Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Or let's put it this way: the song is not dangerous for the psychosexual development of children unless the parents are hysterical bigots.  Reminds me a bit of the Tellytubby controversy.

So is it dangerous for someone to want to "Make America Great *Again"? Is it dangerous for someone to wear a red baseball cap with that on it?

Like rainbows and other things, the symbol is intended to stand for a lot more than it explicitly suggests,  and for that reason people will avoid it when they don't want to be assumed to support everything the people using it want it to implicitly suggest.


(*The idea that it was "great" at some time in the past that it isn't now may be misinformed, but in that case is the idea of aiming for "great"ness inherently evil?)

[Wahoo Redux]

So is it dangerous for someone to want to "Make America Great *Again"? Is it dangerous for someone to wear a red baseball cap with that on it?

Like rainbows and other things, the symbol is intended to stand for a lot more than it explicitly suggests,  and for that reason people will avoid it when they don't want to be assumed to support everything the people using it want it to implicitly suggest.

Hey!  I agree with you.  Remove the rainbow from Genesis 9:8-17. The rainbow used to stand for God's promise that He would never wreck global havoc on the world----but not anymore!!!  God approves of the trans agenda!!!!!   Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

You and this guy can get together are have all sorts of rainbow flavored conniptions.

As someone in the comments points out, away with Lucky Charms and leprechauns!!!  The pot at the end of the rainbow is full of trans gold!!!!!!

Good thinking there, buddy.

[marshwiggle]

Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

If avoiding the use of the rainbow can be interpreted as "transphobic bigotry" because I don't support

• Sending convicted (biologically male) rapists to women's prison because they identify as women
• Biological males competing in women's sports, including contact sports

then I'll accept the label.

[Wahoo Redux]

Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

If avoiding the use of the rainbow can be interpreted as "transphobic bigotry" because I don't support

• Sending convicted (biologically male) rapists to women's prison because they identify as women
• Biological males competing in women's sports, including contact sports

then I'll accept the label.

I love these tortuous attempts at legitimacy, particularly since you are referring to a very, very few people in the world who would be affected by these things vs. the millions of people affected by our culture's prejudices.  That's a fair tradeoff.

At least you accept the label and can stop pretending.

My favorite is that the little kids in Wisconsin ended up singing "Rainbow Connection":

Rainbows are visions, but only illusions
And rainbows have nothing to hide
... So we've been told, and some choose to believe it
I know they're wrong, wait and see
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection
The lovers, the dreamers, and me

Uh oh, Marshy.  I'm seeing some homoerotic DACA who "have nothing to hide" implications there!!!!!  Quick, protect your restrooms, Marshhero!!!   Let "contact sports" define your entire worldview!!!  More good thinking!

[marshwiggle]

Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

If avoiding the use of the rainbow can be interpreted as "transphobic bigotry" because I don't support

• Sending convicted (biologically male) rapists to women's prison because they identify as women
• Biological males competing in women's sports, including contact sports

then I'll accept the label.

I love these tortuous attempts at legitimacy, particularly since you are referring to a very, very few people in the world who would be affected by these things vs. the millions of people affected by our culture's prejudices.  That's a fair tradeoff.

So you agree that the label fits for opposing those things?

[Wahoo Redux]

Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

If avoiding the use of the rainbow can be interpreted as "transphobic bigotry" because I don't support

• Sending convicted (biologically male) rapists to women's prison because they identify as women
• Biological males competing in women's sports, including contact sports

then I'll accept the label.

I love these tortuous attempts at legitimacy, particularly since you are referring to a very, very few people in the world who would be affected by these things vs. the millions of people affected by our culture's prejudices.  That's a fair tradeoff.

So you agree that the label fits for opposing those things?

The label fits when one tries to "oppose" those things as an excuse for prejudicial thinking for an entire group of people.

If that were a valid approach----trying to diminish an entire group of people to a few odd outliers----the Catholics (and perhaps Christians) should be banned as pedophiles.  And Christians of all denominations are flush with pedophiles, not a couple of weird scenarios.

[marshwiggle]

Apparently the symbol of the rainbow----which I've seen in a lot of places and been used for, say, forever (as opposed to "Make America Great Again")----has been completely coopted and can mean nothing except acceptance of people who are different than you are, and we can't have that!!!!  Bigotry rules!!!  Down with the rainbow!!!!

If avoiding the use of the rainbow can be interpreted as "transphobic bigotry" because I don't support

• Sending convicted (biologically male) rapists to women's prison because they identify as women
• Biological males competing in women's sports, including contact sports

then I'll accept the label.

I love these tortuous attempts at legitimacy, particularly since you are referring to a very, very few people in the world who would be affected by these things vs. the millions of people affected by our culture's prejudices.  That's a fair tradeoff.

So you agree that the label fits for opposing those things?

The label fits when one tries to "oppose" those things as an excuse for prejudicial thinking for an entire group of people.

You do know that those things happened because activists advocated for them (and still do). These aren't theoretical issues; they are things that are currently happening.

Those aren't "an excuse for prejudicial thinking"; they're examples of very negative consequences of some of the absolutely mainstream ideas of "rainbow advocates" being put into practice. ("TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN." "SELF IDENTIFICATION IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.")

People who want to unequivocally oppose those things may  feel the only way to do so is to avoid any vague symbols of "support".

It's the same reason many people (including me) have never, and will never, become a member of any political party. Even if t a party has some policies I support, I don't want them claiming my membership implies my support for everything they propose.

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, my friend, you are simply lumping disparate people together under an umbrella because of two strange instances that do not reflect the reality for the large majority of any particular people or the work of advocates.

Why do you care if people self-identify as "a woman?"  So what?  A SINGLE MMA bout nine years ago?   A SINGLE weird event in Scotland??  And from these two events you conclude activists are...what, exactly?

What does either of those have to do with the symbol of "rainbow" anyway?

You never answered if we should remove the rainbow from Genesis. 

Who is hurt by a guy self-identifying as "a woman?"  I would have thought you would've been smarter than to be manipulated by the rightwing hate machine.

[marshwiggle]

Again, my friend, you are simply lumping disparate people together under an umbrella because of two strange instances that do not reflect the reality for the large majority of any particular people or the work of advocates.

Why do you care if people self-identify as "a woman?"  So what?  A SINGLE MMA bout nine years ago?   A SINGLE weird event in Scotland??  And from these two events you conclude activists are...what, exactly?

What does either of those have to do with the symbol of "rainbow" anyway?

You never answered if we should remove the rainbow from Genesis. 

Who is hurt by a guy self-identifying as "a woman?"  I would have thought you would've been smarter than to be manipulated by the rightwing hate machine.

The underlying assumption in all of this is that the only views possible on issues like this are represented by the two extremes. Like the idea that one is either a racist or an *anti-racist.  The is a lot of effort to exclude the middle in order to try and get support for one extreme position or the other.

As I have said before, since things like sexual orientation and/or trans status are invisible and irrelevant in the vast majority of casual interactions people will have, anyone who attempts to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

Someone who refuses to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" should not automatically be assumed to be an abusive spouse. Trying to imply otherwise is just being disingenuous.


(*In the case of being an "anti-racist", a lot of it just comes down to virtue-signalling. What isn't virtue signalling is just normal decent behaviour.)

[Wahoo Redux]

all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

There ARE enemies.

We need to be allies to help defend good people from bigots.

You are not refusing to "virtue signal" (which is more empty conservative propaganda jargon), you are defending the people who seek to justify their bigotry.

You resent the label "bigot" and you don't like to be called "prejudicial"-----who would?----because you seem to think that innocent Christian conservatives are being railroaded, but then you post bigoted, prejudicial stuff and try to justify the hysteria over "rainbows."

Should the rainbow be edited out of Genesis?   

Someone who refuses to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" should not automatically be assumed to be an abusive spouse. Trying to imply otherwise is just being disingenuous.

This totally depends on if the "Someone" has actually beaten his wife before.  If he has, then the question is legitimate.  If someone acts like a bigot, then the bigot label fits.

[marshwiggle]

all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

There ARE enemies.

We need to be allies to help defend good people from bigots.

Let's try an analogy.

I would guess that everyone on here is against cheaters. (Or against cheating.)

However, when the topic is discussed, there are always a range of opinions on what to do about specific cases. This is for at least 2 reasons:

• Cheating requires intent, and without looking inside someone's head that's often impossible to establish.
• Even when a person's intentions are clear, what constitutes cheating is a matter of debate.

Probably everyone would agree that someone sitting down and directly copying the work of another person and submitting it under their own name with no indication of its origin would count as cheating. But there are lots of less obvious things.

For instance, suppose a person wrote a paper entirely on their own, and then ran it through some sort of thing like ChatGPT to clean up the language. Some instructors would be adamant that it was cheating, while others would be equally adamant that it wasn't, especially if the person was a non-native English speaker, and depending on the discipline.

People have often asked what percentage similarity on a TurnItIn report should be automatically treated as cheating. The easiest way to reduce cheating as much as possible would be to prosecute every case of suspected cheating. That would certainly reduce cheating, but it would also foster an extremely adversarial and paranoid atmosphere, and would drive away even many non-cheating students who didn't want to live under that level of suspicion.

There are behaviours that would pretty universally be identified as bigotry, but there are all kinds of things that are open to interpretation. Probably most people would be "allies" when it comes to the universally-identified bigotry, but like the case for cheating, where there is no clear consensus many people would rather avoid the hostile atmosphere of hyper-vigilance.

Should the rainbow be edited out of Genesis?   

No, and neither should the word "gay" be edited out of old books when it meant happy. Whether someone chooses to quote from an old book which uses the word in its earlier sense is up to them.

You know that the crop which is now called "canola" used to be called "rape seed"? I don't think the change is a bad thing, even though no-one has suggested people growing it are potential sex offenders.

[Wahoo Redux]

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

I don't see how your analogy means anything remotely associated with anything.  "Interpretation" is simply a masking word for hysterical bigotry.

So, the rainbow is not necessary a gay symbol.  So if silly pop stars make a superficial song including a "rainbow" it is a little hysterical to be seeing an "agenda" or whatever the newest buzz word is.

[kaysixteen]

Random thoughts:

1) Christian denoms are 'flush with pedophiles'?  Really?   As you are wont to say, Wahoo: what's your evidence?  Prove it.

2) 'Hysterical bigot'?  Opposition to moral choices is not at all always, or even often, 'hysterical', and it is often explicitly rational.

3) Do you really think that it is a moral, or pragmatically justified, choice, to incarcerate in a women's prison a rapist, just because that rapist is pretending to be a woman (which pretence did not prevent *him* from, ahem, raping women)?   Is that action consonant with the right (and responsibility) of fellow (female) inmates there to be rehabilitated in a safe and ethical environment?

4) Now one of the things I have regularly said here is that people will lie in polls-- the Bradley effect is a well-noted phenomenon, for instance.  Put simply, this is something, in any given case, that is almost impossible to prove, but such inability ought not to dissuade one from accepting obvious reality.

[Wahoo Redux]

Random thoughts:

1) Christian denoms are 'flush with pedophiles'?  Really?   As you are wont to say, Wahoo: what's your evidence?  Prove it.

Really!?  Okay, you asked for it:

Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Cases

French Catholic Church inquiry finds 216,000 paedophilia cases since 1950

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/03/europe/france-catholic-church-pedophilia-abuse-intl/index.html

Josh Duggar's Child Pornography Case: Everything We Know About the Trial

Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist Churches

Southern Baptist Convention Pledges to Release Secret Database

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/religion/article/southern-baptist-convention-sex-abuse-report-17192138.php

Lutheran Church Abuse Victims Receive $69 Million Settlement

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-jun-23-la-me-0623-lutheran-abuse-lawsuit-20110623-story.html

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/religious-affiliations-among-adult-sexual-offenders

Contrary to findings of previous research regarding the influence of religion on nonsexual criminality, for this sample of sex offenders, religiosity was linked to a higher number of sex offense victims and more convictions for sex offenses. Those sex offenders who reported regular church attendance, a belief in supernatural punishment, and religion as important in their daily lives had more known victims, younger victims, and more convictions for sex offenses than the sex offenders who reported irregular or no church attendance and no or less intense allegiance to religious beliefs and practices.

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18500-the-scandal-of-pedophilia-in-the-church

And that is enough for now.  It goes on a long, long way.  That was a dumb thing to call, Kay.

2) 'Hysterical bigot'?  Opposition to moral choices is not at all always, or even often, 'hysterical', and it is often explicitly rational.

If one sees a "rainbow" in a silly country pop song about self-esteem as a danger to children's psychosexual development, one is hysterical.

3) Do you really think that it is a moral, or pragmatically justified, choice, to incarcerate in a women's prison a rapist, just because that rapist is pretending to be a woman (which pretence did not prevent *him* from, ahem, raping women)?   Is that action consonant with the right (and responsibility) of fellow (female) inmates there to be rehabilitated in a safe and ethical environment?

Nope.  Send him to a male prison and keep him in isolation.

What I was saying is that using this ONE SINGUAL and weird scenario to prove anything about a world-wide demographic is an attempt at prejudice.

Reading comprehension, K16.  You are a very smart man.  Use those brains.

4) Now one of the things I have regularly said here is that people will lie in polls-- the Bradley effect is a well-noted phenomenon, for instance.  Put simply, this is something, in any given case, that is almost impossible to prove, but such inability ought not to dissuade one from accepting obvious reality.

Yeah, this is one of your tentpoles.  But ya'can't prove it, so it is worthless as a debate point.

[Kron3007]

Again, my friend, you are simply lumping disparate people together under an umbrella because of two strange instances that do not reflect the reality for the large majority of any particular people or the work of advocates.

Why do you care if people self-identify as "a woman?"  So what?  A SINGLE MMA bout nine years ago?   A SINGLE weird event in Scotland??  And from these two events you conclude activists are...what, exactly?

What does either of those have to do with the symbol of "rainbow" anyway?

You never answered if we should remove the rainbow from Genesis. 

Who is hurt by a guy self-identifying as "a woman?"  I would have thought you would've been smarter than to be manipulated by the rightwing hate machine.

The underlying assumption in all of this is that the only views possible on issues like this are represented by the two extremes. Like the idea that one is either a racist or an *anti-racist.  The is a lot of effort to exclude the middle in order to try and get support for one extreme position or the other.

As I have said before, since things like sexual orientation and/or trans status are invisible and irrelevant in the vast majority of casual interactions people will have, anyone who attempts to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

Someone who refuses to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" should not automatically be assumed to be an abusive spouse. Trying to imply otherwise is just being disingenuous.


(*In the case of being an "anti-racist", a lot of it just comes down to virtue-signalling. What isn't virtue signalling is just normal decent behaviour.)

That is your underlying assumption that there are only the two extremes, no one else's.

I very much support the LGBT community, which includes friends, relatives, and current/previous grad students.  I have no issues with rainbows.

Despite this, I don't think trans women that went through male puberty should compete in sports with women or necessarily go to women's prison (although I would also be concerned about sending them to a men's prison for their safety).  I really doubt there is even consensus on these items within the LGBT community.

You are the only one making this black and white, I suppose because it helps you justify your bigoted stance.  You suggest you are not a bigot, and somewhere in the middle, yet here you are online arguing in support of bigotry because you have declared it is all or nothing.  You avoid addressing any of the "middle" questions and only raise the extremes.  Very classic strawman tactics.