a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Gary Childress]

How in the world is dressing however you want to dress similar to raping somebody?

I was pointing out that "we don't want the government interfering in our lives", alone (as your statement seemed to indicate) is not a sufficient reason to create or not create laws concerning people's behavior. Those in favor of the law would need to show that the behavior to be prohibited is sufficiently harmful to society and those opposed to the law would have to show that its proponents are wrong.

I didn't say the government shouldn't interfere in our lives

That's what the post I was citing seemed to imply to me on your part. The only reason you gave is, do we want government "dictating what it means to act like a man..." Apologies if I misinterpreted your reply.

[Gary Childress]

You whine every day about nobody loving you. Maybe you need to find some skirt with a bit of dick to hold on to as well.

And you worry about everyone's reaction to everything if it doesn't suit your personal beliefs of what people should think and try to guilt people over it, whether it's any of your business or concern or not. Give it a rest, asshole.

And you were giving me advie about male strippers as a sign of your support were you?

Fuck off you prurient hypocrite.

You'll have to fuck off yourself then. Follow your own advice.

[phyllo]

One group is saying "the government should make this behaviour illegal."

I didn't say that.

[Flannel Jesus]

One group is saying "the government should make this behaviour illegal."

I didn't say that.

Well then what I posted wasn't aimed at you, so there's no need for you to argue with it.

My first post quite literally started with, "To make drag illegal is to..." That is pretty explicit about the context in which I'm arguing.

[Iwannaplato]

To make drag illegal is to decide what clothes women can wear and what clothes men can wear. Why in the world would we want the government to dictate what style of clothes we can wear?

I wouldn't make it illegal, but I think a discussion of it is a good idea. Why the sudden urge to have drag queens read to children? How about homeless people? People with a mental illness? Excentrics? Disabled people? Suddenly there is this urge to move something that was aimed at adults in bars and night clubs into libraries and schools. Why is this the kind of diversity we are focusing on?

I have questions about the messages it send to childen, especially girls about what a woman is. I could see not ruling out a crossdressing man. LIke hey we found a bunch of people with different backgrounds and uniquenesses and, there on the list, is a crossdresser.
I wouldn't react. But there's something odd to me about deciding that this is the diversity training we are going to give children. Hey, let's pay for events where men who dress up as women to read to children is an odd idea.

But for some reason it's important that state funds get spent on drag queens reading to children. Why?

So, let's be clear the state is already involved and it is prioritizing this. I mean, I'm outside the US and it's a thing. I see no other outside the norm group being singled out to give readings to children. Not immigrants. No deaf storytellers. Not developmentally disabled storytellers.

Further it's not about dressing. It's about imitating women. Yes, make-up, but that's also unimportant, really. What's important is that it is men taking on the role of a woman - whatever that is. It reinforces stereotypes, unless the context is very clear, which it can be to adults. I'm not sure it is with children.

I think VT bringing up blackface is not a smoking gun, but an issue worth discussing.

I do improvisational theater. In that world there can be tremendous criticism of men who portray women in chiche ways. Given the nature of improv you may find yourself a man or a woman or gay or bi or pretty much anything in a scene. If you are a man and you end up being handed in a scene a female identity and you portray that woman in some sexist way, you're going to get called out on it. Because it is painting woman in ways that are denigrating. Of course, you don't have to do this in drag, but there is a tendency to portray stereotypical women's personality types.

I also think it's such a shallow sense of diversity. I mean if the idea is to avoid slamming people with norms, man both the Left and Right these days are doing a bad job.

[phyllo]

One group is saying "the government should make this behaviour illegal."

I didn't say that.

Well then what I posted wasn't aimed at you, so there's no need for you to argue with it.

My first post quite literally started with, "To make drag illegal is to..." That is pretty explicit about the context in which I'm arguing.

I said "what's wrong about people objecting to some event/behavior/activity?"

And your reply was in the nature of "the government should not be mandating this" .

Well if enough people don't want it , then the government ought to mandate it . That's democracy.

[Gary Childress]

I didn't say that.

Well then what I posted wasn't aimed at you, so there's no need for you to argue with it.

My first post quite literally started with, "To make drag illegal is to..." That is pretty explicit about the context in which I'm arguing.

I said "what's wrong about people objecting to some event/behavior/activity?"

And your reply was in the nature of "the government should not be mandating this" .

Well if enough people don't want it , then the government ought to mandate it . That's democracy.

It's a little more complex than that. Those wanting a certain mandate would have to prove that it's a necessary one for reasons other than arbitrary ones. Otherwise, it could become a society where the proverbial 4 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Or perhaps 4 drag queens and 1 straight person deciding on the country's official dress code.

[phyllo]

Well then what I posted wasn't aimed at you, so there's no need for you to argue with it.

My first post quite literally started with, "To make drag illegal is to..." That is pretty explicit about the context in which I'm arguing.

I said "what's wrong about people objecting to some event/behavior/activity?"

And your reply was in the nature of "the government should not be mandating this" .

Well if enough people don't want it , then the government ought to mandate it . That's democracy.

It's a little more complex than that. Those wanting a certain mandate would have to prove that it's a necessary one for reasons other than arbitrary ones. Otherwise, it could become a society where the proverbial 4 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Or perhaps 4 drag queens and 1 straight person deciding on the country's official dress code.

Well that's how democracy works.

[Flannel Jesus]

I didn't say that.

Well then what I posted wasn't aimed at you, so there's no need for you to argue with it.

My first post quite literally started with, "To make drag illegal is to..." That is pretty explicit about the context in which I'm arguing.

I said "what's wrong about people objecting to some event/behavior/activity?"

And your reply was in the nature of "the government should not be mandating this" .

Well if enough people don't want it , then the government ought to mandate it . That's democracy.

I'm not arguing against people's right to vote

[phyllo]

What are you arguing against?

[Gary Childress]

I said "what's wrong about people objecting to some event/behavior/activity?"

And your reply was in the nature of "the government should not be mandating this" .

Well if enough people don't want it , then the government ought to mandate it . That's democracy.

It's a little more complex than that. Those wanting a certain mandate would have to prove that it's a necessary one for reasons other than arbitrary ones. Otherwise, it could become a society where the proverbial 4 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Or perhaps 4 drag queens and 1 straight person deciding on the country's official dress code.

Well that's how democracy works.

In basic translation of Greek, Democracy simply means rule by the people. It doesn't necessarily mean rule by the majority. If it is ruled by the majority then it can become a tyranny of the majority without safeguards in place against unjust decisions. Tyranny is supposedly the worst form of government. Though, interestingly enough IIRC Plato considered Democracy the next worst form of government next to Tyranny. Justice is the ultimate aim of any government. Democracy is believed by many these days to be the best means of achieving justice in the body politic. It's not a perfect means but, according to some, it's the best we have next to every other alternative we know of.

[phyllo]

Justice is the ultimate aim of any government.

No.

You have rule by the one, rule by the few and rule by the many.

Take your pick.

[Flannel Jesus]

What are you arguing against?

That people should vote for this. That it would be good, sensible, etc. There's part of democracy. Arguing for any against policies

[phyllo]

What are you arguing against?

That people should vote for this. That it would be good, sensible, etc. There's part of democracy. Arguing for any against policies

But you don't have an argument other than "government ought not to do ..."

[Gary Childress]

Justice is the ultimate aim of any government.

No.

You have rule by the one, rule by the few and rule my the many.

Take your pick.

Yes. But how do you sort out which version of rule is the better one? If there were such a thing as a demonstrably benevolent autocrat among a crowd of unjust people. Which would be better, autocracy led by the benevolent autocrat or Democracy run by an unjust majority? Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. For governance, Justice is the ultimate end. Of course, that opens up a whole new set of questions and debate concerning what is "justice".