Drag Shows!!

[Robin]

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

I will take back "relentlessly" because that isn't fair, but you have certainly been part of the push in this thread for example the "adult entertainment' equivocation and to suggest that drag in general should be tainted by the individual actions in a small minority of cases.

 

[Robin]

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.

What do you think we have been talking about all this while?

What do you think the OP is about?

You're telling me that you haven't posted a single thing on topic in this thread and you accuse me of bad faith?

 

[Robin]

Enterprising conservative values warriors have now set up a website that helps people report planned drag shows and other deviance and degeneracy.

Defend Our Kids TX

They want to you know, protect kids from such abhorrent practices.

The important part is that we all take this verrry seriously and don't use the website to falsely report planned drag shows. Especially not at Law Enforcement facilities. Or Republican Party offices. Or Conservative churches that are overtly political but somehow still don't pay taxes.

I think this website is really wise. Nobody would ever think to spam the site with all sorts of false reports.

Bumping the OP

 

[Robin]

Are some people thinking that this kind of thing doesn't pose a potentially serious threat to the gay community?

Do you not think that they regard the Trump flavoured Supreme Court as a golden opportunity to roll back decisions that they still regard as bitter defeats?

 

[Robin]

And remember I said that I don't think people here are homophobes. Very, very few people, in my experience, are homophobes.

(Except in the sense that even I am a homophobe, having soaked up the attitudes of my time and place)

 

[arthwollipot]

There are no actual bad guys ITT.

What? Yes there are.

 

[Robin]

What? Yes there are.

Yes. The people linked in the OP for example.

 

[dann]

So bizarre, in fact, that one might suppose it was not meant seriously? No? Maybe?

I, for one, believe you. The pimp interpretation wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
However, Miss Nelly does get money from the children. As orphans they have the problem that they need an adult person to sign stuff for them when dealing with authorities, so one of them

... ... suggests that they hire a housekeeper as a temporary solution to the problem. They hire a former burlesque singer, Miss Nelly from Vollsmose (a neighborhood with many immigrants from Muslim countries and their descendants), who is a man wearing women's clothes. Miss Nelly loves children, bakes delicious rolls and is the lover of Brian.
Børnene fra Sølvgade (forfatterweb.dk)

The book is compared favorably to the books about Pippi Longstocking.

I consider going to the Story Hour to confront the Nazis. It's two minutes on foot from where I live, and I haven't picked a fight with them since before the pandemic.

 

[wareyin]

Why?

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

Brah, when you were constantly "joking" about black people and consequently getting accused of racism, you took this exact same stance. But after a couple of years of that, you finally applied a little introspection and realized why your "jokes" came across as racist. Hopefully you can step back, and realize that the same thing applies here.

And there very much have been posters in this thread explicitly equating drag queens with pedos and sexual offenders. Some posts are still in the thread, and some were aah'ed away with the appropriate yellow card for the images they posted. I know, I know, you haven't memorized every post (in case you forgot, that was your claim the last time you conveniently overlooked contradictory information) but yet again, you are wrong.

 

[Thermal]

What? Yes there are.

Permit me to rephrase: there are no bad guys currently taking part in this thread discussion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Just for show

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.

The balance of probability is that the people who are proposing these laws know that they won't pass constitutional muster, which suggests that the proposed legislation is just for show. There are better uses of time and resources in a state legislatures.

 

[Thermal]

The balance of probability is that the people who are proposing these laws know that they won't pass constitutional muster, which suggests that the proposed legislation is just for show. There are better uses of time and resources in a state legislatures.

Just for Show legislation pisses me off more than a little. If the average high school student knows it wouldn't pass freedom of expression standards, the legislators sponsoring such bills should be sanctioned for frivolous legislation and fined, say, half their net worth.

 

[arthwollipot]

Permit me to rephrase: there are no bad guys currently taking part in this thread discussion.

For the purposes of this statement, how would you define "bad guys"?

 

[bruto]

Just for Show legislation pisses me off more than a little. If the average high school student knows it wouldn't pass freedom of expression standards, the legislators sponsoring such bills should be sanctioned for frivolous legislation and fined, say, half their net worth.

I agree. In part I think they're working (with considerable success it seems) to normalize the extreme by failing a little less every time. Lobbing smoke grenades into the basement and yelling "Smoke, smoke, we must be on fire!" And even though they know the wrong things they seek are unsupportable, by making them too troublesome and expensive to fight, they become normal by persistence.

 

[Checkmite]

Just for Show legislation pisses me off more than a little. If the average high school student knows it wouldn't pass freedom of expression standards, the legislators sponsoring such bills should be sanctioned for frivolous legislation and fined, say, half their net worth.

I'm fascinated by this cavalier attitude, and it's not just you that I've seen it from.

There is an almost mythical conceptualization in people's minds that something like "freedom of expression standards" exists, like some kind of mystical fairy-tale guardian protecting us all against abuse, and any law which would conceivably violate such "standards" would inevitably run up against them and be handily destroyed or overturned and everyone would clap - an eventuality so unavoidable and self-evident that any legislator who would even waste the time proposing such legislation is at the very worst a fool, a silly clown whose antics are to be laughed at, certainly nothing like an actual threat that deserves to be treated seriously or worried about.

But then these "silly" legislators, who should be laughed at not worried about, nevertheless continue to get their laws passed and stacked courts continue to decide they're okay because freedom of expression standards shouldn't include that sort of thing, and everyone gets a little less free.

 

[Thermal]

I'm fascinated by this cavalier attitude, and it's not just you that I've seen it from.

There is an almost mythical conceptualization in people's minds that something like "freedom of expression standards" exists, like some kind of mystical fairy-tale guardian protecting us all against abuse, and any law which would conceivably violate such "standards" would inevitably run up against them and be handily destroyed or overturned and everyone would clap -

No, it's that it is a basic idea that has been tested so many times in the courts that it serves as a basic illustration of what it fundementally means.

an eventuality so unavoidable and self-evident that any legislator who would even waste the time proposing such legislation is at the very worst a fool, a silly clown whose antics are to be laughed at, certainly nothing like an actual threat that deserves to be treated seriously or worried about.

You take a really wild turn here. My basic proposition is not that they are a fool or silly and for damn sure should not worried about or taken seriously. Just the opposite. I am saying, and with painful clarity, that they should not be tolerated at all.

But then these "silly" legislators, who should be laughed at not worried about, nevertheless continue to get their laws passed and stacked courts continue to decide they're okay because freedom of expression standards shouldn't include that sort of thing, and everyone gets a little less free.

I really don't think you understood what I was saying.

 

[bruto]

It really sounds as if Thermal and Checkmite are agreeing on the idea but not on the way it's said.

 

[Robin]

Permit me to rephrase: there are no bad guys currently taking part in this thread discussion.

Agreed

 

[Robin]

Do we remember when people said "Don't be paranoid Roe v Wade is safe"?

 

[Robin]

It's not these laws that are the problem. The problem is that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks. These laws are a mud throwing exercise as I'd the website in the OP.

So when people say "drag queen" people's minds go to "child endangerment"