Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.
If I claimed all members of a group are groomers, I'd be looking through a distorted lens, ya.
They really don't but Marsh is going to be pushed as one example. Condemn his actions, say it isn't right so the people that only follow twitter and instagram reels see it.
What happens when you play identity politics.
The ones pulling the strings just use it as a wedge issue.
acting like lgbtqa2+ people is one group is crazy.
the lesbians and gays don’t really get along with each other.
asexuals really don’t have anything in common with gay men.
true..but I see it happen every day with dems and reps..entire GOP is racist etc and every voter is as well..
It is so weird to see people attempt to slam on neo nazis and race realists using Soviet figures. Pointing to Trofim Lysenko as some sort of affirmative figure in biology is horrific. Eugenics is bad, but Lysenko and early 20th century Soviet science culture are not improvements. Stupid Tankies don't realize that Nazis and Soviets bore the same fruit but just put a different label on the tin. It's wild out there. I feel like we all used to agree that totalitarianism is bad and taints everything. But we seem to have a growing set of minority opinions who think they have the recipe that will work.
Why do we (as humans, not just we on this board) argue more about hypocrisy than the actual issues at hand? Seems like we are an elephant trampling our young trying to keep a predator from them.
What's the rumor? The amendment was an actual thing.
But the meaning and intention of the amendment was being mischaracterized.
Over all else, gotta win and/or be right.
This was the language removed. What was the intent?
So you didn't read the fact checks?
Just to cut to the chase, here is a fact check with direct quotes from the bill's sponsor. This was all ideological bullshit, cooking up rage at a bill protecting identity and trying to spin it into somehow relating to pedophilia by NO LONGER associating pedophilia with a protected identity. It's intention was certainly the OPPOSITE of the claims.
This is great cover for cis pedos, though. Focus on the rainbow alphabet people, pay no attention to the actual statistics.
I only read the USA Today one. All I got out of it was it didn't enable pedophiles.
How about pay attention to both? You take up for some of the dumbest shit.
you're repeating my take and calling it dumb. I guess we will both muddle through our stupidity.
Not really because you have to keep reiterating that all the focus (or most the focus) is only on the rainbow whatever dumb shit you said people.
To add if you think focus is only on one group you are just not very smart. FBI is looking at all people always.
There's a dot that needs connecting here. How did the original language do anything claimed here? Short of the sponsor, who would most likely defend their bill full tilt, saying so, what is USA Today hanging their hat on with this claim? This is the emperor's new explanation if there was one. The original language was pretty clear and didn't implicate any person or group, and trans folk as child predators is only being discussed by anyone because of offering the amendment.
Focus should be find pedo's and lock them up. No matter who they are. Look everywhere.
The rhetoric is clearly disproportionately focused on a tiny group of people.
The original language conflated child rape with "orientation." That's damaging to people of "different orientations." Rape is not an orientation, be it directed at people too young to consent or anyone else. There are definitely people out there who call others "groomers" that are simply another orientation. This is addressing that.
Spare me with the "emperor" stuff. I'm posting direct quotes and you are sagely nodding no as if you can read minds. One of us is taking a "trust me, bro" disposition to this exchange, and it isn't me.
Separate names with a comma.