Is Bud Light Right And I'm Wrong?

[CJD]

(06-08-2023, 09:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, some people on the far right are thus concerned.  I highly doubt that many right leaning people would care about transgender adults at all outside of the clearly delineated points already raised.  Was there a huge backlash against Caitlyn Jenner?  Did anyone care at all about Elliot Page?  You didn't really start seeing a pushback until this started being pushed on children.  There will always be extremists, on both sides, but framing this as a solely an extremist position is disingenuous. 

 
Respectfully, I think you may be buying into the propaganda a bit here. Desire for acceptance via normalization is not the same as "pushing it on children." 

I've heard the exact same rhetoric about interracial couples on commercials "indoctrinating" people to accept the genocide of white people. 

It sounds absurd in 2023 because that group of reactionaries lost that battle.

We still see it regarding gay people as well, (it was much more common right around the legalization of gay marriage) although the current target is absolutely trans people right now. 

There will always be fringe cases where people go too far, as I said, but characterizing an entire movement based on a small number of isolated incidents is what propaganda is literally for. 

[GMDino]

(06-08-2023, 08:44 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've been to many all-ages drag shows. The queens dance, have fun and express themselves. Everyone has a good time and no one is thinking about sex, except for those that oppose drag shows. Are you equally as outraged when people take children to sporting events with "scantily clad" cheerleaders "gyrating" on the big screen for every child to see? 

It's a fear of "turning them gay" which I never understood.

Same people never have a problem with men taking their kids to Hooters. 

I saw children at a show in Cancun that left me blushing a little. 

[*pally*]

(06-08-2023, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, I've addressed this.  In the past a girl who enjoyed typically male things would have been labeled a tomboy.  Now people scramble to tell them they're trans.  That is a specific message.  Let children be children.  Let them figure things out on their own with the assistance of their loved ones.  They don't need a teacher or some other person paid to be in their lives to steer them in one direction or another.

And in the past boys who played with stereotypical girl things were called sissies or wusses.  Now most people understand that children can play with many different toys and play many different games irregardless of gender.  "Tomboys" and "Sissies" are not being told they are trans because of the games they play or the toys they play with.  I do get though that is what right wing media and politicians want you to believe in their ongoing culture war.
And as for transgenderism being diagnosed more often, well maybe because in 2023 it is no longer a dirty little secret that someone can't tell anyone about

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Allow me to address the facile analogies of these shows to things like NFL cheerleaders or Hooters. The intent of the product being consumed is rather important in this regard. No one is going to an NFL game to stare at cheerleaders. They are a peripheral piece of entertainment to fill in the large amounts of downtime during an NFL game. They are also barely visible for the average attendee. They are also not putting on a sexually charged performance less than a foot from the audience, including children, nor are they having money stuffed in their undergarments. Hooters is a bit better analogy, as there is certainly some intent inherent in going to see a woman in tight shorts and shirt. But still, your main reason for going is to eat food. Also, and again, the waitresses are not putting on a sexually charged performance and people aren't stuffing money in their undergarments.

If you take your family to the beach, they are going to see people even more scantily clad than a drag show or either of the above examples. But that's not your intent when you take your family to the beach. No father is saying to his son, hey let's go to the beach so we can ogle some nearly naked women. If that does happen then you have a parent who is more than a bit off. And again, the people on the beach are not putting on a sexually charged performance for you, nor are you stuffing money in their swimwear.

Intent matters a lot. It's the difference between walking in on your mom naked by accident and her deliberately walking into your room naked. You see the same thing in both instances, but I doubt anyone here doesn't understand the enormous difference between those two instances. Children pick up on those differences, just as they would in the example I just gave. It honestly baffles me that normally intelligent and rational people have zero issue with this.

[GMDino]

(06-09-2023, 11:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to address the facile analogies of these shows to things like NFL cheerleaders or Hooters.  The intent of the product being consumed is rather important in this regard.  No one is going to an NFL game to stare at cheerleaders.  They are a peripheral piece of entertainment to fill in the large amounts of downtime during an NFL game.  They are also barely visible for the average attendee.  They are also not putting on a sexually charged performance less than a foot from the audience, including children, nor are they having money stuffed in their undergarments.  Hooters is a bit better analogy, as there is certainly some intent inherent in going to see a woman in tight shorts and shirt.  But still, your main reason for going is to eat food.  Also, and again, the waitresses are not putting on a sexually charged performance and people aren't stuffing money in their undergarments.

If you take your family to the beach, they are going to see people even more scantily clad than a drag show or either of the above examples.  But that's not your intent when you take your family to the beach.  No father is saying to his son, hey let's go to the beach so we can ogle some nearly naked women.  If that does happen then you have a parent who is more than a bit off. And again, the people on the beach are not putting on a sexually charged performance for you, nor are you stuffing money in their swimwear.

Intent matters a lot.  It's the difference between walking in on your mom naked by accident and her deliberately walking into your room naked.  You see the same thing in both instances, but I doubt anyone here doesn't understand the enormous difference between those two instances.  Children pick up on those differences, just as they would in the example I just gave.  It honestly baffles me that normally intelligent and rational people have zero issue with this.

  
And any parent who takes their child to a "sexually charged" drag show is a "more than a bit off".   Is that happening?  Are children being forced to go to adult shows just to indoctrinate them?

But reading at a library?  Pfft.


People seem to have no problem with the sexualization of anything as long as it is "straight".

[Dill]

(06-08-2023, 08:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I really wish I could agree with your point, but I applaud your attempt to be evenhanded.  Certainly much more so then most of the posters here.  How many left wing speakers have been attacked or prevented from speaking at college campuses?  Now, how many right leaning speakers has this happened to?  How many gay pride parades have been attacked by groups of violent protestors?  Now, how many right leaning events/protests have been attacked by groups of violent protestors?  I literally just provided the Glendale example.

The ultimate point is, and what many people here are desperate to avoid confronting, is there is extreme bullshit going on on both ends of the ideological spectrum today.  The only difference of substance is that one side is constantly excused by the mainstream and the other side is consistently demonized, see "domestic terrorist" parents at school board meetings again.  Seriously, at the end of the day I'm going to live my life and enjoy it as best I can.  But I abhor unfairness, and today's society is rife with it, and far too many people here appear to ok with it because it aligns with their personal preferences.

Probably everyone can agree that the liberal MSM are harder on illiberal causes/actions than liberal ones. If a group of parents, incited by Fox/Newsmax disinformation, disrupts a school board meeting to get CRT out of the curriculum and stop drag shows in grade schools, the liberal media will be less "fair" than Fox or Newsmax, which incited the parents in the first place. I think it rather likely that "leftists" have a much greater "free speech" risk on college campuses, and the threat goes all the way to hiring and firing. 

That said, it still seems to me that we hear a lot more in the MSM about right wing speakers being "silenced" than about left wing professors losing their jobs because the right wing speakers cancelled are usually the same group of provocateurs--including Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannapoulus--think of the latter's infamous "Dangerous ****** Tour." https://medium.com/informed-and-engaged/campus-speech-protests-dont-only-target-conservatives-though-they-frequently-target-the-same-few-bda3105ad347  So that's more an effect of deliberate trolling than substantive evidence that free speech is under siege on college campuses now more than it was in the 80s or 90s. What we do see is that minorities and others previously without voices finally have some say. 

As far as actual, ideologically motivated violence goes, there was an interesting study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year. I'm quoting a few paragraphs from the conclusion of the study, which does not present itself as definitive but working in an area in which there is still too little data for comfortable conclusions.

A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119  July 18, 2022

First, data on extremists in the United States showed that left-wing radicals were less likely to use violence than right-wing and Islamist radicals. Second, using worldwide data we found that in comparison to right-wing and Islamist groups, attacks motivated by left-wing groups were less deadly. These substantive conclusions were not affected by the inclusion of a set of control variables. Thus, the main findings appear to be robust across levels of analysis (i.e., individuals, groups) and geographical scope of the data.

Our results are in line with past research showing that conservative ideology—represented in our datasets by both right-wing and Islamist causes—is positively related to violent political behavior. These results support the view that left-wing and right-wing extremists are not equivalent when it comes to the use of violence (48; see also [49] for related findings on the victims of hate crimes in the United States). Whereas our findings are not inconsistent with the idea that individuals espousing different ideologies may feel equally negative toward worldview-threatening others (50), they suggest that the social consequences of extreme right-wing hostility may be more harmful than those caused by the far left (see [50] for a similar point).

These findings do make sense though, if one agrees with this statement from their review of previous research. 

In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies. In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 11:27 AM)GMDino Wrote:   
And any parent who takes their child to a "sexually charged" drag show is a "more than a bit off".   Is that happening?

Uhh, yeah.  That's what we've been talking about.

Quote:Are children being forced to go to adult shows just to indoctrinate them?

That's two questions.  Are children being forced to go, of course the answer is yes.  Children have no agency, they go where their parents take them.  Are they being taken to indoctrinate them?  I suppose that would vary by the parent in question.  But to me that's not a relevant question.  I have repeatedly stated that taken a child to a sexually charged show of any kind, straight, gay, trans, whatever, is disturbing to me and it makes me question the parenting of those doing so.

Quote:But reading at a library?  Pfft.

Again, you guys love to argue against points no one is making.  I've literally not typed one word about reading to kids at a library.  I could care less about that.

Quote:People seem to have no problem with the sexualization of anything as long as it is "straight".

I've made several points in this thread to put the lie to this claim.

[GMDino]

(06-09-2023, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhh, yeah.  That's what we've been talking about.



That's two questions.  Are children being forced to go, of course the answer is yes.  Children have no agency, they go where their parents take them.  Are they being taken to indoctrinate them?  I suppose that would vary by the parent in question.  But to me that's not a relevant question.  I have repeatedly stated that taken a child to a sexually charged show of any kind, straight, gay, trans, whatever, is disturbing to me and it makes me question the parenting of those doing so.



Again, you guys love to argue against points no one is making.  I've literally not typed one word about reading to kids at a library.  I could care less about that.


I've made several points in this thread to put the lie to this claim.

I am literally asking if there are parents taking children to adult drag shows.  You said yes.  If they are taking their children to ANY show specifically designed to be "Sexual" then THAT is problem...not that drag shows of that sort exist.

No different that if a parent took their child to a prostitute to show them how to bond with a woman.  Bad parenting.

Go after the bad parents...not the performers.

However the right is passing laws to "protect children" for even knowing drag shows exist...especially at libraries.  That's why I brought it up.

You also made a point about tuck friendly underwear that was easily disproven.

[*pally*]

What is sexually charged or indoctrination about a drag queen story hour? They are literally just sitting there wearing a glittery brightly colored costume reading a preschool book to preschoolers. No different than someone wearing a Superhero or Princess costume. Little kids only see the costume not the person wearing it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 11:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: I am literally asking if there are parents taking children to adult drag shows.  You said yes.  If they are taking their children to ANY show specifically designed to be "Sexual" then THAT is problem...not that drag shows of that sort exist.

Thank you for 100% agreeing with me.

Quote:No different that if a parent took their child to a prostitute to show them how to bond with a woman.  Bad parenting.

Again, thank you for 100% agreeing with me.

Quote:Go after the bad parents...not the performers.

Now here you're veering off a bit.  I absolutely blame any adult who puts on such a performance in front of children, and I would blame any venue that allows children in to see such a show.  

Quote:However the right is passing laws to "protect children" for even knowing drag shows exist...especially at libraries.  That's why I brought it up.

True, and I don't support that.  The problem is the TGR movement demands full and unwavering support on every issue.  If you say you have zero issue with a drag queen story hour but don't think children should be attending sexually charged drag shows then you're a transphobic bigot.

Quote:You also made a point about tuck friendly underwear that was easily disproven.

No, swimsuits.  And you are correct, those are not for children.  The one's for children contain the following;

“Thoughtfully Fit on Multiple Body Types and Gender Expressions.”

[Dill]

(06-08-2023, 08:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hmm, a possible fifth option seems to have been overlooked.

5. Both sides have demons.

Why would that option elude your attention?

If, as C-Dawg suggested, each side is convinced the other is full of demons,

then your "overlooked" option "Both sides have demons" 

is synonymous with "Both sides are right"--i.e., each side is correctly described by the other as full of demons. 

So that option did not "elude" my attention.

It was the very first option.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 11:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Probably everyone can agree that the liberal MSM are harder on illiberal causes/actions than liberal ones. If a group of parents, incited by Fox/Newsmax disinformation, disrupts a school board meeting to get CRT out of the curriculum and stop drag shows in grade schools, the liberal media will be less "fair" than Fox or Newsmax, which incited the parents in the first place. I think it rather likely that "leftists" have a much greater "free speech" risk on college campuses, and the threat goes all the way to hiring and firing. 

That said, it still seems to me that we hear a lot more in the MSM about right wing speakers being "silenced" than about left wing professors losing their jobs because the right wing speakers cancelled are usually the same group of provocateurs--including Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannapoulus--think of the latter's infamous "Dangerous ****** Tour." https://medium.com/informed-and-engaged/campus-speech-protests-dont-only-target-conservatives-though-they-frequently-target-the-same-few-bda3105ad347  So that's more an effect of deliberate trolling than substantive evidence that free speech is under siege on college campuses now more than it was in the 80s or 90s. What we do see is that minorities and others previously without voices finally have some say. 

As far as actual, ideologically motivated violence goes, there was an interesting study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year. I'm quoting a few paragraphs from the conclusion of the study, which does not present itself as definitive but working in an area in which there is still too little data for comfortable conclusions.

Dill, you often give far too much information to be easily digested, or countered.  While I welcome the information, if it comes in such large dumps it makes responding to specific points very difficult.  The flaw with your source, which I did read, is that it takes into account extremism in all facets of public life.  It also appears to link right wing and Islamic extremism as close analogs, which I don't think is appropriate.  Yes, if we take right wing extremism as a whole then it is more violent.  One mass shooting, like the incident in Buffalo, can hugely skew such numbers.  But if we're talking about lower level violence on college campuses, which was the thrust of the post you responded to, this type of violence is not germane to the topic being discussed.  Your inclusion of right versus left wing violence as a whole only muddies the waters when the topic is violence at college campuses.
Try this simple test, go on YouTube and search for left wing college protest, then do the same for right wing.  Tell me what you find and if there's any difference.  YouTube is far from a right wing platform btw.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 11:54 AM)Dill Wrote: If each side, as C-Dawg suggested, each side is convinced the other is full of demons,

then your "overlooked" option "Both sides have demons" 

is synonymous with "Both sides are right"--i.e., each side is correctly described by the other as full of demons. 

So that option did not "elude" my attention.

It was the very first option.

If that was your intent with your first option then no argument here.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2023, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, and I don't support that.  The problem is the TGR movement demands full and unwavering support on every issue.  If you say you have zero issue with a drag queen story hour but don't think children should be attending sexually charged drag shows then you're a transphobic bigot.

Where is that happening?

(06-09-2023, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, swimsuits.  And you are correct, those are not for children.  The one's for children contain the following;

“Thoughtfully Fit on Multiple Body Types and Gender Expressions.”

And? If the label has that on it, then that is information for the parents when purchasing the clothing saying it can be good for any child. It's only been in the past hundred-ish years that we have even gendered children's clothing, anyway. This is asinine.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where is that happening?

Dude, seriously?  There's absolutely no way you're being serious.

Quote:And? If the label has that on it, then that is information for the parents when purchasing the clothing saying it can be good for any child. It's only been in the past hundred-ish years that we have even gendered children's clothing, anyway. This is asinine.

And?  Are people not allowed to find it offensive and boycott Target over it?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 11:50 AM)pally Wrote: What is sexually charged or indoctrination about a drag queen story hour?  They are literally just sitting there wearing a glittery brightly colored costume reading a preschool book to preschoolers.  No different than someone wearing a Superhero or Princess costume.  Little kids only see the costume not the person wearing it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Who are you addressing this to?  Because no one in this thread is making that argument, unless I completely missed it.

[*pally*]

(06-09-2023, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where is that happening?


And? If the label has that on it, then that is information for the parents when purchasing the clothing saying it can be good for any child. It's only been in the past hundred-ish years that we have even gendered children's clothing, anyway. This is asinine.

There are plenty of parents who want swimsuits with wider crotches and covered rear ends for their children regardless of sex or gender.  And just like adults, 2 children wearing the same can have 2 totally different fits in the same suit so knowing that these suits are cut for different body types can be helpful to the parent doing the buying.  Not everything has to be a conspiracy

[Dill]

(06-09-2023, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, you often give far too much information to be easily digested, or countered.  While I welcome the information, if it comes in such large dumps it makes responding to specific points very difficult.  The flaw with your source, which I did read, is that it takes into account extremism in all facets of public life.  It also appears to link right wing and Islamic extremism as close analogs, which I don't think is appropriate.  Yes, if we take right wing extremism as a whole then it is more violent.  One mass shooting, like the incident in Buffalo, can hugely skew such numbers.  But if we're talking about lower level violence on college campuses, which was the thrust of the post you responded to, this type of violence is not germane to the topic being discussed.  Your inclusion of right versus left wing violence as a whole only muddies the waters when the topic is violence at college campuses.
Try this simple test, go on YouTube and search for left wing college protest, then do the same for right wing.  Tell me what you find and if there's any difference.  YouTube is far from a right wing platform btw.

Thanks for the feedback. There were two links in that which could have been separated into two posts.

Both had the common intent of shifting right vs left contrasts onto a more solid, if incomplete, grounding in data.

The first link, derived from the Free Speech project at Georgetown U., directly addressed the "silencing" of college speakers, sometimes by violence and threats. My goal in presenting it was to encourage caution regarding MSM coverage of "cancel culture" and the like. They spend more time with sensational cases, so that is a motivation to create sensational cases. The resulting coverage then skews people's perceptions. 20-30 incidents a year on 10 campuses doesn't seem like much when you remember there are 4,000+ institutions of higher ed in the U.S. 

The second link was to address the logic of right/left comparison at a more general level, which expands assessments of violence beyond college campuses, but doesn't exclude them. The study's hypothesis reached back into previous work on right/left violence to emphasize features imminent to each side's worldview that account for one being more violence prone than the other.  

I think Islamic terrorism was included as a separate element because they wanted to avoid forcing them into the American (North and South) and European political spectrum, but they needed to include them because the study was also global in nature.

I tried your suggested Youtube experiment. I found that the "left" search and the "right" search often called up the same videos. My hesitancy about using Youtube to assess quantity is that there is no reason to suppose the number of videos breaking one way or the other corresponds to anything other than the intensity of organization of one side as opposed to the other. This is why it is important that states and the federal gov. compile data on political violence, against which we can check our impressions of the magnitude of a perceived threat.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, seriously?  There's absolutely no way you're being serious.

I'm serious. I have never seen someone called homophobic or transphobic for saying children should not be in a sexually charged venue like that. I've also never seen someone called that for saying they wouldn't date a trans woman, either, FWIW. Every time those accusations have been thrown it is because the person went beyond just saying those things.

(06-09-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And?  Are people not allowed to find it offensive and boycott Target over it?  

I didn't say they weren't. I am just allowed to judge them and consider them to be petulant and ignorant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm serious. I have never seen someone called homophobic or transphobic for saying children should not be in a sexually charged venue like that. I've also never seen someone called that for saying they wouldn't date a trans woman, either, FWIW. Every time those accusations have been thrown it is because the person went beyond just saying those things.

You must never be on social media then, because it's rampant.  As I mentioned earlier, you can't disagree with a single issue without earning the label.  Straight man not interested in a transwoman with a penis, transphobe.  Lesbian woman not interested in a transwoman with a penis, transphobe.  Don't think biological males should compete in women's sports, transphobe.  Don't think transwomen with penises should be housed in women's prisons or stay in female only shelters, transphobe.  There's literally not one thing you can disagree with this movement about without "earning" the label.

Quote:I didn't say they weren't. I am just allowed to judge them and consider them to be petulant and ignorant.

Oh, absolutely.  You'll never get an argument from me in that regard.