American Politics

[kkck]

how much do we agree on? I'll be surprised if it's more than five things, but I see you more as a centrist/moderate.



Or, Dems choosing a different candidate who doesn't have a history of saying and doing horrible stuff and passing evil policies would mean more votes for Democrats. That's what democracy is, people voting for whom they want, IF they choose to vote.

I never shared what I actually thought about this whole thing until few months ago until I saw how easily Biden lied about the genocide.

In that post the "we" is me and ninjabot. Hmmm, I see myself as right of center though I get the impression I fall in a weird spot where the context is US politics.

 

[ninjabot]

And now Biden's got Covid. Jesus.

Welp! He said if his health takes a turn he'll consider dropping out. Long Covid would mean he'll have brain fog on top of his already addled mind.

So... maybe we do get that swap.

 

[kkck]

*nods*



I agree! It's why we shouldn't be attacking Destiny, but rather the arguments he's making. That is my exact argument. All this Destiny stuff is tertiary.



I know you were. And I wasn't being overly malicious with my response, but I do believe everything I said. I don't want more Americans that are fine with losing to Trump if it means they can virtue signal about something that's got nothing to do with our election. More M3J's means less votes for democrats.



Yeah, but we haven't debated in a long ti-



Right, yeah. I haven't forgotten our trans conversation that we never finished. I know I'm further left than you on certain things. I got smoke for you too when the death of democracy stops being the main topic at hand lmao... but there're bigger fish to fry right now.

Hmmm, i feel like if a conversation starts over an edgy troll saying intentionally incendiary stuff its going to be difficult to keep the conversation healthy.

We didn't? I don't recall exactly now but i think to me it felt like the topic reached it's natural conclusion.

 

[ninjabot]

Hmmm, i feel like if a conversation starts over an edgy troll saying intentionally incendiary stuff its going to be difficult to keep the conversation healthy.

We didn't? I don't recall exactly now but i think to me it felt like the topic reached it's natural conclusion.

Natural, but not satisfying. Any time a conversation ends with a question being asked and not answered is unsatisfying to me.

 

[kkck]

What was the question?

 

[ninjabot]

It took forever to find it, but I did:

American Politics

It might be nitpicking or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but gender dysphoria isn't necessarily a factor when it comes to drag performers. Drag is a performance like most others - it's someone playing a character, wearing a costume, etc. Oh I know, that was a mistake on me not...

mangahelpers.com

11,890 is the post in question. It was actually about Drag Queen Story Hour

 

[kkck]

It took forever to find it, but I did:

American Politics

It might be nitpicking or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but gender dysphoria isn't necessarily a factor when it comes to drag performers. Drag is a performance like most others - it's someone playing a character, wearing a costume, etc. Oh I know, that was a mistake on me not...

mangahelpers.com

11,890 is the post in question. It was actually about Drag Queen Story Hour

Danng, that's old.

Are you saying that a man dressed as a woman is identical to a man dressed in a gimp suit: a suit intended for titillation?

Is the image of a woman automatically titillating? Do you think a biological man with gender dysphoria dressing as a woman is done with the express intent of titillation?



Citation needed lmfao.

Don't get me wrong: drag can certainly be sexual. But you won't find any sources that say drag in essence is inherently sexual, or even that it started that way. Even if you wanted to try to claim that the majority of it's sexual, you'd be wrong there too.

I'm pretty sure I know what's happening here. The same thing happens almost everywhere: until recently we've only been seeing certain instances of drag in the public eye.

1: Republicans pointing out the actual bad instances of children being at sexually suggestive drag shows
2: Drag shown in it's most famous showings in older movies and tv shows via an unfavorable light, most often as some sort of perverse kink if not a legitimate sign of mental illness or dangerous behavior (Ya'll remember Silence of the Lambs right? What about Psycho?)

...and that's enough for people to write off drag/cross-dressing altogether as inherently sexual... when that's not even 1 percent of drag culture.

Hmm, yes? It was pretty much my previous sentence (I didn't go back the whole conversation but it sounds like what I was saying at the time).

On the citation needed bit, iirc what I did at the time was check a wiki's edits. And the wiki in question had been edited to remove the part about this being sexual some time prior.

At least as far as I remember old timey drag didn't quite focus on the perverse kink side of things. The most common one was bugs bunny type stuff where folk in drag were the butt of the joke. As in "elmer thought bugs bunny was a woman! Gross! What an idiot!". Or the happy gilmore angle where they are basically serial killers. Outside of that you would have the burlesque angle of things but that's pretty damn difficult to separate from sexual stuff and it certainly was far removed from the mainstream. So to me it's a pretty hard sell that back in the day drag was socially acceptable and somehow later it wasn't. At the very least framing the looney tunes stuff positively in this context seems revisionist. Obviously the context is shifted in modern times and folk in drag being the joke is done less and less. But obviously if you remove the "butt of the joke" part here you are left with the burlesque part.

 

[M3J]

Do you really, really believe that's at the top of the minds of the average Democrat in America?



I'm not bothered by your empathy for Palestine. Empathy/sympathy is a respectable thing to value in a person. And I do admire that about you.

But there's a such thing as too much empathy. Remember what Tobirama said about intense love turning into intense hate? That's what I get from you when you talk about Israel. I don't want that shit effecting your electoral choices, because your electoral choices effect your fellow countrymen. And condemning us to 4 more years of Trump for things that don't even effect Americans is not respectable.

IMHO.

The first sentence? No, given their support for Clinton and/or Biden. But we'll see in Nov.

I'm surprised you say that as I have admitted to wanting bigots and evil people dead, whether it's Zionist soldiers who happily kill citizens and brag about it, or those fucked up UK Muslims.

My "hatred" for Israel is due to their actions and what they've been doing, aided by countries such as USA and UK. I abhor conservative politicians and politicians like Biden for similar reasons - because of how they've negatively affected Americans, even though Biden is a tad bit better. This isn't just because of the violence against Palestinians.

What we do for and to other countries affect us as well. We're giving Israel billions of dollars while claiming we don't have money to support our own people, for example. If anyone brown or anyone a celebrity openly supports Palestine, their lives are likely to get ruined, while Zionists can openly call for murder without repercussion. We also have even Democrats wanting to ban talking badly about Israel under the false claim of anti-Semitism as well.

As I stated before, my concern is, four more years of Biden might not be that much better than Trump. If/when I vote for Biden, I do so expecting that Project 2025 will not happen, and that his administration will continue to put in laws that protect consumers (like fees upfront with booking hotels, flights, etc). However, in the past four years under Biden, lot of states took away women's rights to their bodies and said women can't even go out of state to get abortion because they will be monitored. Along with that, several states also attacked LGBT+ rights, making false claims about transgender people and gay people to stoke fear and hatred.

I can assure you, I'm also thinking about what has happened under Trump and under Biden domestically, what their plans are, and what they say. But it doesn't help when I see videos of decades ago where Biden has shown similar viewpoints to Republicans, like his bills against crime, stating he wouldn't care if Haiti sank or rose as it didn't affect USA, and etc.

Also, just to be clear on where I am personally, I don't care about someone rustling conservative jimmies or being insulting to awful people with awful views. Those people don't deserve any deference, regardless of their circumstances.

In that post the "we" is me and ninjabot. Hmmm, I see myself as right of center though I get the impression I fall in a weird spot where the context is US politics.

oh I see.

It's still weird but less weird that you two agree, then.

And now Biden's got Covid. Jesus.

Welp! He said if his health takes a turn he'll consider dropping out. Long Covid would mean he'll have brain fog on top of his already addled mind.

So... maybe we do get that swap.

This is awkward for him given he removed lot of stuff to combat covid in the first place

 

[kkck]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/18/biden-in-crisis-00169415

So there is still hope... It's already taken way too long though.

 

[ninjabot]

Hmm, yes? It was pretty much my previous sentence (I didn't go back the whole conversation but it sounds like what I was saying at the time).

Okay first, you're just wrong. Wanting to be viewed as a particular gender does not equal a desire to titillate people. That's fucking weird. I don't wear pants because I think it gets the bitches wet, I wear pants because I'm comfortable identifiying as a man and pants are socially identified as the lower garment used by men. If it were dresses that did that I'd wear those instead.

As for the second part about it being inherently sexual: Based on what? Feels over reals? What about the men dressed as women in ancient Japanese performances? Was that inherently sexual too? When women voice boys in anime is that intended to appeal to some paraphelia? Is it intended for titillation?

On the citation needed bit, iirc what I did at the time was check a wiki's edits. And the wiki in question had been edited to remove the part about this being sexual some time prior.

That doesn't prove your point because xi0 and I never said that Drag wasn't often times sexual. We said that it didn't start out that way, and isn't intrinsically that way. You claimed the exact opposite, and then asserted that the wiki was changed to hide that fact. You got full on conspiracy brained about something you couldn't disprove, and used your inability to disprove it as justification for accusing other people of taking steps to hide some non-existent truth.

At least as far as I remember old timey drag didn't quite focus on the perverse kink side of things. The most common one was bugs bunny type stuff where folk in drag were the butt of the joke. As in "elmer thought bugs bunny was a woman! Gross! What an idiot!". Or the happy gilmore angle where they are basically serial killers. Outside of that you would have the burlesque angle of things but that's pretty damn difficult to separate from sexual stuff and it certainly was far removed from the mainstream. So to me it's a pretty hard sell that back in the day drag was socially acceptable and somehow later it wasn't. At the very least framing the looney tunes stuff positively in this context seems revisionist. Obviously the context is shifted in modern times and folk in drag being the joke is done less and less. But obviously if you remove the "butt of the joke" part here you are left with the burlesque part.

Okay, that's weird then, because all if this contradicts your initial statement about Drag being similar to a man in a gimp suit. Because one is exclusively sexualized while the other isn't. And that's what I was attacking you for: historical revisionism.

And also, no one's framing the Looney Tune's stuff as positive. We're acknowledging that it's not negative. It's amoral, not immoral. That it's acceptable behavior. And what we mean by acceptable is that most of society already accepted it as such, because back in the day no one tried to cancel Looney Tunes because of crossdressing Bugs Bunny back in the day, but now people are being shot at for it. Bugs Bunny wasn't turning kids trans or gay, but Republicans are asserting that Drag Queen Story Hour is.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 18, 2024, Original Post Date: Jul 18, 2024 ---

My "hatred" for Israel is due to their actions and what they've been doing, aided by countries such as USA and UK. I abhor conservative politicians and politicians like Biden for similar reasons - because of how they've negatively affected Americans, even though Biden is a tad bit better. This isn't just because of the violence against Palestinians.

You can hate Israel all you want, but not at the cost of your own country. Or you shouldn't at least. I wouldn't let my hatred for Hamas stop me from voting for the correct American candidate, because I don't directly benefit from politics concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict. No American does. Except maybe Jews or Muslims. Neither of which am I.

What we do for and to other countries affect us as well. We're giving Israel billions of dollars while claiming we don't have money to support our own people, for example. If anyone brown or anyone a celebrity openly supports Palestine, their lives are likely to get ruined, while Zionists can openly call for murder without repercussion. We also have even Democrats wanting to ban talking badly about Israel under the false claim of anti-Semitism as well.

I don't see a need to relitigate a year of arguments. I'm just saying: you can't fix Palestine by hurting America. And you can't engender sympathy for Palestine amongst Americans by attacking one of it's allies.

 

[kkck]

Okay first, you're just wrong. Wanting to be viewed as a particular gender does not equal a desire to titillate people. That's fucking weird. I don't wear pants because I think it gets the bitches wet, I wear pants because I'm comfortable identifiying as a man and pants are socially identified as the lower garment used by men. If it were dresses that did that I'd wear those instead.

As for the second part about it being inherently sexual: Based on what? Feels over reals? What about the men dressed as women in ancient Japanese performances? Was that inherently sexual too? When women voice boys in anime is that intended to appeal to some paraphelia? Is it intended for titillation?



That doesn't prove your point because xi0 and I never said that Drag wasn't often times sexual. We said that it didn't start out that way, and isn't intrinsically that way. You claimed the exact opposite, and then asserted that the wiki was changed to hide that fact. You got full on conspiracy brained about something you couldn't disprove, and used your inability to disprove it as justification for accusing other people of taking steps to hide some non-existent truth.



Okay, that's weird then, because all if this contradicts your initial statement about Drag being similar to a man in a gimp suit. Because one is exclusively sexualized while the other isn't. And that's what I was attacking you for: historical revisionism.

And also, no one's framing the Looney Tune's stuff as positive. We're acknowledging that it's not negative. It's amoral, not immoral. That it's acceptable behavior. And what we mean by acceptable is that most of society already accepted it as such, because back in the day no one tried to cancel Looney Tunes because of crossdressing Bugs Bunny back in the day, but now people are being shot at for it. Bugs Bunny wasn't turning kids trans or gay, but Republicans are asserting that Drag Queen Story Hour is.

I don't think a man wearing drag necessarily wants to be seen as a woman. But I would maintain that back in the day if you remove the aforementioned looney tune/happy gilmore type depictions what you have left is pretty much sexual. You never saw that sort of thing outside of the burlesque scenario at least. And society back in the day definitely was not accepting of this.

Come on, voice actors playing any part has nothing to do with this. As for the japan bit... is it relevant? AFAIK even while japan does have a different perspective on things it's not exactly hyper progressive in any relevant way to this even now. Let alone decades ago or further back. Socially japan is a super ridig and super conservative society.

 

[ninjabot]

I don't think a man wearing drag necessarily wants to be seen as a woman. But I would maintain that back in the day if you remove the aforementioned looney tune/happy gilmore type depictions what you have left is pretty much sexual. You never saw that sort of thing outside of the burlesque scenario at least. And society back in the day definitely was not accepting of this.

They are attempting to be seen as a man dressing as a woman. Not in the trans-sense, no. But in a performance-sense, yes. That's not inherently sexual. That's like saying wanting your 7 year old daughter to wear a dress is sexualizing her.

Come on, voice actors playing any part has nothing to do with this. As for the japan bit... is it relevant? AFAIK even while japan does have a different perspective on things it's not exactly hyper progressive in any relevant way to this even now. Let alone decades ago or further back. Socially japan is a super ridig and super conservative society.

It absolutely does if we keep your standard for sexualization. If a man wearing a dress is intended for titillation, why isn't a man performing a feminine voice? Or women performing masculine voices? As for Japan, I'm pointing out how men played all the women in Japanese plays. Were those men sexualized? Were they just there to arouse people?

I just wanna see how consistent(ly wrong) you are.

 

[kkck]

They are attempting to be seen as a man dressing as a woman. Not in the trans-sense, no. But in a performance-sense, yes. That's not inherently sexual. That's like saying wanting your 7 year old daughter to wear a dress is sexualizing her.



It absolutely does if we keep your standard for sexualization. If a man wearing a dress is intended for titillation, why isn't a man performing a feminine voice? Or women performing masculine voices? As for Japan, I'm pointing out how men played all the women in Japanese plays. Were those men sexualized? Were they just there to arouse people?

I just wanna see how consistent(ly wrong) you are.

TBH I don't see the relevance of any of those cases to this situation. How do any of those relate to men in drag going to schools to perform for children? Since when is generic voice acting considered drag? I can't really comment on japanese theater because I know pretty much nothing about it. I doubt japanese theater has much to do with this.

Also, no one tried to cancel looney tunes.... but what do you think would have happened to a grown man in the 1940-1950s in full drag showed up at a school to read to pre-schoolers? I don't see how these two are comparable... Certainly back in the day they weren't seen as comparable and certainly aren't comparable now.

 

[M3J]

You can hate Israel all you want, but not at the cost of your own country. Or you shouldn't at least. I wouldn't let my hatred for Hamas stop me from voting for the correct American candidate, because I don't directly benefit from politics concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict. No American does. Except maybe Jews or Muslims. Neither of which am I.



I don't see a need to relitigate a year of arguments. I'm just saying: you can't fix Palestine by hurting America. And you can't engender sympathy for Palestine amongst Americans by attacking one of it's allies.

You're directly affected by the genocide. Again, USA keeps giving Israel money and weapons to keep murdering innocent people. How is that not affecting us when we need that money? The amount that they send to Israel can reduce student loans, reduce homelessness, and/or reduce hunger! And because of the genocide, innocent Muslims are being attacked and killed by Zionist Jews and Israeli supporters, to the point that in one of the countries a lady tried to drown two Muslim kids and their mom.

Feels like you're ignoring me listing where Biden failed domestically, because that's also a huge part of why a lot of people don't or won't vote for him.

I don't think a man wearing drag necessarily wants to be seen as a woman. But I would maintain that back in the day if you remove the aforementioned looney tune/happy gilmore type depictions what you have left is pretty much sexual. You never saw that sort of thing outside of the burlesque scenario at least. And society back in the day definitely was not accepting of this.

Come on, voice actors playing any part has nothing to do with this. As for the japan bit... is it relevant? AFAIK even while japan does have a different perspective on things it's not exactly hyper progressive in any relevant way to this even now. Let alone decades ago or further back. Socially japan is a super ridig and super conservative society.

How is it sexual? Do YOU find it sexual? Do YOU like it secretly?

 

[ninjabot]

TBH I don't see the relevance of any of those cases to this situation. How do any of those relate to men in drag going to schools to perform for children? Since when is generic voice acting considered drag? I can't really comment on japanese theater because I know pretty much nothing about it. I doubt japanese theater has much to do with this.

These are all instances where men are presenting as women, and it not being considered inherently sexual. Putting kids in front of them don't magically make it sexual. That's why they're all synonimous: because they're all men presenting as women.

In Japanese theatre women were not used to play women characters, only men were. Regardless of if the play was of romantic or sexual nature.

Also, no one tried to cancel looney tunes.... but what do you think would have happened to a grown man in the 1940-1950s in full drag showed up at a school to read to pre-schoolers? I don't see how these two are comparable... Certainly back in the day they weren't seen as comparable and certainly aren't comparable now.

Depends on whether they're reading sex oriented books or dressing provacatively. If they're reading 3 Little Pigs and playing it up as just "Hey, he's dressed like a girl the way Bugs Bunny does in the funnies! What a hoot!", then there's no outrage.

You're directly affected by the genocide. Again, USA keeps giving Israel money and weapons to keep murdering innocent people. How is that not affecting us when we need that money? The amount that they send to Israel can reduce student loans, reduce homelessness, and/or reduce hunger! And because of the genocide, innocent Muslims are being attacked and killed by Zionist Jews and Israeli supporters, to the point that in one of the countries a lady tried to drown two Muslim kids and their mom.

I'm not affected by it and I don't value this argument because the money given to Israel is to safeguard their spot as our ally. Yes, we could use the money given to them to feed homeless people, but those homeless people don't afford the American goverment the same strategic middle eastern advantages gained from Israel. Morally it's a good idea to feed those that need our help.

Politically, it's a waste. Ask yourself how many people decide who they're voting for based on how well homeless people are doing in America.

Feels like you're ignoring me listing where Biden failed domestically, because that's also a huge part of why a lot of people don't or won't vote for him.

Because we've had the conversation already about how you can't blame Biden for a lot of the things you're putting on him just to make him seem as bad as Trump to justify letting Democrats lose.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 20, 2024, Original Post Date: Jul 20, 2024 ---

 

[M3J]

I'm not affected by it and I don't value this argument because the money given to Israel is to safeguard their spot as our ally. Yes, we could use the money given to them to feed homeless people, but those homeless people don't afford the American goverment the same strategic middle eastern advantages gained from Israel. Morally it's a good idea to feed those that need our help.

Politically, it's a waste. Ask yourself how many people decide who they're voting for based on how well homeless people are doing in America.



Because we've had the conversation already about how you can't blame Biden for a lot of the things you're putting on him just to make him seem as bad as Trump to justify letting Democrats lose.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 20, 2024, Original Post Date: Jul 20, 2024 ---

It's this kind of thinking that doesn't help the Dems' chances of winning. If you let violence against innocent people happen and give money to a foreign country instead of helping your own, how are you proving to be better than the opposition?

BIDEN LITERALLY GOT TONS OF VOTES BECAUSE HE PROMISED TO CANCEL STUDENT LOANS AND ETC!! That's what made the left work hard to make sure more people could go to the booth and vote for Biden! Biden breaking his promises make him look bad, and even worse when he hasn't fought hard or fought at all to protect rights, regardless of whether it's his fault or not.

I mean, Biden is also continuing Trump's practice of splitting up families and throwing them in cells, on top of building a stupid-ass wall. I don't see how that's helping him look any better. At least in this case, Dems have been handed a weapon to help them, Republicans' Project 2025.

 

[ninjabot]

It's this kind of thinking that doesn't help the Dems' chances of winning. If you let violence against innocent people happen and give money to a foreign country instead of helping your own, how are you proving to be better than the opposition?

I disagree. If you're talking about a very distinct demographic, sure. But it's literally just THAT demographic.

BIDEN LITERALLY GOT TONS OF VOTES BECAUSE HE PROMISED TO CANCEL STUDENT LOANS AND ETC!! That's what made the left work hard to make sure more people could go to the booth and vote for Biden! Biden breaking his promises make him look bad, and even worse when he hasn't fought hard or fought at all to protect rights, regardless of whether it's his fault or not.

I don't believe this. I don't even know how you would quantify how many people voted for Biden for student loan forgiveness compared to how many voted for him to avoid a second Trump presidency.

I mean, Biden is also continuing Trump's practice of splitting up families and throwing them in cells, on top of building a stupid-ass wall. I don't see how that's helping him look any better. At least in this case, Dems have been handed a weapon to help them, Republicans' Project 2025.

Because he's a centrist. I may not like it, but it endears him to people that arent particularly left leaning. That's a benefit when it comes to electorialism.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 21, 2024, Original Post Date: Jul 21, 2024 ---

It's official: Biden is stepping down and letting Kamala pursue the presidency.

US election 2024 updates: Democrats back Kamala Harris as Biden drops out

The 81-year-old incumbent ends re-election bid after shaky debate performance and backs Vice President Harris.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[kkck]

And biden is out. I hope the party doesn't go with Kamala though.

 

[ninjabot]

He's already endorsed her, and if it's a matter of money they can't just give the Biden/Harris money to another candidate (or atleast that's what's been said). Whoever they go with if it's not Kamala would have to pull together millions for their candidacy and would still only have 4 months to say/do something to drudge up support.

Kamala's close enough to the Biden presidency to act as a go-between to get to his policy positions without needing him to be president to get them. And she'll get Biden's black vote. And she's not a potato.

She's the safe bet.

 

[M3J]

I disagree. If you're talking about a very distinct demographic, sure. But it's literally just THAT demographic.



I don't believe this. I don't even know how you would quantify how many people voted for Biden for student loan forgiveness compared to how many voted for him to avoid a second Trump presidency.



Because he's a centrist. I may not like it, but it endears him to people that arent particularly left leaning. That's a benefit when it comes to electorialism.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 21, 2024, Original Post Date: Jul 21, 2024 ---

It's official: Biden is stepping down and letting Kamala pursue the presidency.

US election 2024 updates: Democrats back Kamala Harris as Biden drops out

The 81-year-old incumbent ends re-election bid after shaky debate performance and backs Vice President Harris.

www.aljazeera.com

A demographic that has helped Biden win and can help him win again. Though I think if Trump didn't piss off Arizona, he could have won? I dunno, but I remember reading how the left mobilized to help Biden win. And on top of that, you have MAGAtards and people that don't understand economics or most other things wanting Trump to win as they think he's better for USA, so the Dems need all the support they can get.

You can't quantify it, but I'm literally going by what I've seen people say. Tons of people voted for him because of the things he promised, on top of not wanting another Trump term. You think if he promised the same thing as Trump, he would have gotten as many votes as he did??

Seems more slightly to the right, at the very least.




I hope Dems choose someone who can actually win instead of an establishment Dem they want. If they try to push Clinton again... we're fucked.