Re: continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:10 pm

{{Dont know how much you can blame on drugs, Scotland has the worst drug problem in Europe and the highest drug deaths we still arent running about shooting each other or feeling the need to arm ourselves for protection.

I suppose the obvious question is why dont Americans want to live in a society where lethal weaponry is not freely available, and where those who do have it are regulated and have a legitimate need for weaponry? A society where people arent shot to death daily, where you dont feel afraid walking out your own door, or worse in your own home, or even worse not knowing if you send your children to school that day that they will still be alive at the end of it. Why would any society want this way of living? Its horrific.
It is doable, a mixture of guns amnesties so even illegal weapons can be handed in with no come back, the important bit is getting them off the streets, proper background, mental health checks, a genuine need for a gun for work (farming, pest control, groundskeeping etc) or recreational shooting purposes (if the person is licensed to an offical establishment) or hunting where the person has a permit to do so, alongside regular unannounced checks on owners to ensure the proper storage of weapons and ammo and all reviewed every few years. You know the stuff every other normal country has to ensure the sort of horrific killings that are daily in the US dont happen.
Instead you vote for folk who legislate for everyone to carry concealed weaponry or who want armed teachers in schools. Its utter lunacy.}}

by halfwise Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:56 pm

Actually the magic number is 40% of people vote for legislators who support gun ownership above all else. In the Senate there's a rule called the "filibuster", where one senator can refuse to leave the floor unless 60% vote for removal. It's used primarily to block legislation. Senators used to put on baby diapers so they could stay on the floor longer without a break. Then at sometime in the 1970s they decided to keep the rule but make it easier: no longer is it necessary to even remain on the floor, only to declare a "hold" which is essentially a administrative filibuster.

It's crazy, and the details are even crazier than my summary. The reason it exists is to ensure that slight minorities don't get run over by the vagaries of voting, which sends the majority back and forth by only a few percent each time. Only legislation which is supported by a strong majority makes it through.

So change can be halted by only 40% of senators; and since individuals can be swayed more easily than entire populations, those 40 senators are bombarded by special interests that end up controlling a significant fraction of their campaign funds.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:11 pm

{{Well a good start then would be removing the bulk of lobbying from government and removing private funding of candidates, instead have all candidates capped at the same level from tax funded election funds, to ensure a level playing field and that votes cant be bought (is taking money off a lobby then supporting their legislation not illegal in America? It would be here, MP's have to declare all their interests and funding in order to ensure there is no chance they are being bought out to influence legislation in favour of any one group and they are not allowed to vote on legislation if they have a personal stake or financial interest in the area of legisaltion, that would count as a conflict of interest, which is not allowed).

Once youve got rid of the ability for lobbies to buy off senators, and removed the financial insentive for Senators to take money in order to afford a campaign then you can pass proper and sane gun laws like eveyrone else, and begin the long, but not impossible task of removing weaponry from the streets, stopping the sale of and mass production of new guns, and making it so only those who have a legitmate reason for having a gun are the only people with them and are regularly checked on for compliance with the law.}}

by Mrs Figg Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:13 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its all part of a morally degenerate society. Exposing children to adult entertainers is a slippery slope and we are getting all this garbage from the US. - Figg

{{ How on earth is drag morally degenerate? We've had drag as entertianment in the UK for as long as we've had entertainment. You and I Figg grew up as kids in a UK where drag acts were amongst the most popular entertainment on TV; Danny La Rue, Hinge and Brackett, Les dawson, Stanley Baxter, Barry Humphries, Kenny Everett, Paul O Grady, the list goes on and on, and back in time, through vaudville, theatre, everything right back to pagan ceremonies with their man/woman lead played by the always at the time male leader of the community, dressed as a woman.
And the stuff we grew up with Figg werent on tv after the 9pm watershed for adults, they were on mainstream, often Saturday night after Who in fact. Family entertainment.
You and I were exposed to what you now call 'adult' entertainers all the time in our childhood. I did a school panto in drag, we dressed children up in drag and put them on stage for entertainment, and no one had an issue, it was a threat to no one, in fact that particular panto was so popular with parents we had to do extra nights to get everyone in who wanted to see it. No one protested, no one claimed moral outrage. And quite right too, there was none to claim.

What we have imported from the US Figg is not 'drag' as family entertainment, it was part of our culture long before there was an America, no what we have imported of late is fear of drag, fear of difference and using drag and trans people as a weapon in a culture war. Thats the real crime and real shame here. }}

Ok I see that you have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. But for the sake of argument, you know as well as I do that I am talking about adult entertainment not family entertainment. Maybe you would find it acceptable to take an 8 and 10 year old nephew and niece to a midnight drag show in Soho, call me old fashioned but if I did that my brother would have me arrested. and rightly so. Secondly as you well know the drag acts we saw as kids would be banned nowadays, and I don't remember Danny La Rue twerking in front of junior school children. Danny La Rue was an adult entertainer for adults. I loved drag as a young adult, its bitchy, rude and outrageous and it belongs in a night club not a kindergarten. There is nothing wrong with cross dressing in art, and its disingenous to suggest that my objections include Shakespeare plays. They don't, as well you know. I might have been 'exposed' to drag as a kid but I was also 'exposed' to the black and white minstrel show and Love Thy Neighbour. are you suggesting that would be acceptable today as well? So basically, I ask myself why Drag 'artists' want to go to schools and libraries, in my day they would have had a visit from the nonce squad and told to leave the kids alone.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:26 pm

{{ The vid you just put up as an example Figg the presenter says, "This event, it anway was not sexual, did not involve stripping, did not involve dancing. Its literally just men dressed up as women, which our Founders would not have found offensive..'

Yet you are still objecting to it. Non sexual, just men dressed as women, how is that differnt to Kenny Everett, or Paul O grady? Or in fact worse given both of their content has plenty adult jokes in them.

I know I was watcing and loving the Kenny Everett TV show as a kid which started when I was 10.
And it was the show everyone talked about at school, we were all watching it, and it like most of British humour is absolutely double entrende laden. It all was.
Drag does not fall into the same category as minstrel shows, drag does not mock, hurt or harm anyone, if anything it celebrates people. }}

by Mrs Figg Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:20 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:37 pm

{{ I am all for age appropriate material Figg and for parents to decide what they feel is suitable for their child, as children mature at different rates. Just as the first vid you put up was age appropriate material. The very fact in 2 vids you have put up there is an example of something age approproiate at a drag show for families, and something you consider not, just shows why you cant act as if they are all the same and all damaging the children!

There is also the point my niece learned to twerk aged about 7, watching Miley Cyrus videos, so are you advocating for the banning of Miley Cyrus too? Or Beyonce? Or any other number of female artists who have overtly sexual dance routines? Or is it only if girls learn how to do it from a man in a dress, rather than a woman in almost no dress that you object?
You can watch them all on youtube no age restrictions there, or on any music channel, without age restriction.
If you have no objection to this material then you cant have any objection to similar material just because it comes from a drag artists and not a female artist, and if you do object to such material then youd presumably be wanting to ban an awful lot of things. }}

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:09 am

{{ Talking Miley Cyrus, I thought Id check and see if her concerts are age restricted, they are not in the UK, the tickets come with a parental advisory that children under 15 should be accompanied by an adult but thats it. Her 'Bangers' tour apprently contained- 'Miley and chums having a pretend orgy in an on-stage bed. Miley getting spanked by a giant fluffy dog. Miley simulating sex with a big gold car. A giant inflatable penis..twerking, jerking and crotch-grabbing. "I hear you guys are even sluttier than Americans," she shouted out to the arena. "The dirtier you all get, the more chance you got of getting on that screen."

And you think some drag acts twerking and reading childrens stories is inappropriate and requires government intervention to prevent, when do you start your crusade against women who perform sexually inapproporiate material to children? }}

by halfwise Tue Apr 18, 2023 12:37 pm

I haven't been keeping up with Miley. You'd think her dad would have something to say about it.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:09 pm

{{ I'm still trying to work out how someone simulates sex with a car! Spends a lot of time playing with its exhaust pipe? Shocked

A little further digging into her London concert the age range of the audience was from about 10 upwards, the youngsters being nearly always young girls.
It odd that a show you can take your kids too I would not recommend even googling to find out about if your at work, as the results will probably get you sacked! }}

by halfwise Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:54 pm

She headed a kid friendly show as a teenager, I think that's where parents get the idea her performances would be fine for their kids. I have to imagine there's some parents frozen in shock hoping their kids don't understand what's going on AND won't ask about it.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:01 pm

{{ I have to imagine there's some parents frozen in shock hoping their kids don't understand what's going on AND won't ask about it.- Halfy

True- there was probably a few awkward car journeys home afterwards- "Mummy why was the big dog spanking Miley?"

The broader point being however there isnt a huge group of internet warriors protesting outside her house, calling for her to banned from society or ever performing before anyone under 18 and no one is calling for the government to put inplace anti-Miley policies to stop her. Or all the rest of the female artists who make their money by sexually implicict material.
But you can bet there would be if she was a man in a dress. }}

by Mrs Figg Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:09 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ I am all for age appropriate material Figg and for parents to decide what they feel is suitable for their child, as children mature at different rates. Just as the first vid you put up was age appropriate material. The very fact in 2 vids you have put up there is an example of something age approproiate at a drag show for families, and something you consider not, just shows why you cant act as if they are all the same and all damaging the children!

There is also the point my niece learned to twerk aged about 7, watching Miley Cyrus videos, so are you advocating for the banning of Miley Cyrus too? Or Beyonce? Or any other number of female artists who have overtly sexual dance routines? Or is it only if girls learn how to do it from a man in a dress, rather than a woman in almost no dress that you object?
You can watch them all on youtube no age restrictions there, or on any music channel, without age restriction.
If you have no objection to this material then you cant have any objection to similar material just because it comes from a drag artists and not a female artist, and if you do object to such material then youd presumably be wanting to ban an awful lot of things. }}

If you find the examples above 'age appropriate' as in the middle aged man thrusting in a sexual act in a library full of kids, or the man opening his legs and crawling along the floor in a sexual way in front of kids, you need to reassess your moral compass because its creeping me out, as it creeps out the two guys in the video. As for Miley Cyrus, when she went through the twerking phase she was quite literally a perversion and a corrupter of innocent children. No seven year old should be twerking, and I find it repulsive and worrying. I object to children being corrupted by adults in all forms. Just because it is available and some parents allow it does not make it a good excuse. I do have objections to all of it actually. I would ban children having access to all of it if it was up to me because its a safeguarding issue, immoral, and disgusting.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:17 pm

{{ Thing is Figg when you start banning stuff where does it stop? For example when I was between the ages of 10- 16 my mother, who is a big reader and lover of drama ( and encouraged me to read from when I was 4 onwards) let me watch a lot of stuff she thought was worthwhile, but which had lots of stuff in them whch was not age approrporiate by your standards- I saw Dennis Potter's Pennies from Heaven (must have been on repeat as it was '78 and I was older than 7 when I saw it if only by a few years), Abigails Party, any number of Alan Bennet plays, soul wrenching stuff like Cathy Come Home. All fantatstic playwrights and dramatists that I am hugely grateful I was exposed to. But all of it would fall under your ban. So would you want parents taken to court for exposing their chilren to the works of Dennis Potter before 18? }}

by Mrs Figg Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:59 pm

That is the most ridiculous argument yet. sorry but it doesn't fly. You are too intelligent to propose it, so dont. The examples you give are of literature and tv shows written for adults that have a serious cultural and social message and does no harm to a child who accidently comes across it. Cathy Come Home was not made to exploit children, it didn't have Niki Minaj twerking her enormous ass to camera did it. There is no educational benefit to children to have fat men doing the splits in thongs.

Look, adults can dress up as animals and call themselves FluffyTrixibell Woo Woo, they can identify as a tree for all I care, but leave the kids alone.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:09 pm

{{ Potters plays, amongst others mentioned, also contain a lot of nudity, sexual scenes, topics of child sexual abuse, explotation, drug abuse, physical and domestic violence, and all sorts of other things that are age inapporopriate.
I think your assumption that a drag act performing to children in all cases must be intended to 'exploit children' rather than educate them to the differences our world has in it between people, and learning to accept differences betrays your prejudice here.
You just put up 2 vids, one which has nothing offensive in it at a drag show for kids, one which has questionable material for children, yet you treat them both the same as exploitive.

And if you are going to ban stuff wholesale, who decides whats appropriate? Who decides what someone can or cannot see or watch or read? Because when even a book company censors a book your jumping up and down crying foul, yet you advocate for government broadscale censoring, deciding what people should or should not be exposed to? If you had your way both those drag acts inthose 2 vids would be treated the same and both be banned, yet oneis entirely harmless. Thats the first steps to tolitarism. }}}}

by Mrs Figg Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:35 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Potters plays, amongst others mentioned, also contain a lot of nudity, sexual scenes, topics of child sexual abuse, explotation, drug abuse, physical and domestic violence, and all sorts of other things that are age inapporopriate.

yeah, so? So does Shakespeare, what exactly is your argument?

I think your assumption that a drag act performing to children in all cases must be intended to 'exploit children' rather than educate them to the differences our world has in it between people, and learning to accept differences betrays your prejudice here.

I have no prejudice. Give me one educational benefit for young children to be exposed to male adults in fetish gear. Learning to accept 'differences' does not mean being forced to accept adult sexual behaviour in a supposedly safe environment such as a school. It is a betrayal and a sign of potential grooming. because why is it always middle aged men in thongs, its never females in thongs is it. maybe because women realise it is creepy and innapropriate.

You just put up 2 vids, one which has nothing offensive in it at a drag show for kids, one which has questionable material for children, yet you treat them both the same as exploitive.

And I repeat, a man thrusting his genitals in a library is NOT acceptable.

And if you are going to ban stuff wholesale, who decides whats appropriate? Who decides what someone can or cannot see or watch or read? Because when even a book company censors a book your jumping up and down crying foul, yet you advocate for government broadscale censoring, deciding what people should or should not be exposed to?

Adults get to decide what is appropriate, and most normal people are disgusted by this stuff. Banning books is completely different as it relates to the work of an author against their consent. stop using disingenuous examples please.

If you had your way both those drag acts inthose 2 vids would be treated the same and both be banned, yet oneis entirely harmless. Thats the first steps to tolitarism. }}}}

by Mrs Figg Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:50 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:54 pm

{{ yeah, so? So does Shakespeare, what exactly is your argument?- Figg

I presume youd ban Titus Andromica for example, given it features gang rape and mutilation and cannabilism. The point is you cant single out one field of artistic represenmtaion just becuase you dont like it, and decide it has to be banned whilst freely allowing any other form of artisitic experession to remain even when they contain far more inappropriate material than any drag act reading stories in a library does.

'Give me one educational benefit for young children to be exposed to male adults in fetish gear'

Again you wording betrays your prejudice, male adults in 'fetish gear.'

Postive example for you, and wheres the fetish gear?

Postive example two, kids been kids and being curious and asking questions, and in doing so learning-

'a man thrusting his genitals in a library is NOT acceptable.'

The stuff that makes headlines on right wing new channels maybe, most drag time story time is just that, a drag artists sititng down, reading stories answering questions.

'most normal people are disgusted by this stuff.'

Theres a lot to unpack there! So as I think drag or trans people should be treated failry and same as any other people or artists I'm not a normal person? You seem to be presuming to speak on behalf of a lot of people whose opinions you have no idea of.

'Banning books is completely different as it relates to the work of an author against their consent.'

So a publisher censoring work is bad, but a government censoring what people can see/read/hear is good? And any ban on trans or drag would not be with their consent would it? So you are advocating government decide what art is allowed where and who is allowed to see it against the wishes and consent of the artists (or parents) involved. Whats the difference again? }}

by Mrs Figg Tue Apr 18, 2023 6:11 pm

its funny that your version of 'diversity and inclusion' entails adult men in fetish gear stripper boots and leopard print thongs dry humping in front of children. But hey, I am just old fashioned and have some boundaries.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 6:30 pm

{{ Again you are putting every drag act into the one extreme category and treating them all the same, and they are simply not. I just gave you two clear examples where there was not a hint of sexualisation or fetish gear or strippers boots or leopard print thongs, or any humping of any sort. Kids would see much worse turning on the tv and watching a music channel. Heck even watching a tv advert is more sexual.}}

by halfwise Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:48 pm

That was one long tease! Mad

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:05 pm

{{ Sorry Halfy, I was wary of what I was posting on the forum, so picked something that made th epoint whilst not being too extreme an example, and also wanted to pick someone who little girls copy and dance too all the time as a counter example of how for decades weve had supposedly far worse as normal than Drag Reading Time. }}

by Mrs Figg Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:25 am

Young people not liking the exploitation of children by adults with an agenda.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:34 am

{{ Its a channel 4 show, they have a ton of clickkbait shows like this. They have a history of exploitative tv shows, like the one where they made a supposed 'documentary' about a council estate that was just poverty porn for the wealthy to laugh at the poor. They have 'naked attraction' and the like.
I also supsect most kids of that age have seen a lot more nudity online and worse than we were ever exposed to trying to find a copy of 'razzle'.
Although him comparing it to a strip show, then saying 'its not really like that but it is', is pretty poor. The purpose of a strip show is sexual titillation, the purpose here is to teach about body acceptance and body diffferences- not a bad aim in itself for the generations growing up bombarded with ideal body types and being told they should be like them, which long term is probably way more dangerous and unhealthy. }}