The witchhunt continues...

[Guitar's Cry]

I think it simply promoting a beer with an ad that was not in the demographic the serve (wether liberal or conservative). It was a change of advertising too. It was strictly about sports - they changed directions.

I stand by my rant.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Conservatives see her as a symbol of societal moral decay and have crowned her "Queen of LGBTQ+" (or King, I don't think they've figured out the difference between sex and gender yet) and boycotted their favorite cheapo, mass-produced swill over it because some guy that identifies as a child chunk of mineral matter wanted to show how much of a big boy he (or it? Do rocks have gender?) was by cosplaying Rambo and shooting up a bunch of the swill.

In the collective erection of their moral outrage and arousal at seeing a middle aged musician handling his gun, they forgot that most other beers are owned by companies that support LGBTQ+ stuff because it is financially sound to do so. They also don't realize that famous people do stupid stuff to garner publicity and Robert James Ritchie, I mean Kid Rock (the name he identifies as and no one seems outraged or confused by that) may not even care about sex and gender issues and inadvertently made Dylan Mulvaney very famous.

Long answer to a question you may not have needed but damn that felt good!

Sounds to me like the morally outraged conservatives in this case are the real attention-seekers.

I still don't get Dylan Mulvaney's "This is what a girl is all about! Tee-hee!" TikTok videos, but even less do I get the beer-swilling, gun-toting, macho culture of those who totally lost their **** over Mulvaney's Bud Lite commercial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Conservatives see her as a symbol of societal moral decay and have crowned her "Queen of LGBTQ+" (or King, I don't think they've figured out the difference between sex and gender yet) and boycotted their favorite cheapo, mass-produced swill over it because some guy that identifies as a child chunk of mineral matter wanted to show how much of a big boy he (or it? Do rocks have gender?) was by cosplaying Rambo and shooting up a bunch of the swill.

In the collective erection of their moral outrage and arousal at seeing a middle aged musician handling his gun, they forgot that most other beers are owned by companies that support LGBTQ+ stuff because it is financially sound to do so. They also don't realize that famous people do stupid stuff to garner publicity and Robert James Ritchie, I mean Kid Rock (the name he identifies as and no one seems outraged or confused by that) may not even care about sex and gender issues and inadvertently made Dylan Mulvaney very famous.

Long answer to a question you may not have needed but damn that felt good!

Are you talking about Kid Rock's early fascination with a drag queen. And for the curious he was definitely not repulsed. Now he is very staunchly anti-Bud Lite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds to me like the morally outraged conservatives in this case are the real attention-seekers.

I still don't get Dylan Mulvaney's "This is what a girl is all about! Tee-hee!" TikTok videos, but even less do I get the beer-swilling, gun-toting, macho culture of those who totally lost their **** over Mulvaney's Bud Lite commercial.

The little that I know of the trans community I learned here. The fuss over it appears to be a huge over reaction. And the Bud-Lite issue was just the frosting on the cake. I have almost no idea of who Dylan Mulvaney is either. But more power to her for being who she is. But I will not follow her to know what I should buy or not buy depending on who supports her.

But the reaction of the extremists does tell us one thing. We still need to be wiling to support LBGQT rights. This is a fight that should not have to be fought. If people just let people be this would not even be an issue.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Are you talking about Kid Rock's early fascination with a drag queen. And for the curious he was definitely not repulsed. Now he is very staunchly anti-Bud Lite.

View attachment 79485

It's almost as if the whole thing is a promotional gimmick.

Kid Rock promotes new seltzer with ties to transgender partnership

Happy Dad seltzer has previously partnered with Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman who has been a controversial figure in the LGBTQ+ community.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Viker]

There is none other that opinions stated on the bases of the appeal to authority... which violates empirical and verifiable science.

You're misusing the appeal to authority fallacy. There is only an appeal to credibility and field of expertise.

Would you appreciate someone telling you everything you know about pastoring is wrong because it's just an appeal to authority that you're a pastor? Aren't you accredited, have years of research/study? You aren't really just an authority on the subject of pastoring but a pastor.

An appeal to authority argument is like this. General Tom Blow disagrees that flowers should be in our schools. He's a general (with the super army), he knows best. A general knows how to run a school better than anybody in academia! That's an appeal to authority fallacy, basically.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How so?

Because they use the term "female" and "male". They also do not preclude trans definitions. For example, a trans woman fits the definition of an adult human female.

They are defined this way in dictionaries.

Because dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They DESCRIBE the word as being applied to a "female", but do not provide a strict definition of a "female", for example.

How do you define a woman and a man?

They are gender labels.

 

[Viker]

Are you talking about Kid Rock's early fascination with a drag queen. And for the curious he was definitely not repulsed. Now he is very staunchly anti-Bud Lite.

View attachment 79485

Is that Bud Light?! Outrageous!

 

[Viker]

BTW, I'm trans and had never heard of Dylan until this incident.

 

[Viker]

It's almost as if the whole thing is a promotional gimmick.

Kid Rock promotes new seltzer with ties to transgender partnership

Happy Dad seltzer has previously partnered with Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman who has been a controversial figure in the LGBTQ+ community.

www.newsweek.com

Ulterior motives. Ulterior motives.

 

[icehorse]

At this point we can say those claims are no different than conservative Christians insisting that no more school led prayer, allowing gay marriage, and promoting a secular state will destroy America, tear apart the moral fabric of society, and lead to bad things.
Or how they're always saying we live in the end times, except we never are and it's never happened.

And @Debater Slayer -

We've all been extremely lucky to have spent our lives in this time when free speech exists in much of the world. I would guess that none of us has spent any significant amount of time in a place like North Korea? I think that if you spent any time there you would realize how crucial and essential free speech is. And you wouldn't be so cavalier about allowing it to be eroded.

These "it hasn't happened yet" arguments show an amazing lack of understanding of history. To return to North Korea, it happened there, and from a historical perspective, it happened fairly recently.

And why are you so willing to give up the single most important thing that keeps you free? To curtail "hate speech"?

Do you really think that the way to curtail hate speech is through censorship? Really? Because I believe it's through exposing hate speakers to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

 

[icehorse]

I see no reason to believe that Bill C-16 will result in different treatment for deliberate, repeated harassment targeting trans people compared to forms thereof that target other groups.

It seems to me a pretty reasonable and necessary bill. Canada is also still one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world.

No disrespect, but what if you simply lack historical perspective? Your narrow context is not reassuring

 

[Kenny]

You're misusing the appeal to authority fallacy. There is only an appeal to credibility and field of expertise.

Would you appreciate someone telling you everything you know about pastoring is wrong because it's just an appeal to authority that you're a pastor? Aren't you accredited, have years of research/study? You aren't really just an authority on the subject of pastoring but a pastor.

An appeal to authority argument is like this. General Tom Blow disagrees that flowers should be in our schools. He's a general (with the super army), he knows best. A general knows how to run a school better than anybody in academia! That's an appeal to authority fallacy, basically.

There is no substantive study on the Identity crisis, therefore we rely on biological truths. It is an appeal to authority if we accept it just because a PhD said so with no scientific support.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And @Debater Slayer -

We've all been extremely lucky to have spent our lives in this time when free speech exists in much of the world. I would guess that none of us has spent any significant amount of time in a place like North Korea? I think that if you spent any time there you would realize how crucial and essential free speech is. And you wouldn't be so cavalier about allowing it to be eroded.

These "it hasn't happened yet" arguments show an amazing lack of understanding of history. To return to North Korea, it happened there, and from a historical perspective, it happened fairly recently.

And why are you so willing to give up the single most important thing that keeps you free? To curtail "hate speech"?

Do you really think that the way to curtail hate speech is through censorship? Really? Because I believe it's through exposing hate speakers to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

Do you think harassment in work or education should be protected by free speech laws?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

All that people are asking is that others let them be. Is that too much?

In the "Land of the Free," it would appear that it is indeed too much, too often.

 

[icehorse]

Why do trans people scare you so much? It is a real issue. Why would you condemn people to live in bodies that they are not comfortable in? No one is saying that you have to have sex with any of these people. The odds of a mutual attraction would be rather low in your case. Or in mine. I am an old geezer too. All that people are asking is that others let them be. Is that too much?

Speaking only for myself: Trans people do not scare me. But abandoning reason and evidence does. Why is it such a problem to leave the basics of our language alone and simply say there are trans men and trans women?

 

[icehorse]

Do you think harassment in work or education should be protected by free speech laws?

As a supporter of women, I think that I should be able to call Lia Thomas a trans woman and support the idea that "he" - in this context - should not be allowed to compete against women.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Speaking only for myself: Trans people do not scare me. But abandoning reason and evidence does.

Cool. So you accept the reason and evidence that suggest that understanding trans people and granting them protections against harassment produce positive outcomes, and you accept the evidence of the overwhelming scientific consensus on trans care and treatment. Good!

Why is it such a problem to leave the basics of our language alone and simply say there are trans men and trans women?

Why is it such a problem to accept that trans men are men and trans women are women? It literally harms no one, whereas insisting the opposite is demonstrably harmful.

Your argument is fundamentally dogmatic. You want language to stay the same for no reason other than you want it to stay the same. Despite the fact that gender has been understood this way for decades. Instead of pointing to ACTUAL harm, you conjure up ephemeral, possible future harm and insist it's an inevitable conclusion. It's no different to any other form of dogmatism

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As a supporter of women, I think that I should be able to call Lia Thomas a trans woman and support the idea that "he" - in this context - should not be allowed to compete against women.

That's not an answer to my question. That's a MASSIVE pivot.

Again, the question was:

Do you think harassment in work or education should be protected by free speech laws?

(Also, bit of a callback to something I said earlier, but the above post is actually a really good example of a genuine virtue signal.)

 

[icehorse]

Cool. So you accept the reason and evidence that suggest that understanding trans people and granting them protections against harassment produce positive outcomes, and you accept the evidence of the overwhelming scientific consensus on trans care and treatment. Good!

You've asked two very different questions here.

On harassment: It's not so easy to slice and dice the world and isolate single aspects of complex systems. Do you accept the idea that allowing trans people into the restrooms they "feel" they should be allowed in to impinges on the privacy and / or safety of the non trans?

On scientific consensus: We've recently had several long threads looking at the question of whether the "standard of care" actually provides the best outcomes. It appears that Europe is largely rethinking the SOC, and we know in general that Europe's healthcare is better than the US's. (And no, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want citations, use your search engine.)