Cugalabanza

Ok, I’ll respond. This will be my last post in this topic. On James Woods: I don’t know what I’m supposed to say about this. I understand he feels like he can’t get work because of his politics. Maybe he’s just a jerk and nobody wants to work with him, I don’t know. Is there a conspiracy here? Some other big name Trump supporters continue to have successful careers: Sly Stone, Dennis Quaid, David Mamet… In any case, nothing about James Woods has to do with an authoritarian influence from the government. I’ve enjoyed James Woods in some things in the past. If he gets a big role in a movie, good for him. I don’t make these decisions. And neither does the government. I don’t know who Jenna Corino is. Tucker Carlson. No, I didn’t cry fascism when Tucker was let go by Fox. You know who else didn’t? Everybody. That’s because it was understood that there was a lot going on with Tucker. He had burned a lot of bridges at work, saying nasty stuff about his peers at Fox. Part of it was that some of his private comments about Trump and others became public. Off air, he was laughing at Trump because he thought he was a joke. Then there was the Dominion voting machine conspiracy thing, which Tucker was promoting on his show and privately calling stupid. JK Rowling. See James Woods above. Same deal. People are free to not like her if they want. There’s no big scheme here. My girlfriend reads and loves her private investigator books which she puts out under the name Robert Galbraith. I read the first couple and thought they were good. I personally think she’s kind of an obnoxious loudmouth from what I’ve read of her online comments. But it’s not a crime to be a jerk. You mention “many others” and “many journalists.” I won’t address that because I don’t know what you’re talking about. Even you can’t remember any of the supposed names.

Well, to address the specifics of what Kimmel said, I think he was wrong to connect the Kirk killer to MAGA. However, at that time, there were a lot of reports about who this killer was, his politics, etc... The story at that time was that the guy's family was MAGA. We've learned more since then. But anyway, none of that would be sufficient for a POTUS and his administration to do what is being done here. This is authoritarian. I think you know this, but instead of admitting it, it's more fun to celebrate this as a Win for you.

Actually, Roseanne Barr was quite out of her mind and it was clear that it was not possible for the show to go forward. The important point is that the administration did not cause it to happen. The fact that you disagree with the politics of most of the entertainment industry is unrelated. What is happening with Kimmel is directly the result of the current administration using its power and influence to eliminate people and voices that they disagree with. Anyone who has ever supported free speech or the constitution or American freedoms generally should be against this. I get why some people are celebrating, because they happen to hate Kimmel, but it's clear that this sets a very bad precedent. It's authoritarian.

That's not true. In Rosanne's case, her own cast and crew turned against her. Nobody wanted to work with her. I don't think you'll find any credible evidence that Obama had anything at all to do with that.

That is just not even close to accurate.

Oh ****. I better cancel my subscription to… not liking fascism.

I really don’t know. It seems to be saying that we’re gonna protect these kids even if we have to stab somebody to do it. Right? I mean, it’s hard to escape that being the implication. I don’t think she means stabbing anybody literally. It’s a symbolic/hyperbolic way of saying she won’t back away from the fight.

I said it’s a dick move and inflammatory and “looking for a fight.” Will you concede as much about the assault rifle pins?

Yeah, it seems inflammatory. I’d be ok with the message minus the knife. With the knife it makes it look like you’re looking for a fight. It’s not a crime, but it’s a dick move. People can form their own opinions about it. Similarly, when it was in style for politicians to wear the AR-15 pins, that was a move that raised the temperature and moved away from intelligent discussion. Again, not illegal, just unnecessarily toxic. The context was that people were very raw about school shootings and the gesture went beyond supporting the 2nd amendment. It was intended to rattle.

Thanks! That's a good definition. That's what I was looking for. I can appreciate the position. I agree that the "bigotry" card comes out too soon and too often. People who support trans rights tend to feel victimized themselves and they kind of come out swinging with their reactions. So, the entire discussion is already very hot and if you try to have a genuine conversation about any of it, it tends to get confrontational. From what I've seen in public schools (I have a daughter in ninth grade now), I haven't seen anything problematic. Maybe it is in some areas, I don't really know. Kids are aware that trans is a thing. To me it seems fine if the message is: [trans people exist and there's nothing wrong with that]. If there were anything approaching indoctrination, I would have a problem with that. I'm sure there are cases where young people have taken steps to transition and it turned out to be wrong for them. And I'm sure there are doctors out there who are too aggressive about it or who have acted inappropriately. It's hard to know the extent of this stuff because you see stories and lots of commentary, but it's all so supercharged, it's hard to know how much of it has been cherry-picked or how to weed out misinformation. The sports thing I find difficult. I personally think there are probably some cases where trans women should be able to compete, but where do you draw the line? I cannot say. Again, it's something that deserves careful discussion, but that often feels impossible. As soon as you bring it up as a topic, everybody is screaming and accusing the other side of being something inhuman. Anyway, thanks for honestly answering my question and not just attacking me personally or accusing me of pushing a dangerous agenda. 😄

So it sounds like what you are saying is that the transgender ideology is synonymous with support of the trans rights movement, since you think of it all as mental illness. Is that correct? And the correlation with violence is a natural one and inevitable since the fundamental condition involves mental illness? If that's your position, then you are certainly entitled to that. However, I don't think that most conservatives would agree with that. I suspect that they would give a different answer about the ideology and the associated violence. By the way, I definitely believe that the transgender issue and pedophilia are 100% distinct, separate things. Further, I think that by far the greater share of the pedophilia problem is the result of regular straight men.

But people commit crimes while simultaneously holding all kinds of beliefs. Correlation is not causality. Many thousands of catholic priests sexually molested young children. We don't extend blame to all Catholics or condemn the entire religion. We hopefully find and eliminate the criminal activity. There isn't anything inherently violent about believing some people can change gender. My fear is that some people make the connection that all of a group of people are guilty of something they are not guilty of. And the result is that they become vulnerable to violence themselves.

Serious question: What is transgender ideology? If a person believes that gender dysphoria is rare but legitimate and that transgender people deserve civil rights the same as anyone else, can't that be considered a reasonable (non-radical) position? Assume that same person simultaneously believes that political violence is wrong and should be condemned. At what point does tolerance of trans people count as an actual ideology? What is the supposed element of indoctrination or accompanying political stance that makes it harmful or extreme or unamerican? I believe that the trans issue is likely being way overstated as an influence on political violence and it does not represent trans people as a whole.

Tough one. Dolphins desperate and playing for their lives. Bills 24 Dolphins 22

There’s a famous old story: When Mike Nichols was making The Graduate, Robert Redford wanted to play the lead. Nichols had to reject him because he didn’t think he could play a loser. Nichols asked Redford, “Have you ever struck out with a girl?” and Redford was basically like I don’t understand the question.