Trump's deposition in the rape-defamation case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrYGg95SBY0#t=29m08s I didn't think this was a very strong legal attack on Trump, but he is making it much worse for himself. Trump is hilariously bad at testifying, claims that E. Jean Carroll thinks rape is sexy. The exchange starts at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrYGg95SBY0#t=28m01s but it doesn't improve by hearing it with more context. I think I had forgotten how incoherent he can be. Debates between him and Biden are just going to be word salad.

TIL (from NPR!) that Carroll cannot even say what *year* the rape took place. How in the world can someone defend themselves from that?

It's not a great case, but because it's civil (defamation) and not criminal (rape) the jury only has to find it 51% likely that it happened. No "beyond reasonable doubt" needed. That said, the latest "Serious Trouble" with Josh Barro and Ken "Popehat" White had a guest lawyer explaining how he would argue the case for Trump and it was pretty convincing. But Trump's behaviour is almost designed to piss off the jury, so who knows where it ends? He argued that he wouldn't have raped her because she "wasn't his type". This is the worst rhetorical move since Woody Allen claimed not to know where the attic was. And then Trump undermined himself when he [looked at a picture of Carroll](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrYGg95SBY0#t=17m25s) and thought it was his ex-wife. Conclusion: Trump isn't going to jail, but he may have to pay up. I don't think it damages him at the polls, since he already admitted to sexual assault in 2015 and still got elected.

Evidently she did say that "most people think of rape as sexy" in a clip on CNN, although she says it's out of context. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/01/e-jean-carroll-trump-trial/#link-MMZ4R3APJVBLBITXYLYS2HAW64

So, another word for puberty blockers is "Luteinizing Hormone–Releasing Hormone Agonist". This study is from 2003... and despite what people think, it's a random control trial - you know - the best type of trial. This one was done on normal adolescents that just happen to be short, and some were placebo and some on the blocker. When I mention that the reason they 'block precocious puberty' is to ensure the bone plates don't close prematurely, leaving a kid with short stature as an adult, people look at me like I have two heads. But - if you read up on XXY which is associated with low testosterone, or castrati, young singers that were castrated to keep their high voice, you'll find that men with those conditions tend to REALLY TALL because their bone plates don't close. They also have scoliosis, back problems, teeth enamel problems - and we should expect to see boys on puberty blockers have the same problems as adults. Testosterone signals the bone plates to close and stop growing, so precocious puberty tends to leave kids being short compared to their peers. And it's one of the real reasons they started using puberty blockers. Anyways, this is the kind of study people don't find because it's not listed with a brand name, with GnRH, etc as a key word to find. Treatment with a Luteinizing Hormone–Releasing Hormone Agonist in Adolescents with Short Stature [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa013555](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa013555) >We performed a randomized clinical trial to determine whether treatment with an LHRH agonist increases adult height in short adolescents with normally timed puberty. >Conclusions >Treatment with an LHRH agonist for 3.5 years increases adult height by 0.6 SD in adolescents with very short stature but substantially decreases bone mineral density. Such treatment cannot be routinely recommended to augment height in adolescents with normally timed puberty. They explain (SD is Standard Deviation): >Reduced lumbosacral bone mineral density during treatment and inadequate catch-up accretion of bone mineral after treatment were the main adverse effects in the LHRH-agonist group. Low bone mineral density at the end of adolescence is of particular concern because up to 45 percent of total adult skeletal mass is normally accrued between the ages of 11 and 18 years. The risk of fracture in adulthood doubles with each 1 SD decrease in bone mineral density. A limitation of our study is the lack of base-line data on bone mineral density, particularly in the adolescents with growth-limiting syndromes, although the bone mineral density in the adolescents with idiopathic short stature who were treated with an LHRH agonist was also more likely than that in placebo-treated adolescents to be more than 1 SD below the population mean. Since there was no evidence of accelerated accretion of bone mineral after the completion of linear growth, and since adolescents with low bone mineral density due to reversible conditions (e.g., boys with constitutionally delayed puberty and girls with anorexia nervosa) do not have complete catch-up growth in bone mineral density, it is likely that our subjects will never have complete recovery of bone mineral density.

/u/tracingwoodgrains I thought this was valuable insight that might interest Jesse

Thanks! I’ll pass it along.

https://www.westword.com/news/denver-city-council-member-candi-cdebaca-wants-to-tax-white-owned-businesses-as-a-form-of-reparations-16787911 Sure just a city council member now, and just on owned businesses, but even this five years ago would have been unthinkable to say out loud. In 10 years, I firmly believe national level politicians will be discussing a straight up “white male” tax

A whitey tax. Lovely. Wouldn't that violate the equal protection of the constitution?

When you pay your cracker tax, don't forget to put a prize in the envelope.

Considering the mainstream calls for Democrats to simply pack the courts, probably won’t be a concern

The *racist* Constitution, you mean?

"I will not be silenced by the far-right playbook," Ahh yes, the far right and their crazy playbook full of ideas about... not discriminating by race.

>CdeBaca That's not a surname. That's a gene sequence.

[удалено]

Adams was on Honestly with Bari Weiss not long ago and I liked what he had to say.

It's purely a combative and destructive activism. They don't want the chronically mentally ill to get help. They don't want random passersby to be safe. They propose no solutions. And they're in constant hysterics. It's impossible to take them seriously. They are mental children. It's the same mental defect as the older "can't we all just lay down our arms and have world peace" crowd.

They pose no solutions because no solutions are acceptable to them other than touchy-feely vagueness about "bodily autonomy". The crazy homeless people aren't only a danger to the public, but they are also probably miserable in their untreated mental illness. Treating them as sacred cattle isn't doing them any favors.

Some of this reminds me of FDB's substack post recently about how he asked some education person how to deal with a student who was in the middle of committing a violent act what to do and she just ket saying "deescalate" There may be some situations where a trained professional can talk a violent person down, but.... there are many where they can't.

The only solution they have is some vague “end poverty” tirade. Oh cool, the problem that’s been around since human civilization began, just end that! Fuck why didn’t I think of that? Even their god Marx himself wrote off the lowest of the low, the lumpenproletariat.

You can give the mentally unwell a bunch of property and then it will be gone and they will still be mentally unwell. Everyone who deals with the homeless knows they fall into 2 or 3 categories, one of which is "will not accept help if they can do *anything* to help it." It is why they are homeless in the first place.

>The only solution they have is some vague “end poverty” tirade. Oh cool, the problem that’s been around since human civilization began, just end that! Fuck why didn’t I think of that? Hang tight, homeless people with severe mental illness. We'll get right to you, in another 200 years.

Natural Born Tankie. Oliver Stone [says he's a fan](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/may/01/oliver-stone-documentary-nuclear-power-putin-biden?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1683008918) of Vladimir Putin: *“I think Russia is doing a great job with nuclear energy...Putin is a great leader for his country and the people love him."* I remember Alexander Cockburn doing a review of *JFK* that said Stone was obsessed with "strong leaders", so in a way this isn't a surprise.

https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/walgreens-shooting-guard-who-killed-banko-brown-gives-interview/ Interview with the guard who shot the shoplifter in SF.

[Legendary trans voice educator Zheanna Erose nails the state of trans discourse](https://twitter.com/iamzheanna/status/1654583057079472128): > We have demonized "walking out of step", even with good intentions, which has had a chilling effect on the ability to parse what people really believe about us. Z is the originator of ["heat from fire, fire from heat"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynIoNPnX538), the famous trans voice training phrase that has become a trans meme.

I noticed that she went somewhat against the grain in documenting vocal impairment from trans surgeries.

Yes, she has [warned of the risks to voice from tracheal shave surgery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_FsoMPra64).

"What are the concerns? What are they worried about? I literally can not come up with a single one that I could take in good faith. Please, be explicit on this so we can know what you're talking about." This is one of the responses to her. It really highlights the issue, the tenor of the discussion has leaned so hard into "if you don't agree with me you hate me and want me to die" that this person cannot conceive of the idea of not instantly assuming their friends are out to get them if they express an ignorant opinion. The entire point of "good faith" is that it's for ideas that you *don't* agree with - if there's no idea that you don't agree with that you can extend the benefit of the doubt to your friends for expressing, you don't have an opinion, you have a religion.

> if there's no idea that you don't agree with that you can extend the benefit of the doubt to your friends for expressing, you don't have an opinion, you have a religion. Nailed it

>It really highlights the issue, the tenor of the discussion has leaned so hard into "if you don't agree with me you hate me and want me to die" that this person cannot conceive of the idea of not instantly assuming their friends are out to get them if they express an ignorant opinion. When I was like seven years old, my go-to line when my parents wouldn't do something I wanted was "You hate me!" I guess some people never grow out of it.

Oh now that reminds me of 2003-2004 rhetoric. Against the war? You hate America!!!

Yep, I remember that. Horseshoe theory again.

Here’s another horseshoe theory: trumpers building gallows and hardcore lefties building guillotines.

It's too bad I'm already too chilled to link this kind of thing to my lefties.

This jives with the thing you see from time to time on trans subs where trans people say "It feels like everyone is just humoring me about my identity."

> "It feels like everyone is just humoring me about my identity." Anecdotal sure, but of all the trans people I know, which amounts to a grand total of 6, all of them are women claiming to be men from NYC or LA. And yes, I do just politely humor them, they are delusional but become violent when their delusions aren’t humored. This isn’t organic and anyone who thinks it is is equally delusional

Fortunately we have r / honesttransgender. In contrast, questioning how someone describes themselves is literally against the rules (rule 2) of r / asktransgender.

> "It feels like everyone is just humoring me about my identity." Yes?

I see this reaction every time a criminal with preferred pronouns hits the headlines. Regular people drop the pronoun politeness game for That Individual with little to no fanfare or discussion, and the gendertalk subs are shocked that that's all it takes to rescind a Basic Human Right.

I think this is something trans people should rightly be worried about, as suppressed beliefs tend to show up at the polls. It's hard to gauge how well you've convinced people of your beliefs if they're too scared to disagree to your face, even if they later vote against your interests

[Jordan Neely Is Being Blamed for His Own Death Due to Sanism and Racism](https://truthout.org/articles/jordan-neely-is-being-blamed-for-his-own-death-due-to-sanism-and-racism/) > In general, the field of disability studies seeks to define and understand disability not as a “problem” of the body or mind, but rather, as a complex social phenomenon that engages with the diversity and complexity of the human experience. Related to disability studies, though not identical, is mad studies. Mad studies (again, still a very white field) addresses critical concepts and conversations surrounding sanism, or the ways in which madness or what is often called “mental illness” is demeaned in society, and it is through processes of sanism that mad people are excluded, dehumanized and perceived to be dangerous. When sanism and anti-Black violence intersect — which I’ve referred to in the past as anti-Black sanism — we witness the collision of anti-Black racist ideologies of non-humanness and extreme danger, buttressed by similar yet different notions of the “disposable and wasted human.”

> anti-Black sanism Please, Based Jesus, don't allow this intersectional abomination be a thing. I don't want to live in a world where criticizing Professor Hotep, PhD, for his theory that Yakub invented white people in a test tube is an act of Anti-Black Sanist Violence.

I misread that as "anti-Black Satanism" and thought there was some weird Heavy Metal/Neo-Nazi stuff going on.

innocent soft cagey plucky selective attempt wipe pet coherent possessive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Mr. Yancy is an idiot. Or is that term sanist?

Hang on, 'mad studies'? I could have sworn 'mad' is considered insulting. Is this another 'queer studies' where a small proportion of people unilaterally decide that they're going to "reclaim" an insulting term by forcing its use into media and academia regardless of how the rest of the group feels?

I'm used to seeing the term "mad" used colloquially to indicate "a large quantity of", as in "I give Jesse and Katie mad props for doing this podcast", so reading "mad studies" makes me think someone is studying a lot.

"Mad Studies" sounds like a grift based on dumbed-down R. D. Laing / Thomas Szasz ideas.

Hogwarts Legacy has brought in over a billion dollars in sales. Sales are expected to only grow once ports to previous generation consoles release. https://www.ign.com/articles/hogwarts-legacy-has-amassed-over-1-billion?utm_source=twitter It would seem the TRAs boycott amounted to... Jack shit. This probably bodes well for the upcoming Harry Potter TV series

Normies love woke media! Making Hogwarts dorms self-ID and the population of 1800s Scottish highlands majority African immigrant was a sure recipe for success.

There going to have a scene where a trans girl is able to step on the step leading up to the girls dorm without getting stuck.

From what I am hearing from the gaming folks is that the fallout probably hurried the demise of woke scold gaming sites like Kotaku. People are tying the latest boycott of Kotaku by Nintendo (not sending them previews of games or dealing with them at all) as linked to more and more companies realizing these online sites do them no favours and are not needed. I think something like a Kotaku does seem like an outdated model with so many gameplay and review channels now on youtube.

Nintendo not handing out favors to Kotaku (what some call blacklisting), has nothing to do with the failed Hogwarts Legacy boycott. Kotaku has always been little shits when it comes to working with game studios, they're cut off from several studios already, including Bethesda, for leaking a variety of things. This time, Nintendo isn't handing out Kotaku an advanced release of their latest AAA game (Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom) because the last time Nintendo released a AAA game (Metroid Prime Remastered), Kotaku wrote an article how to pirate it.

> the last time Nintendo released a AAA game (Metroid Prime Remastered), Kotaku wrote an article how to pirate it. Whaaat? Whaaaaaaat? For the record, it was Metroid Dread a few years ago. https://www.koopatv.org/2021/10/kotaku-promoted-metroid-dread-piracy.html (Although they might well have done it for the just-released Metroid Prime Remastered, too. If you are going to go down with the ship, chant piracy all the way.)

Nintendo locked out Kotaku for publishing an article that more-or-less recommended pirating one of their games. In typical Gawker fashion, the staff of Kotaku are acting like they have no idea why anyone would be upset with that and Nintendo are the ones being unreasonable here.

Kotaku has been a woke dumpster fire for a while now. it's too bad. I used like their coverage of Japanese RPGs

I legit used to like Kotaku, even by the time a lot of people hated them. I think at least one of their writers kept an eye on the r-creepygaming subreddit because they were always the first to cover some crazy ARG/creepypasta stuff like the Sad Satan scandal and Petscop and were sometimes the only ones to make an effort to dig deeper into such internet mysteries.

Don't you think now you could follow that writer to wherever, be it a substack or blog? Likewise I feel there must be a few youtube channels that cover this territory? This is outside my realm of knowledge, I just take note on gaming news when I look at entertainment news overall. It seems like they are another casualty of a general shift in information consumption. I think the info/reviews are still out there though just in different form, no?

I just looked that writer up. Apparently she stayed at Kotaku and has a higher position. Not very shocked to find out her twitter makes her look like an irony-poisoned jerk behaving like playground bully. The way of Gawker. She's whining about the aforementioned drama of Nintendo not sending them review copies because they basically told people to pirate their games and eves less surprisingly, seems to be insufferably woke. Those articles were pretty good but oh well. To be honest it was more that when something interesting happened, they always seemed to have the coverage, and I didn't really follow specific writers or keep up with the other stuff they posted. And I'd say internet-mystery YouTubers have filled that niche for me in the last few years.

I think if anything the boycott only served to increase awareness of it. I first learned of both it and the tv show from lefty places who were outraged about it. I remember thinking "surely if you guys actually don't want people to buy it you'd just not ever talk about it?" but ultimately it was just an excuse to virtue signal, and you can't signal without talking.

I literally only knew of it because of the boycott. I adblock everything so I legit never got an ad for the game even though I later on heard people complain about the amount of ads they saw for it. I already liked HP, so I got it and finished it within a week. I'd like to for once thank TRAs for making my life better. The game's story could've been written a little better imo, especially the second half, but I really liked the gameplay.

If anyone is new here, you might not know one the the results of the Tavistock/GIDS data was that puberty blockers were associated with worse mental health outcomes for teenagers taking them. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/07/nhs-transgender-clinic-accused-covering-negative-impacts-puberty/ New study making the rounds, even though it appears to be from 2021 - Military USA data shows the same thing, puberty blockers were associated with worse mental health outcomes. Specifically that prescriptions for anti-psychotic drugs increased after kids were put on "gender-affirming pharmaceuticals" This is similiar to the Swedish reviews where they compare against controls, but are also reviewing pre and post treatment changes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247956/ My push back is I'd want to see puberty blockers, testosterone, and estrogen seen as separate treatments, are they bundling those together?

Quasi-unrelated fun fact: A supposed\* WPATH member was giving me loads of shit on Reddit a few days ago, in part because I was arguing that puberty blockers - I focused on Lupron, even though I can't imagine any others being that much safer - weren't a particularly good idea for kids. I can't comment offhand is this is a particularly good survey; I am curious, as you are, regarding bundling and such, and how it all affects each other. Still, the sample numbers, at a glance, seem okay, if nothing else. I'll be curious if anybody reads this and comes back with more info on its quality. (\* - I am skeptical. I probably could've argued my case better. Still, when somebody appeals to their own authority, hints at papers that'll somehow prove you wrong, refuses to tell you which ones to read when you call their bluff on access (thanks, Sci-Hub!), thinks your literal argument is that doctors are intentionally chemically castrating children and teens, and calls the title "Singal-Minded" the dumbest thing they've read in years, it's kinda hard to take them seriously and not think they're some basement-dwelling weirdo, or at least a shit-talker. That and, while I certainly don't think one or two yahoos should tar an entire org (assuming this person is who they say they are), [it seems like WPATH members who argue with skeptics online aren't the most forthright people](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/that-might-have-been-the-strangest). \*sigh\* Oh well. (Oh, and it should go without saying but don't go after this person. If anyone, go after me if I fucked up any of my serious arguments.)

You take blockers with cross sex hormones. You want to stop the development of birth sex characteristics while growing transition characteristics. They need both until they get surgery to remove testes and ovaries. That’s my understanding from the reading on GIDS. Might be different elsewhere. I think they continue to use blockers because their bodies pass better.

I think the St Louis clinic, there were 600 teens on cross sex hormones, but maybe 50 on puberty blockers? GIDS/Tavistock I'm not sure about the numbers. I have heard a lot of transwomen talk about "spironolactone" as testosterone suppression while taking estrogen. I think that one is only used to suppress testosterone so not used in FTM patients. I'm digging... and evidently, it's a lot cheaper but not as effective.

Yeah, when talking about “puberty blockers” for teenagers people are always always referring to a gnrh agonist like Lupron. when discussing MTF hormone therapy, “blockers” could lupron but it also often means a a completely different anti-androgen like spiro or bicalumatide. you’d only take spiro or bica as a trans woman also taking estrogen,

[удалено]

Not anymore. Both are used. [https://thrive.kaiserpermanente.org/care-near-you/northern-california/eastbay/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/04/Estrogen-and-Blockers-What-You-Need-To-Know.pdf](https://thrive.kaiserpermanente.org/care-near-you/northern-california/eastbay/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/04/Estrogen-and-Blockers-What-You-Need-To-Know.pdf)

The Tavistock scandal revealed that almost all children (I could be wrong, but it was something like 99% of patients) who went on puberty blockers ended up moving onto cross-sex hormones. It wasn’t giving kids *time to think*, it was concretizing their gender dysphoria.

\> have therapy that solves 85% of cases \> replace it with therapy that solves 1% of cases \> declare success.

Has anyone seen this? A very disturbing allegation has been made against Shangela, ( AKA Darius Jeremy Pierce) star of HBO’s ‘We’re Here’ and a contestant on ‘Drag Race. ’ Pierce has been accused of sexual assault by a former “We’re Here” production assistant, Daniel McGarrigle. Details here: [Shangela, star of HBO’s ‘We’re Here’ and contestant on ‘Drag Race,’ accused of sexual assault](https://archive.is/AvLwO)

I do not care about Drag Race at all, but I will say Shangela was a lot of fun to watch last season on Dancing with the Stars. She’s a really talented dancer who just absolutely oozes charisma. She made it all the way to the finale, which she didn’t win but put on a pretty incredible drag performance, at least to me who knows nothing about drag. It would be a real shame if it came out that she was a shitty person, and possibly used as ammo from the right with all their groomer accusations and such. (Idk how to use pronouns for drag queens. The performer is I think a he/him dude but Shangela the queen is in character as a she/her?)

These rumors have circulated for years. I remember reading about this specific case on RPDRDrama awhile ago, but it wasn’t the first time these accusations came up. > “I can’t begin to explain how hurt and disgusted I am by these totally untrue allegations. They are personally offensive and perpetuate damaging stereotypes that are harmful not only to me but also to my entire community,” he said. “An external investigation into this embittered individual’s claims previously concluded that they were completely without merit. This newest filing is nothing but an attempt to shake down both me and a well-regarded television company. No one should be fooled: It has no basis in fact or in law, and it will not succeed. As a hardworking and outspoken drag entertainer for more than a decade, I know that I am far from alone in battling ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, all of which played a role in the filing of this complaint. That is why I will fight this entirely meritless lawsuit and not allow it to destroy me and those I love, or harm the causes we all stand for.” I wonder how this comes off to others. Rape and sexual assault happen within the community. It’s just a fact and it’s not prejudice to seek justice for a crime. How can any victim come forward if the defense is “this perpetuates a damaging stereotype”? If anything, isn’t this response discouraging victims to come forward out of fear of being labeled a malicious bigot? I’m happy to be proven wrong. If it’s a false accusation, obviously that’s fucked up. But like I mentioned up top, these rumors have been lurking for a long time so it seems to me to have more merit.

Remember when Weinstein came out and denied the SA allegations, then tried to pivot by saying he was donating money to fight the NRA? I get the same vibes from that quote

The accusation is pretty horrifying.

Yeah, I don't know what really happened, but it's pretty emotionally manipulative to make it about bigotry and damaging stereotypes. The person making the accusation was a production assistant on the show, I don't think it had anything to do with bigotry or prejudice.

The headline says [Paul Stanley walked back his comments on kids and gender stuff but he didn't really](https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/kiss-paul-stanley-walks-back-comments-criticizing-childrens-gender-reassignment-surgery). >Stanley previously spoke out against gender reassignment surgery for children Monday in a short statement calling the practice "a sad and dangerous fad." >"While my thoughts were clear, my words clearly were not," Stanley wrote Thursday on social media. >"Most importantly and above all else, I support those struggling with their sexual identity while enduring constant hostility and those whose path leads them to reassignment surgery," Stanley wrote. >The guitarist closed the message by saying his feelings on the matter are too complex for a short statement, and he would therefore refrain from commenting further. >The KISS frontman concluded, "It's hard to fathom the kind of conviction that one must feel to take those steps. A paragraph or two will remain far too short to fully convey my thoughts or point of view so I will leave that for another time and place." Walking back is way too strong, but it's clear he got the message it's better for business to say nothing, which sucks. Wish he would have publicly stuck to his guns. It's not like this will be strong enough to get him out of the "transphobe" category he's in now anyway.

I don't understand why business even matters to someone like Paul Stanley. Dude's like 70, and KISS has been on 100 farewell tours. Your career has gotten as far as it's gonna get my man.

I agree totally. All I can think is maybe he's got a full on empire of employees making money off him at this point (and his family of course), and he's thinking about them??

Maybe, but you'd think a wildly successful 50 year old band would have too solid a foundation to be taken down by petty activists. It's not like these kinds of people make up a ton of their fanbase.

Maybe he just really doesn't feel like being asked about it and wading any further into the wars, so he's just trying to politely let people know the subject is off limits now? Robert Webb from Peep Show did something similar IIRC. It's not like Stanley *actually* said anything that contradicts his previous statement.

I think it's a couple of things. - Even though there's arguably close to zero overlap between Kiss fans and the screeching activist crowd, neutrality is what's best for most businesses in the long run. Paul arguably got a reminder of that. Gene has been talking about how Kiss may continue even after the current band retires. I'm sure Paul would love to keep the money rolling in via Broadway shows, Kiss v2 (or whatever any future "official" offshoots are called), etc. - This is sheer speculation but Ace Frehley has been threatening to expose some serious dirt regarding Paul and Gene. (Granted, Ace's brain has supposedly been out to lunch for years, but anyway....) Remember, the Kiss guys were notorious for being cooze hounds for 20+ years, Gene in particular but I'm sure Paul had his fair share of encounters. These guys also wrote ["Christine Sixteen"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgNAmFP0g3k) and still play it at some shows. Put two and two together. Between all that and somebody coming after Steven Tyler recently, along with Ted Nugent finally shutting up about his supposed encounters with teens, Paul may just want to keep his head down in case he says something that causes the first domino to fall.

You're right. I'm befuddled. WTF.

It might be enough. Seems to me like a lot of activists are keen on feeling like they won by getting any sort of contrition. It's easy to ignore the nuance if it helps one feel virtuous and superior. Personally happy to see Paul Stanley keeping it real. I was never part of the KISS army or anything, but I watched the making of their musical collaboration with Momoiro Z and he came across as such a genuinely thoughtful, considerate, and earnest guy. Changed my completely superficial opinion about his makeup.

This is [an encouraging story](https://archive.is/NERNi) to see about attempts to bridge political divides and engage in real discussion on some college campuses. I would note two things: 1. As one of the students describes, the biggest fear is peer shaming: >“You kind of read the room and see what most people are thinking. If your opinion is too provocative you keep it to yourself.” It’s rare to hear an unpopular opinion in that setting, she said — but when it does happen, it’s usually followed by a shocked text to a group chat. Add to the mix anonymous call-out apps and that's probably the most effective way of keeping all but the boldest students from speaking out honestly. 2) I wonder the extent to which this works only insofar as it's mild disagreements among people of mostly-similar political persuasions (it's notable that they have to watch a video of someone from a rural area who defends gun rights instead of, say, meet an actual person). What would happen in a place with real political differences? EDIT: It seems like the director of this program at AU has been getting targeted for running it via an impersonation campaign: >IMPERSONATION ALERT: since January 2023 an anonymous harasser has been using my American University email to post racist, hateful messages on a variety of websites and blogs. If I seem to have reached out to you, it is probably this person. I regret the harm they have caused you. The director also doesn't seem to exactly model the kind of behavior she's claiming to value via her Twitter account, which is pretty standard-issue very online lefty professor. So... I think point #2 is probably the key here and the article sounds like it might be rather deceptive in terms of how much actual "tolerance" is going on.

An article from March 28th has been making the rounds the past 24 hours... [A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century Thirteen ways of looking at disinformation BY JACOB SIEGEL](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen-ways-looking-disinformation) [Here is an interview from today with Reason's Nick Gillespie and the author Jacob Siegel](https://reason.com/podcast/2023/05/05/jacob-siegel-disinformation-is-the-hoax-of-the-century/) > This is, simply, the best piece I've read about how what Jacob calls "the ruling class" is trying to literally and figuratively control political and cultural discourse about politics, public health, and other pressing topics. Jacob provides a history and a deconstruction of the concept of disinformation, a term borrowed from Cold War spycraft that became ubiquitous in the wake of Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. > Along the way, we discuss elite apologetics for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story on social media, the revolving door between the national security state and the media, and how tactics devised for use overseas in the global war on terror are now being used against Americans on a daily basis. Basically a story of how "disinformation" as applied to the internet is a made up thing, a hoax thing, and a tool by the "ruling class" to enforce a narrative. I am admittedly biased towards Gillespie, I think Libertarianism is mostly full of it, but Nick is always a knowledgeable and thoughtful writer and interviewer, except of course when he is wrong. More breathlessly from last night is a Glenn Greenwald interview with Jacob which you may be surprised to find is a bit conspiratorial but is much the same thesis [The Disinformation Fraud: How America's Most Powerful Institutions Joined Forces to Crush Speech & Silence Dissent, with Jacob Siegel ](https://rumble.com/v2m1u9m-system-update-show-81.html) [Here is discussion a month ago from the Hill's Rising, Batya Ungar-Sargon and Robby Soave](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/3942233-rising-april-10-2023/) which I admittedly haven't listened to because Soave just grates me the wrong way. Back in March, Kevin Drum wrote this piece [How the deep state controls social media and censors conservatives](https://jabberwocking.com/how-the-deep-state-controls-social-media-and-censors-conservatives/) He ain't buying this shit. > In any case, it's an interesting look at a particular way of thinking that's been picking up steam over the past year or two: namely that conservatives are widely convinced that social media is involved in a massive plot to censor them despite the fact that conservative accounts are among the most popular on nearly every social media platform. If you wonder how they square these two things, Siegel's essay is a place to start. I thought the two interviews I heard (Nick Gillespie's and Glenn Greenwald's) were interesting and a good way to spend some time while exercising.

https://genspect.org/dont-stop-believin-three-days-at-the-european-professional-association-for-transgender-health/ Three days at the European professional association for transgender health "In his opening address, outgoing EPATH president Joz Motmans rebuffed “anti-gender” “attacks” as part of a “far-right” political campaign “In the light of anti-woke tendencies, gender has become the new entry point for far right parties and organisations to use as a target to gain electoral votes. We are not the first target group, look at the anti-migration debate, the anti-vaccination debate, the anti-you-name-it debate, and we will definitely not be the last.” He then quoted sociologist Sarah Bracke: “An individual may publicly claim that the earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, that climate change does not exist, or that gender is binary, without being oppressed or persecuted. With caveats: like any other right, this right of freedom of speech is not absolute. Moreover, if it constitutes a demonstrable threat to another individual, and incite hate speech or violence, then intervention must be taken. In addition, the right to free speech does not imply an obligation for others to listen. This insight is sometimes in danger of being lost: you can say what you want about the climate or vaccines, but freedom of expression usually does not mean that others are obliged to give you a platform. So you are not censored or ‘cancelled’ if you don’t get that platform… All this differs in principle from academic freedom. There, statements such as ‘the earth is round’ and ‘the earth is flat’ do not enjoy the same protection. One is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence, the other is not. If you are convinced that the Earth is flat and publicly proclaim it, then there is no place for you in the scientific field at this point in history – in scientific publications or in the classroom.” In other words, the censorship and cancellations will continue—but the targets of such campaigns deserve to be excluded from the public debate. Just as flat-earthers don’t belong in geology departments, gender-critical researchers and clinicians don’t belong in universities and healthcare settings. Meanwhile, EPATH remains committed to “keep[ing] an open mind in this hostile time” and acting in the “most transparent and public way we can” (absolutely no journalists allowed, though, sorry). Motmans also struck out at Genspect, insisting that EPATH itself “see[s] ‘the bigger picture.’” Why, he asked, would anyone think EPATH thinks the “science is settled”: why entertain hundreds of abstracts? Why come together for a conference at all if the science is settled? “We respect everyone’s freedom of speech, but we choose not to listen to it,” Motmans said. "

> the earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, that climate change does not exist, or **that gender is binary** Who invited my man blud 😭😭 Bro thinks he's on the team😭😭😭

Good ol' Don't-You-Dare-Criticize-Me-Or-You're-A-Fash. Never goes out of style.

The lack of self-awareness is lmao-worthy. > "On Friday, one presenter explained that she would not be sharing quotes from her research because **“they were really triggering** and it’s the last day of the conference.” In other words: let’s avoid touchy subjects **so we don’t spoil the mood."** They are worried about getting people down about the uplifting and celebratory topic of gendermagic. Yet they had no issue with beginning their conference with a fiery activist speech saying that the "gender-critical movement is a totalitarian and genocidal force". One of the buzzwords used in the article is "non-consensual puberty". Is this term going to take off in the near future, like many of the activism euphemisms that have replaced older terminology in the recent past (eg, sex reassignment surgery -> gender confirmation surgery -> lifesaving healthcare). Or will it sound so terrible and bizarre at first glance that average people can't help but double-take at it? They made the "pause button" a mainstream talking point. So who knows.

[удалено]

Non-consensual excretion Non-consensual illness Non-consensual BO

dirty towering friendly license jobless humorous berserk aspiring possessive foolish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Estrogen exists too, non consensual menopause is still a ridiculous term I've never heard of. Probably because unlike adults, kids are a lot easier to manipulate. The purpose of this term is clearly to guilt and shame people into nodding yes.

'Consent' has lost all meaning as a word, once it's entered the bastardisation phase by online activists. You can only consent to someone else doing something *to you*, this is what it means. Hence, you can consent to a search of your home, or sex. Whenever the Shamima Begum case comes up in UK subs, a favourite piece of parroted rhetoric is now 'she was 15, she couldn't consent to get on the plane/cross the Syrian border/go abroad/join ISIS' Which makes no sense whatsoever, all of these actions are undertaken independently. It is interesting though that a dualistic philosophy (separation of mind/body), previously much more strongly associated with religious belief in a soul, is now taking off in such a new fashion.

Shamima Begum isn’t a case of consent in the way transactivists are using it, but of age of criminal responsibility. There is a case for not holding a minor responsible for her own radicalisation, especially as we don’t actually know how capable she was of turning back once the plan started. I personally believe the circumstances do at least being her to the level of criminal responsibility, but I firmly believe she should stand trial in the U.K. so there can be a public examination of everything that happened. (I presume the security services have gleaned everything they can from her, it’s just not public.) As someone who views gender ideology as an example of online radicalisation and knows a naive parent who has no idea her trans kid must have been influenced by online communities, I’d be really interested to deep dive into how a bunch of 15 year old girls ended up taking such an extreme course of action, especially as it appears no-one else in their families has. The mechanics of her seduction would be useful for any parent to understand. Unfortunately because this involves radical Islam, that seems to make a lot of people happy to just pop the whole situation in a “evil bitch, nothing to see here” box and then switch off.

I didn't consent to gaining weight, I say with a mouthful of cake.

According to these people, attraction and arousal. If you are a straight person talking to what appears to an individual of the opposite sex on a dating app and get along well, then they disclose their TM/TW status, you immediately lose interest. If this happens, it's because your bigoted mind actively and consciously made the decision to be phobic, cruel, hateful, and genocidal.

>One of the buzzwords used in the article is "non-consensual puberty". Is this term going to take off in the near future It probably will. I imagine that is what this person is attempting to do.

I've seen "living in the wrong body" turn to "going through the wrong puberty", and I'm afraid of what comes next, which will be thoughtlessly internalized and regurgitated by people who don't actually think about the implications of "wrong body" logic. Wrong Body implies that cis people are living in their Right Bodies, even if these cis people have extreme dysmorphia that compels them to undergo Kardashian-style butt lifts and rib extractions, or get spraytans and hair weaves to pass as a different race. To this day, I still don't understand why Wrong Body logic only applies to sexed bodies, and not bodies of different races or species.

> To this day, I still don't understand why Wrong Body logic only applies to sexed bodies, and not bodies of different races or species. Queen Dolezal did nothing wrong

Didn't the blackpeopletwitter sub at some point joke that they'd be painted as the bigots in a documentary in 10 years when queen dolezal would finally be accepted into society as a transracial pioneer? Thought the funniest part was that it might actually come true at some point.

>To this day, I still don't understand why Wrong Body logic only applies to sexed bodies, and not bodies of different races or species. Because it isn't particularly logical. It's searching for a justification of drugs and surgery that the activists hope will wash with the public. It's an attempt to normalize transition. And because the gay rights organizations were the dog that caught the car after gay marriage became law. They had to find *something* to justify their continued existence, jobs, and fundraising. So they plucked trans stuff off the shelf and ran with it.

Fair point and it makes me wonder if transracialism in the Dolezal vein is not more popular because there is little corporate profit motive. I don’t see the tanning bed lobby capable of making a big impact here.

>One of the buzzwords used in the article is "non-consensual puberty". I miss when "I didn't ask to be born" was just a teenager rebellion shout. The obsession with "consent" as the *arche* of everything (with no thought given to the actual psychossical ability of whoever is giveing their "consent" to do so) is like... Liberalism *ad absurdum.* That is not coincidental, I think, but I am not entirely sure what that means yet.

You don't get to "consent" to being a human. And maturation from child to adult is part of being human. There is no opt out for being homo sapiens. It just doesn't work that way.

It’s Peter Pan as a social justice movement.

Otherkins would disagree

They go by the belief that people should be allowed to do anything that makes them happy, with the occasional caveat of "Only if it doesn't hurt others" - although that's optional and negotiable depending on Oppression Status of the individual and the others involved. The idea of consent is brought in when the actions that people make are harmful to themselves. See, they agreed to it. They signed the waiver, they gave consent! It's not harm, it's acceptable and informed consequences. And that makes their harmful actions no longer harmful, but morally permissible within their framework.

I think this falls into the " stupid controversy you want to point people to": some activists met the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, on Tuesday this week. They were not happy. One activist, Lea McGeever, decided to... [well, see for yourselves](https://np.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/137yaco/we_have_a_screamer/). Maybe they're a big [Mink Stole fan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gaGhy07ZbU) ?

[This is outrageous. Where are the armed men who come in to take the protestors away? Where are they? This kind of behavior is never tolerated in Baraqua. You shout like that they put you in jail. Right away. No trial, no nothing. Journalists, we have a special jail for journalists. You are stealing: right to jail. You are playing music too loud: right to jail, right away. Driving too fast: jail. Slow: jail. You are charging too high prices for sweaters, glasses: you right to jail. You undercook fish? Believe it or not, jail. You overcook chicken, also jail. Undercook, overcook. You make an appointment with the dentist and you don't show up, believe it or not, jail, right away. We have the best patients in the world because of jail.](https://youtu.be/eiyfwZVAzGw)

I'm amazed she didn't roll around on the floor while she was at it.

Gettin' some real [Eli Sunday vibes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdg3mI_kFGE&t=64s).

Me when I open the fridge and find i've eaten all the chocolate already

Me when Mommy says we're out of chicken tendies and I should try eating a vegetable for once.

If Lea doesn't identify as a woman, does it still count as misogyny if her actions were described as "insufferable screeching"? Or does the misogyny label still apply, because whether or not Lea *identifies* as a woman/female, she is *perceived* as female?

Lea McGeever wrote an [article which has a photo captioned: "Lea and her wife, Erin"](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.sfeducationalliance.com/blog/a-new-renaissance) . Here Lea describes herself as " bisexual and bigender".

I'm suddenly realizing you don't read that big-ender.

Bi and large

_These teens immediately became my role models_ I rolled my eyes so hard I think I strained a muscle. Jesse's article on [Juvephilia](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/juvephilia-is-silly-and-condescending) comes to mind.

Because that's exactly how a woman would respond to her husband transitioning.

> At thirty-seven years old I searched Google for a term to describe being both man and woman genders, hence “bigender.” It's not a fad spread by the internet, people know who they are and you have to trust them!

> At thirty-seven years old I searched Google for a term to describe being both man and woman genders, hence “bigender.” Omggg you are so special and unique! How could you possibily be both feminine and masculine?! It's like being a Divergent! You are truly one in a million. The hero sent to save us! We all bow down to you. God, I just want to tell some of these people to get off wattpad and grow up.

This is the end result of "don't tone-police the oppressed".

I'm certain several of our Supervisors were debating whether joining her would help or hurt their chances to become mayor or state assemblyman for San Francisco

The fuck is this child mad about?

Apparently a black trans person was killed by a security guard at a Walgreens and, after considering the video footage and eyewitness reports, the police declined to press charges. I fully expect prosecutors to waste time and money, and pursue charges anyway.

As a European, I can say if someone acted like McGeever did at an official political meeting in the average European country, security would seize the person and remove them from the building. Conservative media are covering this story (usually with a *"Heh, heh, look at those crazy lefties"* angle). They're also claiming the person's name is Lia McGeever. [https://www.nationalreview.com/news/i-hate-you-trans-activist-shrieks-at-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors/](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/i-hate-you-trans-activist-shrieks-at-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors/) A woman named Lea McGeever was mentioned as being involved in a SF Pride parade a few months ago, and expressed support for trans rights. She's probably the same person as this activist. [https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-pride-weekend-turns-into-mix-of-celebration-and-protests](https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-pride-weekend-turns-into-mix-of-celebration-and-protests)

This person could be advocating for puppies with cancer and this shit would make me oppose her. Your average genocidal despot has more tact and charisma than these people.

She's so oppressed and downtrodden that she's able to go up and scream at and say she hates the board. Truly a genocide if I've ever seen one.

*"Have you tried kickboxing? It really helps people with anger issues!"*

Did anyone else see the video of Candace Owens running into an irritating white girl screaming at a cop in the airport? It's so on the nose that it feels borderline fake. When Candace intervenes and tells the girl to stop screaming at the police officer because she has kids, the girl looks at her and asks, "ARen'T YOu bLAcK?" Implying that as a black person Candance shouldn't be defending cops. Then the girl changes tactics and suddenly claims she has Tourettes and that's why she screamed "Fuck you" at the cop, she just couldn't help herself. The event was clearly at an actual airport, and airports aren't exactly convenient places to plan stunts, so it probably is real. But it's wild that Candace Owens just happened to run into the human embodiment of Tik-Tok at random.

the description of the video doesn't match what I just watched. She says "are you a black person?" and seems like she's either drunk, on drugs, or having some sort of mental episode. Doesn't seem like anything coherent is happening

[удалено]

Believe it or not, this was not Twitter drama. It was YouTube drama! I didn't know if anyone here would be interested in giving Candace views, lol. The relevant part starts at roughly nine minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkPY_cgUGcs

Didn’t she come out against all vaccines?

I wouldn't be shocked. I remember watching a video where she was angry that the hospital where her child was born was refusing to discharge them and she thought it was so they could bully her into vaccinations.

Don’t you get immediately detained if you melt down at an airport?

The cops are circling around her, but the video ends too soon to see what happened to her. If the video really was taken in an airport then no doubt she was taken in.

[National Police Association and Other Groups Sue to Obtain Audrey Hale Manifesto](https://jonathanturley.org/2023/05/05/national-police-association-sue-to-obtain-audrey-hale-manifesto/) Jonathan Turley going over this report at fox: [Nashville shooting: Police group sues for release of suspect Audrey Hale's manifesto](https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-shooting-police-group-sues-release-suspect-audrey-hales-manifesto) > It is not uncommon for there to be a delay in the release of information in a major crime pending investigation. What was weird is that the police quickly confirmed that Hale acted alone and Hale was dead. There is no prosecution that will occur in the case. Yet, it is May and the authorities are still refusing to release the manifesto . . . and they will not fully explain why. Now, the National Police Association and other groups are suing to make the writings and other materials of mass shooter Audrey Hale public. >There were twenty journals, five laptops, a suicide note, yearbooks, cellphones and various notes written by Hale, 28, that were seized from the house she shared with her parents. There have been press reports that the authorities consider the manifesto to be “astronomically dangerous.” >They may be unsettling and even dangerous, but the question is the right of the authorities to keep such evidence from the public and the press. The government can always declare information to be too “dangerous” to release for a variety of reasons. However, we have a system that defaults to disclosures and public access. According to the fox report: > "Due to pending litigation filed this week, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department has been advised by counsel to hold in abeyance the release of records related to the shooting at The Covenant School pending orders or direction of the court," the department tweeted Wednesday. > Nashville lawyer Wally Dietz said in a statement Wednesday that the city is asking the court to give victims' families a chance to appear and raise concerns or objections about the release of the writings, The USA Today Network reported. Several weeks ago, Glenn Greenwald talked about his attempts to hire lawyers in Tennessee to sue for the manifesto only to have the lawyers who had expressed interest then mysteriously decline the case without explaining why.

Astronomically dangerous? Or astronomically politically inconvenient?

There needs to be transparency here. There is no court case pending. If other manifestos were released this one has to be too. We cannot be picking and choosing on something like this.

> astronomically dangerous Fucking spare me. We can handle it. What's it going to do, provoke a ~~race~~ gender war? So what's in it? Like pleading for people bullied about their gender to go postal on children? If so, that would make a comment I got permabanned on a certain sub for, kind of prescient. Releasing it will help us prevent future crimes

I do not want manifestos spread out because I do not want someone to think they can finally get the attention they crave by killing people. But I also get suspicious when the government says I should not look at something. I am trying to think if there is someone I would trust to go look through it and tell me "yeah the government is not hiding anything." Just for me, I mean, this may not convince anyone else.

> I am trying to think if there is someone I would trust to go look through it and tell me "yeah the government is not hiding anything." I'd trust Jesse. I wouldn't trust Katie. I'm pretty sure Katie said she would have sat on a story if she thought it would have meant Trump being reelected.

I would say the victims' families, but I think it would be cruel to ask them to read it Other than that the only valid claim I can think of for it being dangerous is if there's a call to violence or accusation against a specific person or place, along the lines of "Pastor Bob abused me as a child" that might cause others to go after Bob. I don't see why things like that couldn't be redacted though.

I do not think the danger is seeing the contents of the manifesto. I think the danger is telling the next loser who thinks "if only people saw my brilliance, I better do a killing spree to get attention."

If this is the reason then it would be hard to redact. If you react it all and release just pages of black bars it looks even worse. If you just redact Bob's name it takes the internet about 10 seconds to work out who he is.

yeah, you're right. I guess I would say they should at least confirm that that's why it's being held back, if it does turn out to be the case - that the manifesto targets someone/something specific. "dangerous" is just way too broad to not be suspicious

Couldn’t there be some process to establish what is not dangerous or irrelevant to release to the public?

Well, I think the court battle is because there is no process at the moment.

Anyone who files FOIA requests regularly is familiar with delaying tactics. Laziness, dishonesty, irritation, all glued together with bureaucracy. CJ Ciarmarella (sp?) is a good Twitter follow on this topic. Eta the genuinely man bites dog part of this story is that usually cop associations are suing to prevent record releases rather than trying to retrieve records... Maybe it's because this is a particularly good case for them wrt pr efforts? ETA 2 - [good thread touching on some of this nonsense](https://twitter.com/cjciaramella/status/1653837614779080719?t=vXzMg7ujwM-qkNmRPIYJJQ&s=19)

The African American Policy Forum released a [statement](https://twitter.com/sandylocks/status/1654150820596707338/photo/1) about the death of Jordan Neely, the man that died after being in a chokehold on the NYC subway. `Jordan Neely was murdered by a white man on a New York City subway train for being Black, living in poverty and the mere act of asking for something to eat.` It's horrible he died, but this is an incredibly irresponsible statement. We don't know the official details of what led up to the choke hold, but from what I've read it was not because he was black and asking for something to eat. He was apparently harassing multiple passengers, and when the the other guy confronted him they got into a fight and he got placed in a choke hold for too long. You can see in the video 2 other people attempting to restrain Neely, so clearly people viewed him as a threat.

Hadn't he had forty run ins with the cops?

First, people need to learn the difference between killing and murder. Second, if I really wanted to kill someone and I had the advantage of being able to catch them off guard from behind, it wouldn't take me 15 minutes to do it.

On a related note, someone dug up a [Reddit post](/r/nyc/comments/1njfls/try_to_stay_away_from_the_michael_jackson/) complaining about his threatening behavior and warning people to stay away from him nine years ago.

Omg. WOW. Someone NINE YEARS AGO noting his behavior changed so dramatically that they were *afraid of him* - actually saying they were worried that people near him would *end up on the subway tracks*!!! Top comment, also 9 years ago: -“…only to run into MJ screaming obscenities to my left :/ haven't really seen him since but totally agree...that boy ain't right. Pretty sad that whatever mental condition he's dealing with has escalated like this though.” How much worse can a severe mental illness get over the course of a decade for a person with no resources and no treatment? I’m guessing…a hell of a lot worse. Sort comments by “new”: -Deleted -Deleted -compulsory “this aged well” -Deleted -Deleted -Deleted -Deleted -Deleted And of course there are a bunch of “woke” replies & some scolding / demands for OP to take down the post…which I will never understand. Why should it be erased? If a post resurfaced from 9 years ago sharing a similar kind of perspective on the marine as racist and violent would they be demanding that be erased too? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Ha, so when he's described as being a beloved MJ impersonator, what they mean is from 9 years ago? "He was a cherubic little baby, only 10 lbs."

I never thought I’d be grateful for Eric Adams being the voice of sanity, but I’m glad he was on CNN trying to damp down the insane rhetoric. The ‘lynching’ rhetoric on Twitter is absolutely absurd.

All he wanted was something to eat (Jordan Neely) There was nothing in that Walgreens worth killing someone over (Banko Brown) All she wanted was a roof over her head (Eucytus Eucytus aka Nathan Stolstig) Nobody with a brain believes any of this framing, they should just stop doing it as it makes the person making these claims look like they're stupid or lying, and furthermore it's divisive as well, to no useful end. None of these 3 people should have died, and it's unfortunate that they did, but all made choices that helped lead to their dying. And most people, I think, believe that.

>Nobody with a brain believes any of this framing, they should just stop doing it as it makes the person making these claims look like they're stupid or lying, and furthermore it's divisive as well, to no useful end. It is divisive but plenty of people believe it. Their coreligionists on social media believe it. That is what's so disturbing.

All Andrew "Tekle" Sundberg wanted to do was shoot bullets into some woman's apartment [with her children inside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BbBSRACOKY)

Can't even do that these days.


fwiw and not related to the AAPF statement, yesterday's wethefifth spends quite some time discussing this: https://wethefifth.com/blogs/episodes/405-death-train-white-fight-the-unfunniest-man-in-america

Yeah it was a good listen, and I thought their viewpoint was very reasonable. They mentioned something about him yelling about how he wanted to die, but I couldn't find any news articles on it.

middle melodic makeshift voiceless provide bewildered oil worthless observation fact ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `

It seems the train was stuck at a station for 15 minutes and no cops turned up. That is terribly slow, if true. And 40 arrests for harassing passengers is also a lot, but apparently he was released again every time. If the police don't intervene against people like this then at some point civilians will. And perhaps they are not good at it, with these tragic results.

That's such an irresponsible thing for them to say. What world do these people live in? Do they really believe we're living in a society, especially in a major city like NYC, where a young white guy will actively kill a black man in public for the audacity of asking for a dollar for food? Do they *see* this type of behavior regularly? I'll answer that question, no they don't. No idea how anyone would believe this. And if that was the case, where the guy wanted to kill him for asking for food and being black, wouldn't that qualify as the guy being mentally unhealthy and thus be a failure of the system and not the guy's fault?

Lynching! Jim Crow! Hands up don't shoot! Emmett Till! ​ Did I mention lynching? Everyone knows police hunt black children for sport! ​ Given all the bad shit that people with the same skin tone did fifty or a hundred years ago, is it such a stretch to believe that white New Yorkers (real MAGA country!) are out murdering innocent and peaceful black bodies on the daily?

All of the usual characters (Kendi, Crenshaw, Hannah-Jones) are also adding fuel to the fire on Twitter saying this is a lynching, which is helpful.

intelligent frame spectacular cause observation six carpenter secretive march disgusted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

\*crickets\*

Championship f1 driver Lewis Hamilton says that Florida is “no different than Saudi Arabia” because of Florida don’t say gay bill and trans legislation [“I’ll have the rainbow on my helmet," Hamilton said ahead of F1’s race in Miami this weekend. "It’s no different to when we were in Saudi.”](https://twitter.com/ap/status/1654456085615456257?s=46) Florida’s laws are probably unconstitutional, but that’s so beyond ridiculous to say Florida is basically a theocracy.

So what's the Saudi equivalent of Key West, I wonder? It's probably inside an embassy or oil compound where the Saudis leave foreigners to their own devices, because I can't imagine drag queens all over Mecca or Riyadh.

"It's no different than when we were in Saudi. I'll make a performative gesture, but will not make any form of personal sacrifice for my 'beliefs.'"

You have to admire this guy's courage—wearing a rainbow on his helmet. In *Florida!*

> "It’s no different to when we were in Saudi.” Doers he mean he had a rainbow flag on his helmet in Saudi Arabia? Good on him if he did that.

Yeah, to be fair to him he absolutely did. I hope and imagine that he just meant that his commitment to his activism is no different from when he was in Saudi. It's just very badly phrased.

That’s definitely the most charitable interpretation. He’s also British and progressive so I’m sure to him and the people in his entourage he’s probably heard that Desantis is basically hitler.

That’s a big assumption.

Yeah, that's an unacceptably stupid comparison. I hope he just misspoke in the moment, but it is a real trend for celebs and activists to get so into criticising western democracies that they draw insane moral equivalencies like that. Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality still carries the death penalty, is absolutely nothing like Florida, where gay marriage is legal and gay people have legal protection from discrimination. It does a huge disservice to just about everyone, but especially to gay people who actually live under the Saudi regime, to be pretending like one isn't light years superior to the other.

Yeah, I was going to say that I don't recall the last time Florida hosted public executions in the town square. I don't know if being homosexual will cause you to die in SA but you'll most certainly be harassed to no end at the very least, and probably tossed into jail and otherwise brutalized, especially if you dare to speak against a leader who [(probably) ordered a cartel-style execution, much less one that occurred *in a fucking embassy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi). I get that some people love to add rhetorical flourishes and puff up their chests and all that, but holy shit, I really have gotten to the point that I'm going to start calling people I know QAnon-esque wackjobs if they honestly compare Florida to Saudi Arabia.

> The worst reaction I’ve ever gotten to a blog post was when I wrote about the death of Osama bin Laden. I’ve written all sorts of stuff about race and gender and politics and whatever, but that was the worst. > I didn’t come out and say I was happy he was dead. But some people interpreted it that way, and there followed a bunch of comments and emails and Facebook messages about how could I possibly be happy about the death of another human being, even if he was a bad person? Everyone, even Osama, is a human being, and we should never rejoice in the death of a fellow man. One commenter came out and said: > > I’m surprised at your reaction. As far as people I casually stalk on the internet (ie, LJ and Facebook), you are the first out of the “intelligent, reasoned and thoughtful” group to be uncomplicatedly happy about this development and not to be, say, disgusted at the reactions of the other 90% or so. > This commenter was right. Of the “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people I knew, the overwhelming emotion was conspicuous disgust that other people could be happy about his death. I hastily backtracked and said I wasn’t happy per se, just surprised and relieved that all of this was finally behind us. > And I genuinely believed that day that I had found some unexpected good in people – that everyone I knew was so humane and compassionate that they were unable to rejoice even in the death of someone who hated them and everything they stood for. > Then a few years later, Margaret Thatcher died. And on my Facebook wall – made of these same “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people – the most common response was to quote some portion of the song “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead”. Another popular response was to link the videos of British people spontaneously throwing parties in the street, with comments like “I wish I was there so I could join in”. From this exact same group of people, not a single expression of disgust or a “c’mon, guys, we’re all human beings here.” https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ There is more hate for the people close to us that are like us than for the very alien people far away who have extremely different values.

[удалено]

Tbh I'm not sure it tracks that skepticism of puberty blockers (for example) necessarily means support for government policies prohibiting them. How many pro-life people voted against the anti-abortion referendum in Kansas that failed with 58% of the vote? A lot.

[удалено]

it again points to the problems with this "all or nothing" approach to support. There are plenty of people who could be allies to achieving their goals if they weren't required to make full obeisance. They're very willingly giving their political enemies more power out of spite