movielover said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

movielover said:

---

Why do you want old Drag Queens pimping in front of CHILDREN???!!! Grooming?

---

But that isn't what they are doing. Essentially you are equating being gay with being a pedophile. Not true and long a slur/stereotype. It is, at its most basic, a XX chromosome person wearing a damm well put together ensemble. If you want to get cultural - it is a proud and defiant statement that they are queer and proud and won't be ashamed of it.. If you want to get political - it is ironically questioning gender norms and constraints.

Look, if you told me or showed me videos of someone reading stories to children and lewdly talking in a less than rated G way I would be there with you. Not appropriate. But I am sure I could find you the divorcee who is wearing a too low cut top in yoga pants. Why is that "OK" and the other subject to a fox news story?

And again - you essentially are arguing that Klinger was grooming - that a whole punch of kids "went gay" because the office clerk on the most popular show in america tried to find matching pumps.

---

It's age inappropriate, same as bouncer, lingerie model, bartender, or Hells Angel hour. And many times, they hide it from parents, like CA teachers hiding children who are 'transitioning' or questioning their sexuality. Why are CA schools delving into children's private matters? This is another reason why families flee the big cities, and / or home school or put their children in private schools.

Why don't drag Queens perform at biker bars, senior centers, the Chamber of Commerce, 100 Black Men or at the Rotary Mixer?

Yes, political! So go march at the Pride parade (please grow up and cut tye nudity) or DNC convention. "Ashamed of it" = why are they seeking validation from children or strangers?

P.S. I don't know one Latino who uses LatinX. Just sayin.

---

lot of sex fear here…..but at least you found your safe spaces….biker bars, senior centers…the 100 Black Men parties, and rotary mixers. No nasty drag queens there. Latinx really is bothersome for you as well. Can't help you.
there.

movielover said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Why do you want old Drag Queens pimping in front of CHILDREN???!!! Grooming?

In college a friend loved to go to Finnochio's in North Beach... I never went, but he enjoyed it.

---

I'm far more offended by Charlie Kirk grooming underage girls than I am by parents bringing children to events where there are cross dressers and transgender people.

The latter is none of the governments business while the former is none of Charlie Kirk's business.

---

Except many of these look-at-me events are at schools and libraries, and parents aren't present.

---

Proof? Very very few elementary school events at libraries are "drop your kid off and forget it" affairs these days. And I would be stunned outside of a few liberal blue cities that drag read along school events are taking place without notification and opt out. I am sure there are isolated incidents that can be counted on 2 hands but I would be STUNNED to learn differently. However, being a data guy I welcome the tally.

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

HOW COME KIRK'S SECURITY TEAM HAD NO ONE UP ON THE ROOF?

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

---

We do you insist on fixating on this point? No public speakers have snipers on the roof protecting them. You make no sense and yet you try to say so much

---

Charlie Kirk might as well have been part of the Trump Administration.
He clearly helped Trump get elected given his appeal to young, white, male, bigots.

And yet he had a security detail of morons.

You continue to stick your "head in the sand" like the good little Trumpanzee that you are.
I've found you to be terribly predictable in your posts and "triggered" by a total stranger that you've never met.

A member of BI since 2020 and doesn't step foot into OT once . . . until Charlie Kirk dies.
lol

Your screen-name fits you well.
Have a nice day!

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

sycasey said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3

— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025

---

This is just so 100% incorrect I'm kind of in disbelief she said it, but Batya is an idiot so I shouldn't be surprised.

We have already discussed many times the killing of Democrat Melissa Hartman by conservative reigious activist and one-time registered Republican Vance Boelter. Republicans and conservatives on this very forum have tried to argue that Boelter was actually a leftist, which the bulk of available evidence says he was not. Both sides absolutely do this.

---

Vance Boelter was a Tim Walz appointee who murdered Melissa Hartman and her husband after she stepped out of line and voted with Republicans. His wife also interned for Tim Walz back in 2010.

Boelter wrote in a confession letter that Tim Walz wanted him to assassinate Amy Klobuchar so he could take her Senate seat and was found to have "No Kings' flyers in his vehicle.

This story was so weird that the mainstream media didn't want to dwell on it for potential narratives. That's what I remember.

---

Did anyone on the right claim that Hartman and her husband (or the other victims) where bad people or that they deserved to die? To my knowledge, the right were nearly universal in decrying the killings.

---

High profile people on the right pretty universally lied about the shooter being a leftist or ignored the shooting, expressing zero sympathy or concern in the process.

---

Glad we agree this is bad. No apply the same standard and condemnation to the much greater number of people on the left who have done the exact same thing.

BearGoggles said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Did anyone on the right claim that Hartman and her husband (or the other victims) where bad people or that they deserved to die? To my knowledge, the right were nearly universal in decrying the killings.

---

Only the ****ING SENIOR SENATOR FROM UTAH!!!!

" "This is what happens," Lee wrote in an X post, "when Marxists don't get their way." Attached to the post was a picture of the suspect charged in the shooting, Vance Boelter, evidently wearing a latex face mask."

" Separately, under another picture of Boelter, Lee wrote, "Nightmare on Waltz Street", which appeared to be a reference to Tim Walz,

Seriously - there is not a single Democratic elected official of similar stature that did the things that Mike Lee did......and I actually LIKE Lee when he used to be a sagebrush libertarian before going all MAGA after watching what the cult did to Mitt.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-senator-mike-lee-kirk-shooting-melissa-hortman

---

Lee's posts were bad - he advanced unfounded and incorrect theories as to the motivations of the shooter (i.e., that the shooter was a marxist). Sound familiar? I'm glad we agree this is bad, so hopefully you are equally critical of those advancing the equally stupid and unsupported claims that the Kirk shooter was a far right conservative and/or groyper.

However, Lee in no way suggested that Hartman and her husband (or other victims) were bad people or deserved to die - which was the original question. He did no such thing. And I'm not aware of any prominent person on the right who did and would criticize them if the did.

---

I also don't think there is any prominent person on the left who celebrated Kirk's death . . . unless you really stretch the definition of "prominent."

(NOTE: I don't think being critical of his views is the same thing.)

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

A cross-dresser reading a children's book to kids is not "grooming" in any sense of the word. This is moral panic bull***t.

---

Agree that it's not "grooming", but I still wouldn't take my kids to it. Kids need things simple. As they get older, they can learn about and navigate through the "gray areas".

I don't totally disagree with what socaltownie wrote above, replying to my post: maybe not so bad if kids learn about some gender-bending stuff (paraphrase). Yeah, true maybe, but I'm still not bringing my kids to it. I'm just not.

---

Don't have a problem with that either. It's just that words mean things and calling this "grooming" kind of downgrades actual grooming. Just say you think it's weird or something.

EDIT: The same goes for dajo's claims about Charlie Kirk's "grooming." Though I suspect he might be trolling with that.

---

I agree with you that words have meanings and we need to be particularly careful when using loaded terms like grooming. Just wish you'd apply the same standard and attention to detail when throwing around words like "transphobic," "fascist," "genocide" and "racist."

---

I try to.

EVIL: Bomb squad has given the all clear after a possible explosive device was found outside Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix. The left’s effort to terrorize TPUSA employees is both sick and illegal. pic.twitter.com/4L3oDZ3buA

— @amuse (@amuse) September 17, 2025

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

Editing

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Yes, but it's deeper than the big companies - private companies like Discord or whatever 4chan and 8chan are also. It's a massive public health issue. Professor Galloway said he doesn't think his kids can sit through a 2 hour movie - I see that at home as well. Hell, my ability to stay focused is not what it used to be.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO HIS REACTION AS HE LEARNS HE IS FACING THE DEATH PENALTY ⚠️ pic.twitter.com/mBaJ32p1MP

— Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) September 17, 2025

Demon.

I have a conversation w a friend I haven't seen for weeks, at Starbucks. He immediately opens his laptop and cell phone.

An acquaintance had a rule when she took her adult children out for a meal. Cell phones in the middle of The table. You grab your phone, you pay for the meal.

Released text messages between Robinson and his roomate.

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?" he says: the roomate knew. pic.twitter.com/jczEsCaX1r

— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) September 16, 2025

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?"

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Released text messages between Robinson and his roomate.

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?" he says: the roomate knew. pic.twitter.com/jczEsCaX1r

— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) September 16, 2025

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?"

---

Violence entreprenuer

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

movielover said:

---

Why do you want old Drag Queens pimping in front of CHILDREN???!!! Grooming?

---

But that isn't what they are doing. Essentially you are equating being gay with being a pedophile. Not true and long a slur/stereotype. It is, at its most basic, a XX chromosome person wearing a damm well put together ensemble. If you want to get cultural - it is a proud and defiant statement that they are queer and proud and won't be ashamed of it.. If you want to get political - it is ironically questioning gender norms and constraints.

Look, if you told me or showed me videos of someone reading stories to children and lewdly talking in a less than rated G way I would be there with you. Not appropriate. But I am sure I could find you the divorcee who is wearing a too low cut top in yoga pants. Why is that "OK" and the other subject to a fox news story?

And again - you essentially are arguing that Klinger was grooming - that a whole punch of kids "went gay" because the office clerk on the most popular show in america tried to find matching pumps.

---

It's age inappropriate, same as bouncer, lingerie model, bartender, or Hells Angel hour. And many times, they hide it from parents, like CA teachers hiding children who are 'transitioning' or questioning their sexuality. Why are CA schools delving into children's private matters? This is another reason why families flee the big cities, and / or home school or put their children in private schools.

Why don't drag Queens perform at biker bars, senior centers, the Chamber of Commerce, 100 Black Men or at the Rotary Mixer?

Yes, political! So go march at the Pride parade (please grow up and cut tye nudity) or DNC convention. "Ashamed of it" = why are they seeking validation from children or strangers?

P.S. I don't know one Latino who uses LatinX. Just sayin.

---

lot of sex fear here…..but at least you found your safe spaces….biker bars, senior centers…the 100 Black Men parties, and rotary mixers. No nasty drag queens there. Latinx really is bothersome for you as well. Can't help you.
there.

---

He just needs to stay away from schools and libraries, where he is more likely to find crossdressers and transgender folks showing kids that their gender is whatever they want it to be.

---

seems like an easy get