Stupid World

[pritch]

IIRC there were those who were unimpressed by the jail sentences handed to those involved in the Jan 6 coup attempt. As is the way, minor offences are prosecuted first, more recent sentences have been higher as they work up the food chain. One today was seven years. Seven years in a US prison is no picnic.

[TheDemonLord]

i doubt you will be able to figure out the difference between simple media bias and full of propaganda driven from a dictatorship that controls every form of media in their country

That's because there is no difference...

[TheDemonLord]

IIRC there were those who were unimpressed by the jail sentences handed to those involved in the Jan 6 coup attempt. As is the way, minor offences are prosecuted first, more recent sentences have been higher as they work up the food chain. One today was seven years. Seven years in a US prison is no picnic.

Okay then - let's see what he got 7 years for then, surely it must be something under the Sedition act or something to do with Insurrection, right?

Oh.

Oh no it isn't.

Details: Young "aggressively assaulted and harassed a line of dramatically out-numbered" officers inside the Capitol, according to the sentencing memorandum.

He held a strobe light toward the police line, "pushed forward a stick-like object" and assisted in throwing a large audio speaker toward them, the DOJ said.

Then, Young and others assaulted an officer who was pulled into the crowd of rioters. Young held the officer’s left wrist and pulled the officer’s arm away from his body, the DOJ said.

As the violence continued, Young also "made contact with" the helmet of an officer who was pulled into the crowd.

Now, the charge is assaulting an Officer - and assaulting officers is bad and should be punished - from the details of the conviction though... not seeing a whole lot of 'assault'... Much less the 'Aggressively assaulted' claimed in the headline - not seeing any punches or elbows or knees thrown...

But of course, had he been a Democrat voter, this would be a mostly peaceful protest, he could have run-over the officer with his car, and be out on Bail.

[pritch]

An aspiring US politician has announced that if he is elected he will ban pole dancing, porn, and CRT - in primary schools. US primary schools sound much more exciting than the one I went to in NZ. Either that or he's a gullible twat.

Remember though that there are actually people, politicians included, who believe some kids identify as cats. These kids are referred to as 'furries' and require litter trays to be installed in the loos. Or so the fuckwit fringe believe.

[TheDemonLord]

An aspiring US politician has announced that if he is elected he will ban pole dancing, porn, and CRT - in primary schools. US primary schools sound much more exciting than the one I went to in NZ. Either that or he's a gullible twat.

Context is key - the banning 'Porn' is a reference to books in primary schools that contain sexually explicit imagery. Actually - I've got a better idea... A Picture is worth a Thousand Words:



Anyone brave enough to say they think that's appropriate for a book in School?

And banning of CRT is great. I've covered off instances (that you refuse to acknowledge) where CRT principles have been included in subjects.

Remember though that there are actually people, politicians included, who believe some kids identify as cats. These kids are referred to as 'furries' and require litter trays to be installed in the loos. Or so the fuckwit fringe believe.

Now, to presage this article, I don't believe that people who self-identify as Animals fall under the same umbrella as Furries.

The key difference being that Furries are playing a character, whereas people who self-identify as an Animal believe themselves to be that animal. It's a very important difference.

https://www.indy100.com/news/student...-cat-australia

People who self-identify as Cats (or other Animal) fall under the category of 'Xenogender'

And if you don't believe me - let's see what the LGBTQ+IA!KOUTNVOWDIOHTKONVWDIOHOWRTIHV dating app 'Taimi' has to say about it...

No, I'm actually serious - they have an entire article on CatGender, and you'll note it doesn't once mention Furries

So I have to ask - who is the Fuckwit Fringe? Cause at this point, I've got a buck either way.

[mashman]

Chocolate bunnies sold at Lidl must be destroyed, Swiss court rules in trademark case... lol.

[pritch]

And banning of CRT is great. I've covered off instances (that you refuse to acknowledge) where CRT principles have been included in subjects.

So I have to ask - who is the Fuckwit Fringe? Cause at this point, I've got a buck either way.

it's a lost cause but I'll try one more time. CRT is not taught in schools. Specifically t's an optional course in a law degree and that is all it is. The many and varied things RWNJs decide to call CRT are not CRT.

MAGA and Q adherents are fuckwits but anybody, including politicians, who believes there are litter trays in school toilets for the use of kids certainly qualifies.

[TheDemonLord]

it's a lost cause but I'll try one more time. CRT is not taught in schools. Specifically t's an optional course in a law degree and that is all it is. The many and varied things RWNJs decide to call CRT are not CRT.

And when I've pointed to a Math Curricula, that is targetted at Primary School students, funded by major institutions, that specifically cites CRT - you go awfully quiet:

https://equitablemath.org/

A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity...
...as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.

And if we go to the Glossary and look up the source they cite for the definition of Racism that they use:

we get this link: https://www.dismantlingracism.org/racism-defined.html

Literally the first line:

The definition of racism offered here is grounded in Critical Race Theory

But Wait! There's more!


https://aperiodical.com/2020/06/resources-for-anti-racism-and-social-justice-in-the-mathematical-sciences/

Which has a list that includes this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1..._awxj6Qyg/edit

"Social Justice Mathematics and Science Curricular Resources for K-12 Teachers"

Let me be clear - the University subject of CRT is not taught in Primary Schools, however the CRT Definitions of Race and Racism and Anti-Racist praxis are, based on the above, absolutely being taught in primary school and that is what is meant when Conservatives say CRT is being taught in School.

MAGA and Q adherents are fuckwits but anybody, including politicians, who believes there are litter trays in school toilets for the use of kids certainly qualifies.

I never said there were Litter Trays in School Toilets, I did, however point to a documented instance of a School accepting a Human as being a Cat.

Then I pointed you to resource that confirmed that the Left Wing radicals believe in something called CatGender, enough to have an entire article on it and linking it to a wider concept called XenoGender.

On that basis - I get to ask - Who, exactly, are you calling Fuckwits?

Are you calling the LGBT Lobby Fuckwits? Because they certainly believe in this, if so - how very *phobic of you...
Are you calling Conservatives who merely point this out Fuckwits? If so, they aren't saying it is real in the sense of it's valid, they are saying 'look at these loons that believe this lunacy' - hardly grounds to call someone a Fuckwit if that is all they are doing.


----Edit----

A Couple of things to add - firstly, is the proof of CRT being taught in schools by the opposition to the ban.

If there is no CRT taught in schools, then any Ban would have zero effect on what is being taught and therefore would have zero opposition.
However, if CRT was being taught in schools (by ideologically possessed Teachers) then there would be plenty of reasons to oppose a ban on teaching it in Schools.

And secondly - it is curious that you chose to pick out CRT to defend, as opposed to defending the other item in your list - What's the matter Pritch? Are you getting Squeamish at having to defend a book that depicts two teenagers blowing each other being in middle school libraries? Are you going to implicitly agree (by choosing not to argue that point) that such a book shouldn't be in a School?

If so, then you must agree that the Conservatives, at the very least, have a point to be upset about.

My personal opinion is such a book is inappropriate to be in Schools, due to it's use of a graphic depiction. But if a Student who is around that age wants to buy it with their own money (like I did with books such as a Clockwork Orange in my early/mid teens) - then go for it.

[pritch]

And when I've pointed to a Math Curricula, that is targetted at Primary School students, funded by major institutions, that specifically cites CRT - you go awfully quiet:

It "cites" CRT, it is not CRT. It's not difficult. I don''t go quiet, I ignore it 'cause it's just too silly.

Let me be clear - the University subject of CRT is not taught in Primary Schools,

Thank you. At last.

I never said there were Litter Trays in School Toilets

I did. There are MAGAts believe this idiocy along with all the other nonsense they gained by "doing their own research." There was even a state politician made a speech damning the provision of litter trays in schools for kids identifying as cats. I don't give a fuck if some kids were allowed to identify as cats. I'm pointing out that there are fuckwits who believe there are litter trays for kids in school toilets.


Enough.

[TheDemonLord]

It "cites" CRT, it is not CRT. It's not difficult.

How does one Cite a concept, Pritch, without teaching it?

Come on - I'm all ears.

"These books, they mention God and Jesus - it sure looks like you are teaching Christianity in Schools?"

Pritch: "Oh no, we aren't teaching Christianity, we just cite the Bible...."

Still nothing I see about the book showing teenagers blowing each other in schools - Decided, perhaps, this is not a hill worth dying on?

I don''t go quiet, I ignore it 'cause it's just too silly.

Ah yes, the Ostrich Defence....

Thank you. At last.

You ignore the second part.

Where I have provided multiple links and evidence that CRT Concepts are being taught in K through 12. That is what they are seeking to be banned. That is what is meant when they say CRT is being taught in school. They use the CRT Framework, Definitions, Concepts and put them into practice (or Praxis as per the Marxist Parlance).

Do you accept that if you are:

1: Citing CRT definitions
2: Using CRT Concepts
3: Using CRT Frameworks

Then you are, by extension, teaching CRT? In practice, if not in academic Theory?

I did. There are MAGAts believe this idiocy along with all the other nonsense they gained by "doing their own research." There was even a state politician made a speech damning the provision of litter trays in schools for kids identifying as cats. I don't give a fuck if some kids were allowed to identify as cats. I'm pointing out that there are fuckwits who believe there are litter trays for kids in school toilets.

Enough.

Okay - put the litter tray idea down, for the moment. I'll grant you there are people that probably believe it.

The problem first and foremost is that you have Radical Left-Wing types who insist that something like CatGender is both real and should be accommodated hence why I can find an instance of a school accepting of it.

From there it is a very small series of steps that if you accept a Human as a Cat, then you ought to treat them as a Cat and how does one do that? Well... Litter Boxes.

Just like if you accept that a Biological Male can on the mere say-so become a Female (Trans-Women are Women as the chant goes), then that biological Male not only can, but must be allowed to use the Girls Bathrooms... Let's just not talk about all the rapes and sexual assaults that multiple schools have covered up to preserve that Lunacy.

It is the same series of steps:

If Man is Women, then you ought to treat them as a Women, and where do Women go to the Toilet? In the Womens Toilets
If Man is Cat, then you ought to treat them as a Cat, and where do Cats go to the Toilet? In a Litter Box.

Same (retarded) Logic.

So to be clear - I do not believe the Cat Litter story - but I know that the left believe that CatGender is real, I know that at least one school as accommodated a student who self-identified as a cat, as a cat, and I know where the conclusion of that line of thinking goes.

[sugilite:Me]

Ok tdl, you seem to have missed referencing where you got the image of the book from?
considering most children carry a device in their pocket that lets them access images and video showing such things as beastiality, scat, and near every video of straight sex scenes suggesting every woman loves cum on her face. Why should schools not attempt to cover the subject in a more balanced way? A lot of parents simply don't talk about sex. This shit is out there and kids need to be taught things like respect, observing boundries, keeping safe, acknowledging fantasies, but the possible real world consequences of acting them out.

I have no doubt you will now twist my words around with great delight, but i feel most will get what im getting at.

Tidal waves of porn have been unleashed and are readily available and often acessed by children While i do not necessarily approve of your example piece, my strong feeling is children need to be shown a balance and given guidelines on how to deal with what many see on a daily basis. Sure getting the balance right is very difficult, but doing nothing and pretendingour kids dont see this depravity all the time is not an option either imho.

[TheDemonLord]

Ok tdl, you seem to have missed referencing where you got the image of the book from?

The where is irrelevant - the only thing is that it's a pretty accurate depiction of what is in the book. All the sites that think this book is a good thing - show the nice pictures - all the sites that don't like the book show the objectionable stuff.

I'm gonna presume that the source (since you raised it) is objectionable - but as above, my only requirement was that I found an accurate enough depiction of the objectionable section of the book.

considering most children carry a device in their pocket that lets them access images and video showing such things as beastiality, scat, and near every video of straight sex scenes suggesting every woman loves cum on her face.

Something that many people take an issue with.

Why should schools not attempt to cover the subject in a more balanced way?

Okay - I have multiple different thoughts on this.

I will start with the most Hyper-Conservative one:

It is very difficult to identify predators in the general population. An adult that wants to talk to Children about Sex has a greater than random chance percentage of being a Predator. There is little-to-no benefit to be gained in risking that interaction and very large and life-long potential consequences. Therefore Any Adult who wants to talk to my Children about Sex can fuck right off.

Slightly less Conservative than that is that I've read a little history of the field of Sexology and the people that came up with the idea and the early beginnings - two notable incidents was a German experiment to put vulnerable orphans in the care of known Pedophiles (and yes, that went as well as you would expect), the other being the work of Alfred Kinsey - who as part of his research consulted with a Pedophile for info about the sexual response of Children.
Suffice to say, with a history like that, I am highly skeptical.

Let's cut to the Middle Ground - regardless of anyones thoughts on the matter - the Sexual Revolution happened and we are where we are - Things like Contraception, Teenage Pregnancy, Consent and STIs have a good pragmatic basis for teaching children who are close to the age where they are likely to start experimenting (so just before the onset of puberty) to give them the tools to explore safely. This is the majority opinion that I hold on this subject - but with Caveats - given my other two aforementioned opinions - to quote Captain Picard: "Vigilance, Mister Worf - that is the price we have to continually pay."

Now, for the slightly more liberal side of things - as you say, they will find this out on their own and the sources that they will use for *ahem* research, will have a very particular bias (shall we say) to them, and as such, an attempt to correct that bias could be warranted (although ultimately futile - for various reasons).

A lot of parents simply don't talk about sex. This shit is out there and kids need to be taught things like respect, observing boundries, keeping safe, acknowledging fantasies, but the possible real world consequences of acting them out.

See above, I'm not entirely opposed in part to this - but the question is: What is the limiting factor on what to teach? See, as above - Respect, sure. Consent? Absolutely, keeping safe - definitely.

Acknowledging Fantasies - this is where it gets interesting. Just so you know this isn't some back column in a Men's magazine source. According to that, between 31% and 57% of women have had Rape Fantasies.

A bit more sinister and malevolent than merely getting a facial, wouldn't you say?

Do you teach that to School Children? And if not, why not?

This isn't an attempt at a Gotchya - what mechanism do you use to say 'these Fantasies are okay to teach about, these ones aren't' - I mean, the rational person might say that you only teach about the common ones - but between 31 and 57% - that's pretty common wouldn't you say?

Would you feel it is right an acceptable to get in front of a class of say 16 year olds (so above the age of consent) and tell them (a mix of Girls and Boys) about this?

I wouldn't.

I have no doubt you will now twist my words around with great delight, but i feel most will get what im getting at.

As above, I agree mostly with you - but I have reservations based on both a historical reading and philosophical issues.

While i do not necessarily approve of your example piece

Okay - let me pause you there for a moment.

Why?

And the follow-up, if you don't approve of it, does it stand to reason as a fairly Centrist, typical Person, that many others who make up the majority would also not necessarily approve of it?

If that is true (and I think it is) - does it therefore stand to reason that when the Conservative steps forward and says they are going to Ban porn in schools, instead of the Mock-Horror and denial A La Pritch, that maybe they have a rational and reasonable basis for doing so?

I should also remind everyone that for the most part, I don't like censorship - being rather a free speech absolutist - as per my previous post when I said I have no problem with a teenager earning their own money and buying the book.

That ideal though comes with some responsibilities - which I think having this bought by the Tax payer and put into a school library violates.

my strong feeling is children need to be shown a balance and given guidelines on how to deal with what many see on a daily basis.

I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view and even agree with some aspects of it - However, I don't think it's entirely possible.

I happen to know several very strident Feminists (Full-on Smash the Patriarchy types) - don't ask how our Friendship works - on paper it shouldn't, but it does. I also happen to know that behind closed doors there is a proportional relationship to how outspoken a Feminist they are and how much they love to be ragdolled around the room, Spat on, called a Whore and generally abused (consensually, of course).

The reason I bring this up, is that what gets our motor going, is what gets our motor going. Things that are a Turn-on, just are - it's involuntary.

I mean, this was the argument for Gay Acceptance in the 80s/90s - the whole 'Born this way' argument, that you have no conscious control over what gets your rocks off.

I'm pretty self aware that I can point you to two scenes in a movie that explains literally 90% of what I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWo5_oxOnvg
https://youtu.be/LaQCnUhIMqs?t=360

(Anyone here Surprised?)

Back to the serious point though - If the most strong-headed Feminist cannot be made to intellectualize balance for their deep seated desire to be dominated by a Male, then I'm not certain that such a balance is possible.

Sure getting the balance right is very difficult, but doing nothing and pretendingour kids dont see this depravity all the time is not an option either imho.

See, I'm not advocating doing nothing - and sure, there are Conservatives and Christians who do advocate that. I'm fine with some form of Sex Education - but such a concept needs careful and close vigilance as there are both Predators who would use such a system to gain access to Children and people who would seek to push their views onto children (see the 5000% increase in TransKids in highly progressive areas where it has become the latest Fad).

I don't think you can achieve the balance that you speak of because our sexual desires are inherently irrational - the best you can do is to outline the Health Risks, Talk about Consent, talk about Pregnancy and contraception - and maybe a little bit of an old-fashioned conservative talk that keeping it reserved for someone special isn't a bad thing (which works for the majority of the population).

Now, if you feel I've twisted anything - feel free - but for the most part, I'm not arguing against what you say.

[husaberg]

I have no doubt you will now twist my words around with great delight, but i feel most will get what im getting at.

What's the chances your are not wrong about either.....

[sugilite:Me]

TDL - Before I comment further, I'm going to need to have a look at this book in it's entirety. One page is not enough to form a complete view. Please supply a link to the place where you read it. Cheers.

[pritch]

TDL - Before I comment further, I'm going to need to have a look at this book in it's entirety. One page is not enough to form a complete view. Please supply a link to the place where you read it. Cheers.

I was a bit startled at the attachment TDL posted but didn't comment because it lacked context. The same book though was the subject of discussion in the latest 'Real Time' podcast. It seems it actually is a thing.

Trump has named Linda Ronstadt (among others) in his latest weird court action. She for comparing the US under Trump to 1930s Germany under Hitler. It's a good comparison. The list of banned books in one southern shit hole state is nearing 200. The list includes many classics including Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird.
It's safe to assume TDL's book made the list too.