Mister Smug steps up
And we wonder why Dems are unpopular.
Check out the self-righteous beardy white guy shouting down the black guy who had the unmitigated temerity to say the words “boys playing in girls’ sports.”
He’s why Trump won.
Ok not all of why Trump won, but a big chunk of it.
Note the way the beardy guy first turned the debate into a debate about whether boys were “trans girls” only to shut down the idea that there could BE any debate on this issue. Even evolutionary biologists disagreeing with young earth creationists let their opponents voice their arguments. Evolutionary biology has been overwhelmingly supported by science, and 6,000 year old earth, not so much. But dinosaurs don’t cry and want to kill themselves if someone says they were around in the Middle Ages. So some beliefs cannot be expressed.
“Then what terms should I use?” Answer there was none.
There was no way in hell I was going to vote for Trump in this election, but I understood and sympathized with those GC — many of them liberal, lifelong Democrats — who did. I think the trans issue is pretty much the equivalent of homeopathy: if you see it endorsed on a medical site you browsed into, it’s time to browse yourself out. Sure, some of the advice, maybe even most of it, may be perfectly sound. But you already know they can’t tell shit from shinola. That’s not good and doesn’t build trust.
Note the way the host/moderator steps in (at about 30 sec.) to say “out of respect for” smug beardy guy, his favoured, reality-denying terminology should be used, meaning that nobody is allowed to call “transgirls” boys, which is what they are. Respect is a one-way street that shuts down debate, with the trans activist position winning by default rather than through argument. Smug beardy guy has reason to be smug.
Sastra – sometimes the point of attack ads and negative campaigning isn’t to convince people to vote for your cause, but to demotivate those voters who aren’t going to vote for you anyway. Writ large, Harris is missing millions of votes, with a very large percentage of those votes being in suburban area. Philadelphia showed up in force for Harris, Bucks not so much. Same in the Minneapolis area, where it had no consequence. The belt around Detroit shifted Michigan from blue to red. Doesn’t take much to connect that to why the GOP were running those ads, sometimes in very specific and clearly targeted venues (college football radio, etc)
As stated in earlier posts the transgender thing screws up every organisation it latches on to. You think people would start avoiding it, if only out of prudence and self-preservation – I wonder if it will come to that.
We’re seeing the answer to the question of whether the Democrats will learn from their losses.
That being “no”, apparently.
If you can’t sit here like an adult, Jay, and let another person express his point of view and his ideas without shouting over him, then maybe you should get up from the table and go somewhere else to cool off.
There is no world in which “boy” is a slur.
Papito: Black Americans might have something to say about that.
But in general, yes, to bristle at “boys playing girls’ sports” implies that being a boy is something to be ashamed of.
Being a boy who is cheating is something to be ashamed of, but Jay doesn’t want us to be able to point this out. Why does Jay like cheaters and cheating? Why does he think that preserving the cheating boys’ self-image is more important than the well being of the girls being forced to play with* and against them?
*Except they’re not realy playing with the girls on “their” team, since they’ve robbed one girl of their rightful spot on it, and make the girls who did make it complicit in their cheating. Any boy so cheating is also denying all of the girls on the team their rightful playing time, experience, and accomplishment. His unfair advantages come at the expense of his own supposed “teammates” as well as any teams that he plays against. He diminishes their dignity and pride in acheivement. He’s the ringer that shouldn’t be there, cheating in plain view with the connivance of adults who should know better. Like contemptuously self-righteous Jay here.
I don’t recall the name of this host/moderator, but in just about every one of the round-table ‘discussions’ (or should I say ‘debates’?) I have seen her in charge of, she loses control and things descend into a shouting match, in which one unpleasant individual does most of the shouting. What’s the point of having such ‘discussions’ or ‘debates’? Can the station not choose participants who are willing to listen to what others actually say, and then voice their objections, if they have any, civilly? It seems that this is the kind of circus that CNN wants.