Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

The results of the LEGO gender stereotyping study. Not exactly surprising results, but a good touch stone.

[Peter Brown]

The results of the LEGO gender stereotyping study. Not exactly surprising results, but a good touch stone.

What is the deal with the FLP/Democrats and gender? It’s such a bizarre obsession.

[NattyBohChamps04]

The results of the LEGO gender stereotyping study. Not exactly surprising results, but a good touch stone.

What is the deal with the FLP/Democrats and gender? It’s such a bizarre obsession.

Says the guy who has spent hundreds of posts worried what's in children's pants, if they talk about their two moms, who is allowed to look like a woman or man and more.

People just wanna live their lives without big Republican government living in the bedrooms of consenting adults, big Republican government at the courthouse telling them they can't marry another race or someone of the same gender, or big Republican government telling them they don't have a say in what their kids are taught in schools.

Instead we get you shoving your gender ideals down the rest of America's throats because of someone a little different from you is just trying to just live their life. All the while ignoring the decades to centuries of damages and death your kind of thinking has done to millions of Americans.

[cradleandshoot]

The results of the LEGO gender stereotyping study. Not exactly surprising results, but a good touch stone.

What is the deal with the FLP/Democrats and gender? It’s such a bizarre obsession.

Says the guy who has spent hundreds of posts worried what's in children's pants, if they talk about their two moms, who is allowed to look like a woman or man and more.

People just wanna live their lives without big Republican government living in the bedrooms of consenting adults, big Republican government at the courthouse telling them they can't marry another race or someone of the same gender, or big Republican government telling them they don't have a say in what their kids are taught in schools.

Instead we get you shoving your gender ideals down the rest of America's throats because of someone a little different from you is just trying to just live their life. All the while ignoring the decades to centuries of damages and death your kind of thinking has done to millions of Americans.

I don't know about PB or what he believes. I could care less in that regard. If some dude thinks he was suppose to be a woman and wants to butcher his/her body up, knock yourself out. If you have the financial resources to do it, even better. I don't know who you will become after spending a 100 grand large, you will NEVER be a woman. What you are dealing with is fantasy island, where all your wishes come true. As long as I don't have to pay for your surgery or your ongoing psych treatment.. knock yourself out. I bet none of you realize the intense therapy involved for an individual who wants to think they can change their gender via the surgeons knife.

[Peter Brown]

The results of the LEGO gender stereotyping study. Not exactly surprising results, but a good touch stone.

What is the deal with the FLP/Democrats and gender? It’s such a bizarre obsession.

Says the guy who has spent hundreds of posts worried what's in children's pants, if they talk about their two moms, who is allowed to look like a woman or man and more.

People just wanna live their lives without big Republican government living in the bedrooms of consenting adults, big Republican government at the courthouse telling them they can't marry another race or someone of the same gender, or big Republican government telling them they don't have a say in what their kids are taught in schools.

Instead we get you shoving your gender ideals down the rest of America's throats because of someone a little different from you is just trying to just live their life. All the while ignoring the decades to centuries of damages and death your kind of thinking has done to millions of Americans.

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

[tech37]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

[runrussellrun]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

boycott stupid.......

[seacoaster]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

[runrussellrun]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

boycott stupid

[tech37]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

[dislaxxic]

I feel like the STARTING PREMISE of this guy's article is misleading and i wonder why and where he came up with it...

Critical race theory, as it came to be called in the 1980s, began as a critique of neutral principles of justice. The argument went like this: Since the United States was systemically racist—since racism was baked into the country’s political, legal, economic and cultural institutions—neutrality, the conviction that the system should not seek to benefit any one group, camouflaged and even compounded that racism. The only way to undo it was to abandon all pretense of neutrality and to be unneutral. It was to tip the scales in favor of those who never had a fair shake to start with.

"a critique of neutral principles of justice"?? What? More accurately, it is a study of how racism and discrimination totally BLOWS UP neutrality...yeah?

So his starting point is wrong, in my opinion...the notion that CRT is THERE to kinda blindly correct the fact of racism and discrimination...to actively "tip the scales" in the practice of law. This leads the author off on a rant about "woke" activity and feeds him quite neatly into bashing progressive ideologies in general.

Personally, I don't agree with many of the notions of 'reparations" writ large and generally. Now, for more specific things, like what happened in Tulsa, i think we're talking more about restitution than we are reparations. I said before that the idea of CRT makes some people crazy and takes them off in directions that are not productive, but guys like this author what to lay a big chunk of societies ills at the feet of progressive ideology and i think that's just wrong. Awareness of the part racism and discrimination has AND CONTINUES to plague our world is absolutely needed...IMHO...

..

[Peter Brown]

I feel like the STARTING PREMISE of this guy's article is misleading and i wonder why and where he came up with it...

Critical race theory, as it came to be called in the 1980s, began as a critique of neutral principles of justice. The argument went like this: Since the United States was systemically racist—since racism was baked into the country’s political, legal, economic and cultural institutions—neutrality, the conviction that the system should not seek to benefit any one group, camouflaged and even compounded that racism. The only way to undo it was to abandon all pretense of neutrality and to be unneutral. It was to tip the scales in favor of those who never had a fair shake to start with.

"a critique of neutral principles of justice"?? What? More accurately, it is a study of how racism and discrimination totally BLOWS UP neutrality...yeah?

So his starting point is wrong, in my opinion...the notion that CRT is THERE to kinda blindly correct the fact of racism and discrimination...to actively "tip the scales" in the practice of law. This leads the author off on a rant about "woke" activity and feeds him quite neatly into bashing progressive ideologies in general.

Personally, I don't agree with many of the notions of 'reparations" writ large and generally. Now, for more specific things, like what happened in Tulsa, i think we're talking more about restitution than we are reparations. I said before that the idea of CRT makes some people crazy and takes them off in directions that are not productive, but guys like this author what to lay a big chunk of societies ills at the feet of progressive ideology and i think that's just wrong. Awareness of the part racism and discrimination has AND CONTINUES to plague our world is absolutely needed...IMHO...

..

It’s endlessly amusing to see progressives mindlessly wander into the thicket of racism. For instance, has this guy even heard of colorism?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

[JoeMauer89]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

Why does PB send you off the deep end so quickly? It's an observation I've made watching you go out of your way to respond to every post he makes. AGAIN, if it's a differing opinion than that of your own, it doesn't MEAN it's trolling, projecting, etc. Respect other's opinion's in life, that's how you become a stronger person. This is an online lacrosse forum, you have ZERO, I mean ZERO idea of the motivation behind PB's posts. I'm sure he wakes up every morning saying, "now just how am I going to troll NattyBohChamps04?" It's comical that you even think that, even if you don't, your responses say otherwise.

Joe

[NattyBohChamps04]

Why does PB send you off the deep end so quickly? It's an observation I've made watching you go out of your way to respond to every post he makes. AGAIN, if it's a differing opinion than that of your own, it doesn't MEAN it's trolling, projecting, etc. Respect other's opinion's in life, that's how you become a stronger person. This is an online lacrosse forum, you have ZERO, I mean ZERO idea of the motivation behind PB's posts. I'm sure he wakes up every morning saying, "now just how am I going to troll NattyBohChamps04?" It's comical that you even think that, even if you don't, your responses say otherwise.

Joe

I simply enjoy calling out BS when I see it. PB's posts don't usually target any one poster specifically. He just does a lot of deliberate and unintentional lying.

You have your own habit of questioning people's posts and motivations out of the blue and performing a lot of incorrect analyses about motivations, such as mine above. The interesting tidbit of course is that I have done extremely little speculation on people's posting motivations, yet you seem to think I do or think I care. Feel free to search how many times I've even used the word "troll." If you're gonna lecture people on here, then where is your own respect for other people's opinions in life? The sanctimoniousness is unbecoming.

It's an entertainment politics forum, not sure why you're getting worked up about the lively banter. I normally have a smile on my face when I'm responding, as it's kind of comical seeing people dig themselves into holes so deeply and it breaks up the monotony of the work day.

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive

[JoeMauer89]

Why does PB send you off the deep end so quickly? It's an observation I've made watching you go out of your way to respond to every post he makes. AGAIN, if it's a differing opinion than that of your own, it doesn't MEAN it's trolling, projecting, etc. Respect other's opinion's in life, that's how you become a stronger person. This is an online lacrosse forum, you have ZERO, I mean ZERO idea of the motivation behind PB's posts. I'm sure he wakes up every morning saying, "now just how am I going to troll NattyBohChamps04?" It's comical that you even think that, even if you don't, your responses say otherwise.

Joe

I simply enjoy calling out BS when I see it. PB's posts don't usually target any one poster specifically. He just does a lot of deliberate and unintentional lying.

You have your own habit of questioning people's posts and motivations out of the blue and performing a lot of incorrect analyses about motivations, such as mine above. The interesting tidbit of course is that I have done extremely little speculation on people's posting motivations, yet you seem to think I do or think I care. Feel free to search how many times I've even used the word "troll." If you're gonna lecture people on here, then where is your own respect for other people's opinions in life? The sanctimoniousness is unbecoming.

It's an entertainment politics forum, not sure why you're getting worked up about the lively banter. I normally have a smile on my face when I'm responding, as it's kind of comical seeing people dig themselves into holes so deeply and it breaks up the monotony of the work day.

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive

I don't like life too seriously, I just find it hard to understand why the lack of acceptance of certain opinions on this site is so pervasive. It's just further cemented my opinion, that sadly most people on this site are so set in their ways regarding their worldview that any attempt to encourage discussion about any alternative opinion is often met with extreme pushback. It's very insular and a dangerous way to see things. Nobody besides Essex is a true troll on this site. A troll is someone whose motivation is not to incur any discussion at all. That is not PB's motivation whatsoever. Essex went off the deep end a long time ago and simply is trying to piss others off in this forum. It's amazing to me that he is not banned or suspended for a long time for some of the things he posts. Its a serious flaw about this site.

Joe

[Peter Brown]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

[JoeMauer89]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

[jhu72]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

BECAUSE THE THING YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT ISN"T HAPPENING IN FLORIDA SCHOOLS!!!

[Peter Brown]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

BECAUSE THE THING YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT ISN"T HAPPENING IN FLORIDA SCHOOLS!!!

What, do you audit every Florida school every second of every day? How would you know if sex and gender theory are being taught or not?

This is Texas, but the point remains. Keep sex and gender theory away from classrooms or the DNC lunatics will take over.

FC9F7556-DC78-4EF5-98B1-937A4FDA29CF.jpeg (240.2 KiB) Viewed 661 times