Yep, that's a fair distinction. I will say I think right wing media is more consciously dishonest. Or maybe more *often* consciously dishonest. But that's certainly not to say that left wing media isn't sometimes consciously dishonest.
Yep, that's a fair distinction. I will say I think right wing media is more consciously dishonest. Or maybe more *often* consciously dishonest. But that's certainly not to say that left wing media isn't sometimes consciously dishonest.
I'd call it highly consciously dishonest the way they uncritically report on the trans movement. I'll bet behind closed doors they talk about how crazy it is, the way 90% of Fox employees, including mostly likely Fucker Carlson, got vaccinated against COVID.
I don't think you've seen nor will you see anyone on here arguing that what the sloppy call "the left" in America is angelic or even free of the worst attributes of the far right. I know I've said several times that the SJWs are just MAGA in a mirror; "a trans woman is a woman" is every bit as nutty as "Trump won."
But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade.
We are not going to get people to demand depth and detail without some really fundamental changes in America. I would like to see fact checkers have police powers but then we would have to deal with their biases and I have no patience left (for the remainder of my LIFE) for "who gets to decide" discussions.
"But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade."
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
The bill only applies to kids in grade K-3, prohibts *instruction* not casual discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the majority of the bill deals with ensuring that parents are informed if there is a change in their child's behaviour or mental health in school. The only mention of sexual orintation in the legal section ofthe bill text is in the line I've quoted above.
The bill is mostly a reaction to the fact that some teachers were socially transitioning kids at school and keeping it secret from their parents.
I often use that, in the quotes, because I understand that it is too broad and sweeping to be accurate, but I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals. What would you suggest that I call these people, who I'm sure that you understand that I'm referring to, who have falsely appropriated the label liberal?
I'm not trying to start either an argument or debate with this, but you frequently heap scorn on "ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШйЁЭШ░ ЁЭШиЁЭШжЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ░ ЁЭШеЁЭШжЁЭШдЁЭШкЁЭШеЁЭШж" without ever providing justification. I would dismiss it from most people, but I consider you to be very intelligent, so it is a source of puzzlement.
I first mentioned it in the context of who decided the lopsided composition of the Supreme Court which has created a near national crisis. You once mentioned that when someone complained about something that you wrote on Medium getting your account canceled which cost you a sizable amount of money. Who the hell decided to do that to you was of great impotence to you. If the people who comment here were "the deciders" you would still have that account and would have received the money owed you. Since it seems hard to deny that who decides matters and it is the reason so many are obsessed with politics, I must be missing the context or meaning of your frequent out of the blue references to it. What am I missing?
Yep, that's a fair distinction. I will say I think right wing media is more consciously dishonest. Or maybe more *often* consciously dishonest. But that's certainly not to say that left wing media isn't sometimes consciously dishonest.
I'd call it highly consciously dishonest the way they uncritically report on the trans movement. I'll bet behind closed doors they talk about how crazy it is, the way 90% of Fox employees, including mostly likely Fucker Carlson, got vaccinated against COVID.
I just don't think they're that stupid.
I don't think you've seen nor will you see anyone on here arguing that what the sloppy call "the left" in America is angelic or even free of the worst attributes of the far right. I know I've said several times that the SJWs are just MAGA in a mirror; "a trans woman is a woman" is every bit as nutty as "Trump won."
But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade.
We are not going to get people to demand depth and detail without some really fundamental changes in America. I would like to see fact checkers have police powers but then we would have to deal with their biases and I have no patience left (for the remainder of my LIFE) for "who gets to decide" discussions.
"But "don't say gay" isn't a lie so much as a simplification; does not the bill forbid mention of sexual minorities? Headlines have to be terse and attention spans are shorter every decade."
Nope, it's a lie. Here's the bill text (full bill here - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF):
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
The bill only applies to kids in grade K-3, prohibts *instruction* not casual discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the majority of the bill deals with ensuring that parents are informed if there is a change in their child's behaviour or mental health in school. The only mention of sexual orintation in the legal section ofthe bill text is in the line I've quoted above.
The bill is mostly a reaction to the fact that some teachers were socially transitioning kids at school and keeping it secret from their parents.
Oh, okay, apologies for being too lazy to look that up myself.
There is no reason to teach anything about sex in K-3. Why is this even controversial?
Excellent question. Mainly because the press tells half-truths to people who are looking for something to be mad about.
"ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШйЁЭШж ЁЭШнЁЭШжЁЭШзЁЭШ╡"
I often use that, in the quotes, because I understand that it is too broad and sweeping to be accurate, but I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals. What would you suggest that I call these people, who I'm sure that you understand that I'm referring to, who have falsely appropriated the label liberal?
"ЁЭШР ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШ░ЁЭШ╢ЁЭШнЁЭШе ЁЭШнЁЭШкЁЭШмЁЭШж ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ░ ЁЭШ┤ЁЭШжЁЭШж ЁЭШзЁЭШвЁЭШдЁЭШ╡ ЁЭШдЁЭШйЁЭШжЁЭШдЁЭШмЁЭШжЁЭШ│ЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШйЁЭШвЁЭШ╖ЁЭШж ЁЭШ▒ЁЭШ░ЁЭШнЁЭШкЁЭШдЁЭШж ЁЭШ▒ЁЭШ░ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШжЁЭШ│ЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШгЁЭШ╢ЁЭШ╡ ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШйЁЭШжЁЭШп ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШж ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШ░ЁЭШ╢ЁЭШнЁЭШе ЁЭШйЁЭШвЁЭШ╖ЁЭШж ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ░ ЁЭШеЁЭШжЁЭШвЁЭШн ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШкЁЭШ╡ЁЭШй ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШйЁЭШжЁЭШкЁЭШ│ ЁЭШгЁЭШкЁЭШвЁЭШ┤ЁЭШжЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШвЁЭШпЁЭШе ЁЭШР ЁЭШйЁЭШвЁЭШ╖ЁЭШж ЁЭШпЁЭШ░ ЁЭШ▒ЁЭШвЁЭШ╡ЁЭШкЁЭШжЁЭШпЁЭШдЁЭШж ЁЭШнЁЭШжЁЭШзЁЭШ╡ (ЁЭШзЁЭШ░ЁЭШ│ ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШйЁЭШж ЁЭШ│ЁЭШжЁЭШоЁЭШвЁЭШкЁЭШпЁЭШеЁЭШжЁЭШ│ ЁЭШ░ЁЭШз ЁЭШоЁЭШ║ ЁЭШУЁЭШРЁЭШНЁЭШМ) ЁЭШзЁЭШ░ЁЭШ│ "ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШйЁЭШ░ ЁЭШиЁЭШжЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ░ ЁЭШеЁЭШжЁЭШдЁЭШкЁЭШеЁЭШж" ЁЭШеЁЭШкЁЭШ┤ЁЭШдЁЭШ╢ЁЭШ┤ЁЭШ┤ЁЭШкЁЭШ░ЁЭШпЁЭШ┤."
I'm not trying to start either an argument or debate with this, but you frequently heap scorn on "ЁЭШ╕ЁЭШйЁЭШ░ ЁЭШиЁЭШжЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ┤ ЁЭШ╡ЁЭШ░ ЁЭШеЁЭШжЁЭШдЁЭШкЁЭШеЁЭШж" without ever providing justification. I would dismiss it from most people, but I consider you to be very intelligent, so it is a source of puzzlement.
I first mentioned it in the context of who decided the lopsided composition of the Supreme Court which has created a near national crisis. You once mentioned that when someone complained about something that you wrote on Medium getting your account canceled which cost you a sizable amount of money. Who the hell decided to do that to you was of great impotence to you. If the people who comment here were "the deciders" you would still have that account and would have received the money owed you. Since it seems hard to deny that who decides matters and it is the reason so many are obsessed with politics, I must be missing the context or meaning of your frequent out of the blue references to it. What am I missing?
"...I cannot bring myself to refer to the illiberal people who call themselves liberals as liberals."
Same here. I usually call them "the Left," but maybe "Progressives" is more apt. Or, actually, REGRESSives.