Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Elegiac]

The actual discussion on the merits of when (and if) it’s appropriate to introduce kids to something suggesting they might’ve been born into the wrong body (etc) is embargoed by forum rules regarding “Sexuality, Gender, Gender identity.” Of course, the Biden administration should be asked on it, particularly if they have an official position on a state bill aimed directly at it.

You've already admitted the bill is vague, so please do square for us the circle of something being vague yet direct.

I prefer journalists to treat Biden’s press secretaries like they treated Trump’s press secretaries. Antagonistic, hectoring/badgering, asking intrusive and leading questions, never assuming the administrations lines. Too many people here want that only to apply to Republicans, and say “fuck off” if anyone dares apply it to a Democrat.

Gonna need some evidence this was ever the case in the Trump administration, especially when you consider the massive delta between Trump's press secretaries and Psaki.

"Why won't you treat the party that doesn't constantly act in bad faith the same as the party that constantly acts in bad faith?" is just a function of you not paying attention.

[unfilteredJW]

I prefer journalists to treat Biden’s press secretaries like they treated Trump’s press secretaries. Antagonistic, hectoring/badgering, asking intrusive and leading questions, never assuming the administrations lines. Too many people here want that only to apply to Republicans, and say “fuck off” if anyone dares apply it to a Democrat.

It’s easy to play victim. And by easy I mean fucking lazy.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I prefer journalists to treat Biden’s press secretaries like they treated Trump’s press secretaries. Antagonistic, hectoring/badgering, asking intrusive and leading questions, never assuming the administrations lines. Too many people here want that only to apply to Republicans, and say “fuck off” if anyone dares apply it to a Democrat.

Trump's Press Secretaries earned whatever "antagonism" (if you want to call it that) the press treated them with.

[Paranoid Android]

Quite the contrary I cannot stand the man however it's undeniably that Trump being on twitter was good for their bottom line especially during election times. For four years every single day you twitter was in the front page that's the reason they waited until he was out to kick him.

Do you think think Musk purchasing controlling interest cares about the profitability of Twitter? Well yeah, Musk is a rich asshole. I will argue this is mor for his interest and his ideals. Once again, the right wing sees Musk as their Champion. That says something.

I didn't say "he doesn't have influence"...in fact I specifically said



I was pointing out that he does not and cannot have a "Controlling Interest" because you stated:

I'm stating as above he purchased X amount of Twitter shares, was appointed to Board of Directors, yes major shareholders do get chairs. I'm not trying to play semantic game since you said "unilaterally", but I'm sticking with my reply on Musk his intention. Repeating myself, that the Right sees Musk as their Champion.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

My comment was pointing out that it would be more profitable for twitter if Trump were forgiven and back on twitter after announcing because he brings a lot of attention.

No, I get that...I'm just saying they couldn't just blame it all on Ol' Musky. As it stands right now he would at least need the holders of ~41% of the shares to go along with it. Musk could definitely tip the balance though.

[Draco-Onis]

Do you think think Musk purchasing controlling interest cares about the profitability of Twitter? Well yeah, Musk is a rich asshole. I will argue this is mor for his interest and his ideals. Once again, the right wing sees Musk as their Champion. That says something.

No but twitter does my point is the chance is pretty high they were planning on having him back anyways. He spent over 4 years breaking all their rules and they just decided to ban him when he lost the election, a for profit corporation is more likely to do what is most profitable for them. As for Musk who knows frankly I try to pretend that attention whore doesn't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I get that...I'm just saying they couldn't just blame it all on Ol' Musky. As it stands right now he would at least need the holders of ~41% of the shares to go along with it. Musk could definitely tip the balance though.

Of course but I think this is a pretty black and white decision, profit >>>>> everything, the odds of twitter allowing Trump back once he announces were already pretty high. Musk just provide a pretty good cover story for the rest of the spineless worms to hide behind, I just have zero faith that twitter has any kind of conscience.

[tehdang]

One legislator tried to introduce an amendment to the bill that would adjust the (incredibly vague) wording to specifically ban teaching about sex and sexual activity in K-3, which was ostensibly what the bill was intended to do. The amendment failed, and the bill's author said that such a change would fundamentally undermine the intent of the bill. Said author also commented that he didn't want young kids to have word problems like "Billy has two mommies" or "Sally has two daddies."

So it's pretty fucking obvious what they were trying to do.

”3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3…”

Wow. Language to that effect is in the bill. The Biden administration opposes the bill. Wild that someone would ask the Biden administration if its opposition is partially rooted in believing K-3 proscription.

I’m opposed to it for the broad and vague language regarding “age appropriate” education. It’s probably unenforceable and will fail on challenge. Who gets to define what’s age appropriate? It’s better to show transparency on what is being taught when as it applies to sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Do you think think Musk purchasing controlling interest cares about the profitability of Twitter?

Once again, just pointing out that he does not and cannot have controlling interest of Twitter.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/elo...rd-51649162598

Musk, either alone or as a member of a group, will not be able to become a beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of Twitter (ticker: TWTR) stock for as long as he sits on the board and 90 days after, according to the filing. This includes economic exposure through derivative securities, swaps, or hedging transactions, the filing added.

14.9%, the most he can have, is not "controlling interest"

I'm stating as above he purchased X amount of Twitter shares, was appointed to Board of Directors, yes major shareholders do get chairs. I'm not trying to play semantic game since you said "unilaterally", but I'm sticking with my reply on Musk his intention.

It's not "semantics". He's a shareholder, he's on the board, he can use his 9.2% to vote...and that is, as I said, a lot to swing around... but he's still ~42% shy of controlling interest.

[tehdang]

Trump's Press Secretaries earned whatever "antagonism" (if you want to call it that) the press treated them with.

I favor the treatment universally. Press should be antagonistic to government mouthpieces attitudinally. I’ll say also, because maybe people around these parts need to hear it, that I am content with people that envision a more chummy relationship, and make an exception “for cause,” as they believe it.

[unfilteredJW]

I favor the treatment universally. Press should be antagonistic to government mouthpieces attitudinally. I’ll say also, because maybe people around these parts need to hear it, that I am content with people that envision a more chummy relationship, and make an exception “for cause,” as they believe it.

More victim complex and both sides bullshit. No one’s buying.

[Elegiac]

Wild that someone would ask the Biden administration if its opposition is partially rooted in believing K-3 proscription.

Except that's not what Doocey asked:

DOOCEY: "What does Biden think about K-3 schoolchildren being taught sex ed?"

Why do you find it necessary to lie about basic shit?

[Endus]

The actual discussion on the merits of when (and if) it’s appropriate to introduce kids to something suggesting they might’ve been born into the wrong body (etc) is embargoed by forum rules regarding “Sexuality, Gender, Gender identity.”

Not particularly. In fact, that you seem to think so strongly indicates that your only arguments on the topic would quickly violate other elements of the rules here, particularly those on hate speech.

Denying information to children for false "moral" principles fundamentally predicated on the intentional harm you can inflict on a subset of those children, that's not an idea with any merit whatsoever, at any level. It's just child abuse and bigotry.

If they're old enough to understand that boys and girls exist, they're old enough to understand that not everyone fits into "boy" or "girl". It's the same discussion. You should, frankly, be having that kind of talk with your kids before schooling, it's so elementary, but in the case of abusive parents trying to indoctrinate harmful bigotries, well, that's part of what public education exists to combat. That some parents might get upset by that is irrelevant, and really, just identifies them as a problem target to be watched for further child abuse practices.

It'd be the same if we were trying to avoid talking about racial equality with students and telling teachers they can't mention race and have to have every child pretend they're just good white Christian children, regardless of the clearly observable truth. That's obviously insane and bigoted as fuck. So is this "Don't Say Gay" bill, for the same reasons. It's just targeting a different minority group for subjugation and genocide.

See? No discussion of gender identity or sexual orientation itself, because that's not what's even being discussed. No rules violated.

And yes, before anyone @s me, eliminating someone's identity is a form of genocide, even if no one is actually killed. Cultural genocide is a well-studied thing. Don't play dumb and think it's an argument.

[Edge-]

It’s better to show transparency on what is being taught when as it applies to sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

In which you make the bad faith pigeon argument clear: There has always been transparency, parents just need to ask. That they've been too lazy and never bothered to, and are suddenly outraged by "LIBERAL INDOCTRONATION" is just your mindless culture wars at play.

The less the Biden administration engages in the bad-faith premise of the Republican arguments, the better.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I favor the treatment universally. Press should be antagonistic to government mouthpieces attitudinally. I’ll say also, because maybe people around these parts need to hear it, that I am content with people that envision a more chummy relationship, and make an exception “for cause,” as they believe it.

An adversarial relationship between press and the Government is not beneficial to anyone. That doesn't mean they need to be "chummy" either. In a perfect world The Press would be critical of the government without being antagonistic to the government.

[Endus]

An adversarial relationship between press and the Government is not beneficial to anyone. That doesn't mean they need to be "chummy" either. In a perfect world The Press would be critical of the government without being antagonistic to the government.

Like, the entire point is that the Press Secretary exists to pass on information about the government's actions to journalists, so that journalists can pass that information on directly to their readers, to keep those readers informed. It allows question-and-answer approaches so that unclear elements can be clarified. That's not antagonistic.

It became antagonistic, under Trump, because his press secretaries tried to use it as a platform to push disinformation and lie about the facts. And the journalists were well-informed enough to see the dishonesty, and respond accordingly. That's an antagonism that was brought by the government, not by journalists.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Like, the entire point is that the Press Secretary exists to pass on information about the government's actions to journalists, so that journalists can pass that information on directly to their readers, to keep those readers informed. It allows question-and-answer approaches so that unclear elements can be clarified. That's not antagonistic.

It became antagonistic, under Trump, because his press secretaries tried to use it as a platform to push disinformation and lie about the facts. And the journalists were well-informed enough to see the dishonesty, and respond accordingly. That's an antagonism that was brought by the government, not by journalists.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at if you look at my earlier post on this matter:

Trump's Press Secretaries earned whatever "antagonism" (if you want to call it that) the press treated them with.

[unfilteredJW]

Like, the entire point is that the Press Secretary exists to pass on information about the government's actions to journalists, so that journalists can pass that information on directly to their readers, to keep those readers informed. It allows question-and-answer approaches so that unclear elements can be clarified. That's not antagonistic.

It became antagonistic, under Trump, because his press secretaries tried to use it as a platform to push disinformation and lie about the facts. And the journalists were well-informed enough to see the dishonesty, and respond accordingly. That's an antagonism that was brought by the government, not by journalists.

But both sides Endus. Both sides!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at if you look at my earlier post on this matter:

This would require even the smallest iota of self awareness from these folks. But this particular well is incredibly dry.

[postman1782]

Doocy highlights the problem with the rhetoric over calling it “Don’t Say Gay,” and their stance that it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. Florida voters and national polling are opposed to K-3 teachers instructing on topics of gender identity and sexual orientation. If it’s Don’t Say Gay as an attack, then it clearly hurts something that liberals say should be a part of early childhood education. If it’s correcting a problem that doesn’t exist, then why make the argument about homophobia? Dems are starting to lose the messaging battle around the parental rights in education bill, so they’re trying a more nuanced argument.

No, Doocy is a fucking moron, and so is anyone that fucking listens to him.

[downnola]

I favor the treatment universally. Press should be antagonistic to government mouthpieces attitudinally. I’ll say also, because maybe people around these parts need to hear it, that I am content with people that envision a more chummy relationship, and make an exception “for cause,” as they believe it.

There's a difference between "speaking truth to power" and asking loaded questions. You're conflating the two. One is healthy for democracy and good governance, the other only benefits dishonest swindlers.

[uuuhname]

Tough questions, even leading questions, should’ve died at Trump’s press secretaries, apparently.

the practice of lying, flat out, and lying not because it actually helped make a case for Trump's agenda, no that would require there being an agenda, but just lying through your teeth to not make the Cheeto angry at you, also died with them.

and once again we are treated like idiots for not falling for the feigned outrage. as if this isn't yet another boogieman issue for the bigots that make up the republican voter base to angrily grind their teeth right to the next election. like, its so obvious Chris Ruffo is the one giving the marching orders for what conservatives need to be outraged over.

I mean really, no matter how hard you think you're trying, you're never going to escape what a naturally grotesque mindset conservatism is.