|
Artificer posted:No way. Was there any sort of outrage about that or is that par for course for the Daily Mail? Rupert Murdoch owns the daily mail, and they frequently make Fox News look subtle by comparison.
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:whoops, wrong thread. Have this instead, NC's bathroom bill is already starting to bear fruit; a cisgender woman was violently ejected from the women's bathroom by police: Thankfully this particular incident seems to be fake news originating with worldnewsdailyreport.com.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
While I agree with the rest of the points you made in your post, I personally disagree with this point. I do not think the people passing these laws are aware that they will simply be struck down, nor do I think that this is a cynical Ploy just to rile the bass up. Well that would have been absolutely true 15 years ago, in our post Tea Party World, I really think that these are genuine true believers who have been elected to positions of power that are pushing these policies. I really think that the systematic effort by the Tea Party the primary everyone who was dumb enough to admit to having a rational opinion about governance and public has resulted in genuine True Believers seizing the reins of power in certain areas of the country. I don't believe at all that this is about just riling up the base at this point, this is about fighting a holy war against the alien other that is coming to destroy them all. They aren't really fighting to win, nor are they fighting to rile up the base 2 continue getting reelected. They're fighting because it's a righteous cause, and they perceived their only real two choices as being either that a passively going along with outright evil, or going down fighting the good fight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:This week has been pretty awful for me. I go to school in Orlando, and while I was lucky enough to be in Texas visiting family during the shooting, I still got to wake up to texts from friends telling me my community was being massacred. Discussion about it in the household ended up with a shouting argument between me and pretty much everyone else that ended with me outed and told by my grandfather that people gays and liberals aren't part of the family's values, and if I didn't hold their values I wasn't part of the family. Feels bad man  I wish there was something more I could say, that sort of pain runs very deep.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
I posed this in the RWM thread as well, but I think it is relevant enough to warrant a crosspost here.Prester Jane posted:So on the topic of the Trump administration's plans for the future of education in America I have some interesting scuttlebutt to share. I recently checked in on some of the behind the scenes activity happening in Accelerated Christian Education and gleaned a few interesting tidbits. Mind you, I can't verify any of this, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, here are the highlights. Edit: Added the text I meant to crosspost. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
For those who have not read my thread, this video is an actual advertisement for A.C.E. This is what they think makes parents *want* to put their children in A.C.E. Warning! The abyss WILL gaze back into you if you watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUw4iWepk0 And this is a video of British activist going through what is supposed to be a 9th grade (year 10 in the British system) history textbook. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_2tCMlHEBI Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Good news, instead of Falwell he went with Mrs. Voucherize the Entirety of Detroit! The Internet atheists love school choice, as it allows them to use public money to send their kids to schools with no black kids. Or they would, if they had kids. Plus, in all of the states where that's actually going to happen, the amount of regulation there will be is approximately zero, so who can say "public money for Accelerated Christian Education," kids? Ungh. The last time I thought closet nazi's had seized control of our government the meds took that away, (God bless you Geodon) but for some unknown reason not so much this time. This is just a bit of gallows humor, I am fine. For me best way to confront the abyss is to find something to laugh about and just laugh in its face no matter how you actually feel. If you can do that, sometimes even the abyss will hesitate for a moment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:My standpoint is that people suffering significant distress and/or impairment are suffering from mental illness, yes. The same as are those suffering depression, anxiety, or PTSD issues, to name the most common issues currently in the wild. What you are simply not getting is that in your model a trans-person can be denied necessary medical care until their Dysphoria reaches the point where it can be diagnosed as a mental illness. Also, there is a strong stigma attached to mental illness and while it would be nice for society to overcome that we do not yet live in that world. By forcing trans people to accept the label of mental illness you are just stacking social stigma on top of social stigma. You are also giving ammunition to the bigots who often refer to the presence of gender dysphoria in the DSM as "proof" that trans people are deluded/dangerous and should be treated as a threat to society. Yeah, it would be great if the stigma around being trans or being mentally ill would suddenly disappear from society. But we do not live in that world right now, and we are not going to be living it anytime in the near future either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What's your better option? Without a viable diagnosis, insurance companies are going to continue to find ways to deny treatment. Make it a medically recognized condition that requires treatment but is not considered in and of itself a mental illness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What exactly is gained by doing so? It seems to me that you're just creating unclear definitions and generating a new edge case for the sake of avoiding a label. What is gained by doing so? Improved access to medical care for transpersons without needing to go through the gatekeeper of being diagnosed with a mental illness in order to get care. And if I am generating an edge case for the sake of avoiding a label, so what? Improving real world outcomes for transpersons is the goal here, not having a tidy conceptual box to put transpersons in. If we need to create a special edge case in order to avoid adding the stigma of mental illness to the stigma that transpersons already face then why the hell should we not exactly? Is simpler paperwork and a simple definition a good enough reason to add gatekeepers and increase the stigma that transpersons face? Edit: From my perspective you are arguing from a place of privilege without really realizing it. You are arguing that transpersons should have to accept a mental illness diagnosis in order to receive treatment, and when transpeople object your reaction has been to not listen to a thing that anyone said while implying that us transpeople don't understand our own medical needs and are just trying to over-complicate matters by wishing to avoid a label of mental illness. It seems like to you this debate is about an abstract concept of how to properly label something on paperwork, and I am trying to avoid giving society more fuel to harass/oppress/murder transpeople. Do you really think that in the middle of a massive spike of anti-trans hate crimes (to say nothing of a massive and organized anti-trans political campaign) is the right time to argue that transpeople should have to accept a label of mental illness in order to receive medical care? Can you not see how a transperson who is just coming to grips with their condition might opt to not seek treatment because of the mental illness diagnosis? Can you not understand that forcing transpeople to accept the label of mental illness will only increase the anxiety and stress we already have to deal with? Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
A few years ago (when I was still closeted to myself and still posing as a cishet male) I lived for over half a year in an in-patient treatment program for people suffering from mental illness. (I have a formal diagnosis of Schizoaffective disoreder that is not related to my gender identity) Part of this program was an endless parade of lifeskills classes that we all had to attend. One of those classes focused specifically on legal ways that we residents could obscure both our mental illness diagnosis as well as our time living at that facility from future employers/landlords/anyone else. The point was to help us avoid having the stigma of mental illness attached to us so that we would be less likely to wind up unemployed/homeless in the future. The general gist of the class was "don't tell anyone who doesn't have a good reason to know", and the facility in question lived by that motto and took pains to hide our residency there from inquiring eyes.
Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
So back in mid-November I called a few people I know who are involved in A.C.E. and got them talking about what was going on behind the scenes. (To be honest I let them lead me to Christ over the phone and when they were in the giddy glow of successfully "winning a soul" I got them talking. Its the cult version of getting someone drunk so they spill the beans. Not my proudest moment but I was curious how they were reacting.) Based on those conversations I was able to piece together the following analysis.Prester Jane posted:So on the topic of the Trump administration's plans for the future of education in America I have some interesting scuttlebutt to share. I recently checked in on some of the behind the scenes activity happening in Accelerated Christian Education and gleaned a few interesting tidbits. Mind you, I can't verify any of this, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, here are the highlights. In addition to Devos being selected for Secretary of Education there is another recent development in line with these projections. Jerry Falwell Jr. Says He Will Lead Federal Task Force on Higher-Ed Policy The Chronicle of Higher Education posted:Jerry L. Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, has been asked by President Trump to head up a new task force that will identify changes that should be made to the U.S. Department of Education’s policies and procedures, Mr. Falwell told The Chronicle on Tuesday. For those who don't know who Jerry Falwell Jr. is, here is what he had to say about the 9-11 attacks: Jerry Falwell posted:The comments came as Falwell was appearing as a guest on Robertson's daily 700 Club program. Both expressed their sorrow and outrage over the attacks and advocated a strong response to the terror. Then Falwell elaborated on who, in addition to the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks, was responsible for them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:It's there anyway to get this information out to a wider audience? I feel like the only way to stop this becoming an inevitability is to head it off early. I've emailed dozens of reporters and news agencies and even had a goon hook me up with an inside contact to a major media outlet. So far I haven't heard back from anyone no matter waht approach I try. Explaining what A.C.E is requires a loving novella with extensive citations and it is my guess that those emails are simply never read. So I've also tried sendin shorter emails trying to explain things in their simplest terms with the least grandiose language possible and I've still gotten nada. There is just no way to say: "Hey I was raised in a network of cult schools that the GOP has been secretly sheltering for years because of backroom dealings with a shadowy but incredibly Major conservative thinktank that you have probably never heard of. (Council for National Policy) These schools utilize trauma-based mind control techniques and literally treat children like they are pigeons in a Skinner Box. The "curriculum" of these schools is essentially strait up white supremacy and Christian theocracy that frames anyone not a part of the Christian Right as literal demon possessed agents of Satan that must be opposed and repressed at any cost. The children that come out of this environment are custom built office drones with an insider track to positions of influence within the GOP and have been steadily taking over GOP politics from the inside for decades."- in a simple manner. So for now I am directing my energy towards writing my new frameworks and waiting for a point in time where journalists/the public are hopefully a little bit more prepared to hear what needs to be said about A.C.E. and its sister programs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
America does not tolerate failure and it does not forgive failure brought about by incompetence.. And the reason Hillary is not President right now is primarily her own incompetence. While there were many factors that contributed to her defeat all of those factors would have been easily overcome if she had just run a bog standard by-the-book political campaign. Instead she just assumed that she was going to win by default and didn't bother with all the unpleasant grassroots-oriented parts of running a political campaign and focused on fundraising and the like. Hillary's incompetence has cost our country dearly and her actions since losing (like shutting down the Clinton Foundation virtually overnight) have demonstrated that whatever good she did was probably just an incidental part of her triangulation strategy to become more powerful. 40 years from now all anyone will remember of Hillary Clinton is that she is the fuckup that got Donald Trump elected. Will that be an accurate assessment of her long career? Of course not. Will it be a fair one? Considering the magnitude of damage that her incompetence has wrought on the country I would answer in the affirmative. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Do you realize you're essentially saying "how angry and hurt I feel matters more than actual facts"? The fact is that right now the sole remaining public service that Hillary Clinton can perform for the United States is to be remembered as a public example of the price of arrogance and ambition. Reducing her career to a morality tale serves this goal and is fully warranted IMO. Also her arrogance has cost lives, many lives. I'm not upset about hurt feelings, I'm upset about lost lives and destroyed dreams. All of which are the result of Hillary's blind ambition.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Arrogance, sure. But ambition? You're upset about ambition from someone running for President? Do you think there has been a single President (or, for that matter non-hereditary head-of-state) who was not a font of ambition? It is possible to be ambitious without it blinding you. In point of fact I would argue that personal ambition is a personal pitfall that all politicians have to deal with at some point in their career. Hillary allowed her ambition to blind her, and that cost our country dearly. In order to discourage future politicians (who will inevitably experience the same temptation) from falling prey to their own ambition we should endeavor to make sure that Hillary's mistakes serve as an object lesson on the price of allowing yourself to succumb to ambition. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:What exactly was overambitious about Hillary thinking she could be president? Absolutely nothing. Ignoring the grass roots and progressive base while assuming that you would get the Presidency by default because of who your opponent was exceptionally arrogant however. Arrogance that has cost us all dearly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This didn't happen. The progressive base voted for Hillary. The whiner never votes base didn't. I never said anything about voting, I specifically said that Hillary ignored the grassroots (rank and file Democratic voters) AND the progressive base (generally individuals like those who frequent this forum). Which she did. And while the progressive base held its nose and voted for her anyways their numbers were depressed. The grass roots numbers were also heavily depressed because Hillary did not try and reach out to them. My criticism of Hillary has nothing to do with her qualifications or her policies but rather with the decisions she made as a leader when she was running her campaign. A Presidential campaign is supposed to be a harsh leadership test so that you can get a sense of the person running for President. When she was the one in charge she blew it, and she blew it because of how her ambition and arrogance had blinded her.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Why was it exceptionally arrogant and ambitious? What made this exceptional to you? Has there ever been a successful Presidential campaign that forsook press conferences and public rallies in favor of links to policy papers and fundraisers aimed at the wealthy? Hillary ignored every bit of conventional election wisdom and tried to run the most soulless and over-managed campaign and never for a moment considered that her opponent might just be a credible threat. To me this was exceptional arrogance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No. This didn't happen. Some of the stupider ones pretended she did, but that's a very different thing. Her campaign staff would seem to disagree. Huffington Post posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
stone cold posted:12000 votes can also be accounted for in voter disenfranchisement, or are we pretending that wasn't a thing? No, but it would have been overcome if she had run an actual competent campaign. Like I said earlier there were ultimately many factors that contributed to her loss, but the primary one was her own incompetent campaign. As bad as things like the voter disenfranchisement and Comey were they would have been overcome if she had just run a proper Presidential campaign. fishmech posted:That says they did less then they should have in retrospect, which is an entirely different thing from the insane bernout assertion that they did nothing. Whatever fishmech, the article clearly states that she failed in her campaign outreach and that cost her dearly, exactly like I argued. I don't recall arguing that she did quite *literally* nothing, so please stop with the spergy counter. Also I would love to see some citations about how Obama failed to do outreach to the grassroots or progressive base during either of his campaigns.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Wait I thought her arrogant ambitious campaign was overmanaged? Overmanagement is a form of incompetence. These two terms are not mutually exclusive. Her campaign was both over-managed and incompetent. quote:How was it incompetent and what does one do to overcome voter intimidation, harassment, and disenfranchisement? It was incompetent because she simply assumed she would win and did not do the regular gruntwork that a real Presidential campaign requires. As a Presidential candidate you overcome "voter intimidation, harassment, and disenfranchisement" by working closely with and activating the grass roots. quote:Also, like how is a campaign incompetent in so much as, this was not like a landslide victory for Trump? He lost by three million votes. In our system the vote total is irrelevant and the electoral college decides everything. Hillary's campaign purposefully ran up the vote total by doing things like running TV ads in California while ignoring the rust belt. Hillary's campaign did actually succeed at the goal it set for itself of winning the raw votes by a wide margin, but they engaged in this strategy to the exclusion of concerning themselves with the electoral college. This an act of incompetence rooted in the arrogant assumption that Hillary was invulnerable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you were entirely wrong. Got it! Citing some personal anecdotes is in no way a citation in support of your statement that Obama frequently ignored the grass roots, nor does it support the implication you made that Obama ignored the grass roots to just as great if not greater an extent than Hillary did. To see you of all people try and use a vague personal anecdote as a citation is rather strange fishmech.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Obama's campaign did ignore "the grassroots" all the time though? All sorts of grassroots organizations never get accepted by the national organizations that's just how elections work. Obama's campaign chose to work with the ones they thought would be most useful and to leave ones they didn't particularly care for alone, just like the Clinton campaign did. I feel like you overestimate how much grassroots organizations should be listened to because the Sanders campaign was often desperate to connect to them to try to shore up their failing campaign which refused to address all sorts of racial and general intersectional issues, a losing strategy in the Democratic party. Politico: How Hillary Clinto lost Michigan - And blew the election. Politico posted:Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope. Funny fishmech you were not part of Hillary Clinton's campaign and are telling me one thing but all these people who actually were involved in the campaign are saying something very different. Even a former Obama campaign official agrees with the assertion that Clinto failed to run a proper ground game. Complaints like the ones in the article above are not resulting from a campaign with limited resources being unable to handle all the offers of help they received. Rather they are the result of a campaign that failed to do a remotely sufficient amount of outreach to the grassroots. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hmm, once again, you continue to ignore that certain grassroots organizations not being let in is totally normal. I get that you're ignorant, but you don't have to reiterate it. It's uncouth. Rerouting a bus full of campaign volounteers from a state you might win to one you know you are going to lose because you are trying to play some sort of psychout game with your opponent is quite different from not having a role for literally every grass roots organization that offers to help. Even the Obama campaign official called Hillary's ground game an "illusion". Also, passing over a few small organizations here and there is quite different from simply ignoring the heads of state level organizations and refusing to coordinate with them. Stop acting like this was only a few minor bit players here and there that were ignored instead of reality wherein the heads of large grass roots organizations are publicly saying they were ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Crossposting this from the Trump thread RE: What Betsy Devos portends for American education: For those who have not yet had the pleasure (and would additionally like to stare jaw-agape at a genuine horror this fine afternoon) this is an actual advertisement for "Accelerated Christian Education". In this video children a very cheery and professional voice describes ijn detail how the entire philosophy of A.C.E. can be explained using a metaphor wherein children are compared to livestock that must be constantly rewarded/punished for every action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUw4iWepk0 This entire system is designed quite literally as a life-size "Skinner Box" for children. I am not exaggerating here, A.C.E. quite literally admits that it bases its approach on the operant conditioning theories that B.F. Skinner developed by experimenting on pigeons. The entire program has been quietly supported behind-the-scenes for years by the conservative "Council for National Policy" and the heavy influence of conservative ideology pervades the entire curriculum. The entire framework of A.C.E. is quite explicitly designed to churn out office drones to work in public office for the GOP. As a result A.C.E. simulates a corporate office environment in as much detail as possible. Students work alone in silence filling out endless reams of paperwork packets called "PACES" (Packets of Accelerated Christian Education) and students must raise flags to request assistance from a "Supervisor". (There are no teachers in A.C.E., only Supervisors.) The curriculum itself is exceedingly dry and repetitive- and this is by design. The student is forced to engage over and over and over and over with busywork that involves dissecting/repeating/interacting with conservative propaganda. Here are some examples:                           And to end all this here is a British activist reading through a 9th grade history PACE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_2tCMlHEBI This is what the future of American education looks lie under Betsy Devos 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Thanks, Prester Jane, terrifying as always. Do you have a ACE thread to dig deeper into this? It goes way beyond breaking queer folks and into general mind control territory. I did one a couple years back, it went gold and is archived but I don't have the link on hand and am not really sure how to look it up atm. Hopefully some helpful Goon has the link and can post it?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Edit: This thread is not about myself or my work and I apologize for this post. It was a mistake and it is gone now. Please proceed with the conversation as if I did not participate- it was not my intent to cause an unwelcome derail.
Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 07:14 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Fair enough, I'll keep my material out of this thread going forewards. Edit: I offer my heartfelt apologies for any undue interruption of this thread I may have caused. I am not attempting to be sarcastic or troll here, I am being up front and honest. It is apparent that my participation in this instance here has brought an unwelcome derailment of this thread and for that I do genuinely apologize and will take pains to avoid repeating this particular error in the future. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 06:54 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:i personally can't bring myself to muster up much outrage over not being allowed to serve in america's military For many transpersons the military represents the only option to avoid homelessness and have a chance at a real life.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:that's more a condemnation of society than an exoneration of the military, though While technically correct, I would point out that your argument is of little comfort to a homeless person. For better or worse the military represents one of the few paths many transpersons have out of heinously abusive families/communities. Losing that is a big deal. An even bigger deal though will the the validation of social stigmas that will result from this. We are now officially 2nd class citizens who cannot even serve our country in the armed forces. This will both be held against us (we are now moochers who are supported by the rest of society) as well as justification for violence (trannies are now weaklings who are unfit to serve). This is a very, very big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:for the employment thing; okay. i mean, how does that compare with the national average? are more trans people in the military than the average population? is the number active military only or does it include former military members? Gay people serving in the military is frequently cited as a huge reason for the social transformation w/r/t gay rights. That path has now been squarely forbidden to transpeople and purposefully to avoid transpeople from acquiring the same social acceptance through service that gay people did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/890350260551340039 Trump's base will interpret this as meaning that LGBT people no longer have any civil rights. In practice this interpretation will be functionally correct for a disturbingly large portion of the country. If you are LGBT you will very shortly only have rights if you have robust local protections and non-bigoted police enforcing said protections. For everyone else its the jungle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Someone started taking about a prisoner who was being mistreated because she was transgender. To clarify a bit here: A troon poster came in to the thread and tried to whip up some good old fashioned white-knighting of a transwoman who had committed suicide in prison. This particular transwoman had been denied the ability to transition by a blatantly bigoted prison system and this very likely played a role in her taking her life. It then came out that said transwoman had done some exceptionally hosed up sexual things to children and taped them, her own son being among her victims. That there were actually people on both sides of that debate fueled a flurry of organized doxxing/harassing of troons by offsite trolls. I've never gone near the troon thread since then myself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 04:58
|
|