a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Sculptor]

No need to defend me, she undermines her own position with every word HyperKaren is completely unhinged.

Ooooooh. Now the slicing knife really shows itself! You see, when the terms you use, and the way they are used, is examined cooly and with distance, it is easy to see that your argumentation is based in a wielded hyper-rhetoric that has two essential poles. One of course is 'the Nazi'. The ever-useful emblem of ontological malevolence. The other is your sense of 'normalcy' which is left amorphic to some degree, that seems true, but it is virulently opposed to any idea- or value-set which you disagree with. In any case, here you are defending and explaining why certain forms of deviancy should be tolerated. But you don't really couch your arguments in anything like a traditional argument. On what basis do you defend the values that you hold to? What are those values?

I have no values.
I'm immoral you know that!

[Alexis Jacobi]

ok, how about this... what exactly is the difference
between dressing up for Halloween and dressing up as
a drag queen? I can't see any difference at all.

But you are inordinately virtuous, aren't you? Those who arrive at your level should I think be more generous to those still in the phase of struggle. Was such virtue innate or was it taught you?

It seems clear to me that to understand those who oppose sexual deviancy in the public sphere -- and we have one emblematic example that is a 'gone-viral' example called Drag Queen Story Hour -- that all we need to do is turn to those who have strong opinions on the subject and ask them.

Do you pay attention to the media where such people express their ideas? I have found James Lindsay to be quite coherent in presenting his arguments on the theme. But I think one has to be somewhat *primed* for them in order to receive them. He sees in the 'deviancy' I identify the undermining influence of general cultural Marxism. But many, I admit, would have to spend a few weeks in forced therapy in a reeducation prison harshly managed by Joe Arpaio to see Lindsay in a positive light (or to be capable of critiquing so-called cultural Marxism).

I find it hard to believe that you cannot distinguish between dressing up for Halloween in a peculiar costume and the organized event of a drag queen reading stories to infants in a public library.

Drag Queen story hour has many different levels of social significance. And the purpose, or one of them, of such an event is to accustom children to the presence of outrageous gender-benders (as they call themselves). It fits with processes of establishing new standard of normalcy. It is, ultimately, didactic. Those who oppose this hyper-liberalism point out that the activism of Gramsci has had results: the long march through the institutions dragged in a really bizarre overweight creature with big hair and fantastic make-up.

What exactly is the difference. You mean you wish for those who respond to you do make it exactly clear? Do you mean sort of exact, but still a bit fuzzy, or do you mean absolutely and thoroughly exact. Shall I present the data from an MRI?

[Sculptor]

Karen's Dilemma..


]

IT ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!

drag.JPG (60.13 KiB) Viewed 1371 times

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have no values. I'm immoral you know that!

Fair enough. But you can't compete with me so why even try?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Maybe the rise in bigotry is environmental?

My thought is that the term ‘bigot’ is simply a negative space-filler for an argument that is not forthcoming.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe the rise in bigotry is environmental?

My thought is that the term ‘bigot’ is simply a negative space-filler for an argument that is not forthcoming.

Or bigotry is the space filler for irrational hatred of people when there's no argument for hatred...

[Alexis Jacobi]

I will take that under consideration Flannel Jesus. Reminds me: “Hate is a subjective form of attachment by which one is bound to the hated object.”

Here is some interesting material:

big·ot (bĭg′ət)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, excessively religious person, religiously intolerant person, from Old French, Norman person, excessively religious person, of unknown origin.]

Word History: The ultimate origin of the word bigot is unknown. When bigot first appears in Old French, it is as an insulting term for a Norman. A colorful story is often told about the origin of the term with Rollo, the pagan Viking conqueror who received Normandy as a fief from Charles III of France in 911. Rollo converted to Christianity for the occasion, but it is said that he refused to complete his oath of fealty to the king by kissing the king's feet and said Ne se bi got, "Never, by God!" in a mishmash of Old French and a Germanic language. This bi got then became a term of abuse for the Normans. This story is certainly false, but some scholars have proposed that Old French bigot did indeed originate as a reference to be Gode!—the Old and early Middle English equivalent of Modern English by God!, perhaps as a phrase that some Normans picked up in their English possessions in England and then used back in France. Later, in the 1400s, the French word bigot appears as a term of abuse for a person who is excessively religious. It is not clear, however, that this word bigot, "excessively religious person," is in fact the direct descendant of the Old French slur that was applied to the Normans. Rather, this bigot may come directly from Middle English bi God, "by God," or an equivalent phrase in one of the Germanic relatives of English such as German bei Gott or Dutch bij God. But even this is uncertain. In any case, English borrowed bigot from French with the sense "religious hypocrite" in the early 17th century. In English, the term also came to be applied to persons who hold stubbornly to any system of beliefs, and by extension, persons who are intolerant of those that differ from them in any way.

[Flannel Jesus]

If I understand your position correctly, you're a Christian and the primary reason you consider homosexuality a "deviancy" rather than just a preference that you don't share is culturally rooted in your Christian background.

The rest of us have no problem allowing that homosexuality is just a statistically unusual preference that we don't share. But there are a lot of statistically unusual preferences we don't share that we don't call "deviant" and that even you would agree should be fully allowable, and allowing them has no danger of providing a slippery slope to things rational people should want to be illegal.

You've provided a slippery slope argument, but you've chosen to remain vague about exactly what it's a slippery slope to, despite me asking you explicitly. What is the cultural acceptance of homosexuality a slippery slope to? Please be more specific than "other deviances". For all I know you're worried about normalizing putting pineapple on pizza.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If I understand your position correctly, you're a Christian and the primary reason you consider homosexuality a "deviancy" rather than just a preference that you don't share is culturally rooted in your Christian background.

So, to Sculptor I’m a Nazi and a bigot and now you are calling me a Christian?!? You guys play hard.

My argument is not predicated in Christianity nor does it depend on a Christian value-structure.

If I have a rôle it is (perhaps) as cultural referee.

Must one be Christian to have the opinions I do?

[Flannel Jesus]

If I understand your position correctly, you're a Christian and the primary reason you consider homosexuality a "deviancy" rather than just a preference that you don't share is culturally rooted in your Christian background.

So, to Sculptor I’m a Nazi and a bigot and now you are calling me a Christian?!? You guys play hard.

My argument is not predicated in Christianity nor does it depend on a Christian value-structure.

If I have a rôle it is (perhaps) as cultural referee.

Must one be Christian to have the opinions I do?

You can tell me you're not Christian if you aren't. I'm not CALLING you a Christian, I said "if I understand your position correctly." I'm open to you saying "I'm not a Christian", to which I will reply "my mistake, I must have confused you with another poster."

[Flannel Jesus]

In any case, in general heterosexual non Christians don't see homosexuality as a terrible deviancy, like you, they see homosexuality as fundamentally morally the same as heterosexuality. I don't choose to be straight, they don't choose to be gay, I have sex with consenting members of the opposite sex, they have sex with consenting members of the same sex. Outside of religious reasons for being disgusted by homosexuality, there doesn't seem to be, for the bulk of us, an ethical reason to think of homosexuality in the terms that you do.

There's the occasional atheist homophobe out there, and their opinion about it is mostly just rooted in the idea that they think it's gross. But thinking something is gross is no reason to make it illegal or dehumanise the people that like it. I think olives and mushrooms are gross, but I don't have any desire to make them illegal for people that like them. Most non religious people think similar to how I do about that.

So no, if you are indeed Christian, then I think it's more than likely that your distaste for homosexuality is probably very closely related to your religious background. I don't think it's a coincidence that a homophobe comes from a homophobic religion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You've provided a slippery slope argument, but you've chosen to remain vague about exactly what it's a slippery slope to, despite me asking you explicitly. What is the cultural acceptance of homosexuality a slippery slope to? Please be more specific than "other deviances". For all I know you're worried about normalizing putting pineapple on pizza.

Funny, I ordered a pizza last night. Normally I ask for green peppers, olives and pineapple. But I went with basilica instead.

What’s to become of me!?!

My argument is only one of suppression not of intolerance. Ethically I assert the primary and core relationship worthy of highest valuation is that of a man and woman in productive relationship. Homosexual relationships should be tolerated but homosexuality should be discreetly discouraged. Pride parades, drag queen story hour, the visible discouragement of celebration of deviancy and abnormalities should be an agreed upon cultural value.

I would put forth a metaphysical argument about the ‘sanctity’ of the fambly but it would be more Roman in flavor. I mean pre-Christian Rome by the way.

I do not necessarily see homosexual sex as leading to bad outcomes or other levels of social crime. But I do notice that they often travel together — in a weird caboose at the back of the social train.

I do have an argument for more strict regulation in sexual relations but mostly that is because excessive sexual expression has an obsessive and even addictive element. Does that come out of a religious ethics? Most religious philosophy calls for restraint, that is true, but for generally sound reasons.

If a culture proceeds to an extremely decadent level in sexual deviancy I tend to believe that decadence to be generally destructive.

However, and with that said, I must tell you that I made my first fortune in edible panties. Make of that what you will.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do not necessarily see homosexual sex as leading to bad outcomes or other levels of social crime. But I do notice that they often travel together — in a weird caboose at the back of the social train.

This still isn't specific

[Alexis Jacobi]

This still isn't specific

Why must I satisfy your (apparent) requirement for greater specificity? Isn’t what I say enough?

[Flannel Jesus]

This still isn't specific

Why must I satisfy your (apparent) requirement for greater specificity? Isn’t what I say enough?

No. I don't know what deviancies you think it's a slippery slope to. How could I possibly stand a chance at agreeing with you that homosexual acceptance is a dangerous slippery slope if I don't know what it's a dangerous slippery slope TO? Are you talking about pineapple on pizza?