Friend: "Wow, the politics in Florida is really messed up."
Me: "Well, there are interesting things happening. A big problem is that the reporting on it from the New York Times and the like is very bad."
Friend: "What do you mean? They are banning books. That's terrible."
Me: "That's a good example. No books are being banned. You can still buy them. Some parents don't want certain books in schools."
Friend: "But that's censorship."
Me: "Not really. Schools have always made choices not to include certain books as instructional materials or in libraries. For instance, schools typically don't include books with graphic depictions of sex acts in their libraries."
Friend: "But that's not what we're talking about. Nobody wants sexually explicit material in libraries."
Me: "Actually, one of the books at the center of the issue is 'Gender Queer.' It has very sexually explicit material in it."
Friend: "You are making that up."
Me: "Google 'Gender Queer'"
Friend: "Ok. But in Europe they teach kids about sex."
You are probably correct. But, I still hope that something I might say might move my friend to some reflection. I used to be a solid Democratic voter - I voted for every Democrat presidential candidate starting with Carter. Forgive me! What started my journey was when the media completely distorted what Trump said about immigrants in his announcement in 2015 running for the presidency. I happened to actually watch his announcement - he didn't say immigrants were horrible people. He said they aren't "sending us their best." I am fairly sensitive to this because my mom was a Mexican immigrant (legal). That bit of truth about what Trump actually said versus what was in the media worked like an irritant, so I kept listening to Trump and comparing what the media said versus what he actually said. I also started digging deeper on some of the issues. So, here I am, grateful for whatever led me to watch Trump's announcement and compare that with the baseless accusations that he was racist based on what he said. I've voted twice for Trump, though I'm not a big fan of Trump's personality, though I get why some like it. I'm hoping that by calming and confidently stating the truth and knowing where the backup for the facts are, I might give my friend the chance for insight.
yes, keep wasting your breath. you never know where or when you'll get through to someone and if we keep silent, the crazies will win and god help us then!
for me it was the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape. i watched the entire episode and frankly, Trump didn't say anything that isn't said in locker rooms or any place where men are out of earshot of censoring women everyday. older rich men CAN get hotter younger women who use them for the resources. that's the reality. denying it won't make it not so.
if you watch that tape to the very end, when the blonde appears, things get very interesting. Trump asks her who she'd prefer, him or the younger, handsomer (but perhaps less rich) Billy Bush. notice that she doesn't say "why Mr Trump, with all due respect, i am a highly trained serious professional and i expect to be treated like one."
no, she does what women on the prowl have done since time began. she bats her eyelashes, primps and coos and does her very best to flatter the powerful man who might provide a step up for her without offending the other possibility on offer. she says something like "how can i choose? can't i have you both?" in a tone of voice generally employed by bimbos. if anything, she proved Trump's point, that rich powerful men can "grab 'em by the pussy."
oh, the false outrage by women and on behalf of women by men of lesser status seeking female approval by acting as "male feminists." how dare he say what we all know to be true?
or i would get e-mails every day from The Onion with headlines blaring that this person said this terrible thing which, if i bothered to read the article, was in fact not what they said at all.
DeSantis passes some common sense legislation like let's not confuse children with gender ideology in kindergarten and suddenly it's "don't say gay" and everyone is hysterical. meanwhile the real censors are those who want everyone they disagree with canceled, de-platformed and banished from society.
you gotta wonder what planet these people are from!
When some friends found out we had moved from NY to FL, they said a version of the same thing, usually centered around "don't say gay." It's a testament to the power of repetitive propaganda; they've heard the phrase over and over and over, yet never actually read the bill. ARGHHHH.
I moved to Florida in 2021 from California. It's why I get these remarks about how horrible Florida is politically from people I know (who are not in Florida). The "don't say gay" thing is also horribly ridiculous.
In my school district, that was exactly the argument made by the pro-perversity sitting members of the district who destroyed concerned parents running against them on a platform of sanity. It worked really well. The boys' bathroom will continue to have tampon dispensers and the library will be stocked with books trumpeting unnatural sex acts. Lots of outside funding flooded the district. Democracy!
Those same ones crying “censorship” over graphic- sex books in school libraries are tolerating the literal rewriting of classics to please woke sensibilities.
If you happen to run into the argument "But in Europe they teach kids about sex." again, tell your friend from a retired teacher that while we certainy include information about the most common deviation from the norm (homosexuality), we do not in any way in any school I've ever attended or worked at teach actual acts and practices.
Every time I've been involved in planning sex-ed, it's been partioned in three parts:
1) Consent and that harassment is not allowed no matter what.
2) How to avoid pregnancy and diseases and parasites
3) How to avoid (and report on) sexual predators online and in real life, and how to be supportive of people who has suffered (sexual) abuse, should they confide in you
That's it. About as exciting as a cardboard tube.
(Obviously, there are activists-called-teachers here too, but they are the deviants, not the norm. Anyone starting a job at a school or working with or near children in any capacity must comply with a background check re: their criminal record first - people with conviticons for sexual crimes or abuse may not be hired to work near children; that goes for the cleaners and janitors too.)
Then again, "Europe" is no homogenous in any way, anyway, so who knows what's going on in even more neoliberal-progressive parts.
For close to thirty years now, I have asked alphabet-activists over here what they mean by "Gay rights" et c.
I've never gotten a good answer, because if you do not ask for and demand equal rights, you are instead arguing for privilege.
When the [insert cause here] get that reply from me, they either go away, go silent or in the rare 1/20 case, actually sit down to have a real conversation.
Let's take marriage f.e. Marriage is man and woman only; if it is not, it is not a marriage as it doesn't meet the definition. However, in an industrialist or post-industrialist state, marriage no longer needs to have a special judicial standing (privilege): instead, registered partnership can be used as the legal term as it doesn't discriminate, nor does it limit how many people register as each other's partner.
To demand the definition of marriage be changed to accomodate someone's sexual preference is disrespectful and betrays an inflated narcissist ego and lack of compassion and empathy.
The above should hopefully serve as a pattern where all these "rights"-issue went wrong. It's not about rights, it hasn't been since the 1960s.
Pedophilia 101. They tried in the 1960s. That time it was psychoanalysts (psycho anal-cysts rather) of various kinds who tried to normalise pedophilia.
It failed since there was still a concept of normal, of right (not rights, right) and of decorum.
It seems that "demand the definition of marriage be changed" is simply standard procedure in the ongoing, never ending attempts to remake society into some kind of socialist paradise.
The strident bra-burners, feminist activists of the 1960s, successfully maneuvered society into discussing THEIR issues in THEIR language. A splendid example of the imposition of Orwellian Newspeak.
And as the great prophet pointed out, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
Book banning and censorship came from the left, going after the Bible, prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance and erasing the Ten Commandments from public buildings.
The Left's blessed, "Freedom *from* religion! Reeeeee!!!" This was always a specious argument, there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Period. The state may not establish a religion, but look where we are now!
To be completely fair, many, if not most, of us did sit on our hands for a long time.
More than three years ago, sitting in a Rotary luncheon meeting, I listened as a local educator described (very dispassionately) the local trans situation. Apparently, state agencies had made rulings and local schools were required to follow those rulings. I remember thinking, "Rulings? I don't remember anyone asking parents and/or voters about this."
I promptly forgot about it, mostly because I had had no children in school for ages. Another attendee said he had first heard of it when the school sent a note home with his daughter saying that a local Allen had become "Alicia" over the summer vacation and would now be using the girls' restroom. This man said he did nothing because Alicia was in a different school than was his daughter.
I, for one, admit not really paying attention until female athletes were being left in trans dust (or wake, as the case may be).
In short, they presented us with a "fait accompli" and now pretend that we knew all along. From my perspective, that is at least partially true. We did know for quite awhile that something was up. The lie is in the implication that we were part of the decision-making.
As usual, it started with little nips at the margins. The left excels at incrementalization and we allow ourselves to be dismissed when we sound off on the slippery slope. I struggle to find one slippery slope that didn't lead to the societal upheaval we said it portended.
My list of Substack writers I’m following has gotten so out of hand it’s kind of backfiring - I’m overwhelmed to the point I think I’m actually *reading*
fewer and fewer of them all the way through - not good, I need to do some pruning! Fortunately I happened across yours before the cut-back started because you have quickly risen to the top of my list. Nothing I like better than being able to count on (at least) a couple good belly laughs while simultaneously being informed on important topics. Writers like you and Jeff Childers always deliver! Laughter is great medicine so thanks a bunch for dishing it out!
Weirdly, over the last year I have noticed that trans women (who are men with prostrate, testicles and penises) have been placed in high profile positions in locations women (with wombs, cervixes, ovaries and vagina) frequent the most: clothing shops and supermarkets.
BUT as far as minority rights go, there’s been no increase in Hijab wearing women any longer in those location. That was for two or three years ago
As for the most hidden, as in no longer welcome in society and certainly not for our future 15 minute cities are those with physical disabilities. Not even one has been seen by me in the last three years!
How many staff have you seen who use crutches or wheelchairs at the supermarkets or department stores? Perhaps one or two token positions hidden in back offices.
Equality does not include the handicapped. Nope. They’re on the T4 Programme schedule.
You are 100% correct. I've been physically disabled most of my life and almost nobody cares how hard it is, no matter what job they hold or politics they claim to find valuable. In fact, 98% of people see fit to spew open, uncensored hatred of my condition--when they're not being incredibly passive-aggressive about it, that is. "Equality" just means privileging the hostile lunatics with entitlement complexes. It has nothing to do with improving the lives of the overlooked and spat upon. Nobody wants to look at icky cripples!!1!1 But constantly bombarding people with graphic details of "gender affirming" mutilation is totes fine and if you disagree ur a bigot nazi white supremacist!!!!!!
Hmm...I don’t get hatred re: my disability, so much “inspiring” 🙄 and an insistence that it’s my responsibility, nay, *privilege* to discuss it at all times and all places in order to alleviate their children’s curiosity.
You could make a pretty cogent case that the NY Times knows their audience, and it may be the least informed and most indifferent group of people in the country. Not a great endorsement.
Unlike most other issues the NY Times covers, there's usually much pushback against this by readers in the comments section. Probably more than you actually see since the paper censors lots of comments.
The Left throws everything against the wall to see what sticks. If you’re useful, they use you. If you’re not, under the solar vegan rainbow bulldozer you go. They exploit the outliers and minorities to erode traditional culture. But certain things are hardwired in most of us. Like - we really don’t want you damaging our children and having the place run by the mentally disturbed. The elite managerial class are cowards. Just say no to all of this propaganda.
Recent phone conversation with a friend:
Friend: "Wow, the politics in Florida is really messed up."
Me: "Well, there are interesting things happening. A big problem is that the reporting on it from the New York Times and the like is very bad."
Friend: "What do you mean? They are banning books. That's terrible."
Me: "That's a good example. No books are being banned. You can still buy them. Some parents don't want certain books in schools."
Friend: "But that's censorship."
Me: "Not really. Schools have always made choices not to include certain books as instructional materials or in libraries. For instance, schools typically don't include books with graphic depictions of sex acts in their libraries."
Friend: "But that's not what we're talking about. Nobody wants sexually explicit material in libraries."
Me: "Actually, one of the books at the center of the issue is 'Gender Queer.' It has very sexually explicit material in it."
Friend: "You are making that up."
Me: "Google 'Gender Queer'"
Friend: "Ok. But in Europe they teach kids about sex."
And on, and on...
Don’t waste your breath.
You are probably correct. But, I still hope that something I might say might move my friend to some reflection. I used to be a solid Democratic voter - I voted for every Democrat presidential candidate starting with Carter. Forgive me! What started my journey was when the media completely distorted what Trump said about immigrants in his announcement in 2015 running for the presidency. I happened to actually watch his announcement - he didn't say immigrants were horrible people. He said they aren't "sending us their best." I am fairly sensitive to this because my mom was a Mexican immigrant (legal). That bit of truth about what Trump actually said versus what was in the media worked like an irritant, so I kept listening to Trump and comparing what the media said versus what he actually said. I also started digging deeper on some of the issues. So, here I am, grateful for whatever led me to watch Trump's announcement and compare that with the baseless accusations that he was racist based on what he said. I've voted twice for Trump, though I'm not a big fan of Trump's personality, though I get why some like it. I'm hoping that by calming and confidently stating the truth and knowing where the backup for the facts are, I might give my friend the chance for insight.
yes, keep wasting your breath. you never know where or when you'll get through to someone and if we keep silent, the crazies will win and god help us then!
for me it was the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape. i watched the entire episode and frankly, Trump didn't say anything that isn't said in locker rooms or any place where men are out of earshot of censoring women everyday. older rich men CAN get hotter younger women who use them for the resources. that's the reality. denying it won't make it not so.
if you watch that tape to the very end, when the blonde appears, things get very interesting. Trump asks her who she'd prefer, him or the younger, handsomer (but perhaps less rich) Billy Bush. notice that she doesn't say "why Mr Trump, with all due respect, i am a highly trained serious professional and i expect to be treated like one."
no, she does what women on the prowl have done since time began. she bats her eyelashes, primps and coos and does her very best to flatter the powerful man who might provide a step up for her without offending the other possibility on offer. she says something like "how can i choose? can't i have you both?" in a tone of voice generally employed by bimbos. if anything, she proved Trump's point, that rich powerful men can "grab 'em by the pussy."
oh, the false outrage by women and on behalf of women by men of lesser status seeking female approval by acting as "male feminists." how dare he say what we all know to be true?
or i would get e-mails every day from The Onion with headlines blaring that this person said this terrible thing which, if i bothered to read the article, was in fact not what they said at all.
DeSantis passes some common sense legislation like let's not confuse children with gender ideology in kindergarten and suddenly it's "don't say gay" and everyone is hysterical. meanwhile the real censors are those who want everyone they disagree with canceled, de-platformed and banished from society.
you gotta wonder what planet these people are from!
When some friends found out we had moved from NY to FL, they said a version of the same thing, usually centered around "don't say gay." It's a testament to the power of repetitive propaganda; they've heard the phrase over and over and over, yet never actually read the bill. ARGHHHH.
Never reading the bills...reminds me of our Congress.
😂😂
I moved to Florida in 2021 from California. It's why I get these remarks about how horrible Florida is politically from people I know (who are not in Florida). The "don't say gay" thing is also horribly ridiculous.
In my school district, that was exactly the argument made by the pro-perversity sitting members of the district who destroyed concerned parents running against them on a platform of sanity. It worked really well. The boys' bathroom will continue to have tampon dispensers and the library will be stocked with books trumpeting unnatural sex acts. Lots of outside funding flooded the district. Democracy!
Those same ones crying “censorship” over graphic- sex books in school libraries are tolerating the literal rewriting of classics to please woke sensibilities.
If you happen to run into the argument "But in Europe they teach kids about sex." again, tell your friend from a retired teacher that while we certainy include information about the most common deviation from the norm (homosexuality), we do not in any way in any school I've ever attended or worked at teach actual acts and practices.
Every time I've been involved in planning sex-ed, it's been partioned in three parts:
1) Consent and that harassment is not allowed no matter what.
2) How to avoid pregnancy and diseases and parasites
3) How to avoid (and report on) sexual predators online and in real life, and how to be supportive of people who has suffered (sexual) abuse, should they confide in you
That's it. About as exciting as a cardboard tube.
(Obviously, there are activists-called-teachers here too, but they are the deviants, not the norm. Anyone starting a job at a school or working with or near children in any capacity must comply with a background check re: their criminal record first - people with conviticons for sexual crimes or abuse may not be hired to work near children; that goes for the cleaners and janitors too.)
Then again, "Europe" is no homogenous in any way, anyway, so who knows what's going on in even more neoliberal-progressive parts.
Did you ask him if he was concerned about censorship during COVID on social media?
"You're making that up. I didn't see that on the news. There was consensus!"
Exactly. Circular logic.
...and to top it all, now Chris Bray seizes on [detractors of] the seizers that seize the seized thing 🤦
Commenters pounce!
Adolescent entreaty.
Most welcome entertainment! 🤸
Why not? The Spin by the Left is unending, mind-bending.
Nonsense. There is no spin, not unending. Your little mind is bending? Oh my Life can be tough.
For close to thirty years now, I have asked alphabet-activists over here what they mean by "Gay rights" et c.
I've never gotten a good answer, because if you do not ask for and demand equal rights, you are instead arguing for privilege.
When the [insert cause here] get that reply from me, they either go away, go silent or in the rare 1/20 case, actually sit down to have a real conversation.
Let's take marriage f.e. Marriage is man and woman only; if it is not, it is not a marriage as it doesn't meet the definition. However, in an industrialist or post-industrialist state, marriage no longer needs to have a special judicial standing (privilege): instead, registered partnership can be used as the legal term as it doesn't discriminate, nor does it limit how many people register as each other's partner.
To demand the definition of marriage be changed to accomodate someone's sexual preference is disrespectful and betrays an inflated narcissist ego and lack of compassion and empathy.
The above should hopefully serve as a pattern where all these "rights"-issue went wrong. It's not about rights, it hasn't been since the 1960s.
It's about power.
Exactly, Rikard. Before they decided to change the definition of "woman", they changed the definition of "marriage."
Gay marriage was the starting line, not the finish line. That will be, of course, adult "mentorship" of children.
"...adult "mentorship" of children."
Pedophilia 101. They tried in the 1960s. That time it was psychoanalysts (psycho anal-cysts rather) of various kinds who tried to normalise pedophilia.
It failed since there was still a concept of normal, of right (not rights, right) and of decorum.
It seems that "demand the definition of marriage be changed" is simply standard procedure in the ongoing, never ending attempts to remake society into some kind of socialist paradise.
The strident bra-burners, feminist activists of the 1960s, successfully maneuvered society into discussing THEIR issues in THEIR language. A splendid example of the imposition of Orwellian Newspeak.
And as the great prophet pointed out, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
Of course its "about power"!
Right on. Power and normalizing theft.
I never seized!
Scooped up their crap and flung it back, well yeah.
But never seized!
But the New York Times SAYS....
“Conservatives” banning books and woke curricula?
J’accuse.
Ask JK Rowling precisely who censors her books now and banishes her from civil society because of her critique of trans activism.
Back in Salem (“peace”) we’d have just burned the witch directly -- what’s the hold-up?
Book banning and censorship came from the left, going after the Bible, prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance and erasing the Ten Commandments from public buildings.
The Left's blessed, "Freedom *from* religion! Reeeeee!!!" This was always a specious argument, there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Period. The state may not establish a religion, but look where we are now!
Chris, I delegate my entire mainstream media reading experience to you. I just read your stuff, get a headache, and that's it.
To be completely fair, many, if not most, of us did sit on our hands for a long time.
More than three years ago, sitting in a Rotary luncheon meeting, I listened as a local educator described (very dispassionately) the local trans situation. Apparently, state agencies had made rulings and local schools were required to follow those rulings. I remember thinking, "Rulings? I don't remember anyone asking parents and/or voters about this."
I promptly forgot about it, mostly because I had had no children in school for ages. Another attendee said he had first heard of it when the school sent a note home with his daughter saying that a local Allen had become "Alicia" over the summer vacation and would now be using the girls' restroom. This man said he did nothing because Alicia was in a different school than was his daughter.
I, for one, admit not really paying attention until female athletes were being left in trans dust (or wake, as the case may be).
In short, they presented us with a "fait accompli" and now pretend that we knew all along. From my perspective, that is at least partially true. We did know for quite awhile that something was up. The lie is in the implication that we were part of the decision-making.
As usual, it started with little nips at the margins. The left excels at incrementalization and we allow ourselves to be dismissed when we sound off on the slippery slope. I struggle to find one slippery slope that didn't lead to the societal upheaval we said it portended.
My list of Substack writers I’m following has gotten so out of hand it’s kind of backfiring - I’m overwhelmed to the point I think I’m actually *reading*
fewer and fewer of them all the way through - not good, I need to do some pruning! Fortunately I happened across yours before the cut-back started because you have quickly risen to the top of my list. Nothing I like better than being able to count on (at least) a couple good belly laughs while simultaneously being informed on important topics. Writers like you and Jeff Childers always deliver! Laughter is great medicine so thanks a bunch for dishing it out!
Ditto with the subscription proliferation. I love them all equally but differently, where to cut down?🥺
I’m really pleased that none of the various gender tragedies are happening! That’s great news!
Weirdly, over the last year I have noticed that trans women (who are men with prostrate, testicles and penises) have been placed in high profile positions in locations women (with wombs, cervixes, ovaries and vagina) frequent the most: clothing shops and supermarkets.
BUT as far as minority rights go, there’s been no increase in Hijab wearing women any longer in those location. That was for two or three years ago
As for the most hidden, as in no longer welcome in society and certainly not for our future 15 minute cities are those with physical disabilities. Not even one has been seen by me in the last three years!
How many staff have you seen who use crutches or wheelchairs at the supermarkets or department stores? Perhaps one or two token positions hidden in back offices.
Equality does not include the handicapped. Nope. They’re on the T4 Programme schedule.
You are 100% correct. I've been physically disabled most of my life and almost nobody cares how hard it is, no matter what job they hold or politics they claim to find valuable. In fact, 98% of people see fit to spew open, uncensored hatred of my condition--when they're not being incredibly passive-aggressive about it, that is. "Equality" just means privileging the hostile lunatics with entitlement complexes. It has nothing to do with improving the lives of the overlooked and spat upon. Nobody wants to look at icky cripples!!1!1 But constantly bombarding people with graphic details of "gender affirming" mutilation is totes fine and if you disagree ur a bigot nazi white supremacist!!!!!!
Hmm...I don’t get hatred re: my disability, so much “inspiring” 🙄 and an insistence that it’s my responsibility, nay, *privilege* to discuss it at all times and all places in order to alleviate their children’s curiosity.
How very patronising. But then as you must know by now, physical disabilities equal cognitive deficits.
See Hawkins!
Who are these perverts?
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1650149232488202240?s=20
PS - even today I remembered a line from a recent post of yours and laughed out loud again: “For example, cupcakes” 🙌🏼😂
You could make a pretty cogent case that the NY Times knows their audience, and it may be the least informed and most indifferent group of people in the country. Not a great endorsement.
Unlike most other issues the NY Times covers, there's usually much pushback against this by readers in the comments section. Probably more than you actually see since the paper censors lots of comments.
The Left throws everything against the wall to see what sticks. If you’re useful, they use you. If you’re not, under the solar vegan rainbow bulldozer you go. They exploit the outliers and minorities to erode traditional culture. But certain things are hardwired in most of us. Like - we really don’t want you damaging our children and having the place run by the mentally disturbed. The elite managerial class are cowards. Just say no to all of this propaganda.
"solar vegan rainbow bulldozer " Great phrase!
Federal crime: Noticing (hat tip to Steve Sailer)