FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

LGBTQ: Corps got it wrong?

Jump to newest
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

I know this is immediately going somewhat off topic (sorry) but a big issue for me right now is people born male but identifying as female competing in female category sports (at all levels not just elite).

People born male (even before puberty but especially after) have significant physiological advantages over people born female. No amount of hormone treatment can reduce bone density, limb length, skeletal structure (position and width of pelvis), lung capacity, heart capacity etc.

Sport governing bodies need to either create an additional category or make the male category open (alongside female only category).

Often when this is suggested the trans activists accuse people of trying to ban trans women from sport. Couldn’t be further from the truth. They want fairness in sport and that means trans women either compete against men or compete in their own category but never against women.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I will agree with this , l think it is great that trans women can participate in sport ,but cant see how it is fair to compete , to train hard all your life and commit to a sport and then get beaten unfairly doesn't seem fair.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public? "
I see the bud light controversy Everytime I go to get beer. I would say target wouldn't have the same issue. They not a iconic brand compared to bud light. Bud was viewed as the working man's beer. Majority of the people who drank it shopped at Walmart anyways.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 24/05/23 11:29:14]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it? "

Such as?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as? "

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values. "

Care to expand, it helps

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps"

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates."

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products."

I think it’s great to see organisations supporting Pride, is it not?

If someone is getting angry at a rainbow, I’d suggest the problem doesn’t like with the seller of said rainbow.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public? "

There are plenty who are changing the mood of the public. Being LGBTQ+ aware is quite obviously a good thing. Having it rammed down your throat for commercial opportunities is not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products.

I think it’s great to see organisations supporting Pride, is it not?

If someone is getting angry at a rainbow, I’d suggest the problem doesn’t like with the seller of said rainbow. "

I think in this instance it could be the sheer amount of product and the target audience that is creating an issue.

Books aimed at 2-8 year olds titled I'm not a girl and bye, bye, binary are sure to create divided thinking.

I would find it very strange for a parent or adult to be giving a book like this to 2-8 year olds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do like the social media people buying Bud Light so they can pour it down the sink or throw it in the trash for clicks.

I wonder if they realise where they’ve gone wrong…

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I do like the social media people buying Bud Light so they can pour it down the sink or throw it in the trash for clicks.

I wonder if they realise where they’ve gone wrong…"

I would imagine spending a few $ on the product to influence others not too, is what they are thinking? Oh and the clicks help

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products.

I think it’s great to see organisations supporting Pride, is it not?

If someone is getting angry at a rainbow, I’d suggest the problem doesn’t like with the seller of said rainbow.

I think in this instance it could be the sheer amount of product and the target audience that is creating an issue.

Books aimed at 2-8 year olds titled I'm not a girl and bye, bye, binary are sure to create divided thinking.

I would find it very strange for a parent or adult to be giving a book like this to 2-8 year olds. "

Now I’ve not read bye-bye binary, but from what I’ve just googled, it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek book about a child who refuses to simply accept that boys must like blue and girls must like pink, or boys are masculine warriors and girls are dainty princesses.

Hardly the stuff of nightmares

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products.

I think it’s great to see organisations supporting Pride, is it not?

If someone is getting angry at a rainbow, I’d suggest the problem doesn’t like with the seller of said rainbow.

I think in this instance it could be the sheer amount of product and the target audience that is creating an issue.

Books aimed at 2-8 year olds titled I'm not a girl and bye, bye, binary are sure to create divided thinking.

I would find it very strange for a parent or adult to be giving a book like this to 2-8 year olds.

Now I’ve not read bye-bye binary, but from what I’ve just googled, it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek book about a child who refuses to simply accept that boys must like blue and girls must like pink, or boys are masculine warriors and girls are dainty princesses.

Hardly the stuff of nightmares

"

You did also look at I'm not a girl.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Care to expand, it helps

What’s to explain?

Sometimes we need people to support a cause even if it impacts their bottom line.

Colin Kaepernick was widely lambasted and blackballed by the NFL for taking the knee. But it was absolutely the right thing to do, as history demonstrates.

Do you think Target are right to stock a Pride collection containing 2000 products? Their customer base doesn't seem to think it is a good move, hence the threats to staff and damage to products.

I think it’s great to see organisations supporting Pride, is it not?

If someone is getting angry at a rainbow, I’d suggest the problem doesn’t like with the seller of said rainbow.

I think in this instance it could be the sheer amount of product and the target audience that is creating an issue.

Books aimed at 2-8 year olds titled I'm not a girl and bye, bye, binary are sure to create divided thinking.

I would find it very strange for a parent or adult to be giving a book like this to 2-8 year olds.

Now I’ve not read bye-bye binary, but from what I’ve just googled, it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek book about a child who refuses to simply accept that boys must like blue and girls must like pink, or boys are masculine warriors and girls are dainty princesses.

Hardly the stuff of nightmares

You did also look at I'm not a girl.

"

I did. Apparently based upon a true story of a transgender child. Certainly not something that I’m in a position to refute with any qualification.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful."

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'? "

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not? "

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that."

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand."

I'm not exactly qualified to educated you. However, every single trans-person I know has adopted a new pronoun post transition.

I mean, not all trans-people change sex, but I'm pretty sure trans-gender = changing gender, and as gender is linked to pronoun. Not sure, I cant explain any better tbh.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?"


"Such as?"


"Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values."

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?"

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. "
It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?"


"Such as?"


"Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values."


"Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?"


"If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. "

So when you said "Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit", you were just being disingenuous. You don't actually believe that those companies are acting out of any motive other than profit.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful."

“Be excellent to each other” ah the very wise advice from Bill & Ted (even idiots can actually be very wise)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand.

I'm not exactly qualified to educated you. However, every single trans-person I know has adopted a new pronoun post transition.

I mean, not all trans-people change sex, but I'm pretty sure trans-gender = changing gender, and as gender is linked to pronoun. Not sure, I cant explain any better tbh."

Is it actually possible to change sex? Obviously you can change gender. I suppose it depends on the definition of “sex” as some would argue that human females have ovaries (in most cases) and can have babies (in most cases) so while someone born male and transitions to female can have their penis removed and a vagina created, they fo not have ovaries or a womb. That does not deny or take away anyone from identifying as female and living their life as female but that is gender not sex surely?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand.

I'm not exactly qualified to educated you. However, every single trans-person I know has adopted a new pronoun post transition.

I mean, not all trans-people change sex, but I'm pretty sure trans-gender = changing gender, and as gender is linked to pronoun. Not sure, I cant explain any better tbh.

Is it actually possible to change sex? Obviously you can change gender. I suppose it depends on the definition of “sex” as some would argue that human females have ovaries (in most cases) and can have babies (in most cases) so while someone born male and transitions to female can have their penis removed and a vagina created, they fo not have ovaries or a womb. That does not deny or take away anyone from identifying as female and living their life as female but that is gender not sex surely? "

I'm sure someone who knows more than I can clarify but as far as I'm aware, to change genitals, would be to change sex.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand.

I'm not exactly qualified to educated you. However, every single trans-person I know has adopted a new pronoun post transition.

I mean, not all trans-people change sex, but I'm pretty sure trans-gender = changing gender, and as gender is linked to pronoun. Not sure, I cant explain any better tbh.

Is it actually possible to change sex? Obviously you can change gender. I suppose it depends on the definition of “sex” as some would argue that human females have ovaries (in most cases) and can have babies (in most cases) so while someone born male and transitions to female can have their penis removed and a vagina created, they fo not have ovaries or a womb. That does not deny or take away anyone from identifying as female and living their life as female but that is gender not sex surely? "

So Del was right when he came out of the birthing room, and Rodney asked him "What is it?"; Del replied; "It's a BABY!". I guess the medical staff hadn't had the time to scan for possible ovaries and womb.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there.

So when you said "Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit", you were just being disingenuous. You don't actually believe that those companies are acting out of any motive other than profit."

No, I’m certain that companies do change their directions depending upon factors beyond profit - the company I work for has recently started a massive well-being and ‘bring your true self to work’ scheme. It’s not about maximising profit, but about self care and helping others.

Sometimes companies or indeed individuals do this stuff. I refer you again to the Colin Kaepernick example.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument."

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash."

The USA is hardly the best indicator of common sense, or indeed social decency, these days.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash.

The USA is hardly the best indicator of common sense, or indeed social decency, these days. "
Glad you figured that out. Here is a hint. We are not the UK

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful.

Did you just say 'lifestyle choice'?

Yes. Choosing pronouns is a lifestyle choice, is it not?

Hmmm, I'm not sure our trans brothers and sisters would agree with you on that.

And I’m open to education, since as far as I’m aware, not everyone changes pronouns, do they?

We learn and grow by discussing this stuff - not by having a hissy fit because our choice of beer supports a section of society that we don’t understand.

I'm not exactly qualified to educated you. However, every single trans-person I know has adopted a new pronoun post transition.

I mean, not all trans-people change sex, but I'm pretty sure trans-gender = changing gender, and as gender is linked to pronoun. Not sure, I cant explain any better tbh.

Is it actually possible to change sex? Obviously you can change gender. I suppose it depends on the definition of “sex” as some would argue that human females have ovaries (in most cases) and can have babies (in most cases) so while someone born male and transitions to female can have their penis removed and a vagina created, they fo not have ovaries or a womb. That does not deny or take away anyone from identifying as female and living their life as female but that is gender not sex surely?

So Del was right when he came out of the birthing room, and Rodney asked him "What is it?"; Del replied; "It's a BABY!". I guess the medical staff hadn't had the time to scan for possible ovaries and womb. "

As I said, it depends on the what defines sex as opposed to gender. There is a school of thought that sex is primarily linked to procreation and therefore it is ovaries that defines the female sex.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash.

The USA is hardly the best indicator of common sense, or indeed social decency, these days. Glad you figured that out. Here is a hint. We are not the UK "

I guess you mean about protecting children from books but not giving a shit about protecting them from guns. Don't get me wrong, I don't want gun bans, that ship has sailed. But when you see parent sending their kids off to school, the shops or cinema without full body armour, you have to ask yourself, "Do these people really love their kids".

.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms? "

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash.

The USA is hardly the best indicator of common sense, or indeed social decency, these days. Glad you figured that out. Here is a hint. We are not the UK

I guess you mean about protecting children from books but not giving a shit about protecting them from guns. Don't get me wrong, I don't want gun bans, that ship has sailed. But when you see parent sending their kids off to school, the shops or cinema without full body armour, you have to ask yourself, "Do these people really love their kids".

."
I drive by kids waiting for buses and a couple schools on the way to work. Every morning. Not 1 Child in body armor. I don't know where you are getting your information from.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lixerMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Loving your work, Funfella. Good points, well made.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds."

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

"

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion "

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"Maybe there’s more important factors at play than profit. Who’d have thunk it?

Such as?

Societal issues. Human rights. Progressive values.

Do you really think that Target are selling rainbow merchandise because they've suddenly developed a social conscience?

Or are they doing it to extract money from a certain group of people, and they think that they'll attract in more customers than they'll drive away?

If the end result is broader awareness, I’m not sure I care how we get there. It's not happening states are enacting laws against the awareness and rightfully so it's up to the people in those states to choose. So on a national level it's not a one size fits all on certain issues and when corporations try to send a message that those people disagree with. Well they deserve the backlash.

The USA is hardly the best indicator of common sense, or indeed social decency, these days. Glad you figured that out. Here is a hint. We are not the UK

I guess you mean about protecting children from books but not giving a shit about protecting them from guns. Don't get me wrong, I don't want gun bans, that ship has sailed. But when you see parent sending their kids off to school, the shops or cinema without full body armour, you have to ask yourself, "Do these people really love their kids".

. I drive by kids waiting for buses and a couple schools on the way to work. Every morning. Not 1 Child in body armor. I don't know where you are getting your information from. "

I get it now, Americans just like being shot.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion. "

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football."

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?"

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public? "

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe. "

In fairness to those that are offended, I think it is a very balanced position! People who are actively against and those who are actively for, are one of the same in their intolerance in my opinion, pretty awful people on both sides of the coin.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe.

In fairness to those that are offended, I think it is a very balanced position! People who are actively against and those who are actively for, are one of the same in their intolerance in my opinion, pretty awful people on both sides of the coin. "
I agree with the target decision in the southern states. The majority are deeply religious.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe.

In fairness to those that are offended, I think it is a very balanced position! People who are actively against and those who are actively for, are one of the same in their intolerance in my opinion, pretty awful people on both sides of the coin. "

Non-homophobes are as awful as homophobes?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe.

In fairness to those that are offended, I think it is a very balanced position! People who are actively against and those who are actively for, are one of the same in their intolerance in my opinion, pretty awful people on both sides of the coin.

Non-homophobes are as awful as homophobes?"

Those that hate, hate no matter their side. You might believe in something but it gives you no right to go out of your way to be offensive and aggressive to those that don’t think like you.

I’m using the royal “you” for context

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'."

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public?

Homophones and transphobes are extremely easily offended. I assume this shop knows what they're doing, knew they would lose some business, but gain more from normal people instead maybe.

In fairness to those that are offended, I think it is a very balanced position! People who are actively against and those who are actively for, are one of the same in their intolerance in my opinion, pretty awful people on both sides of the coin.

Non-homophobes are as awful as homophobes?

Those that hate, hate no matter their side. You might believe in something but it gives you no right to go out of your way to be offensive and aggressive to those that don’t think like you.

I’m using the royal “you” for context"

Interesting.

Fair play.

I'm definitely in the, homophobic people are worse than non-homophobic people, camp.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?"

No actually. Both my girls wore many more 'boy colours' than 'girl colours'.

I think you missed the part 'dismantling', that's the coercive part.

You said we had assumed, unless you want to argue that word then your argument is nonsense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

No actually. Both my girls wore many more 'boy colours' than 'girl colours'.

I think you missed the part 'dismantling', that's the coercive part.

You said we had assumed, unless you want to argue that word then your argument is nonsense."

My argument is that a book that tells kids ‘hey, it doesn’t matter what you like, you do you’ isn’t some horrendous matter to be terrified of, and the reaction is way OTT.

Hey, if you see things differently, that’s cool.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?"

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

"

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 24/05/23 20:56:28]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with "

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete "

That argument goes both ways, does it not?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with "

People seem to struggle with the word 'dismantling' too it would appear.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? "

Bingo

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? "
It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake."

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light. "

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

"
Exactly

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly "
He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news. "

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. "

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

"

I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer."

Maybe using the word 'most' should tell you that the algorithms are working. There probably are plenty of people laughing at Americans (rednecks is indeed offensive), there are also plenty who aren't.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer.

Maybe using the word 'most' should tell you that the algorithms are working. There probably are plenty of people laughing at Americans (rednecks is indeed offensive), there are also plenty who aren't."

Sorry if you’re offended by the term, I was listening to Gretchen Wilson this morning who seems quite proud of the term

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer."

In which case I would hope you are taking a more rounded view and not one that is force fed into you because that is just how those platforms know you think.

If you aren't I would highly recommend it, it might be uncomfortable to see other points of view to begin with, but after a while you will get used to it and maybe see it as a benefit.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer.

Maybe using the word 'most' should tell you that the algorithms are working. There probably are plenty of people laughing at Americans (rednecks is indeed offensive), there are also plenty who aren't.

Sorry if you’re offended by the term, I was listening to Gretchen Wilson this morning who seems quite proud of the term "

I'm not offended because it doesn't apply to me and I don't get offended on others behalf.

It is an offensive word though, there's no doubting that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me.

Why do you choose to constantly call people pet names? Sunshine, lad, hun, pal. Why the condescension?

Anyway, on the social media part, you are aware of social media algorithms and the ability they have to me the place an echo chamber?

I’m very aware of how social media algorithms work, thanks. Are you aware that just because social media has algorithms, those people out there on social media still actually exist? It’s not fake news to point out that plenty of people are laughing at the rednecks wetting themselves over beer.

Maybe using the word 'most' should tell you that the algorithms are working. There probably are plenty of people laughing at Americans (rednecks is indeed offensive), there are also plenty who aren't.

Sorry if you’re offended by the term, I was listening to Gretchen Wilson this morning who seems quite proud of the term "

Further on this point plenty of black men are proud to be 'N', does that make it ok for others who aren't of that demographic?

I think that's what you're trying to argue.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. "
I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you. "

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding "
Good

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding "

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously? "

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious. "

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor"

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice."

What you are doing here is simplifying the issue by projecting your feelings into this without really understanding the whole problem. As I said the unique circumstances that make the US the country it is, makes gun ownership one of the most complex problems around.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice."
I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ? "

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. "
Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours."

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/story?id=53360480

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours."

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. "
I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not "

It’s ok, you’re right. You don’t need to support your claim. There’s myriad pieces out there that prove it wrong without adding your bluster. We all have access to them.

Have a good day!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not

It’s ok, you’re right. You don’t need to support your claim. There’s myriad pieces out there that prove it wrong without adding your bluster. We all have access to them.

Have a good day! "
Enjoy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not

It’s ok, you’re right. You don’t need to support your claim. There’s myriad pieces out there that prove it wrong without adding your bluster. We all have access to them.

Have a good day! Enjoy "

Americans just love being shot if they didn't they would do sometime about it. But they just continue offering Thoughts and Prayers and I guess that's enough for them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not

It’s ok, you’re right. You don’t need to support your claim. There’s myriad pieces out there that prove it wrong without adding your bluster. We all have access to them.

Have a good day! Enjoy

Americans just love being shot if they didn't they would do sometime about it. But they just continue offering Thoughts and Prayers and I guess that's enough for them."
Yes everyday is a running street battle. We all have our coffee in the morning grab our guns and shoot at each other. It's a great cardio workout

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's insidious and it needs to be called out and stopped. This goes triple when it comes to media consumed by children. Frankly, character assassinating or calling folk biggotted is a pretty pathetic counter argument.

What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms?

Why should children be subjected to books on gender norms, or not being the sex you were born at the ages of 2-8 or even older?

Why can't they be allowed to grow up without being influenced by liberally progressive parents and teachers. It is those parents and people who insist it is wrong for pink and blue, dolls and footballs, so why is it okay to give them ideas of fantasy, because surely that is what a child's mind would create based on stimulus of persuasion.

Adult, do as you want, children allow them to grow, find their own minds.

You say children should grow and find their own minds, but also scorn a book which tells them that girls don’t *have* to enjoy pink stuff and boys don’t *have* to love blue.

Confused?

I mean do neither, let them be who they turn out to be without any coercion

I fail to see how a book that points out that traditional ‘football or dolls’ stuff is actually outdated, and kids should enjoy whatever they enjoy, is coercion.

Who decided football or dolls were outdated?

I'm pretty sure you are aware but what Notme is saying is, why do we need books to coerce at such a young age?

My daughter have never been coerced into playing with dolls and both enjoy football because they like football.

You’re both assuming that the book somehow coerces kids. What evidence is there of that?

A bright, fun board book that celebrates all expressions of gender while dismantling gender norms and critiquing the tradition of gender reveal parties.

'Dismantling gender norms' sounds like coercion to me. No child under 8 years old needs anything 'dismantling'.

And some would say that buying blue clothes for boys or pink ones for girls is also coercion into societal norms, no?

That is exactly the point being made, stop forcing agendas on children. It is that simple.

Let them develop their minds clearly without interference, and from what I’ve read that is exactly what _astandfeisty has said happened with his daughters.

The book in question is literally about saying “it’s ok to develop without interference”

That’s the part people seem to struggle with

Simply stop interfering and the book becomes obsolete

That argument goes both ways, does it not? It sure does bud light is learning their mistake. Target chose to be a little more pro active on not to make the same mistake.

Anheuser-Busch appear to be riding out any bud light sales losses nicely overall though.

And once again, ‘mistake’ is subjective. History often views things differently. Speaking from the U.K, most of my social media reaction to the bud light story appears to be mocking the boycotters rather than bud light.

Which may go some way in explaining why your views are tailored to you and not one that is more holistic.

Exactly He is in his own little sandbox being a keyboard warrior pretending he understands Americans from what he reads on the news.

Bless you, Blu. You can talk to my face, hon. Don’t be shy.

I don’t pretend to understand some Americans, for example those who see no problem with their present gun controls. How anyone could ever understand that backwards attitude is beyond me. I carry everyday you do not have to understand. It doesn't impede on your daily life. If I explain why. You will just keep asking why. So yes you are correct it's beyond you.

I’m frankly glad that a supposedly civilised nation that refuses to take mass shootings seriously is beyond my understanding

Why would you say the US refuses to take mass shootings seriously?

Bevaus their reaction to mass shootings is so massively inadequate - as demonstrated by the fact that they annually have more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

I’d have thought that was obvious.

I’m not seeing any reactions to mass shootings that are not serious, the US has unique set of circumstances that make resolving this issue a mountain to climb.

Saying they don’t take it seriously is poor

If they took it as seriously as they should, we’d see change. It’s pathetic to say ‘thoughts and prayers, but 2a, and unique issues, and the founding fathers, blah blah blah’

By hiding behind 2a, the USA is displaying abject cowardice. I do take it seriously that's why I carry in the first place. Blah blah blah. Now which do you prefer I carry today my G17 or my SW shield ?

Ah. A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Except generally speaking that is of course abject nonsense. Plenty of incidences where they do Just because you are ill informed is not my problem it's yours.

Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis. I did a thousand times already on here. You are just late to the party and honestly it's just daunting to me anymore and to others. No need to support my claim. I live here you do not

It’s ok, you’re right. You don’t need to support your claim. There’s myriad pieces out there that prove it wrong without adding your bluster. We all have access to them.

Have a good day! Enjoy

Americans just love being shot if they didn't they would do sometime about it. But they just continue offering Thoughts and Prayers and I guess that's enough for them."
My thoughts they are shooting at innocent people. My prayers are am I leading them enough and if enough rounds are on target.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis."

Will you be posting your analysis to show that good guys with guns don't have any effect on bad guys with guns?

Or will you just continue to assert that it's true without giving any source to back up your assumptions?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/05/23 18:11:18]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis.

Will you be posting your analysis to show that good guys with guns don't have any effect on bad guys with guns?

Or will you just continue to assert that it's true without giving any source to back up your assumptions?"

I'll field this one.

Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

Glad I could help.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Please feel free to support the claim that ‘a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun’ using analysis.

Will you be posting your analysis to show that good guys with guns don't have any effect on bad guys with guns?

Or will you just continue to assert that it's true without giving any source to back up your assumptions?

I'll field this one.

Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

Glad I could help. "
let me help some people do not carry them all the time because of laws in place. You are welcome. The good guys are following the law. So that leaves the bad guys having free reign. I don't know if you are aware but it's a felony if a good guy carries on school property. Too bad criminals don't follow the same laws.Glad that I can help.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236 shall I keep posting instances. We can go for days.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.uslawshield.com/school-zone-pennsylvania/

Now you know and knowing is half of the battle.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"https://www.uslawshield.com/school-zone-pennsylvania/

Now you know and knowing is half of the battle.

"

Are you saying schools being gun free zones are an easy target?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What’s insidious? Children reading books that point out that they don’t have to confirm to gender norms? "

Those books are on topics that are being introduced at far too early an age. Save it for the teen years if there is a genuine desire to educate. Kids under 8 should be reading Spot the Dog and watching Spider in the Bath.

Except it isn't a genuine intent to inform or educate is it? Sorry, but we won't pretend that this is anything other than attempts to indoctrinate a generation. Using the tactics that the Nazis used to in the 1930's and 40's really isn't a good look to be honest.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"https://www.uslawshield.com/school-zone-pennsylvania/

Now you know and knowing is half of the battle.

Are you saying schools being gun free zones are an easy target?"
Yes I am not going to carry mine on school grounds. No law abiding ones will either because it's a law. Hence making schools a easier target.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges."

I think some of the US states have some cracking ideas that we could incorporate.

I’ve seen very clear messages going out on what people can and can’t do to protect themselves or their property. We need that here, not the usual do not get defend yourself, call the police or it could be you in trouble. That is putting the power into the hands of criminals.

Our laws allow reasonable force to protect, we need to know what that is, no grey areas and level the playing field.

Successive governments have used this tactic to control ordinary people and let anti social behaviour become a pandemic

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges."

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system. "

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look."

Standard

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look."

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems "

It clearly said not guns

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns"

Then I misread. And apologise.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns"
If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?"

Just about fuck all apart from restrain them. Any further and you'll be in handcuffs.

I'll take my chances though, come in my house and I don't care about consequences, I will protect my family at all costs.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?"

Knock 7 colours out of them, they must survive though, no bugger wants to be digging up the yard at 3.30 in the morn.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otlovefun42Couple
over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...


"Target has reported that it is removing some of it Pride range after a backlash from customers, including threats to staff. The items in the range seem to be titled in a provocative manner, books aimed at 2- 8 year olds titled Pride 1, 2, 3, I'm Not A Girl and Bye Bye, Binary. A swim suit that is described as tuck friendly for males has seen a lot of the backlash.

There is also the backlash at Bud light for their advertising campaign with a trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Are these companies creating a huge problem as they chase the $, have they misread the mood of the public or have they changed the mood of the public? I see the bud light controversy Everytime I go to get beer. I would say target wouldn't have the same issue. They not a iconic brand compared to bud light. Bud was viewed as the working man's beer. Majority of the people who drank it shopped at Walmart anyways."

Working mans beer?

I always thought it was the beer for teetotalers.

I only used to drink it when I was going somewhere and didn't want to smell of beer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

Knock 7 colours out of them, they must survive though, no bugger wants to be digging up the yard at 3.30 in the morn."

That made Me laugh, a proper laugh too

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

Just about fuck all apart from restrain them. Any further and you'll be in handcuffs.

I'll take my chances though, come in my house and I don't care about consequences, I will protect my family at all costs."

What is reasonable force? Enter my home and I don’t know you or invited you in and everything is now reasonable and I will use force.

But I would like to know I have support for that from our authorities

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

Just about fuck all apart from restrain them. Any further and you'll be in handcuffs.

I'll take my chances though, come in my house and I don't care about consequences, I will protect my family at all costs.

What is reasonable force? Enter my home and I don’t know you or invited you in and everything is now reasonable and I will use force.

But I would like to know I have support for that from our authorities "

"Essentially, the legal term 'reasonable force' describes the amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property from being harmed or st*len by another. Unlawful aggression, of any kind, may be met with reasonable force, but said force must be proportional to the threat being faced by the person using it."

That tells me that you're more likely to be prosecuted than any trespasser.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

Just about fuck all apart from restrain them. Any further and you'll be in handcuffs.

I'll take my chances though, come in my house and I don't care about consequences, I will protect my family at all costs.

What is reasonable force? Enter my home and I don’t know you or invited you in and everything is now reasonable and I will use force.

But I would like to know I have support for that from our authorities

"Essentially, the legal term 'reasonable force' describes the amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property from being harmed or st*len by another. Unlawful aggression, of any kind, may be met with reasonable force, but said force must be proportional to the threat being faced by the person using it."

That tells me that you're more likely to be prosecuted than any trespasser."

If a person says they are going to k*ll you as they approach with a weapon, reasonable force would be to defend in kind?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll stick with my castle doctrine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I'll stick with my castle doctrine."

Which is a clear directive and that is what we need here in the UK, clear and supportive guidance to allow people and communities to defend themselves without fear of prosecution as long as they act within the law.

That is sadly missing here and gives power to the criminal and takes it away from the victim.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ammskiMan
over a year ago

lytham st.annes

Couldn’t have put it better myself,well said

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley


"The UK could learn a thing or two from the US. Lock up criminals for a sensible time, and allow people to defend themselves with more force (not necessarily needing a gun) without having to worry about criminal charges.

We could learn from the US so we get huge rise in gun crime and an epidemic of mass shootings, people going into schools and mass murdering kids?

I'll stick with the current system.

That was not the message, you have turned it around to hating on which is not a good look.

Why?

The US system of people having guns to protect themselves has led to Thier current problems

It clearly said not guns If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night what can you do lawfully?

Just about fuck all apart from restrain them. Any further and you'll be in handcuffs.

I'll take my chances though, come in my house and I don't care about consequences, I will protect my family at all costs.

What is reasonable force? Enter my home and I don’t know you or invited you in and everything is now reasonable and I will use force.

But I would like to know I have support for that from our authorities

"Essentially, the legal term 'reasonable force' describes the amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property from being harmed or st*len by another. Unlawful aggression, of any kind, may be met with reasonable force, but said force must be proportional to the threat being faced by the person using it."

That tells me that you're more likely to be prosecuted than any trespasser."

There has to be a report of a crime first, the perp is not going to press charges 6 months later when he is discharged from hospital.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll stick with my castle doctrine.

Which is a clear directive and that is what we need here in the UK, clear and supportive guidance to allow people and communities to defend themselves without fear of prosecution as long as they act within the law.

That is sadly missing here and gives power to the criminal and takes it away from the victim.

"
How do you know the intent of the break in and if lethal force is necessary?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I'll stick with my castle doctrine.

Which is a clear directive and that is what we need here in the UK, clear and supportive guidance to allow people and communities to defend themselves without fear of prosecution as long as they act within the law.

That is sadly missing here and gives power to the criminal and takes it away from the victim.

How do you know the intent of the break in and if lethal force is necessary?"

No idea, we need rights and support

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll stick with my castle doctrine.

Which is a clear directive and that is what we need here in the UK, clear and supportive guidance to allow people and communities to defend themselves without fear of prosecution as long as they act within the law.

That is sadly missing here and gives power to the criminal and takes it away from the victim.

How do you know the intent of the break in and if lethal force is necessary?

No idea, we need rights and support"
No offense that is messed up. No one knows the intent of the person breaking in. Yet you are supposed to have empathy twords them. Yes to some on here I look insane. That's even more insane.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Back to the topic of the post since it got hijacked about guns as usual. Think of each individual states as a separate country. What is considered ok in one state is frowned upon in another. Each of our states has their own constitutions according to what the people want in those states. I am not going to tell someone from Mississippi they are wrong and force them to adhere to my views. I do not live there. Wrong or right that is thier choice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rambling. I do not understand how everyone else has to be responsible for everyone else's actions. I just do me . You don't like it no skin off my back. You are not worthy of my respect and that covers everything race religion politics sexual preferences and so forth. We all need to just listen and respect and just agree to disagree. Everyone is unique.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham


"The trans debate (for that’s what this really is about, not LGB) is as polarising today as straight/gay was in the past. It’s unsettling for some because it breaks down what they view as ‘normal’. I’m the first to admit that pronouns and gender affirmation is something that I find difficult to comprehend as a guy in my 40’s.

But I live my life by the mantra of ‘be excellent to each other’ - and for me, the idea of getting upset over someone’l else’s lifestyle choice is a bit…..wasteful."

Wait till you are in your fifties then lol.

On the pronoun thing, I come from Merseyside and have always called people mate or luv, regardless of their sex. Not had many complaints yet.....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet."

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 26/05/23 11:37:43]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I know this is immediately going somewhat off topic (sorry) but a big issue for me right now is people born male but identifying as female competing in female category sports (at all levels not just elite).

People born male (even before puberty but especially after) have significant physiological advantages over people born female. No amount of hormone treatment can reduce bone density, limb length, skeletal structure (position and width of pelvis), lung capacity, heart capacity etc.

Sport governing bodies need to either create an additional category or make the male category open (alongside female only category).

Often when this is suggested the trans activists accuse people of trying to ban trans women from sport. Couldn’t be further from the truth. They want fairness in sport and that means trans women either compete against men or compete in their own category but never against women."

Well then! It looks like British cycling has listened to you. They have banned trans females competing in female competitions, the female category will be for those whose sex was assigned female at birth.

They will now be able to compete in an open category with men.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I know this is immediately going somewhat off topic (sorry) but a big issue for me right now is people born male but identifying as female competing in female category sports (at all levels not just elite).

People born male (even before puberty but especially after) have significant physiological advantages over people born female. No amount of hormone treatment can reduce bone density, limb length, skeletal structure (position and width of pelvis), lung capacity, heart capacity etc.

Sport governing bodies need to either create an additional category or make the male category open (alongside female only category).

Often when this is suggested the trans activists accuse people of trying to ban trans women from sport. Couldn’t be further from the truth. They want fairness in sport and that means trans women either compete against men or compete in their own category but never against women.

Well then! It looks like British cycling has listened to you. They have banned trans females competing in female competitions, the female category will be for those whose sex was assigned female at birth.

They will now be able to compete in an open category with men.

"

Fantastic news.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?"

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

"
So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet."


"If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?"


"How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'."

Well, your evidence earlier on was "America: The number of 'good guys' with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet". I'm sure you know what your definition of 'good guys' was.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

Haven't we come a long way from the original topic.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Haven't we come a long way from the original topic."
it always ends up that way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

[Removed by poster at 26/05/23 14:04:40]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

Well, your evidence earlier on was "America: The number of 'good guys' with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet". I'm sure you know what your definition of 'good guys' was."

I was replying to someone else who used "good guys".

Then you specifically asked me a question about "good guys".

Then you didn't answer the question to clarify what you meant by "good guys".

And now it's now.

Excellent work all round.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes? "

Quite the opposite actually.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

Quite the opposite actually. "
So I guess if someone that can save lives by having their lawful firearm on them.You prefer they ignore the situation and wait for the police.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

Quite the opposite actually. So I guess if someone that can save lives by having their lawful firearm on them.You prefer they ignore the situation and wait for the police. "

You want me to answer a question about a hypothetical scenario?

I'll give it a go, what are the details.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

Anyone remember what this thread was about, I started it and I haven't got a clue.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Anyone remember what this thread was about, I started it and I haven't got a clue. "

I remember. Only because I just pressed 'scroll to top'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

Quite the opposite actually. So I guess if someone that can save lives by having their lawful firearm on them.You prefer they ignore the situation and wait for the police.

You want me to answer a question about a hypothetical scenario?

I'll give it a go, what are the details."

Where firearms are involved phoning the police in America rarely De-escalates the situation. Only yesterday police shoot an 11 year old boy who called them for help.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/mississippi-police-shooting-11-year-old-boy/index.html

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

Quite the opposite actually. So I guess if someone that can save lives by having their lawful firearm on them.You prefer they ignore the situation and wait for the police.

You want me to answer a question about a hypothetical scenario?

I'll give it a go, what are the details.

Where firearms are involved phoning the police in America rarely De-escalates the situation. Only yesterday police shoot an 11 year old boy who called them for help.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/mississippi-police-shooting-11-year-old-boy/index.html"

I'm not saying that story is bullshit but it also doesn't add up.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Evidence: America. The number of "good guys" with guns is higher than anywhere else on the planet. Also the place with the most gun violence and mass shootings on the planet.

If you took all the guns away from the good guys, do you think that there would be more, or less, gun violence and mass shootings?

How do you define "good guys"?

Is it 'someone with a gun prepared to shoot to death someone whom they perceive to be a "bad guy"'.

So shooting at people is not perceived to be bad in your eyes?

Quite the opposite actually. So I guess if someone that can save lives by having their lawful firearm on them.You prefer they ignore the situation and wait for the police.

You want me to answer a question about a hypothetical scenario?

I'll give it a go, what are the details.

Where firearms are involved phoning the police in America rarely De-escalates the situation. Only yesterday police shoot an 11 year old boy who called them for help.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/mississippi-police-shooting-11-year-old-boy/index.html"

Firstly the boy who was shot, god bless he is alive, and I hope that he will grow up to face no further episodes as has faced already at the age of 11.

Back to the story...It wasn't yesterday he was shot it was last Saturday, he was released from hospital today.

The story gives a one sided view, from the mother of the child. She had asked the child to call police because a father of one her other children had turned up worried about her safety at 4am in the morning.

there is a lot to unpack in those few words, but hopefully enough to paint a picture of the possible chaos that was unfolding at that time of the morning, with several people involved in a small space.

The mother is furious that the officer has not been sacked.

Like I said so much to unpack, and until the police bodycam is released we are getting a very weighted view in favour of the mothers side of events.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next. "

What has North Face done? Don’t tell me, sponsored British trans women cyclists

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next.

What has North Face done? Don’t tell me, sponsored British trans women cyclists "
It will be interesting to see how Target and Bud does this holiday weekend. People usually shop for summer items and there alot of cookouts.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next.

What has North Face done? Don’t tell me, sponsored British trans women cyclists It will be interesting to see how Target and Bud does this holiday weekend. People usually shop for summer items and there alot of cookouts. "

The reaction should be a wake up call on how to understand a customer base.

Have a great weekend, cook up some craws, I remember but don’t forget the smash burgers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next.

What has North Face done? Don’t tell me, sponsored British trans women cyclists It will be interesting to see how Target and Bud does this holiday weekend. People usually shop for summer items and there alot of cookouts.

The reaction should be a wake up call on how to understand a customer base.

Have a great weekend, cook up some craws, I remember but don’t forget the smash burgers "
We go to the local VFW remeberence ceremony. They put up a BBQ and I get to hang around with vets from WW2 on up. The are my family. It's interesting to see so many generations together with no animosity twords one another. We all are sisters and brothers. I love it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Targets share price has taken a battering

North Face next.

What has North Face done? Don’t tell me, sponsored British trans women cyclists It will be interesting to see how Target and Bud does this holiday weekend. People usually shop for summer items and there alot of cookouts.

The reaction should be a wake up call on how to understand a customer base.

Have a great weekend, cook up some craws, I remember but don’t forget the smash burgers We go to the local VFW remeberence ceremony. They put up a BBQ and I get to hang around with vets from WW2 on up. The are my family. It's interesting to see so many generations together with no animosity twords one another. We all are sisters and brothers. I love it."
There is a unbreakable bond throughout generations.In today's society I cherish that. It is weird for others to understand. Because they never experience it. I'll be crying guaranteed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards."
It's mostly in Southern states here that have the issue I do not expect them to conform and I live here. Do I need to make someone conform 1500 miles away? Nope that is there decision. Quit trying to force things on people who do not want it. They don't call it the bible belt for nothing. They have a right to their beliefs do they not ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards. It's mostly in Southern states here that have the issue I do not expect them to conform and I live here. Do I need to make someone conform 1500 miles away? Nope that is there decision. Quit trying to force things on people who do not want it. They don't call it the bible belt for nothing. They have a right to their beliefs do they not ? "
I can't force someone to buy a specific product or shop at a specific store. It's ridiculously ignorant if you think you can. That applies to everyone.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards."

I understand your sentiment of someone somewhere will be served by these Pride items but it looks as though Target got it wrong, there customer base don't want them to the point of becoming hostile towards staff.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards.

I understand your sentiment of someone somewhere will be served by these Pride items but it looks as though Target got it wrong, there customer base don't want them to the point of becoming hostile towards staff."

Doesn't that show that Target have morals? They're prepared to stand up against bigotry even if they lose some profits.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards.

I understand your sentiment of someone somewhere will be served by these Pride items but it looks as though Target got it wrong, there customer base don't want them to the point of becoming hostile towards staff.

Doesn't that show that Target have morals? They're prepared to stand up against bigotry even if they lose some profits."

Target are removing products. I'm notbsure how that equates to 'standing up to bigotry'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Target carries thousands of products, with a really diverse range, so these going to be like the extreme tip of an iceberg.

As it's Pride season, they've probably had more prominence, hence visibility. But there's also an active group of insufferably chronically offended out there. They provoke hostility etc.

It's great that businesses are supportive of the diversity amongst its customers and staff. And refreshing that needs of children and parents are included. For young and many families, they may be encountering issues that are little supported, including by education boards.

I understand your sentiment of someone somewhere will be served by these Pride items but it looks as though Target got it wrong, there customer base don't want them to the point of becoming hostile towards staff.

Doesn't that show that Target have morals? They're prepared to stand up against bigotry even if they lose some profits.

Target are removing products. I'm notbsure how that equates to 'standing up to bigotry' "

Oh then they're caving into to bigotry and losing profits. Worst of both worlds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

Items of clothing for trans girls to hide their twinkle.

10 inch thick attachments for trans boys so they can have a winkle.

It is sexualising children.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Twitter is having a field day today with the faux outrage. People keep putting up clips of Target getting looted and destroyed and blaming it on the Right wing when it’s actually clips of BLM type riots (according to the community notes)

One minute condemning the next defending them people being pulled in all directions in the comments.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

I watched a video of a woman complaining about the Pride collection being put to the back of her local Target store, saying her 7 year old non binary can't go in there now because the 7 year old will realise that it has been moved and those that are complaining have been successful in erasing them. She finishes with we can do so much better than this, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

A lot to unpack in the above.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I watched a video of a woman complaining about the Pride collection being put to the back of her local Target store, saying her 7 year old non binary can't go in there now because the 7 year old will realise that it has been moved and those that are complaining have been successful in erasing them. She finishes with we can do so much better than this, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

A lot to unpack in the above."
The majority of people found it offensive.I see nothing wrong with it. People vote and lose their minds if the other side they don't like wins. No different.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 27/05/23 17:13:13]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I watched a video of a woman complaining about the Pride collection being put to the back of her local Target store, saying her 7 year old non binary can't go in there now because the 7 year old will realise that it has been moved and those that are complaining have been successful in erasing them. She finishes with we can do so much better than this, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

A lot to unpack in the above. The majority of people found it offensive.I see nothing wrong with it. People vote and lose their minds if the other side they don't like wins. No different. "

From what I have read it has been a number of items not the whole of the Pride collection that has caused this backlash.

I have also seen a post by Elon Musk asking Target directly if they have been giving money to an education group which focuses on getting districts to adopt policies that will keep parents in the dark on their child's in-school gender transition.

I'm only reading what I see and have no idea if it is a reality or not, but if it is, I think that is so wrong.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I watched a video of a woman complaining about the Pride collection being put to the back of her local Target store, saying her 7 year old non binary can't go in there now because the 7 year old will realise that it has been moved and those that are complaining have been successful in erasing them. She finishes with we can do so much better than this, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

A lot to unpack in the above. The majority of people found it offensive.I see nothing wrong with it. People vote and lose their minds if the other side they don't like wins. No different.

From what I have read it has been a number of items not the whole of the Pride collection that has caused this backlash.

I have also seen a post by Elon Musk asking Target directly if they have been giving money to an education group which focuses on getting districts to adopt policies that will keep parents in the dark on their child's in-school gender transition.

I'm only reading what I see and have no idea if it is a reality or not, but if it is, I think that is so wrong."

If you're talking about GLSEN, Target have confirmed that they have supported them for more than a decade.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's crazy here. The division is so deep I don't think it will ever improve. The only way we unite is if our country is attacked.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If target or bud had a campaign of straight pride. The other side would be just as divisive. So put both campaigns up at the same time. It states its ok to be one or the other. Is that wrong ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sad to say but Sept 11th was a united experience. I couldn't wait to graduate and do my part. I don't regret anything. Now being I am a patriot because of that I am painted as a fascist Nazi. It's frustrating.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Sad to say but Sept 11th was a united experience. I couldn't wait to graduate and do my part. I don't regret anything. Now being I am a patriot because of that I am painted as a fascist Nazi. It's frustrating."

The view that if you are proud of your country you must be a fascist is, bollocks. Antifa dress in black and terrorise anything they don't like the look of with physical violence, need to look very hard in the mirror, they have become the thing they claim to be against.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top