Culture

[Irish YJ]

In France, but still relevant...

A great example of two extremes eating each other. On one hand, an Islamic "terrorist" (per Macron), and on the other hand, a lib middle school "teacher" who feels compelled to teach freedom of expression to children by insulting someone's religion.

Teacher knifed to death in France after showing class cartoons of Prophet Mohammad
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ss-cartoons-of-prophet-mohammad-idUSKBN2712LZ

 

[Legacy]

I'd never even heard the word Qanon until recently and had no idea what it was until today. After Legacy's post, I looked it up. Big whoop. Just another far out loony conspiracy group. Nothing to get worked up over. There are hundreds like them.

False G.O.P. Ad Prompts QAnon Death Threats Against a Democratic Congressman
(9/30/20)

Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, is facing down death threats from QAnon supporters after the House Republicans’ campaign arm falsely accused him of lobbying to protect sexual predators.

QAnon supporters began targeting Mr. Malinowski, a first-term congressman, on Tuesday, after he led a bipartisan resolution condemning the movement, which spreads a baseless conspiracy theory that President Trump is battling a cabal of Democratic pedophiles.

QAnon believers seized on an advertisement released last month by the campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, that falsely claimed that Mr. Malinowski, then a lobbyist for Human Rights Watch, worked to block a provision in a 2006 crime bill that would have expanded registration requirements for sex offenders.

Death threats and other harassing messages have since poured into Mr. Malinowski’s office in Washington. In an interview on Wednesday, he called the threats “a direct result” of the advertisement, noting that the calls his office had received cited its central accusation.

“We’ve been warning the Republicans running this play for at least the last two or three weeks that they were playing with fire,” he said. “Now the match has been lit.” (cont)

While you may not have heard of QAnon prior to my post, for some people like Malinowski QAnon is a big whoop. Trump knows nothing about these death threats against a NJ congressman occasioned by a National Republican Campaign Committee?

NRCC doubles down on attack of Malinowski lobbying for sex offenders
Colleagues at Human Rights Watch say congressman played no role in opposing 2006 bill (Oct 6, 2020)

 

[Irishize]

I want to know how many Biden supporters on here believe an 8 year old child is mentally developed enough to decide they want to change sexes.

I get that politicians want to tell people what they want to hear but Biden showed poor judgement when he responded to the mother of that child the way he did. He could have still showed empathy but given a more responsible answer. WTF?

 

[Legacy]

I'd like to be clear that while Malinowski's death threats are the ones that have been reported the National Republican Congressional Committee have run these ads falsely accusing other Dem candidates of lobbying to protect sex offenders. Nor do they have any intention of stopping these ads. One of their weird conspiracy theories is there is a vast pedophile ring.

In apparent play for QAnon supporters, GOP attack ads claim Democrat lawmakers are defending 'sex offenders'

Jim Jordan's Freedom Fund supports Q candidates Marjorie Greene and Lauren Boebert. (See link below) The Freedom Fund is the top contributor for Greene per Open Secrets.

https://www.housefreedomfund.com/

 

[Irish YJ]

I want to know how many Biden supporters on here believe an 8 year old child is mentally developed enough to decide they want to change sexes.

I get that politicians want to tell people what they want to hear but Biden showed poor judgement when he responded to the mother of that child the way he did. He could have still showed empathy but given a more responsible answer. WTF?

Yea, that was truly cringeworthy. I'm all for adults being able to do whatever they want, but this kind of shit is just twilight zone stuff.

And his stuff about being pro-gay when he was a kid, after seeing two guys at the pool... He was clearly anti gay marriage a decade ago, and said as much. The dude will say anything and waffles more than IHOP.

 

[gkIrish]

I want to know how many Biden supporters on here believe an 8 year old child is mentally developed enough to decide they want to change sexes.

I get that politicians want to tell people what they want to hear but Biden showed poor judgement when he responded to the mother of that child the way he did. He could have still showed empathy but given a more responsible answer. WTF?

Not surprised you didn't get any takers on your question. Probably because no sane human take that position. If an 8 year gets a sex change it's because the parent wanted it that way. It should be a crime for both the parent and doctor to do that under 18 years old.

 

[Rack Em]

Not surprised you didn't get any takers on your question. Probably because no sane human take that position. If an 8 year gets a sex change it's because the parent wanted it that way. It should be a crime for both the parent and doctor to do that under 18 years old.

There are a lot of cultural issues where I *understand* where the opposing side is coming from. But sex changes before 18 are 100% about the parents and not about the kid. You’re absolutely right with your post. It’s not just medical malpractice which is negligence, it’s intentional.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I am not sure a child fully understands the long term implications of a sex change, but I feel they do understand where they are and what they feel as regards at the moment. I dont really give a shit as to what an adult chooses to do with their life.

I also understand that gender development is a field worthy of study and understanding and the idea that a person with XX chromosomes is automatically female and some one with XY is a male is clearly not correct. Gender identity is very maleable. as a child develops.

There are millions of people who have chromosomal aneuploidies which makes hard line roles associated with "XX and XY" genders murky.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Two things:

1. there are NO circumstances where an eight year old should be making gender-change related decisions. No matter how open-minded one might like to be, this is just too early in anyone's mental or social development. If one wants to put some age-of-decision "line" on such matters, one is also incorrect, as people do develop differently during their teen-age years and different folks are different. Some external counselors should judge in a utopian world as to whether that maturity has been reached.

2. On the other hand, the genetics/biology of gender-expression is far messier than conservative thinking would like. This is science and has nothing to do with how "woke" anyone is. Particularly, the expression of the gender effects of the "Y" chromosome have all sorts of ways in which some subversion of "Y" effects occurs. The most spectacular of these are the so-called "testicular feminization" cases or "XY-females" in which the male sex organs exist but in a diminished state and are essentially opposite in their production of Testosterone-to-Estrogen, thus altering physical appearance and apparently behaviors. In any complex biological system, there are bound to be unclear intermediate states even if the bi-polar states are generally robust.

So, yes, some persons will feel trapped in societally-constricted identities which they do not feel match their internal emotions and instincts. They might well wish to try the change. The question is not the biological science, but the social circumstances which push at that from one side or another. Our social issue is when any individual should have the personal right of decision about that. "8" is too young. "Never" is too old.

 

[Irish YJ]

I really don't care if a child wants to identify one way or the other, but I am concerned that some children may not get proper mental health support (in either direction) from their parents. IMO, parents should listen, understand, and seek outside professional assistance, not become part of an active push/pull either way. And I really don't care what they decide to do to their bodies once they turn 18. I do not think it's on tax payers to foot the bill though.

I do care about the impact to K12 sports, and some other common sense things. And I certainly understand that genetic/biological variations impact things, but I also believe that surgically removing or adding a sex part doesn't magically change all the other biological aspects.

 

[Irish#1]

It's very simple. If one feels they want to play for the other team, waiting until your 18 shouldn't be a problem. Afterall, if that internal calling is real, it will still be there when you're 18 and better equipped to make that decision.

 

[Irishize]

Yea, that was truly cringeworthy. I'm all for adults being able to do whatever they want, but this kind of shit is just twilight zone stuff.

And his stuff about being pro-gay when he was a kid, after seeing two guys at the pool... He was clearly anti gay marriage a decade ago, and said as much. The dude will say anything and waffles more than IHOP.

I was hoping he would’ve offered the empathetic father response. We are all empathetic to any child or adult struggling w/ their identity. His response was lazy & pandering. I would hope a politician, regardless of party; would’ve empathized with the parent & then admit he’s not an expert on that subject but that science is giving us more information each day on how to consider gender dysphoria, etc. Same goes for psychiatry. Then he could pivot back to the well-being of the child and the importance of loving parents, nature vs nurture, etc.

Found in Psychology Today: According to the DSM-5, among individuals who are assigned male at birth, approximately 0.005 percent to 0.014 percent are later diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Among individuals who are assigned female at birth, approximately 0.002 percent to 0.003 percent are later diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In other words, true gender dysphoria is rare based on what experts have learned thus far.

Also, a study in Sweden (where transgenderism is embraced more than any other country) showed that 10-15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who underwent sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers. See published study attached below:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dipping my toe into a take on cancel culture in episode 2.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SarahSilvermanPodcast?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SarahSilvermanPodcast</a> eps 1-5<br>Here: <a href="https://t.co/qNnHEngHbF">https://t.co/qNnHEngHbF</a>… <a href="https://t.co/9v65pd9nIV">pic.twitter.com/9v65pd9nIV</a></p>— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) <a href="https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/status/1319817018837667840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bishop2b5]

Silverman's usually a shallow nitwit and she's annoying as hell to listen to, but in this case she's right. The idea that a person can be summed up because of something they said or did or thought at some point in the past and should be crucified for it instead of providing a path for them to change and improve or reach a better place is so contrary to what most of us stand for and is completely counterproductive.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I liked this article by Ross Douthat in Plough "The Case for One More Child". It's not too long of an article, but I've posted a paragraph that I think encapsulates Ross's goal.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/parenting/the-case-for-one-more-child

Since my wife and I obviously did some spacing of our children, I’m aware that the decision to have only a “reasonable” number can be driven by all kinds of non-saintly, self-justifying considerations. But the idea of reasonability definitely influences how I think about persuading other people, my more secular neighbors especially, that more kids would be better. I don’t expect America to suddenly become filled with ten-kid families driving hulking vans. Rather, in a rich society with a plunging birthrate, the plausible goal should be to help more families have the kids they already say they want, meaning not six or eight or ten, but just one more – the kid who requires a new car seat and maybe a new SUV, the kid they feel like they might be able to afford, the kid you can feel pretty sure they won’t regret.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">San Francisco to rename Abraham Lincoln High School because former president did not demonstrate that 'black lives mattered to him' <a href="https://t.co/EhjC0uD5pC">https://t.co/EhjC0uD5pC</a></p>— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/1338880528439717888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">San Francisco to rename Abraham Lincoln High School because former president did not demonstrate that 'black lives mattered to him' <a href="https://t.co/EhjC0uD5pC">https://t.co/EhjC0uD5pC</a></p>— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status/1338880528439717888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We have truly entered the twilight zone..

 

[RDU Irish]

I liked this article by Ross Douthat in Plough "The Case for One More Child". It's not too long of an article, but I've posted a paragraph that I think encapsulates Ross's goal.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/parenting/the-case-for-one-more-child

Kids are expensive AF. Once you get over 2, logistics become quite a PIA. Simple things like traveling that have great deals on 4 person vaca options but once that 5th person tags along your plans get shot to shit and marginal cost explodes. "sneaking" five in to a four person room with an air mattress in tow, so scandalous! ND Football game - good luck finding 5 together, you need to buy a single and sneak them to one of the pairs. There is a lot of sludge (Richard Thaler behavior economics) that put a silent cap on household size at 4.


Abraham Lincoln being cancelled has to mean BLM is jumping the shark right?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

This is likely an unpopular take but I thinks its fairly supported.

To be fair, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and he certainly didn't carry water for equality. He objected to the institution of slavery on moral grounds but based on my readings, he took a dispassionate stance and a politically expedient one more times than nought. He didn't want it to spread but also stated he believed the Constitution allowed the slave states to operate as they saw fit meaning interfering in their chosen practices was unconstitutional:

the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.”

In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

He supported colonization of slaves by freeing them and sending them to Liberia, acknowledged that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle, and emancipation was ultimately a military strategy rather than a socially conscionable moral proclamation.

July 10, 1858: Speech at Chicago, Illinois

In this speech at Chicago, Lincoln reiterated his hatred of slavery and also his belief that it should not be touched where it then existed.

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all.

October 18, 1858: Letter to James N. Brown

Some feared that Lincoln was recommending social and political equality between the races. Writing to James N. Brown, Lincoln discounted this belief although seven years later, he would embrace this hope in the last speech of his life.

I do not perceive how I can express myself, more plainly, than I have done in the foregoing extracts. In four of them I have expressly disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality between the white and black races, and, in all the rest, I have done the same thing by clear implication.

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others -- individuals, free-states and national government -- are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it.

 

[GowerND11]

This is likely an unpopular take but I thinks its fairly supported.

To be fair, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and he certainly didn't carry water for equality. He objected to the institution of slavery on moral grounds but based on my readings, he took a dispassionate stance and a politically expedient one more times than nought. He didn't want it to spread but also stated he believed the Constitution allowed the slave states to operate as they saw fit meaning interfering in their chosen practices was unconstitutional:


He supported colonization of slaves by freeing them and sending them to Liberia, acknowledged that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle, and emancipation was ultimately a military strategy rather than a socially conscionable moral proclamation.

You're not wrong, but I will say this: you can also make a case that he evolved from the late 1850s until his assassination. He grew as a person, and I also don't doubt his shrewdness either as a politician. Would he really want to come out and say he is an abolitionist early on in his endeavours? He wasn't Thaddeus Stevens, surely, but I think Lincoln was able to recognize right from wrong (which you mention), and be able to conclude that equality was really what should happen in the future.

 

[Irish YJ]

You're not wrong, but I will say this: you can also make a case that he evolved from the late 1850s until his assassination. He grew as a person, and I also don't doubt his shrewdness either as a politician. Would he really want to come out and say he is an abolitionist early on in his endeavours? He wasn't Thaddeus Stevens, surely, but I think Lincoln was able to recognize right from wrong (which you mention), and be able to conclude that equality was really what should happen in the future.

Good post. Not wrong at all. He however was very ahead of "the times". Everyone judging history with current eyes and without context of history is doing themselves a disservice IMO. History is history. You have to recognize the good attributes of folks, and especially ones that were way ahead of the curve, or the times. If not, history is canceled.... sad state we are in here. MLK was a misogynist, do we cancel him? Some of the stuff that has come out is pretty bad. Nobody is burning down or changing names of shit all over ATL.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

 

[NorthDakota]

This is likely an unpopular take but I thinks its fairly supported.

To be fair, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and he certainly didn't carry water for equality. He objected to the institution of slavery on moral grounds but based on my readings, he took a dispassionate stance and a politically expedient one more times than nought. He didn't want it to spread but also stated he believed the Constitution allowed the slave states to operate as they saw fit meaning interfering in their chosen practices was unconstitutional:


He supported colonization of slaves by freeing them and sending them to Liberia, acknowledged that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle, and emancipation was ultimately a military strategy rather than a socially conscionable moral proclamation.

Literally none of that matters and I'm pretty sure about half of it is not true or is lacking context lol

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You're not wrong, but I will say this: you can also make a case that he evolved from the late 1850s until his assassination. He grew as a person, and I also don't doubt his shrewdness either as a politician. Would he really want to come out and say he is an abolitionist early on in his endeavours? He wasn't Thaddeus Stevens, surely, but I think Lincoln was able to recognize right from wrong (which you mention), and be able to conclude that equality was really what should happen in the future.

Based on many of his quotes through his presidency, he hoped slavery would die a natural death but he specifically says many time she would not interfere or do anything to hasten that demise except by denying it the ability to spread.

As a corollary, many of his statements can be compared equally to statements made by the most hardened pro-slavery Southern political leaders. I can find any number of southern politicians saying very similar things that Lincoln says. Ultimately he was so pro-democracy that he he didnt think the federal government had the right to deny slave states their right to end slavery. This fact is literally written into each of the Confederate State Constitutions post secession.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Literally none of that matters and I'm pretty sure about half of it is not true or is lacking context lol

It literally does matter to the discussion at hand and I can assure you that those quotes are within context of his actually thoughts as he repeated them and emphasized them in many, many debates and speeches.

Those are actually quotes from him. Not one thing I posted is a lie or made up.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Good post. Not wrong at all. He however was very ahead of "the times". Everyone judging history with current eyes and without context of history is doing themselves a disservice IMO. History is history. You have to recognize the good attributes of folks, and especially ones that were way ahead of the curve, or the times. If not, history is canceled.... sad state we are in here. MLK was a misogynist, do we cancel him? Some of the stuff that has come out is pretty bad. Nobody is burning down or changing names of shit all over ATL.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Not sure what you mean here. I think any sane human today can understand slavery in any form is morally wrong and shouldnt be politically or socially acceptable. He wasn't ahead of abolitionists. His stance on slavery could be considered meek and feckless at best.

His stance was shared by many segregationists and southern political leaders.

It seems he is in their crosshairs precisely becasue he wasnt vociferously and actively undermining the institution of slavery. I dont agree with their canceling but Im just offering some points of contention to discuss.

Also, slavery began to be outlawed in norther states as early as 1800s. SO no... I dont think he was a head of the times at all. He was politically pragmatic and in a terrible position of having to hold a country together being split over something he felt he had no right to interfere in.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not sure what you mean here. I think any sane human today can understand slavery in any form is morally wrong and shouldnt be politically or socially acceptable. He wasn't ahead of abolitionists. His stance on slavery could be considered meek and feckless at best.

His stance was shared by many segregationists and southern political leaders.

It seems he is in their crosshairs precisely becasue he wasnt vociferously and actively undermining the institution of slavery. I dont agree with their canceling but Im just offering some points of contention to discuss.

Also, slavery began to be outlawed in norther states as early as 1800s. SO no... I dont think he was a head of the times at all. He was politically pragmatic and in a terrible position of having to hold a country together being split over something he felt he had no right to interfere in.

I understand the points. I think many are overly harsh using today's lens. Here are my thoughts..

1) He was a politician, and he wasn't likely to rise, or rally the masses if he was John Brown like.

2) Lincoln's election was a trigger for secession. Lincoln rejected the Crittenden Compromise but was open to the Corwin Amendment to keep the country together. At the end of the day though, he went to war over the issue. Is that not being on the right side, or ahead of the times. Leading the country into war itself is being ahead of times, and being on the right side. The creative logic it takes to argue against that is head scratching.

3) There were plenty in the North that were fine with slavery, and plenty in the South against. Folks want to paint the North as 100% anti slavery, and the South 100% for slavery. It's just not factual. Truth is, the country was divided, but the South was just home to more slavery dependent labor. Brother literally fighting brothers in some areas had nothing to do with slavery, but more a way of life and states rights, or anti federal sentiment. Lincoln IMO, understood this, as part of the times, while also understanding the biggest source of secession "politically" was slavery. He did his best to hold together the country while not turning brother vs brother, but at minimum outlaw expansion hoping time would catch up. Didn't work, so he went to war.

4) How the cancel folks can attack Lincoln, who lived in very muddy times, for going to war over the issue, and yet not cancel MLK who was obviously a misogynist, and likely much worse, in times that were far more woke than Lincolns is just pure hypocrisy.

 

[RDU Irish]

Rationalize it anyway you want - this is straight up dumb. Love the irony of the anti-God crowd holding literally every person ever to have existed to being purer than Jesus Christ - or get cancelled. Happy Days was never the same after the Fonz jumped that shark. Go ahead and give them Lincoln. Melt all pennies and give me all your fivers for safe disposal.

 

[Irish#1]

Based on many of his quotes through his presidency, he hoped slavery would die a natural death but he specifically says many time she would not interfere or do anything to hasten that demise except by denying it the ability to spread.

As a corollary, many of his statements can be compared equally to statements made by the most hardened pro-slavery Southern political leaders. I can find any number of southern politicians saying very similar things that Lincoln says. Ultimately he was so pro-democracy that he he didnt think the federal government had the right to deny slave states their right to end slavery. This fact is literally written into each of the Confederate State Constitutions post secession.

That's because he was a savvy politician. He was trying to placate both sides. Kind of like the "grandfather clause". Those established stay, but no more after this.

 

[Bishop2b5]

That's because he was a savvy politician. He was trying to placate both sides. Kind of like the "grandfather clause". Those established stay, but no more after this.

Most people think slavery was totally outlawed in the North during the early 1800's, but that's not so in many cases. They generally took the approach highlighted above. Those already enslaved remained so, those born afterwards were emancipated at 18, and no new slaves could be created. Several northern states, including Ohio, New York and New Jersey still had a few elderly slaves at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Don't have the health or energy to re-research this, but did do it once. Lincoln is about as clean as it gets on the slavery issue, especially as he matured in his Presidential power. This issue BADLY needs a timeline. That timeline will show Lincoln going through a phase where he could not see a solution. There were people pushing for emancipation followed by not a simple deportation but rather a strongly facilitated project to allow any black person to return to Africa if they wanted to. Lincoln thought that in the large majority they WOULD want to, and in his eyes at that moment he felt that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the two groups to settle into a peaceful co-existence let alone a melting pot.

Lincoln didn't want to trample over or abuse anyone. He saw the transmigration scheme as a gentler way of allowing people to choose what they wanted. This idea caught him because he had seen how bad the relationship between the two groups was trending and that its history was uniformly dire. As he continued in his Presidency, Lincoln came around to the idea that there WAS hope afterall, and that the transmigration scheme had too many problems. So he then effectively opposed the idea the rest of the way.

I get what Cack is saying, and generally agree with him on everything. This one is, however, VERY historically subtle, and, in an age totally lacking in subtlety, NEEDS the historian's touch. We won't get that Wisdom Touch. "Overthrowing Lincoln statues" is a real hot-take error for this culture. No one's perfect. No one should be forbidden to evolve. No one can survive "One strike and you're out." This smacks to me as the product of ego-strutters prancing their new-found "media-might" just because they can do it. I'm not a defender of the Bastions of Conservatism, but I'll defend Lincoln.