2024 USA Presidential Election

[PII | 2,029]

Good thing I got that pair of ray-bans from that guy handing 'em out of a cardboard box in the ally.

[AirVillain | 533]

I don't know much about American politics, but that shit looks fucked up right now.

Why can't AOC be president? 

I'd vote for her.

[ThePhleo | 2,265]

7 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

I don't know much about American politics, but that shit looks fucked up right now.

Why can't AOC be president? 

I'd vote for her.

She's eligible next year when she turns 35, so she can run for the 2028 election.

But also, the last person we need is someone who's considered by the opposing half, a radical extremist. (Same goes for Trump mind you)

We need someone who can unite the country, not divide it further.

[AirVillain | 533]

1 minute ago, ThePhleo said:

She's eligible next year when she turns 35, so she can run for the 2028 election.

But also, the last person we need is someone who's considered by the opposing half, a radical extremist. (Same goes for Trump mind you)

We need someone who can unite the country, not divide it further.

Interesting, thank you.

The fact that AOC is considered a "radical extremist" is fucking wild, though.

As far as I can see....

Right = guns for everybody, no abortions, and no trans/gay people.

Left = stricter gun laws, abortions are healthcare, trans/gay people are okay.

I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE FUCK ANYONE WOULD LEAN TOWARDS THE RIGHT.

If that makes me a "radical lefty" then so be it.

[ThePhleo | 2,265]

24 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Interesting, thank you.

The fact that AOC is considered a "radical extremist" is fucking wild, though.

As far as I can see....

Right = guns for everybody, no abortions, and no trans/gay people.

Left = stricter gun laws, abortions are healthcare, trans/gay people are okay.

I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE FUCK ANYONE WOULD LEAN TOWARDS THE RIGHT.

If that makes me a "radical lefty" then so be it.

 

"Radical Extremist" is basically what I hear from my friends who are hard right-wing. So, even though she's just a young left-wing liberal, she's seen as divisive on the right and would only serve to push people further right, rather than bring people closer together.

I lean right, but I'm definitely more of a centrist/moderate myself.

I want my gay friends to smoke marijuana at the gun range after church is my "dumbing down" of my political views. (Psst: don't actually smoke marijuana at the gun range).

I also believe that the lack of religion and social media bubbles is what caused the extreme gap in politics. Living in an echo chamber gives the loudest voices the biggest audiences, but the loudest voices aren't exactly the "rightest" voices, couple that with the fact that people today are not biologically different than the people of a few decades ago-- we still have a human desire for a strong beliefs system, so without a religion to cling onto, people who would otherwise be super strong religious folk, have clung to policy being their de-facto god.

 

Edit: Also, to say left or right is what you described is pretty reductive to be honest. It's obviously way more complex than that, but those are the hot-button issues.

So, for example on the abortion topic? The right sees it as immoral to kill a human being, and the left sees it as immoral to take away a woman's rights. There's a ton A TON A TON of in-between arguments for that one topic, but that's the lowest level you can reduce that argument to...Myself? I agree with both sides (yep...) but I think a reasonable compromise is to set a hard limit on how long into term you can legally be allowed to abort a PERFECTLY HEALTHY unborn child...like many European countries have.

Edited July 15 by ThePhleo

[OptOut | 8,981]

Yeah, Trump's won. Dude's deflecting bullets. Pretty sure if Biden got shot in the ear and jumped on by a bunch of burly Secret Service dudes he'd have died instantly. 

[JamesRobot | 6,022]

1 hour ago, AirVillain said:

Right = guns for everybody, no abortions, and no trans/gay people.

Left = stricter gun laws, abortions are healthcare, trans/gay people are okay.
 

[Silent Hill | 284]

1 hour ago, AirVillain said:

As far as I can see....

Right = guns for everybody, no abortions, and no trans/gay people.

Left = stricter gun laws, abortions are healthcare, trans/gay people are okay.

The problem with this is that it frames the most extreme views from the right. Generally speaking, it's probably more like:

Right = guns for everybody (that are of age, appropriately vetted, and mentally sound), no abortions (unless medically necessary or for rape/incest), and no trans/gay people (no trans/gay ideologies or material in schools/school libraries).

And AOC would have a massive uphill battle to gain the presidency. Her association with the "squad" (e.g., Omar) is enough by itself to push away a ton of voters IMO.

[avatar! | 1,935]

2 hours ago, AirVillain said:

Interesting, thank you.

The fact that AOC is considered a "radical extremist" is fucking wild, though.

As far as I can see....

Right = guns for everybody, no abortions, and no trans/gay people.

Left = stricter gun laws, abortions are healthcare, trans/gay people are okay.

I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE FUCK ANYONE WOULD LEAN TOWARDS THE RIGHT.

If that makes me a "radical lefty" then so be it.

AOC and MTG are on opposite side of the fringes mainly due to their outspoken critiques of basically anything and everything that their brains come across and then in freewriting spirit they chuck it out on social media (much like Trump)! Also, they both have their own "extreme" views -- for instance, AOC wants to abolish ICE -- not reform, completely abolish the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency -- the same agency which many Americans believe needs far more funding to do its job. AOC is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America which believe in the "abolition of capitalism" -- well, as you can imagine that is not going to sit well with most Americans be they Democrats or Republicans or Independents. Sure, she'll have some supporters -- from Statista --

In a survey of U.S. adults conducted in March 2023, 33 percent of respondents held a very unfavorable opinion of Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On the other hand, 16 percent of respondents had a very favorable opinion of the Congresswoman.

Yeah, the "far-left" would support AOC and the "far-right" would support MTG and the vast majority of Americans would give both the middle finger

[fcgamer | 4,995]

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

The problem with this is that it frames the most extreme views from the right. Generally speaking, it's probably more like:

Right = guns for everybody (that are of age, appropriately vetted, and mentally sound), no abortions (unless medically necessary or for rape/incest), and no trans/gay people (no trans/gay ideologies or material in schools/school libraries).

Yup. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,912]

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

no trans/gay ideologies or material in schools/school libraries

What does that mean exactly though?  No books by trans authors?  No books with a gay character?  No non-binary teachers?  I'm pretty moderate on most things, own a lot of guns, and I'm pretty right-leaning on certain issues, but they lose me on this one.

[Silent Hill | 284]

21 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

What does that mean exactly though?  No books by trans authors?  No books with a gay character?  No non-binary teachers?  I'm pretty moderate on most things, own a lot of guns, and I'm pretty right-leaning on certain issues, but they lose me on this one.

For me, personally, it's more about the topic of sexual preference/identity not being relevant to schools, primarily kids in elementary/middle. I can see an argument for high school kids and tbh I don't even know what sex-ed looks like now, but that's the only place I can see it being of relevance. 
Regarding books, I was referring to some of the things you see brought up by parents during school board (or whatever they're called) meetings. Probably the outliers, but the things they read aloud at those are wild as hell and have no place in a school library, regardless of age. It's about the messaging/content more so than say the author's identity/preference. 

Stuff like this: 

 

[spacepup | 2,481]

The problem is, it isn't *just* stopping at schools, but rather, in existing legislation as well as introduced legislation, regarding access to medical care, gender affirming care, etc.  The issues affecting the trans community range from schools, to access to bathrooms, to sports, to employment issues, medical care, and much more.  I'm not going to debate about all those topics, but just pointing out that what we've seen in *action* are laws, policies, and treatments, that affect the community far beyond an elementary school classroom.

Regarding abortion, while *some* segments of the population agree with exceptions, there are states that do not allow for such exceptions (this varies greatly by state).  

A moderate republican / person on the right, probably does fall somewhere near the above descriptions, but legislation exists all around the country that is much more to the right, and infringes upon the rights of numerous groups of people.  The trend of both legislation and supreme court rulings heading more and more in that direction, over the last few years, is what concerns many people.

We have some schools now where it feels like we are trying to pretend that gay and trans people don't exist, because those are 'progressive ideologies that don't belong in the classroom' and yet, the Ten Commandments are now required to be displayed (Louisiana).  The concept of 'separation of church and state' is something that we supposedly figured out hundreds of years ago, but have failed miserably in practice over the course of American History.  I believe we made some progress there, in terms of broader religious freedom over the last few decades, yet that feels like it is tightening in some places and reversing course.

[Silent Hill | 284]

10 minutes ago, spacepup said:

The problem is, it isn't *just* stopping at schools, but rather, in existing legislation as well as introduced legislation, regarding access to medical care, gender affirming care, etc.  The issues affecting the trans community range from schools, to access to bathrooms, to sports, to employment issues, medical care, and much more.  I'm not going to debate about all those topics, but just pointing out that what we've seen in *action* are laws, policies, and treatments, that affect the community far beyond an elementary school classroom.

Regarding abortion, while *some* segments of the population agree with exceptions, there are states that do not allow for such exceptions (this varies greatly by state).  

A moderate republican / person on the right, probably does fall somewhere near the above descriptions, but legislation exists all around the country that is much more to the right, and infringes upon the rights of numerous groups of people.  The trend of both legislation and supreme court rulings heading more and more in that direction, over the last few years, is what concerns many people.

I'm not familiar with every piece of existing or proposed legislation, but what are some of the most egregious ones?

My concern with a couple of the particulars you mentioned (bathrooms and sports) is that it prioritizes the rights of trans people over non-trans, cis, or whatever the term is. I don't agree with women losing their right to go to the bathroom/locker room or play sports without having biological males involved. And vice versa though I don't recall seeing any examples of trans-men going into men's restrooms/locker rooms or men's sports. I think there should be a separate bathroom/locker room and separate sports leagues for those two examples. Otherwise, someone's rights (privacy? equity?) are being compromised and 99/100 it'd be the rights of the vast majority. 

On abortion, I'm pretty sure not a single state has a total ban yet and out of those that are tagged as such, still allow for the reasons I mentioned. Example:

[spacepup | 2,481]

I don't have a great solution for all the issues that come up regarding trans rights and all other rights regarding bathrooms and sports - those are definitely complicated and I would agree that we always need to be cautious regarding rights that infringe on other people's rights also.  I'm more concerned about the medical issues and lack of care options, but I know there are many opinions on that as well.  Regardless, I do feel that the issues trans people face are definitely extend far beyond just a school classroom.  And even there, I worry about the limitations placed on students and teachers regarding what content is "allowed."

I do NOT have all the answers, for how to reconcile and solve the issues with trans rights and where we are in current society.  I just hope that people can approach the subject with an open mind in learning more about it, rather than a viewpoint of disgust or discrimination and at worst, hate.  Unfortunately, the latter is going to be a social challenge that is hard to legislate or control with policy.

Regarding abortion, a lot of legislation is still pending or challenged, so it's difficult to even say what the exact options are right now in each state - I haven't found a consistently reliable resource that provides the exact current status, and I know that some of the legislation is proposed or was enacted but is being challenged in court, so it's hard to say where the chips will fall exactly.

[Link | 2,878]

Leave issues to the people involved.

Coaches can decide what is appropriate for their teams. Doctors can advise what is best for the health and well-being of their patients. If you don't like what public schools are doing, fine, put your kids in private school but don't dictate to others and don't demand funding for rugged individualism.

It's bonkers that "the party of small government" wants to get involved in such highly personal issues, meanwhile putting biblical material like the commandments in public schools to fly in the face of separation of church and state. Using rhetoric common to that voting base, one might say "they are trying to ram this down our throats", to use the very weird language they often employ.

[G-type | 2,796]

I’ve pretty much resigned myself to Trump winning. JD Vance was a smart choice for VP. He represents a unification among the Republican Party behind Trump (as one of the outspoken Trump critics.) He also has a pretty high profile in terms of name recognition and popularity. He easily won his senate seat and had a Ron Howard movie made about him.

The assassination attempt is probably not going to sway people but it could easily invigorate Republican turnout. Democrat turnout will be low unless there’s some big changes.

RE AOC, the past couple years she’s been doing a lot to distance herself from  “the radical left” and just be a regular old democrat. DSA has withdrawn their endorsement of her. 

[Brickman | 4,200]

On 7/14/2024 at 9:57 AM, Reed Rothchild said:

Is the world better off when we once again ditch every climate accord, and leave Ukraine up a creek?  Or undermine our own elections?  Order our Vice Presidents to commit treason?

This only hastens our decline.  All because the established parties were unable to overcome their own dysfunctions.

 

Agreed, and the rest of the world also has to hear all about his BS and directly gets affected by his decisions because the US is still a powerful country with sway across the world.

I don’t wish death upon many people but Putin and Trump are definitely two people I’d lose no sleep over being assassinated. 

I think I will shut the international news off when he wins.

[Silent Hill | 284]

4 hours ago, Brickman said:

I don’t wish death upon many people but Putin and Trump are definitely two people I’d lose no sleep over being assassinated. 

That is wild - one is a war criminal dictator and the other is a what?
How are they even remotely comparable to the point of essentially wishing death on both?

[Silent Hill | 284]

16 hours ago, Link said:

Leave issues to the people involved.

Coaches can decide what is appropriate for their teams. Doctors can advise what is best for the health and well-being of their patients. If you don't like what public schools are doing, fine, put your kids in private school but don't dictate to others and don't demand funding for rugged individualism.

It's bonkers that "the party of small government" wants to get involved in such highly personal issues, meanwhile putting biblical material like the commandments in public schools to fly in the face of separation of church and state. Using rhetoric common to that voting base, one might say "they are trying to ram this down our throats", to use the very weird language they often employ.

I totally agree that it could/should be handled at an individual level but I don't think that's what is seemingly happening now unfortunately. What happens if a coach decides to not let a trans person join their team? No public outcry for that move? Is that a coach's decision or a team decision?

Same concept with doctors though my personal view is any gender-affirming care that has long-term and/or irreversible impact should not be carried out on a minor. 

Regarding schools, books like that parent was reading aloud have no business being accessible in schools and bathrooms/locker rooms should be isolated to biological gender and a gender-neutral alternative should be introduced. Telling people to put their kids in private schools if they say, don't like that a biological male shares a bathroom or locker room with their (bio) daughter, isn't a very sensible option. 

I definitely lean right but (ironically?) am not religious in the slightest so I agree that anything religious has no place in schools. I don't see it as Republicans, generally speaking, wanting to get involved in highly personal issues, it's more to prevent those personal issues from affecting the larger population, especially in schools and sports. Goes back to my point about prioritizing the rights of the vast minority over the vast majority to address a, like you say, personal issue. 

Edited July 16 by Silent Hill

[AirVillain | 533]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:26 AM, ThePhleo said:

Edit: Also, to say left or right is what you described is pretty reductive to be honest. It's obviously way more complex than that, but those are the hot-button issues.

So, for example on the abortion topic? The right sees it as immoral to kill a human being, and the left sees it as immoral to take away a woman's rights. There's a ton A TON A TON of in-between arguments for that one topic, but that's the lowest level you can reduce that argument to...Myself? I agree with both sides (yep...) but I think a reasonable compromise is to set a hard limit on how long into term you can legally be allowed to abort a PERFECTLY HEALTHY unborn child...like many European countries have.

You're right. I was being intentionally reductive/simplistic.

Regarding abortion... for me, it's simple. Let the person decide.

it doesn't make any logical sense to make any argument for what SOMEONE ELSE should do being a human being into the world. Especially when there are so many children in Foster care/given up for adoption as it is.

If there were 0 children in foster care then that argument would make much more sense. But the simple fact is there are more children than people/families are willing/able to take care of right now.

LITERALLY RIGHT THIS SECOND THERE ARE KIDS WAITING TO BE ADOPTED. (>391k at the end of 2023 - https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-kids-are-in-foster-care/ )

Again.... when that number is 0, there becomes a stronger case for the "in between" argument.
 

On 7/15/2024 at 10:58 AM, Silent Hill said:

The problem with this is that it frames the most extreme views from the right. Generally speaking, it's probably more like:

Right = guns for everybody (that are of age, appropriately vetted, and mentally sound), no abortions (unless medically necessary or for rape/incest), and no trans/gay people (no trans/gay ideologies or material in schools/school libraries).

And AOC would have a massive uphill battle to gain the presidency. Her association with the "squad" (e.g., Omar) is enough by itself to push away a ton of voters IMO.

Yes I was intentionally using the "extremes".  But I'll say this:

You can vet every single gun owner in 'Murrica, and the fact that you can still purchase an AR15/other automatic weapons will be the reason why mass shootings will continue. So yeah, let people have their guns, but allowing automatic weapons to civilians is a way over reach of that.... and a cause of much violence that I'm not sure I understand why the "right" supports.

No abortions is covered above.

Like others have said.... the "no trans/gay ideologies/material in school is incredibly asinine.

What sort of indoctrination to heterosexuality is the church?? That is indoctrination in itself..... so..... take EVERYTHING out of schools then Straight, gay, EVERYTHING......

Stories about trans/gay people are literally the same as any other stories. They about HUMAN BEINGS. They don't change children. If you allow children to grow up without indoctrinating them into ANY sexual preference, they will grow up as is.

It's demonstrated all around the world, and all throughout history, and throughout many animal species... gay/trans people exist.

HOW IN THE FUCK DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR THESE HUMAN BEINGS TO NOT BE REPRESENTED IN SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES....?
 

 

On 7/15/2024 at 1:26 PM, Silent Hill said:

For me, personally, it's more about the topic of sexual preference/identity not being relevant to schools, primarily kids in elementary/middle. I can see an argument for high school kids and tbh I don't even know what sex-ed looks like now, but that's the only place I can see it being of relevance. 
Regarding books, I was referring to some of the things you see brought up by parents during school board (or whatever they're called) meetings. Probably the outliers, but the things they read aloud at those are wild as hell and have no place in a school library, regardless of age. It's about the messaging/content more so than say the author's identity/preference. 

Stuff like this: 

 

Please see above.

Also.... No books/literature make kids gay. A book with the word cock, or balls, isn't really anything to worry about. Kids aren't just going to "turn gay" from reading a book with some gay sex in it. Especially in high school like I figure that massive book is from.

We know this because heterosexuality has been pushed upon people through the church for centuries and it's just not the case for all people.

And what about what the church presents?

The church has been trying to keep people straight, and it has been doing a TERRIBLE job.

So.... You can't force people to be straight or gay..... Reading a book about being gay doesn't make you gay, being told by the church to be straight doesn't make you straight....

And even it's highest priests molest little boys.... which is a totally gay thing to do.

Not only is it homosexual, but they should all rot in hell for it, if there was one..... as you can guess, I don't think Jesus would have thought it was a good thing to harm children.

 

On 7/15/2024 at 1:34 PM, spacepup said:

The problem is, it isn't *just* stopping at schools, but rather, in existing legislation as well as introduced legislation, regarding access to medical care, gender affirming care, etc.  The issues affecting the trans community range from schools, to access to bathrooms, to sports, to employment issues, medical care, and much more.  I'm not going to debate about all those topics, but just pointing out that what we've seen in *action* are laws, policies, and treatments, that affect the community far beyond an elementary school classroom.

Regarding abortion, while *some* segments of the population agree with exceptions, there are states that do not allow for such exceptions (this varies greatly by state).  

A moderate republican / person on the right, probably does fall somewhere near the above descriptions, but legislation exists all around the country that is much more to the right, and infringes upon the rights of numerous groups of people.  The trend of both legislation and supreme court rulings heading more and more in that direction, over the last few years, is what concerns many people.

We have some schools now where it feels like we are trying to pretend that gay and trans people don't exist, because those are 'progressive ideologies that don't belong in the classroom' and yet, the Ten Commandments are now required to be displayed (Louisiana).  The concept of 'separation of church and state' is something that we supposedly figured out hundreds of years ago, but have failed miserably in practice over the course of American History.  I believe we made some progress there, in terms of broader religious freedom over the last few decades, yet that feels like it is tightening in some places and reversing course.

Very well said.
 

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

Regarding schools, books like that parent was reading aloud have no business being accessible in schools and bathrooms/locker rooms should be isolated to biological gender and a gender-neutral alternative should be introduced. Telling people to put their kids in private schools if they say, don't like that a biological male shares a bathroom or locker room with their (bio) daughter, isn't a very sensible option.

Who is that protecting?

Trans people literally just want to exist without persecution.

Why the fuck is it up to you you or anyone else what bathroom they use, when they just want to take a piss???

You want to out kids (which gets them beat up/killed in some places) and look in their pants to try to tell them what bathrooms to use when if you just left everyone alone there wouldn't be all this hate.

You understand that right????

If the "right" was not pushing all this hateful rhetoric onto trans people it wouldn't exist....????

There would be literally NO PROBLEM for people on the "right" if they simply let trans people exist. There's no data to support their whacky claims. Trans people simply want to live their lives and get access to proper healthcare, that's it.
 

 

Edited July 16 by AirVillain

[Reed Rothchild | 9,912]

AR-15 are not automatic.  And calling them assault rifles makes no sense.  While I am of the opinion that firearm legislation needs massive overhaul, and massive tightening and regulation, I don't know what the specific answer is when so many of them are already out there and in the wild.

[Khromak | 836]

On 7/15/2024 at 2:01 PM, Silent Hill said:

I think there should be a separate bathroom/locker room and separate sports leagues for those two examples.

How many small businesses do you think are going to include a third bathroom for trans folks?

How many trans people do you think will be able to fill a trans-only football league in AL?

...I don't think these are viable solutions, TBH.

On 7/15/2024 at 2:01 PM, Silent Hill said:

Otherwise, someone's rights (privacy? equity?) are being compromised and 99/100 it'd be the rights of the vast majority. 

The difference for me is the severity of the "rights" being violated or the consequences of the problem. For the 99, the consequences are...you're a bit uncomfortable, or MAYBE you lose a sporting event. For the 1, the consequences are...you have to go into the men's bathroom as a female-presenting person (also inconveniencing/breaking the "privacy" of the men), or you don't get to do sports at all/have to play with/against people of the opposite gender of you. I would think for an already vulnerable people, this would be extremely harmful whereas the alternative isn't nearly as harmful, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

Same concept with doctors though my personal view is any gender-affirming care that has long-term and/or irreversible impact should not be carried out on a minor. 

Exactly how often do you think underage people are having irreversible procedures done? It is EXCEEDINGLY rare, like...almost completely non-existent. Also: cis-gendered children also have irreversible procedures done as well, like plastic surgery etc. are you also campaigning against that and looking for laws to protect cisgender children from decisions themselves, their parents, and their doctors agree should be done? I feel like this argument gets thrown around a lot for something that is unbelievably uncommon.

[Silent Hill | 284]

17 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Yes I was intentionally using the "extremes".  But I'll say this:

You can vet every single gun owner in 'Murrica, and the fact that you can still purchase an AR15/other automatic weapons will be the reason why mass shootings will continue. So yeah, let people have their guns, but allowing automatic weapons to civilians is a way over reach of that.... and a cause of much violence that I'm not sure I understand why the "right" supports. - Like Reed said, AR15s are not automatic and most mass shootings are committed with handguns FWIW. The "right" doesn't really support violence, outside of self-defense, which is the primary pillar behind the 2nd Amendment for a lot of pro-gun people. Guns aren't the sole (or really even the primary) issue so it always baffles me when that's the sole focus. 

No abortions is covered above.

Like others have said.... the "no trans/gay ideologies/material in school is incredibly asinine.

What sort of indoctrination to heterosexuality is the church?? That is indoctrination in itself..... so..... take EVERYTHING out of schools then Straight, gay, EVERYTHING...... - I don't recall straight flags, or straight pride, or overly vulgar sexual books of any preference being promoted during my tenure at school. Sexuality/Sexual Preference doesn't really belong in schools outside of sex education and that's primarily there to educate on pregnancy and STDs/AIDS more so than it is to promote any sexual preference. It's useful for those kids that don't have parents who cover those things in detail. 

Stories about trans/gay people are literally the same as any other stories. They about HUMAN BEINGS. They don't change children. If you allow children to grow up without indoctrinating them into ANY sexual preference, they will grow up as is.

It's demonstrated all around the world, and all throughout history, and throughout many animal species... gay/trans people exist.

HOW IN THE FUCK DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR THESE HUMAN BEINGS TO NOT BE REPRESENTED IN SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES....?

I never said they shouldn't be represented in books/stories, but the book that guy was reading in the clip is in no way even remotely appropriate to have available to kids, sexual preference be damned. Just because people don't like sexuality/sexual preference highlighted, promoted, acknowledge, etc. in schools, doesn't mean they don't want LGBTQ to not exist altogether. That may be your extreme view/understanding, but its not the majority's.  
 

 

17 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Also.... No books/literature make kids gay. A book with the word cock, or balls, isn't really anything to worry about. Kids aren't just going to "turn gay" from reading a book with some gay sex in it. Especially in high school like I figure that massive book is from. - lol it's not about "making kids gay", it's inappropriate regardless of sexual preference. Absolutely zero reason to have that book available in any school library. 

We know this because heterosexuality has been pushed upon people through the church for centuries and it's just not the case for all people.

And what about what the church presents?

The church has been trying to keep people straight, and it has been doing a TERRIBLE job.

So.... You can't force people to be straight or gay..... Reading a book about being gay doesn't make you gay, being told by the church to be straight doesn't make you straight....

And even it's highest priests molest little boys.... which is a totally gay thing to do.

Not only is it homosexual, but they should all rot in hell for it, if there was one..... as you can guess, I don't think Jesus would have thought it was a good thing to harm children.

I mentioned earlier I'm not religious so I take no issue with calling out the hypocrisy of those folks who represent the extreme views you seem to be clinging to. 

 

18 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Who is that protecting?

Trans people literally just want to exist without persecution.

Why the fuck is it up to you you or anyone else what bathroom they use, when they just want to take a piss???

You want to out kids (which gets them beat up/killed in some places) and look in their pants to try to tell them what bathrooms to use when if you just left everyone alone there wouldn't be all this hate.

You understand that right????

If the "right" was not pushing all this hateful rhetoric onto trans people it wouldn't exist....????

There would be literally NO PROBLEM for people on the "right" if they simply let trans people exist. There's no data to support their whacky claims. Trans people simply want to live their lives and get access to proper healthcare, that's it.

Simply put, the rights of an extremely small group (e.g., Trans people) should not trump the rights of the vast majority (e.g., biological males/females) in circumstances where they're directly affected, regardless of the actual likelihood of something nefarious happening, like the examples of bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. Healthcare (for adults), equal treatment and opportunity under the law, etc. for Trans people is something I have absolutely zero issue with and I suspect a very large percentage of people, left or right, don't either. 

 

[Khromak | 836]

Full disclosure: I have not kept up with all the drama of which books are in which libraries, what their subjects are, or what kind of sexual content they have in them. I don't know what all the buzz is about these days. That said:

I 100% read books in my public school which involved boobs, puberty, and other sexual-adjacent topics. I also had Health classes where I learned explicitly about sex, pregnancy, child birth, STDs, condoms, puberty, genitals, etc.

I think this is perfectly normal and a thing that should be taught in schools. The idea that we as a society should just assume parents will (and are capable of) teach their children about all these subjects is laughable, TBH. I think (partially because of the lack of sex education in the first place) plenty of adults, maybe a majority, couldn't accurately teach a sex education class. They need teachers to do it for them because they're not qualified. Just like we don't have parents teach their children Physics, there's a reason schools exist. Along with this, I think 15-17 year olds are perfectly capable of reading a book where the subjects of the book are talking about sexual topics. Trying to hide it from teenagers and pretend it doesn't exist is frankly bonkers, especially in the digital age. If you think your children can be protected from learning about sex in 2024 you've lost your mind. They should be provided with good resources to learn about these things are be prepared to have healthy sex lives in their adult life, not left to figure it out after they hit 18 and certainly not left to hope that their parents can and are willing to teach them about all these complex topics.

Should the kama sutra be taught in elementary schools? No. Should absolutely no mention of boobs, penises, sex, pregnancy, or STDs be made to children from age 5-18? Also no. This is a mind-numbingly stupid way to raise the next generation of 18 year-olds, in my opinion.