I'm an American who leans politically center-right. Here's my opinionated perspective on this issue.
In recent years, public libraries across the US and UK have hosted a number of Drag Queen Story Hours. These are events where men dressed as sexual parodies of women read books to young children. Sometimes the men dance provocatively for the kids, or wear revealing outfits, or have kids climb all over them:
At the same time, "child-friendly" and "all-ages" drag shows have popped up at gay bars and clubs across the US. These are often much more sexually provocative than shows hosted in libraries:
Far-left militia armed with AR-15s have shown up at some all-ages shows to "protect" them from protestors. The armed militants in these photos are self-identified anti-fascists:
These events have become the focus intense polarization. Republicans say they're sexual performances designed to desensitize kids to advances from adults. Democrats say they're expressions of LGBT pride.
There is a growing conservative backlash to "all-ages" or "family-friendly" drag events generally and Drag Queen Story Hour in particular. Many parents are uncomfortable with the sexual displays aimed at children. Some women see drag as sexual blackface. This backlash is framed by Democrats as opposition to drag shows in general, which generally speaking is untrue. It is the targeting of young children that aggravates conservatives.
Librarians host these events in taxpayer-funded venues. The elected government of the state of Missouri seeks to limit this practice.
A random act of violence can happen anywhere. Objectively, SF is not a dangerous city when it comes to violent crimes. In 2000s, SF was indeed a violent city with triple digit murders.
And Europe has 10x the rate of Asian cities. What’s your point ? Every country has their own nuances and a city within a country is not devoid of context
This thing with white Gentiles and Jews reminds of tennis pros from Scotland. They're described in the English press as Scottish when they lose and British when they win. Likewise, if a member of the tribe does something bad in America it's on whiteness and white supremacy, but if they do something great we suddenly remember that they're Jewish. A conspicuous pattern, and not one that I think is good for relations in the long run.
It's not an exaggeration. My city government has funded a "Black Excellence Center" which will use public funds to build a racially-exclusive art gallery/business incubator/cultural space for black people, who represent ~6% of my city's population and are not excluded from any of the similar places which already exist:
This is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in court and no one will. Other examples abound, such as racial discrimination in Ivy League admissions (now challenged in court, but for its impact on Asians mainly) and observed differences across race in admitted med students' MCAT scores.
Teddy Roosevelt once said that, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism" and, "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." Well, here we are. Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment, except for the one largest demographic group... all driving my country into further conflict and disunity.
This particular type of grievance is only possible when you fail or refuse to comprehend the long, brutal, and massive privilege that “one largest demographic” took for itself for centuries. “Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment” indeed.
Not saying what you're saying is wrong, but there are lawsuits every day for discriminating against what people think are the majority in employment and housing. I'm not sure why my post was downvoted for pointing out a fact about the law and that most people don't realize it.
But you're doubling down not just on that people aren't aware of it but that it's a dead letter. That's wrong. You're confusing the government's spending power with discrimination in employment.
Over 10,000 cars were stolen in Milwaukee in 2021. That's one stolen auto for every 60 Milwaukee residents, young and old.
South Korea's full of vulnerable Kia and Hyundai vehicles, yet doesn't have this problem of teenage serial car thieves. American social dysfunction is a big part of the equation that results in the numbers above.
Perhaps there is no market for stolen cars in South Korea.
Perhaps South Korea has an immobilizer law like many other industrialized nations.
Perhaps more cars are parked in secure areas in South Korea, and cars in Milwaukee are parked on streets or driveways.
Perhaps there is more CCTV and other surveillance in South Korea that makes it impossible to escape with a stolen car.
Not saying it's not a social issue, but there's a lot of other factors as well.
Here in my city, at least, virtually none of the stolen Kias/Hyundais were being sold. They were being stolen by middle schoolers for joy rides. Throughout the summer of 2022, groups of kids as young as 13 were stealing a different car each day, abandoning the ride of the day when it was out of gas (or damaged to the point of being inoperable).
Thanks for sharing this video. It's hard to reconcile how these kids live and speak about their lives vs my own thinking. It seems to be a very nihilistic philosophy.
It is a very nihilistic philosophy. Unfortunately that philosophy is spreading, but it's also had an undercurrent there all along. There are a lot of people in the US that culturally do not have the same morals or system of ethics as the rest of the society, and they act out in ways which would appall the average person. This has been able to be mostly kept under wraps in the US because these subcultures, while shared across cities, on each local level are restricted to a small geographical area. With the rise of social media and the Internet, it has made the world a smaller place, allowing rapid communication between people with shared ideals and interests, and this is true for both positive interests and negative interests for society.
Car theft isn't even the half of it. Wait until you find out about the growth of card skimming in the inner city driven by social media. There are /many/ /many/ anti-social behaviors that are culturally rewarded within certain subcultures in the US. To even get to the point you have such a nihilistic world view, you have to have grown up in an environment without any serious positive role models, minimal to no hope for the future, and no realistic pathway in life to leave behind the circumstances you find yourself in. There are generations of people who have been bathed in this nihilism, and it's created a negative outcome for society on generational scale that's spreading.
Sad but true. This philosophy isn't exclusive to one race or demographic, either. Poor white kids fall into criminal subcultures just like anyone else when there seems to be no hope and no way out. Juggalo gangs are one example of this. It's no coincidence that they have a big following in economic wastelands like Detroit:
Is that true? I know the European-market cars all have an immobilizer due to regulation. I can't find evidence whether the South Korean market cars do or do not.
The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers.
This argument has similarities to the pre-2010s old saw of "China can't censor the Internet, it's too open and decentralized and routes around censorship." It turns out that a determined state with a well-funded police apparatus can accomplish quite a lot, for good or ill.
I find this reply bizarre. The linked article starts with "America has gone too far", but now the suggestion is offered that we could turn America into an authoritarian police state in order to stop drugs, which would be an absurd tradeoff. Talk about going too far: that's staring into the abyss. It should go without saying that the idea is a nonstarter and abhorrent to the majority of Americans. It's an implicit yet important assumption of this discussion and context that broadly maintaining and protecting our freedoms and way of life is beyond question.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't suggest that America follow China or Singapore's example to the letter, only that the statement "making vices illegal never stopped them" is wrong. There is a huge middle ground between the government hanging drug traffickers versus handing out heroin injection kits.
No, I'm just wishing that you never wrote your words. Your reply had the feel of pure pedantry. Yes, you can take my short statement totally out of context—which was a discussion of an American problem—and superficially nitpick it if you like, comparing to China or whatever, but what's the point? What have we gained thereby? You get to win some internet brownie points by saying, "Well actually..."
In America, alcohol prohibition failed. I am aware that in some other countries around the world, the government does some nasty things to you if you drink, and thus there's a lot less drinking there. But we wouldn't stand for that here. Alcohol isn't against our religion, it is our religion.
The point is acknowledging sensible prohibitions on, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors can be measurably and beneficially effective, and abandoning all attempts to crack down on vice because "prohibition never works" is misguided.
> The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers.
An acknowledgment that “sensible prohibition” such as controlling the sale of alcohol to minors can be effective? Unless you consider hanging 18 years olds who have a few drinks “sensible prohibition”.
The nonces are still with us. Prostasia Foundation is the new NAMBLA, working hard to normalize "minor-attracted persons" within academia and the nonprofit space. They're aided by those who rationalize children's consent on questions of sexual and bodily integrity.
If you trust a nine-year-old boy to tell us they're actually a girl, and you trust an eleven-year-old child who wants to inject puberty blockers, and you oblige a thirteen-year-old girl who wants to inject testosterone and cut off her breasts at fifteen, where is the logical barrier to other forms of sexual consent?
>but pretty much all of them agree with the idea that everyone should be entitled to basic decency.
This is begging the question. Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate, just like disagreement over when life begins and what that means is at the heart of the abortion issue.
Some think "basic decency" means transitioning schoolchildren behind their parents' backs, providing them with hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental knowledge or consent, and removing kids from their homes if the parents object. Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience. The first group holds power in public education, HR departments, academia, and the federal government (at least in the USA), making that second group the counterculture.
> Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate,
Okay, let's put it another way. Pretty much all of them agreed with me about the entitlement to basic decency. From this, I conclude that my views about basic decency probably aren't all that controversial, after all.
This disagreement exists online, and in the press. I haven't seen it in the real world. If "the heart of the […] debate" is fictional, maybe the debate itself is artificial.
> Some think
Literally who? I will share with you two anecdotes:
• I know some parents whose children, questioning their gender, thought they were trans for a few months. The worried parents advised caution, while doing their best to educate themselves about trans people: the kids (as everyone suspected) turned out not to be trans.¹
• Those parents of trans friends of mine who object to their transition? Also shitty (bordering on abusive) parents in other ways. (When you're holding something else at a much higher priority than your kids, you're probably a shit parent,² and I've yet to see a counterexample.)
So, yeah, I'm somebody who would agree with the letter of your first "basic decency" example. I would likely³ punch somebody who actually supported it in spirit. I mean, seriously. Who the actual [minced oath] is that arrogant, that they know what's right for some kid they've never met, based on a checklist? Arrogant enough to kidnap them from their (presumably loving) family? That's Oliver Twist-style child-rearing morality.
> Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience.
They're right to.⁴ Except, that "authoritarian pseudoscience" they're fighting against doesn't exist, and nobody in the world (with any power) is actually a proponent of it. The closest thing we've got is overworked and understaffed medical gatekeepers (one clinic for an entire country, in some cases) who make bad calls because they can't make good ones – to the point that only the law really listens to them any more. The solution to that problem is obvious.
> The first group holds power
Please show me an actual example of a member of this group.
---
¹: And yes, professionals usually can tell the difference. Not that a few months of blockers would actually have caused any real issues. (I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that; my reasons are many, and probably out of scope of this comment.)
²: Or your kid is in danger of significantly harming somebody else, or something like that. Children are people, after all: some are capable of evil. In these cases, though? Shitty parents.
³: Don't know for sure, though. I've never been in a position to punch one. (I'd like to think I'd try talking, first.)
⁴: In the jurisdictions I'm aware of, there's no such thing as "parental rights". There's children's rights – and in the vast majority of cases, a child's interests are best served by being with their parents. For example, in divorce cases, it's the child's right to have time with their parents, not the parent's right to have time with their child. That distinction can be significant, but only in edge-cases.
I have family and friends in K-12 education. If you question LGBTQIAP+ or fail to affirm a kids' gender self-identification, you are out of a job. Wesley Yang has covered this topic extensively, and is a good one to follow on Twitter:
>I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that
I believe you. That approach endangers children, has no scientific basis, and will be stopped in the courts. Kids do not have the capacity to make permanent, life-altering decisions about fertility or sexuality. They do not and cannot understand the implications and consequences of their actions. Responsible adults must safeguard them into adulthood.
Small question: In the name of preventing children from transitioning, there are laws in place in some states to investigate supportive parents for child abuse and separate children from their parents should their parents support their child's transition. How does this correspond with parental autonomy?
There are other laws in place in some states that force that a teacher is not allowed to mention gender identity at all in the classroom, and must report any gender nonconforming behavior to authorities. How does this correspond with teachers having control?
Edit to your additional edit: How do you match that there's no scientific basis for transitioning when the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association both oppose preventing access to transitioning?
Your very comment dodged every major point of my original post, which you continue to evade. I won't be sidetracked into debating the actions of some Governor I don't control in a state I've never visited. It is classic "whatabouting," not relevant to the topic nor the main point.
[Edited: I'm not contributing to this conversation since this is just culture war nonsense to someone who obviously opposes with no interest in mutual understanding, so I'm removing my post here and will cease conversing along this manner.]
Is not really a real person.¹ But if you think he's an example, he'll suffice for this. Please, state his position, and explain why you disagree with it.
> If you question LGBTQIAP+ or fail to affirm a kids' gender self-identification, you are out of a job.
I mean, yeah. That kind of power over children comes with a responsibility to keep your politics out of school – or, out of your position as authority figure, anyway. (A few, very few, teachers at my school managed the latter – and they only used this talent to rant a little about budget cuts to education, during times where we weren't obliged to listen.)
If a kid thinks she's a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is not for a teacher to tell her otherwise. If a kid thinks he fancies his best friend, it is not for a teacher to tell him that's wrong. If a kid says they're a fairy princess from Mars? To insist otherwise² is not the role or purpose of a schoolteacher.
> That approach
I didn't describe an approach, there: just a vague philosophy. I think you're reading too much into my words. What do you think the problems with my position are?
---
¹: At least, not while he's acting in his position as head of state. I elaborated on this in a sibling post: real-life people will tell you what they believe, but public figures (especially politicians) often tell you what they think will make you believe something. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34616318
²: A teacher could mention that no life, nor evidence of civilisation, has been found on Mars. Using this as a rebuttal of the child's claim to Martian fairy royalty would be overstepping.
In recent years, public libraries across the US and UK have hosted a number of Drag Queen Story Hours. These are events where men dressed as sexual parodies of women read books to young children. Sometimes the men dance provocatively for the kids, or wear revealing outfits, or have kids climb all over them:
https://alphanews.org/drag-queen-flashes-crotch-to-children-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VA72t7o24I
https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Drag...
Several performers and sponsors of these events have turned out to be sex offenders:
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-public-libra...
https://reduxx.info/drag-queen-charged-with-25-counts-of-fel...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/second-drag-queen-story-ho...
Across the pond, the founder of Drag Queen Story Hour UK has tweeted "love has no age" and openly associates with pedophiles:
https://thepostmillennial.com/founder-of-uk-drag-queen-story...
At the same time, "child-friendly" and "all-ages" drag shows have popped up at gay bars and clubs across the US. These are often much more sexually provocative than shows hosted in libraries:
https://reduxx.info/children-tipped-drag-queens-during-perfo...
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1543662744616013825
https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1538733481492094977
Far-left militia armed with AR-15s have shown up at some all-ages shows to "protect" them from protestors. The armed militants in these photos are self-identified anti-fascists:
https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2022/08/30/drag-brunch-ro...
These events have become the focus intense polarization. Republicans say they're sexual performances designed to desensitize kids to advances from adults. Democrats say they're expressions of LGBT pride.
There is a growing conservative backlash to "all-ages" or "family-friendly" drag events generally and Drag Queen Story Hour in particular. Many parents are uncomfortable with the sexual displays aimed at children. Some women see drag as sexual blackface. This backlash is framed by Democrats as opposition to drag shows in general, which generally speaking is untrue. It is the targeting of young children that aggravates conservatives.
Librarians host these events in taxpayer-funded venues. The elected government of the state of Missouri seeks to limit this practice.