(05-23-2023, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 10:47 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: Should have just led with the last sentence. Clearly, there are some really stupid parents out there or this conversation would not be happening. I don't sympathize with folks taking kids to drag shows. It's inane. 

I didn't tiptoe around anything.  

Yes, I am sure there are some innocuous versions of this stuff out there, but I still think it's ill-advised to involve children. 

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm on the side of parents making these common sense decisions about their children's welfare. There isn't some sudden and urgent need to try and legislate every little tributary of the vast river of child welfare.  
The law is nothing more than political posturing anyway.
 Do you actually believe it is going to positively alter the course of some kid who may have otherwise seen a chubby dude prance around in a bathing suit a few years before they could get their head around that? I don't. 

Young children these days are internet savvy at a very early age and will be exposed to all brands of hideousness. That's real life. 
It's up to parents to parent them. Not the governor or state legislature. 
We could spend the entire calendar of legislative sessions passing laws to "protect children" if we made a new law for every little common sense decision parents in our state crap the bed on. 

I only entered the convo to point out that this local venue's lawsuit was likely more symbolic than monetarily driven, but there's my ten cents since we're here.

So if that's the case why have age limits on other vices or rights? Kids get denied the right to drive, to purchase guns, cigarettes, beer, porn, entrance to bars and clubs, the right to vote...we've got a society full of prohibitions based on age. Why is this thing different when the dangers associated with it for children are so very clear? And why are these gigantic corporations so vested in the acceptance of this particular vice? I don't agree with the explanation above that it's about control...no CEO is sitting in his office thinking, "I can wait to make Main Street accept drag queens so I'm going to have Target advertise 'tuckable swimwear' to really stick it to them" (except maybe the media guys who get tv ratings from it). So why is drag suddenly this huge issue in our society when it's a rather insignificant minority and why have MCWW's taken up this mantle of obsession?

It's an interesting thought experiment, and I believe that the answer is both organic and planned.

The US has a long history of using propaganda against foreign and domestic threats to secure its global dominance. Our defense agencies have studied human behavior and explored countless ways to manipulate the masses. Likewise, corporations have devoted millions of dollars to exploit the natural desires of human beings in the form of marketing, and, over time, have been slowly turned into a few giant conglomerates. They have been levying their financial power to buy politicians to create policy that stifles competition and frees them to synergize better within their individual companies. This merger of DC and Wall Street has an incredible ability to influence the masses, especially since their interests have become entwined, and we are fools to think we are beyond their reach. We are all being manipulated every day.

Meanwhile, progressives of the 20th century were busy creating entire philosophical trees that use language manipulation, ideological subversion, and moral relativism to break down the pillars of a society. If you think that last statement is a conspiracy, you need to read more. It used to be widely considered hogwash in academic institutions in the US, but it has risen to the dominant belief system in various institutions by emulating religion and creating converts. These new proselytes have been taking their beliefs to the top of various institutions and allowing their rabid beliefs to inform their hiring practices (which studies support). The goal of this movement, of course, was to usher in a new, better world. However, they did not succeed in this mission.

Instead, the government/corporate power became fully realized under the Obama administration, which also happened to come equipped with progressive ideology. This is not an attack on democrats. In fact, I think both parties are exploited by Wall Street. That said, I think Obama created a unity in the country that hadn't been there before, and the conditions were perfect for an unofficial partnership between the state and the private sector. I think the progressives in that administration saw the opportunity to circumvent their obstacles in the form of bureaucracy, and the capitalists saw an opportunity to expand their power. What manifested is a global-corporate government that will control the means of production, by exercising government control via the power of the corporate dollar. 

Don't want a pundit who says the wrong thing? We won't pay for your advertising until he's removed. No government violation of free speech needed. Don't want to wait for a law to be passed by a toothless congress? Enforce it via corporate freedom to associate. Let them "decide" who they want as customers. No red tape needed. Almost any need that can't be legislated can be enforced by corporations. All the laws that favor corporate rule can easily be passed as long as the public is focused on something else. 

I lay all of that out to suggest that these powers don't care about any one cause. While we fight amongst ourselves, they are giving more power and money to the elite and shrinking the middle class. They are distributing American money around the world to increase their labor pool and consumer base. They use the manipulation of language to create divisive issues that fracture society. They create the problem via culture wars, then have the government "solve" the problem. They are breaking down national and religious identity so that people will be more open to the idea of a global government and more dependent on them for survival. 

It looks something like this: they pick issues that will be divisive and highlight them over and over through various mediums and publications. They then seek out believers and get their opinions on the issues that stand contrary to the public sentiment and highlight their voices. Then they send out narratives that reinforce the narrative, so the general public thinks it's a much bigger issue. As long as there is an "other," people will be quick to take the opposing side. So, for example, with the trans issue, they say that trans people don't have rights. Then they highlight blatant abuses of the trans community to rile up an opposing base (the traditional base). Then they find the voices of the believers, especially those in positions of authority, to condemn opposition to this divisive idea. Then they reinforce that narrative across all platforms and start citing examples of "bigots" who object to this intentionally divisive issue. Considering that the masses see this scattered across every news headline, they assume the experts are right and they are in the minority, even though they aren't.

None of these issues themselves are as important as breaking down a homogenous culture. In fact, if you look at the issues, almost ALL of them are intentionally fractional. None of them are based in real statistics or have realistic solutions. That said, I do think the more powerful media moguls get to force their particular vices onto the general public. It's the advantage of being at the top of that particular food chain, but I still don't think it's an agenda, per se.

TLDR: The long-winded point is just to say that I think that the tools being used to manipulate the public are well thought out and purposeful, but that public outrage is organic, and the masses don't have any particular agenda in mind. The CEO and company marketing is organic. They just want to have good ESG scores and be able to continue to be allowed a seat at the global table. The politicians and the policies they create are organic. They spend 90% of their time on the phone trying to get money from donors. All of them, whether it's the public, government, or corporate leaders, are either reacting or retaliating to the stimulus that is being put in front of them, and they are ultimately being taken advantage of for political and financial gain. It's only a very small group of elites, relatively speaking, that are working with and across party lines, corporate sectors, and media outlets to make themselves more powerful. I know they think themselves noble, but there's nothing new under the sun.

I could literally give you quotes from philosophers on every single point I made here. Nothing I said here is controversial. It's all in the literature.

---