Drag Shows!!

[Robin]

Except that you asked levelly, and you have baselessly accused me of homophobia more than once.

I haven't accused you of homophobia.

You guys keep pretending that it's just too complex for mortal man to comprehend.

Since you entirely missed the point and took the bait then it seems it was a little too complex for you, at least, to understand.

 

[Robin]

I've certainly suggested that Thermal and others here were riding a homophobic bandwagon. I can say that out loud.

But people who ride homophobic bandwagons are rarely ever doing do because they are homophobes.

That was one of the insights behind the success of the gay rights movement in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Robin]

What about those stories where a woman wheedled her way into having access to children without parental supervision?

Mary Poppins, practically pimpish in every way?

Nanny McPimp?

 

[Thermal]

I've certainly suggested that Thermal and others here were riding a homophobic bandwagon. I can say that out loud.

But people who ride homophobic bandwagons are rarely ever doing do because they are homophobes.

That was one of the insights behind the success of the gay rights movement in the 70s and 80s.

Well I certainly hope you enjoy the ride on your Imagination Train.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't believe that there is a poster on this forum that could honestly claim to be so dense as to not realize that the very outlandishness of it was what made it silly.

Got to say, it didn't look all that non-serious to me.

I should expect better of people, but I've been disappointed too many times.

 

[Robin]

Now take the picture below.

To the left we have wholesome unproblematic family entertainment.

To the right we have themes that children are not old enough to process and which oppress and mock women with exaggerated caricatures and their mere proximity to children represents "grooming".

Now what other criterion distinguishes those on the left of the line to those on the right of it?

[imgw=700]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image-12.png?w=964[/imgw]

 

[Robin]

Well I certainly hope you enjoy the ride on your Imagination Train.

Here we are in a thread about the cynical and odious tactic of the Republican Party to smear drag queens as "groomers".

And I don't believe that there is a poster on this forum that could honestly claim to be so dense as to not realize that this is part of an attack on the LGBT community by the very people that are likely gearing up to get Obergefel v Hodges and Lawrence v Texas tested in a Trump flavoured Supreme Court.

In this context your first reaction on hearing about a children's story featuring a drag queen is to try to sexualise it.

But, yeah nah, probably just my imagination.

 

[Thermal]

Here we are in a thread about the cynical and odious tactic of the Republican Party to smear drag queens as "groomers".

Honestly, the grooming thing went right by me, because I think it's right wing bull **** that I don't give any credibility to. Drag queens etc aren't trying to convert anyone to anything, so I didn't connect those dots. My bad.

In this context your first reaction on hearing about a children's story featuring a drag queen is to try to sexualise it.

Here's where I have to challenge you. Try to find a subject or context that I haven't tried to sexualize. Go ahead, I've got tens of thousands of posts here, ducky. I was recently the subject of what were called lascivious overtures in freaking religious threads. Sooner or later you have to face the bitter truth that you're reading me entirely wrong. It will be a bad moment.

 

[arthwollipot]

One might think that in a thread discussing the inappropriate sexualisation of the topic by conservative media, you could suppress your natural urges a bit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Geoffrey Stone's take

As of last month there were 36 bills in in 15 states that would make it harder for people to perform in drag. "'I don't think any first-class lawyer who specialises in free speech would say that these [proposed laws] are constitutional,' says Geoffrey Stone, a First Amendment expert at the University of Chicago..." wrote The Economist in their Feb 18-24th issue.

Is a woman pretending to be a man who dresses in drag (Victor/Victoria) double-plus bad according to these laws? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Thermal]

One might think that in a thread discussing the inappropriate sexualisation of the topic by conservative media, you could suppress your natural urges a bit.

Why?

Do you let imagined others control how you think, of how you joke around? There are no actual bad guys ITT.

 

[Robin]

Here's where I have to challenge you. Try to find a subject or context that I haven't tried to sexualize.

The Proud Boys? Tucker Carlson? The Oath Keepers?

If you have, then not lately. I have to go back a long way to find a mild innuendo on another posters words.

But in the drag threads you have been relentlessly trying to sexualise drag queens.

 

[Robin]

Why?

Do you let imagined others control how you think, of how you joke around? There are no actual bad guys ITT.

Because by doing so you are joining in on an attack on a minority by unprincipled right wing thugs who very much want to bring harm to people like me and others in this forum and who have the means to do it

I know you don't care because it's not you they are trying to harm.

 

[Robin]

Oh, and an intelligent guy like you didn't connect the dots.

Yeah.

 

[Robin]

Funny thing. The other day I came across a bunch of guys kicking this other guy on the ground

Well I didn't approve I thought they were thugs.

But I took a few lighthearted satirical kicks at the guy on the ground motivated by something else. I certainly would never be part of their attack on him.

 

[Thermal]

The Proud Boys? Tucker Carlson? The Oath Keepers?

I had more than a little bit of fun with the Proud Pussies views on masturbation and their loud and proud incel outlook. The Oaf Keepers and Tucky Boy don't recall discussing at all. Wait...are you going to pretend that I meant discussions and contexts that I have not been part of? That's beyond cheap, man.

If you have, then not lately. I have to go back a long way to find a mild innuendo on another posters words.

But in the drag threads you have been relentlessly trying to sexualise drag queens.

I have not. Again, you might ask yourself one day "might I have been projecting **** on Thermal that he is not actually saying, or means?" That might be a courageous endeavor and introspective experience for you. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Robin]

Funny thing. The other day I came across a bunch of guys kicking this other guy on the ground

Well I didn't approve I thought they were thugs.

But I took a few lighthearted satirical kicks at the guy on the ground motivated by my quirky sense of humour. I certainly would never be part of their attack on him.

 

[Robin]

I had more than a little bit of fun with the Proud Pussies views on masturbation and their loud and proud incel outlook. The Oaf Keepers and Tucky Boy don't recall discussing at all. Wait...are you going to pretend that I meant discussions and contexts that I have not been part of? That's beyond cheap, man.

Did you know you can do a search function on a particular user. Where do you think I got those names?

I have not.

Sure you haven't.

 

[Thermal]

Because by doing so you are joining in on an attack on a minority by unprincipled right wing thugs who very much want to bring harm to people like me and others in this forum and who have the means to do it

I know you don't care because it's not you they are trying to harm.

All right,at this point, you can't possibly be arguing honestly, and I'm unwilling to be baited into defending against stupid **** like this. It's got not a thing to do with anything I've posted.

 

[Thermal]

Did you know you can do a search function on a particular user. Where do you think I got those names

I know you can search them. I also know you are a bit of a screwball with interpretations, so I'm not going to bother unless you have a point? Like you think it's a gotcha that I didn't sexualize a three post exchange about the Oath Keepers in the J6 discussion? That's really what your argument is stooping to?

Sure you haven't.

Now there's some robust argumentation.