The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
03-26-2022, 01:08 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
No. It's an obscure way of saying that I failed to follow the first rule of Image Reposting Club. And now I'll never be able to find that picture again. It was really quite clever.
Anyway...
I've been noodling around the whole Blackburn v. Jackson thing recently. Mostly because I respect the cleverness of the tactic. But the more I think about it, the less I understand WHY nominee Jackson chose to evade the question, rather than just giving a simple, conventional answer.
Because it really didn't matter.
Sure, there would have been some grumbling from the woke, but it's not like that would change anything. Not one single democrat would have decided to vote against her confirmation based on that, and not one single republican would have suddenly been swayed to support her.
Nor does testimony before the Judiciary Committee equate to judicial precedent. She could have answered the question by saying "Most commonly, women have two X chromosomes," and this would have had no impact on her freedom to use more left-friendly definitions when hearing future cases.
Or she could have been a smart-***, and asked Rep. Blackburn to define "life," which is something that biologists still have no clear consensus on.
But she did none of these things. She just tiptoed straight into the trap. And so now we have to listen to woke liberals using the word "actually," a lot.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
Anyway...
I've been noodling around the whole Blackburn v. Jackson thing recently. Mostly because I respect the cleverness of the tactic. But the more I think about it, the less I understand WHY nominee Jackson chose to evade the question, rather than just giving a simple, conventional answer.
Because it really didn't matter.
Sure, there would have been some grumbling from the woke, but it's not like that would change anything. Not one single democrat would have decided to vote against her confirmation based on that, and not one single republican would have suddenly been swayed to support her.
Nor does testimony before the Judiciary Committee equate to judicial precedent. She could have answered the question by saying "Most commonly, women have two X chromosomes," and this would have had no impact on her freedom to use more left-friendly definitions when hearing future cases.
Or she could have been a smart-***, and asked Rep. Blackburn to define "life," which is something that biologists still have no clear consensus on.
But she did none of these things. She just tiptoed straight into the trap. And so now we have to listen to woke liberals using the word "actually," a lot.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
Reply
0
0
03-26-2022, 01:29 PM
No. It's an obscure way of saying that I failed to follow the first rule of Image Reposting Club. And now I'll never be able to find that picture again. It was really quite clever.
Anyway...
I've been noodling around the whole Blackburn v. Jackson thing recently. Mostly because I respect the cleverness of the tactic. But the more I think about it, the less I understand WHY nominee Jackson chose to evade the question, rather than just giving a simple, conventional answer.
Because it really didn't matter.
Sure, there would have been some grumbling from the woke, but it's not like that would change anything. Not one single democrat would have decided to vote against her confirmation based on that, and not one single republican would have suddenly been swayed to support her.
Nor does testimony before the Judiciary Committee equate to judicial precedent. She could have answered the question by saying "Most commonly, women have two X chromosomes," and this would have had no impact on her freedom to use more left-friendly definitions when hearing future cases.
Or she could have been a smart-***, and asked Rep. Blackburn to define "life," which is something that biologists still have no clear consensus on.
But she did none of these things. She just tiptoed straight into the trap. And so now we have to listen to woke liberals using the word "actually," a lot.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
Anyway...
I've been noodling around the whole Blackburn v. Jackson thing recently. Mostly because I respect the cleverness of the tactic. But the more I think about it, the less I understand WHY nominee Jackson chose to evade the question, rather than just giving a simple, conventional answer.
Because it really didn't matter.
Sure, there would have been some grumbling from the woke, but it's not like that would change anything. Not one single democrat would have decided to vote against her confirmation based on that, and not one single republican would have suddenly been swayed to support her.
Nor does testimony before the Judiciary Committee equate to judicial precedent. She could have answered the question by saying "Most commonly, women have two X chromosomes," and this would have had no impact on her freedom to use more left-friendly definitions when hearing future cases.
Or she could have been a smart-***, and asked Rep. Blackburn to define "life," which is something that biologists still have no clear consensus on.
But she did none of these things. She just tiptoed straight into the trap. And so now we have to listen to woke liberals using the word "actually," a lot.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
....seems appropriate to this conversation too...
Reply
0
0
03-28-2022, 08:30 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 538
Total Cats: 64
No. It's an obscure way of saying that I failed to follow the first rule of Image Reposting Club. And now I'll never be able to find that picture again. It was really quite clever.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
I dunno... I've never been nominated to a judicial appointment for life, and thus I've never had to sit through several days of politically-oriented grilling before the Senate. So maybe I'd have made the same mistake.
Reply
2
2
03-28-2022, 03:36 PM
All you need to do is look at the sexualized content Disney makes for tweens to know that they should NEVER have anything to do child development input. Remember Sunday nights with the family watching Disney and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom? That's LONG over. Now their content needs to be approved by China first. Dicks.
Reply
0
0
03-30-2022, 08:14 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
All you need to do is look at the sexualized content Disney makes for tweens to know that they should NEVER have anything to do child development input. Remember Sunday nights with the family watching Disney and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom? That's LONG over. Now their content needs to be approved by China first. Dicks.
Reply
0
0
03-30-2022, 10:31 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
Does anyone else find it odd that both the LGTBQIAP+ community, as well as the LGBTQIAP+phobic folks, all uniformly seem to accept lumping homosexuality into the same group as gender dysphoria, as well as either / both of those groups in with the pedophiles.
When did lesbianism, mental illness, and rape all decide to become friends?
What's odd is that I've found zero evidence of gays openly rejecting being included in the same broad categorization as folks who think they have too many / not enough penises, or who wish to rape children.
I don't mean that "it seems such opinions are being repressed in the name of wokeness," I mean that the gays don't seem to be fighting it at all.
When did lesbianism, mental illness, and rape all decide to become friends?
What's odd is that I've found zero evidence of gays openly rejecting being included in the same broad categorization as folks who think they have too many / not enough penises, or who wish to rape children.
I don't mean that "it seems such opinions are being repressed in the name of wokeness," I mean that the gays don't seem to be fighting it at all.
Reply
2
2
03-30-2022, 11:26 AM
Does anyone else find it odd that both the LGTBQIAP+ community, as well as the LGBTQIAP+phobic folks, all uniformly seem to accept lumping homosexuality into the same group as gender dysphoria, as well as either / both of those groups in with the pedophiles.
When did lesbianism, mental illness, and rape all decide to become friends?
What's odd is that I've found zero evidence of gays openly rejecting being included in the same broad categorization as folks who think they have too many / not enough penises, or who wish to rape children.
I don't mean that "it seems such opinions are being repressed in the name of wokeness," I mean that the gays don't seem to be fighting it at all.
When did lesbianism, mental illness, and rape all decide to become friends?
What's odd is that I've found zero evidence of gays openly rejecting being included in the same broad categorization as folks who think they have too many / not enough penises, or who wish to rape children.
I don't mean that "it seems such opinions are being repressed in the name of wokeness," I mean that the gays don't seem to be fighting it at all.
Reply
0
0
03-30-2022, 01:26 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
And reaction there hasn't been uniformly negative. Lots of women (and a few very brave men) have been speaking out against it rather publicly. And I can't think of a single example of one of them getting cancelled as a result of it.
So what's different here? Why are the **** almost uniformly tolerating if not encouraging this? Sure, there have been a few cases of men who identify as gay women accusing genuinely female lesbians of being trans-phobic for not wanting to have sex with them (on account of there being too many penises in the room), but it's rare.
Reply
0
0
03-30-2022, 01:38 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
One thing I've noticed is the inability of the wokies to be able to verbalize their position AGAINST pedophilia and child rape. My GF started a non-profit that targets survivors of child rape and child rape trafficking and it's downright angering the lengths that EVERY social media platform goes to suppress, sensor, and shadow ban all reports of child rape crimes or reports of protecting children from child rapists. It's dark times for sure.
Reply
0
0
03-30-2022, 01:38 PM
There, at least, we've seen some examples of women (mostly of high-school / college age, like Chelsea Mitchell and Madison Kenyon), saying "Dude, this totally isn't far. I've worked my *** off to become the best woman at [sport], and here this man, who as a matter of biology has more muscle mass and greater respiratory capacity than a woman of comparable size, and he's just being allowed to traipse all over us and get praised for being 'brave' and 'inspiring,' and it's bullshit."
And reaction there hasn't been uniformly negative. Lots of women (and a few very brave men) have been speaking out against it rather publicly. And I can't think of a single example of one of them getting cancelled as a result of it.
So what's different here? Why are the **** almost uniformly tolerating if not encouraging this? Sure, there have been a few cases of men who identify as gay women accusing genuinely female lesbians of being trans-phobic for not wanting to have sex with them (on account of there being too many penises in the room), but it's rare.
And reaction there hasn't been uniformly negative. Lots of women (and a few very brave men) have been speaking out against it rather publicly. And I can't think of a single example of one of them getting cancelled as a result of it.
So what's different here? Why are the **** almost uniformly tolerating if not encouraging this? Sure, there have been a few cases of men who identify as gay women accusing genuinely female lesbians of being trans-phobic for not wanting to have sex with them (on account of there being too many penises in the room), but it's rare.
Homosexuals feel biased against as well, which is probably why they are reticent to do the same to the rest of the alphabet group that you rightly point out gloms onto them. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder while homosexuality is not. Once upon a time homosexuality was considered to be a mental issue as well, which is perhaps why the trans group thinks that eventually they'll be removed from the "mentally ill" box. Given their suicides rates, it would be a shame if it wasn't taken seriously as a mental issue.
Reply
1
1
03-30-2022, 02:02 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,046
Total Cats: 6,607
Instead, we're pinkwashing mental illness by calling it Neurodiversity (not making this up.) Since "diversity" has been firmly established as being inherently good, people with psychiatric disorders no longer need to be treated or cured, they can instead be celebrated.
Heck, it's downright fashionable these days for people to stick a list of their self-diagnosed neurological disorders right up there with their pronouns and hashtags.
I mean, did you know that last week was #NeurodiversityCelebrationWeek? Neither did I until I went looking for an example of the phenomenon I described in the last sentence. This was literally one of the very first results:
Reply
0
0
