is telling that there WAS a dialogue there. I posted consistently about how the desire to apply stereotype to enforce expectations on members based on group actions is wrong, and detailed several places where Dr. Z explicitly did that.

I provide plenty of strong principles and evidence, from disassembling viewpoints which are informed purely through selection biases, to the mistake of inverting group statistics onto individuals.

These are not "extreme", and the only failure of dialogue is the failure of Dr. Z to read and accept the plain fact that their dialogue is about trying to justify stereotyping people and enshrining laws that assist in doing so.

All I have asked is that Dr Z treat people as individuals, and they responded with We all know [the stereotype]. Why pretend [the stereotype]'s not so?

Because it's a fucking stereotype, not actual information about individuals.

On that note, @Swammerdami, I have a math question for you.

Assume that I have a population average of 2 on a population of 3. Assuming that members have a fixed set of states 1, 2, 3, there are a number of different populations which create this average, namely 1, 2, 3, and 2, 2, 2. The question is this: what do I need to calculate as a minimum to result with a single number and "an average of the remaining two", ie what work is REQUIRED to get from "2, 3", to any single one of "1,2.5", "2,2", or "3,1.5" as a removed member and the average of the remaining members respectively?

Why do I ask this weird question? Because I suspect that it is the case that you cannot even imagine a single member of a population from knowing about the population without discussing the individuals in the group.

Group averages are useless in addressing individuals. Worse than useless, even.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

Has it occurred to you that the implicit message here is that gay men aren't really men, and that this approach excludes gay men from the fraternity of males, and relegates them to the "Other" category, which includes women?

It's pretty much "Well, you're not manly enough to be a man, you're no better than a woman".

That effect is created, Tinkerbell style, from such suggestions. Not only do you deny magic, you bring it forth in the form of a vile curse, made true in some part by it's mere hearing.

Honestly, this is absurd. Are you seriously taking the position that magic is real, and somehow attacking me for not accepting your made up bullshit? Take thee to church with that bullshit.

You are filling in, and making those statements. You Emily Lake, are planting a seed of "you are not manly enough".

It's exactly the sort of essentialism I expected from you though.

You could say exactly the same thing as a description of the consequences of being fucked by a man at all, penis or no.

Seriously, are you even on the same planet as the rest of us anymore?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, this is absurd. Are you seriously taking the position that magic is real, and somehow attacking me for not accepting your made up bullshit? Take thee to church with that bullshit.

LoL, I'm mocking you for actually using a principle of manifestation, after you mocked principles of manifestation.

It is not absurd to point out that the thing which CREATES questions of masculinity over person's conduct is exactly the questioning of whether such conduct brings question on masculinity, where nobody cared hence.

It is exactly the sort of thing that the magical thinker calls "curse" and you just presented it whole cloth.

You presented the paradigm, the system of emotional thought which if read by someone who respects you as any sort of authority, would be encoded as such a question.

I cannot imagine you are ignorant of the ability to cast doubt on something merely by questioning whether doubt should be cast.

It is neither plausibly deniable, though, or acceptable, especially since as we have discussed, the rules of 'masculinity' were made up!

It's not quite textbook JAQing you did, but it's definitely in the neighborhood.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, this is absurd. Are you seriously taking the position that magic is real, and somehow attacking me for not accepting your made up bullshit? Take thee to church with that bullshit.

LoL, I'm mocking you for actually using a principle of manifestation, after you mocked principles of manifestation.

It is not absurd to point out that the thing which CREATES questions of masculinity over person's conduct is exactly the questioning of whether such conduct brings question on masculinity, where nobody cared hence.

It is exactly the sort of thing that the magical thinker calls "curse" and you just presented it whole cloth.

You presented the paradigm, the system of emotional thought which if read by someone who respects you as any sort of authority, would be encoded as such a question.

I cannot imagine you are ignorant of the ability to cast doubt on something merely by questioning whether doubt should be cast.

It is neither plausibly deniable, though, or acceptable, especially since as we have discussed, the rules of 'masculinity' were made up!

It's not quite textbook JAQing you did, but it's definitely in the neighborhood.

This is... word salad.

 

[TSwizzle]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, this is absurd. Are you seriously taking the position that magic is real, and somehow attacking me for not accepting your made up bullshit? Take thee to church with that bullshit.

LoL, I'm mocking you for actually using a principle of manifestation, after you mocked principles of manifestation.

It is not absurd to point out that the thing which CREATES questions of masculinity over person's conduct is exactly the questioning of whether such conduct brings question on masculinity, where nobody cared hence.

It is exactly the sort of thing that the magical thinker calls "curse" and you just presented it whole cloth.

You presented the paradigm, the system of emotional thought which if read by someone who respects you as any sort of authority, would be encoded as such a question.

I cannot imagine you are ignorant of the ability to cast doubt on something merely by questioning whether doubt should be cast.

It is neither plausibly deniable, though, or acceptable, especially since as we have discussed, the rules of 'masculinity' were made up!

It's not quite textbook JAQing you did, but it's definitely in the neighborhood.

This is... word salad.

No, you just don't know how to eat a complicated meal, or what to do with all the forks.

Sometimes you need to take your time, sit down, and read words with care.

You created the question against masculinity by speaking it, by asking it, plain and simple.

This is known as "The Tinkerbell Effect". Google it if you don't believe me.

Doing so by "just asking a question" is Just Asking Questions or "JAQing". Then I criticized the quality of faith you have in your own rhetoric in the knowledge that there is no way I can see you not knowing. I find myself incredulous of the idea.

This should banish all doubt however, and either you continue which indicates bad faith, or you cease, apologize, quit making vapid dismissals on accusations of "word salad" and actually take the time to figure out parts that you have a hard time with.

 

[ZiprHead]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

She was told she would be fired if she didn't resign.

Yes, there is more. Just not to your eyes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Enemies of the State

 

[DrZoidberg]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

Perhaps she resigned for "family reasons"?

Resigned means fired in this world

 

[TSwizzle]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

Perhaps she resigned for "family reasons"?

Resigned means fired in this world

Perhaps she was shit at her job, got fired and runs around claiming she was forced to resign.

The BBC is being a bit click-baity in their reporting in my opinion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

Perhaps she resigned for "family reasons"?

Resigned means fired in this world

Perhaps she was shit at her job, got fired and runs around claiming she was forced to resign.

The BBC is being a bit click-baity in their reporting in my opinion.

here's your favorite source:

Parents complain Michelangelo's David is 'pornographic'

Hope Carrasquilla was pushed out of Tallahassee Classical School after three parents complained that their kids were 'upset' by Michelangelo's David, the world's most famous sculpture.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DrZoidberg]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

Perhaps she resigned for "family reasons"?

Resigned means fired in this world

Perhaps she was shit at her job, got fired and runs around claiming she was forced to resign.

The BBC is being a bit click-baity in their reporting in my opinion.

You have the oddest evaluation of which news sources to trust. It's like you only trust sources we know are bullshit.

 

[Toni]

In other news a principal was fired for letting students see the statue of David. Uncultured heathen barbarians.

It says in the headline she resigned. The BBC report is only her side of the story;

Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson. They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?

Perhaps she resigned for "family reasons"?

Resigned means fired in this world

Maybe in your world but I’ve resigned a from a number of jobs—my idea because I was ready to move on. I’ve never been fired.