|
NBC reporting that Trump will not be required to get a mugshot.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:The positions on police demographics don't conflict, it's two separate questions. If you're deciding between more police or fewer police you should probably choose fewer police. If you're deciding how white and male the police force should be you should probably choose the least white and male option. Nobody is choosing between "expand the police force specifically by hiring more officers of color" and "downsize the police force". Also that's making the assumption women and minorities who join the police force are necessarily any less eager to beat the poo poo out of women and minorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 07:57
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:The one you were referring to, who killed three children and three adults. Alright I'll make this quick and it's the last thing I'll say on the matter because the news and this thread have entirely moved on and ironically my "people need to shut the gently caress up about spree killers" stance has now left me as the last person still discussing them. Automata 10 Pack posted:Please post evidence of this fawning that can be proven to not be an alt-right psi-op. The "fawning" I'm talking about is the endless parade of news articles and news stories publicly parading around pictures of the killer discussing his motives and sharing detailed information about his life and other poo poo like his final text messages before the slaughter, news stories like this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/us/audrey-hale-nashville-school-shooting/index.html Except that's not happening so much this time because a WAY bigger news story came along and interrupted the usual bullshit carnival ride so that's yet another reason to be thankful Trump got arrested and gave the 24 hour news cycle something new to obsess over. A spree killer being given that much fame and attention is poison for people struggling with homicidal ideation because it shows that yes murder is an effective way to get the recognition you've been craving and get millions of people to know your name and all of your thoughts on each and every issue that's important to you. Much like how you have to be super loving careful about how you discuss and present issues relating to suicidal ideation to prevent accidentally triggering and encouraging people struggling with those thoughts you also need to be careful in how you talk about issues relating to homicidal ideation especially in relation to a form of homicide that's as ridiculously easy to imitate as spree killing because the only thing you need to commit one is gun+crowd and in America you have easy access to both. Yes, I know it's hard to keep information away from the public in the age of social media, and yes I know the concept of homicide as an entertaining spectacle is nothing new and won't be going away any time soon. There' are hundreds of true crime podcasts and the web is full of people fixating on and forming parasocial relationships with real life serial killers. I just also strongly believe that for this particular kind of homicide at least some loving effort should be made to keep the murders identity a secret to the public until enough time passes that they find some new poo poo to fixate on because, like I said, this is a form a homicide that's easily imitable and is currently an effective means of attention getting for dumbasses with manifestos. Would doing this be as an effective way of stopping the problem as gun control? No! Of Course not! But it's still better than the way we're doing things now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 08:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
While all of that is good stuff and some of it very important stuff ( the things relating to the Good Friday Agreement especially ) I want specically point out this small thing as cool. As for the King's cornation: the US did fight a war that told the British goverment and especially the monarchy to gently caress off forever. Like, there was a lot of garbage reasoning and bad stuff going on there, but saying no to the divine right of kings is one of the things they did do correctly. Twincityhacker fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:surely even a dyed in the wool republican voter would be pissed off at this For a split second maybe, then they remember how much more pissed off they are at the existence of trans people or black people and move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 09:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Joe Biden's long and weird feud with the U.K. over Ireland and his Irish heritage is definitely the weirdest and funniest subplot of his Presidency. This is how you know that Biden is a true American because he was born in Pennsylvania to an Irish mom and a mostly English dad and has decided he is going to heavily identity with the fraction that is cooler. My full support for my plastic paddy president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:As for the King's cornation: the US did fight a war that told the British goverment and especially the monarchy to gently caress off forever. Like, there was a lot of garbage reasoning and bad stuff going on there, but saying no to the divine right of kings is one of the things they did do correctly. The king was already functionally a figurehead by the Revolution; the last time a monarch failed to assent to a bill passed by parliament was under Queen Anne around 70 years prior. The king was a nice stand-in for the overall government because “down with the king” is a bit easier to chew than “down with the House of Lords” or whatever and it made it possible to harness anti-Catholic sentiment for propaganda purposes: as Thomas Paine said in Common Sense (slightly paraphrased), “Monarchy is the Popery of government.” Also the Founding Fathers absolutely wanted to be the American Lords so they couldn’t go too hard rhetorically against them. You’re absolutely right about saying no to monarchy being one of the philosophically good things about the Revolution, but it wasn’t really borne out of the political reality of the day. Judgy Fucker fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Personally I like to loudly say “slainte!” every time someone brings me a beer. If they ask what I’m saying, I use that as an opportunity to give a detailed explanation about how my great great grandfather immigrated here in the 1850s. You see, it’s a proud Irish tradition to drink beer and say slainte! I am interesting and cultured.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:...philosophically good...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I think we can all agree that Biden's consistency on the issue is respectable, and that taking every opportunity to beat up on England is morally correct, has no downside, and is loving hilarious. CuddleCryptid posted:This is how you know that Biden is a true American because he was born in Pennsylvania to an Irish mom and a mostly English dad and has decided he is going to heavily identity with the fraction that is cooler. My full support for my plastic paddy president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Alright I'll make this quick and it's the last thing I'll say on the matter because the news and this thread have entirely moved on and ironically my "people need to shut the gently caress up about spree killers" stance has now left me as the last person still discussing them. So to me you're asking for the entire culture to change so that we don't talk about the most recent bloody headline. Thats just... not how humans work, and not how our news networks are structured to work (this is not a good thing though). You recognize that its quite difficult to keep information hidden in the age of social media (in part due to the fact that there is no legislation, or will to enact legislation forcing Social Media companies to help keep Spree Killer's names censored), 24h news cycles perpetuate the focusing on Spree Killers, and that making a Spree-Killer's name verboten is less effective than gun control. Why argue for this less effective solution when there are others that don't have as many hurdles to overcome, and by your own admission are more effective? Is this just a case of 'we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, so we can work towards gun control, AND Spree Killer censoring'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A federal Judge (nominated by Bob Corker and appointed by Trump) has blocked Tennesse's bill to ban drag. *To be clear, I'm aware drag kings exist, some drag queens are cis and trans women alike along with non-binary people
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I am a math nerd, and if we use your assumption that 6% of the potential members of a Trump jury will be dead-ender Trump fanatics who will never vote to convict him for anything, then the odds that 12 random people from that pool will not have one of those crazy people is just 47.6% (That is 0.94^12) You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Sleepy Joe and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another candidate, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add little Ron DeSanctimonious to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way in 2024, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because little Ronnie KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try! So Sleepy Joe, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning in 2024. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning in 2024. See Joe, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you in 2024. bloodysabbath fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:So to me you're asking for the entire culture to change so that we don't talk about the most recent bloody headline. Thats just... not how humans work, and not how our news networks are structured to work (this is not a good thing though). The real problem with how spree killing is discussed in US mass media is that the profit motive incentivizes sensationalistic, obsessive focus on the killer, the heinousness of the crime, and the idea that the viewer at home could be killed in a similar way. If the focus were on the lives of the victims and on how the community copes with and moves past tragedy rather than on turning the killer into an infamous figure prepackaged to be idolized by 4chan fuckfaces who try it for themselves a year later, it would be much less of an issue. TV knows what it’s doing because their coverage has been refined to a science over the last 20 years. It’s extremely negligent and I have to imagine they all know, but the whole point of everything is to make money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
There has already been a significant shift in coverage of shootings by most outlets to spend less time on the shooter and their motivations, and to not cover manifestos or similar statements. This has been happening for at least a couple years.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Drag bans are pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I can't even imagine them surviving the current worst Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with gender identity or accepting trans people. Drag bans just clearly violate the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment because they're just bans on a guy wearing a dress*. Taken to their natural extreme they pretty much give state governments the power to force women to not wear pants. Of course, if it actually gets to the Supreme Court, it'll still probably just end up being a 5-4 decision agains the bans. They also might just deny cert if lower courts have struck it down. But yeah the far right side of the court has no limits. It reminds me of when federal judge Reed O'Connor (who this week ruled coverage requirements for insurance are unconstitutional) struck down the entire ACA a few years ago on some flimsy reasoning. It got appealed up the chain and every judge who saw it basically laughed at what absurd legal argument it was. So then it gets to the Supreme Court and his ruling is officially overturned... 7-2. 
Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Drag bans are pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I can't even imagine them surviving the current worst Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with gender identity or accepting trans people. Drag bans just clearly violate the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment because they're just bans on a guy wearing a dress*. Taken to their natural extreme they pretty much give state governments the power to force women to not wear pants. Of course, if it actually gets to the Supreme Court, it'll still probably just end up being a 5-4 decision agains the bans. I wonder if, say the drag ban does go through and manages to stick the landing, if some  type tries to move that judge robes, or robes in general, are considered dresses and therefore drag. Or kilts. Y'know, one of those "I am not serious about pushing for this, I am just trying to score an Own against the conservatives." kind of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if they make the obviously correct ruling but barely. Don't really see Roberts or Gorsuch letting the law slide, and I can't see C-B, Alito or Thomas ruling to overturn it, so it'll probably be 6-3 or 5-4. (I think Kav would rule correctly but we'll see.) Remember, a law that basically said you couldn't just fire a trans person for being trans was met with the response from President Donald Trump of, "That's the law." I can't imagine that happening now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
I would support a constitutional amendment banning any form of jorts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Seph posted:Personally I like to loudly say “slainte!” every time someone brings me a beer. If they ask what I’m saying, I use that as an opportunity to give a detailed explanation about how my great great grandfather immigrated here in the 1850s. You see, it’s a proud Irish tradition to drink beer and say slainte! I am interesting and cultured. Same but I tell them about the tragic past of Bennigan's and the lost cultural heritage of the Monte Cristo sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I would support a constitutional amendment banning any form of jorts. "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Florida forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Florida forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." I've been a resident here for almost 40 years and I'd be running out and staring up with my arms open like a child seeing their first snowfall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Drag bans are pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I can't even imagine them surviving the current worst Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with gender identity or accepting trans people. Drag bans just clearly violate the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment because they're just bans on a guy wearing a dress*. Taken to their natural extreme they pretty much give state governments the power to force women to not wear pants. Of course, if it actually gets to the Supreme Court, it'll still probably just end up being a 5-4 decision agains the bans. This got me to thinking. I was having an argument the other day whereby somebody tried to argue that drag shows are like strip clubs in that they are an event and therefore subject to zoning laws and other kinds of local legislation; but I countered that public nudity is generally illegal and a strip club is a space where it isn't illegal, so it makes sense that you'd need to have districting for it. Wearing a wig and a dress isn't illegal anywhere - you'd have to outlaw certain kinds of theater while you're at it. How do you outlaw a 'drag show' anyway? How do these laws define 'drag shows'? Because I have a hard time imagining a world where you pass a ban on 'drag shows' where you don't simultaneously and accidentally outlaw a bunch of other stuff on top of it. For instance, if you define a drag show as a performative and sometimes comical theater whereby the participants dress up in genders not their own*, you accidentaly outlaw mascots. EDIT: *from the perspective of the lawmakers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
The laws aren’t designed to be applied consistently. They’re meant to identify certain people as inherently different and deserving of special regulation. It doesn’t even matter if the laws are struck down or so unenforceable that they’re never used successfully, as their purpose is to raise the temperature on undesirables and get people used to the idea that there are undesirables and they are unnatural and need to be regulated for the good of society—to make them a problem in need of a solution. You can’t overstate the dishonesty of what conservatives say in public, but these laws are also dangerous because there are people who fall for the rhetoric they use. There are plenty of grandpas out there who would never have thought about trans people at all, or who would have defaulted to the good old American individualism of “people can live how they want” (probably as long as they never met any) who are now foaming at the mouth about trans groomers because of what their media diet serves up to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
In fact, from a certain point of view, it’s useful to reactionary elements to produce obviously absurd laws, because it causes people to think of laws and legal systems as nonsensical, which makes it easier to get rid of laws that already exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
The "Drag Show" freakout is still stunning as hell to me. I grew up with Kids in the Hall and In Living Color and so many of the loving people I know who talk about grooming and poo poo will still fondly remember those shows and cannot understand why I might find that strange. I really can't even think of any "inappropriate" shows involving drag as a youth, it was always just something that people did that affected no part of my or my families lives and just went by without comment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:This got me to thinking. I was having an argument the other day whereby somebody tried to argue that drag shows are like strip clubs in that they are an event and therefore subject to zoning laws and other kinds of local legislation; but I countered that public nudity is generally illegal and a strip club is a space where it isn't illegal, so it makes sense that you'd need to have districting for it. Wearing a wig and a dress isn't illegal anywhere - you'd have to outlaw certain kinds of theater while you're at it. And if you're assuming that actual use of a law like that is from a long time ago, WELL... quote:In 2008, Bianey García was walking with her boyfriend down Roosevelt Avenue, the main artery in the diverse Jackson Heights neighborhood of Queens, New York, around 4 a.m. after leaving a gay club. She was 18 at the time, and she had just started her gender transition. The goal is to throw everything at the wall to bring fear, uncertainty, and justify discrimination agaInst queer people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
TGG posted:The "Drag Show" freakout is still stunning as hell to me. I grew up with Kids in the Hall and In Living Color and so many of the loving people I know who talk about grooming and poo poo will still fondly remember those shows and cannot understand why I might find that strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
TGG posted:The "Drag Show" freakout is still stunning as hell to me. I grew up with Kids in the Hall and In Living Color and so many of the loving people I know who talk about grooming and poo poo will still fondly remember those shows and cannot understand why I might find that strange. Yeah I grew up seeing Kids in the Hall on tv off school during the summer. 10 year old me saying to myself "that man is dressed like a lady this rules."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
I mean the Monty Python stuff is even before that and it was very popular
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
TGG posted:The "Drag Show" freakout is still stunning as hell to me. I grew up with Kids in the Hall and In Living Color and so many of the loving people I know who talk about grooming and poo poo will still fondly remember those shows and cannot understand why I might find that strange. I really can't even think of any "inappropriate" shows involving drag as a youth, it was always just something that people did that affected no part of my or my families lives and just went by without comment. I remember going to a storytime hour at a library as a kid and I for the life of me couldn't tell you thing one about whoever was reading the story, if they were dressed up or plainclothes, if they were a library employee or a volunteer. I remember they read us Corduroy and that was about it. I imagine most kids going to Drag Queen Story Hour would have roughly the same experience once they reach adulthood too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
If I had to guess, my first memory of someone in drag was probably on nickelodeon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv1U2DWn32I
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
The major difference is that that drag was a joke, a parody, something to be laughed at. Things like Monty Python were funny because they were men pretending to be women, a situation which to the average transphobe's mind is a laughable mix-up of the natural order like a cat chasing a dog. Drag queens took drag seriously, celebrated it, made it mainstream. That's why they're so upset: drag queens being taken seriously is a confusion of the Natural Order which must be punished to maintain control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean the Monty Python stuff is even before that and it was very popular And Milton Berle was doing it in the 50s on tv on a family show. Here he is with Bob Hope https://twitter.com/EmphasizeTruth/status/1613681176459231240/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Oracle posted:And Milton Berle was doing it in the 50s on tv on a family show. Here he is with Bob Hope If drag is cool enough for a guy with a ten foot cock like Milton Berle, then it's a-ok for you and me too 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
It's OK for Milton Berle, Monty Python, Kids in the Hall, etc to do drag because they're not drag queens. It's bad for drag queens to do drag because they're drag queens. That might sound ridiculous to people who aren't huge pieces of poo poo, but that's fascism for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
Nobody gave a poo poo about drag for yeeeaaaaaars, up until extremely recently. RuPaul was super famous in the '90s and his show has been on since 2009. It's 100% an outgrowth of trans panic. Men dressing as women is just a good harmless fun time, but people with penises being women, well, that won't do at all. Drag is just kind of getting caught in the net. (Honestly I thought if we saw hostility to drag it would come from the left, for appropriation!) I am kind of hoping that we are approaching backlash-to-the-backlash time... not enjoying the madness over the last year or so after so much progress was made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Florida forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." I have a clear memory of filling up a car at a gas station in Jacksonville, and an old Volvo pulled up. A guy crawled out the window, Dukes of Hazzard style, finally revealing a pair of jorts. It was just a note-perfect "welcome to Florida" moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's OK for Milton Berle, Monty Python, Kids in the Hall, etc to do drag because they're not drag queens. It's bad for drag queens to do drag because they're drag queens. That might sound ridiculous to people who aren't huge pieces of poo poo, but that's fascism for you. Basically it's this. Popular media with guys dressed like ladies is US having a good giggle over how stupid the very idea of a guy dressing like a lady is. Drag shows themselves are unforgivable affronts to the natural order where THEY get ideas about being normal people. When Tom Hanks dressed up like a lady in Bosom Buddies it was for sound economic and heterosexual sexy reasons. When a drag queen does it, it's subverting the natural order and obviously directed at me despite my never having been within 500 feet of a drag show. The fact that nobody else in society gave two shits, and even seemed to be enjoying it, is perhaps the gravest offense in the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:This got me to thinking. I was having an argument the other day whereby somebody tried to argue that drag shows are like strip clubs in that they are an event and therefore subject to zoning laws and other kinds of local legislation; but I countered that public nudity is generally illegal and a strip club is a space where it isn't illegal, so it makes sense that you'd need to have districting for it. Wearing a wig and a dress isn't illegal anywhere - you'd have to outlaw certain kinds of theater while you're at it. The text of the Tennessee law is pretty straightforward, and very short: quote:BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: So it targets "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest". In theory, it only applies to drag that appeals to a "prurient interest". But what does "prurient interest" mean in this context? It's left vague and not defined here, but elsewhere in Tennessee law it refers to "shameful or morbid interest in sex". Which is still pretty vague. I think it translates to normal English as "some real freaky pervert poo poo", except that the people setting the bar for that are cops and judges in Tennessee, so you never know where the local authorities will draw the line. Especially given that the far right is actively trying to portray all trans people as groomers and rapists. It's an intentionally subjective standard that lets local chud authorities apply an "I know it when I see it" standard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2023 06:03
|
|