Latest activity

rambot · Thursday at 1:21 PM

rjs330 said:
Thats is patently a lie from someone. Its not single digit people. I cant believe prople are allowed to post such falsehoods.

Really? You can't believe it. You can't believe "such a falsehood" is allowed to get posted.

Have you ever seen Trump's account?

RocksInMyHead · Thursday at 1:21 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I would say yes, any topic of sexuality in a show geared towards 2nd graders would probably draw some level of backlash regardless of orientation.

Except that, based on the plot summaries and the director's own comments about the show, it does not appear to be "geared towards 2nd graders" - the characters are all in their late teens and it covers things that the average 2nd grader would have zero interest in (like workplace dynamics, how to manage the transition from carefree childhood to responsible adulthood, living away from your parents for the first time, etc). This is clearly a show that was written for and targeted at teens and young adults (as further evidenced by the director stating that he felt it fit into the category of "Young Adult Animation"). Netflix rating it as "for ages 7 and up" (if that's actually accurate) could be reflective of the fact that the actual content isn't unsuitable for children (in the sense that it doesn't have sex or gratuitous violence), or it could simply be a categorization error - I don't know how Netflix does their ratings. I remember in the '90s, when anime was first starting to show up in American video rental stores, there were some things in the "kids" section that were absolutely NOT child-friendly. That was because the people categorizing videos saw animation and automatically assumed that it was a cartoon aimed at children.

Also, I'll note that this show has been on Netflix for three years - both seasons aired in 2022. The current wave of outrage is purely because an influential Twitter account (LibsOfTikTok) posted a clip from it.

durangodawood · Thursday at 1:20 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I would say yes, any topic of sexuality in a show geared towards 2nd graders would probably draw some level of backlash regardless of orientation.

I see a stark contrast between, for example...

A show like Brooklyn Nine Nine, where Captain Holt is openly gay, it's acknowledged, but it's not central to the story.
vs.
"Here's an animated show for 2nd graders where 80% of the characters have to be something other than cis/straight, and getting away from your toxic family if they don't go along with what you want is the ideal approach"

Having a fantasy escape land from non understanding fam is a perennial theme even at this age level. If we have to boycott over this, say goodbye to a lot of formerly treasured stories. This is starting to feel like the "woke" impulse so many complain about.

As for sex orientation being important, see Illuvatar's list and comments above.

rambot · Thursday at 1:20 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I was actually just in Quebec 2 days ago (thus the reason why I haven't been as active on here... I was in Northern Vermont because the GF wanted to do some "leaf peeping", and we made trip north of the border at the Derby Line/Stanstead crossing... which is a cool unique arrangement, I encourage people to look it up)

I'm guessing this guy is using paid actors or selective editing.

The French-Canadian customs officer was incredibly rude (even more so than the French Canadians normally are), as were the people I passed on the street and tried to be friendly with.

Her questions at the customs checkpoint were
"So you're coming here to take some pictures and get lunch, and why can't you do that in Vermont?"
"Who did you vote for?" (to which she didn't seem to believe my answer that I didn't vote in last election)
"Do you own or have any guns?" (loaded question)
She then asked the GF (who's Indian) "Has he ever threatened you?"

Being that I own some property in Ontario that I inherited (since my Grandpa was from there -- which she certainly had access to that info when she scanned my passport) and I've gone to Canada no fewer than 25 times in the last 30 years and never caused any problems up there, the 15 minutes worth of grilling was tad excessive lol

And while the family friends who look after the cabin for me assured me "that's just how French Canadians are, they're rude to us English speaking Canadians as well", there were some people on the streets I passed who were initially smiling & friendly, as soon as I said I'm from Ohio, their demeanor changed lol. Despite me wanting nothing more than to take some pretty pictures and spend some money in their town lol.

Yes.

There is ZERO doubt that the actions of your president have signfiicantly soured many people's opinions of America and Americans are taking the brunt of that.

Tolkien R.R.J · Thursday at 1:20 PM

Under a democratic state, your money can be likened to a piece of bread thrown into a pond where fish from both the left and right nibble away. Your money and rights are fought over and consumed in ways you did not consent to. In modern governmental systems, the tax codes purposely become so complicated that only allies of the powerful, national parties can afford top lawyers to find loopholes. The Goliath companies receive beneficial handouts and set the rules for the market, while the Davids are burdened with taxes and regulations Goliath can handle but they cannot. Meanwhile, the wealthiest always seem to wiggle out of paying taxes; for example, Warren Buffett paid .002% in taxes in 2015.

Current taxation is a form of robbery where specific privileged individuals (politicians and bureaucrats) have the sole right to “legally” steal. Typically, if my money were taken and used against my will, it would be called theft, just as we would declare it if a heroin addict stole another man’s money and used it for drugs. We move into the realm of robbery when those stolen goods are confiscated under the threat of violence or harm. Under direct taxation, if you refuse to go along with the confiscation of your money—refuse to pay your taxes—you will be jailed, where you could face actual physical harm.....

Our Whole Concept of Taxes is Upside Down | The Libertarian Institute

Under a democratic state, your money can be likened to a piece of bread thrown into a pond where fish from both the left and right nibble away. Your money and rights are fought over and consumed in ways you did not consent to. In modern governmental systems, the tax…

libertarianinstitute.org

timothyu · Thursday at 1:19 PM

fhansen said:
It actually doesn’t work great anywhere; it’s the cause of all our problems here, of our sin. That’s what we’re here to learn, in fact, in this selfish, godless world.

Agreed, but the world based on self expects us to go with the flow. We are bombarded daily with everything related to self-absorption from politics/consumerism to prosperity gospels. Even Christianity turned from a Him religion to a me one, more concerned about what's in it for us than God's overcoming adversity. His will be done, not ours.

rjs330 · Thursday at 1:17 PM

BCP1928 said:
Are the people of Portland asking for Federal law enforcement assistance?

Yes they are. They've asked for police assistance and the police have done nothing to help. I watched a journalist get attacked and she contacted the police who did not help her. In fact one officer contacted the suspect in tye case told her she was detained and then when the person and her friend demanded to not be touched the officer just let her walk away. The peraon was not arrested. Then later the journalist found her again and called the police and they told her they weren't coming and that she had to go to them.

A feckless, cowardly, useless piece of garbage organization.

rjs330 · Thursday at 1:16 PM

Paulos23 said:
Maybe he should visit and see what is really going on.

Except the Secret Service would have to clear all the protestors out of the area first. Are you trying to get the president attacked?

iluvatar5150 · Thursday at 1:15 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
It happens. I used to love Captain Planet when I was little not realizing it was just flat out preaching environmentalism to a young audience.

For what it’s worth, I’m terrible at recycling to this day so maybe preachy cartoons aren’t the most effective method of indoctrination.

Don't sweat it. Recycling is largely a market-driven endeavor, and the market prices for many of those reclaimed materials are so low that they often wind up in a landfill anyways.

ThatRobGuy said:
I would say yes, any topic of sexuality in a show geared towards 2nd graders would probably draw some level of backlash regardless of orientation.

And you would be wrong. Do you watch any kids movies? I do. I watch a lot of them. That list I put up before:

Cinderella
Snow White
Sleeping Beauty
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Mermaid
Lady and the Tramp
Brave
Frozen
Tangled
Up
Wall-E

In every one of those, the characters' sexual orientations aren't merely ancillary characteristics; they're central to the story. Cinderella, Snow White, and Rapunzel are saved from their evil families by their hetero love interests. Princess Aurora is saved from Maleficent's curse by her future husband (arranged marriage in some versions). Belle's falling in love with the Beast is what breaks the curse on him. Lady and the Tramp is about a good girl falling for a "bad boy" who turns out to defy everybody's poor opinion of him. Brave is about a Celtic princess rebelling against being forced into an arranged marriage. Frozen is about a teen princess ascending to the throne and having would-be villains try to seize control by marrying into the family. Up is about an elderly man grieving the loss of his wife. Wall-E is about an ostensibly male robot falling in love and pursuing an ostensibly female robot.

Elemental is another one I just thought of where hetero love interest play an important role in helping two characters of different "elements" (the proxy for ethnicities) bridge the gap between their two families and cultures.

rjs330 · Thursday at 1:15 PM

Goonie said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/politics/trump-portland-troops.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Donald Trump says he is deploying troops to Portland, Oregon

Apparently misled by hyperbolic reporting from conservative outlets on a single small protest, president described peaceful city as ‘war ravaged’

www.theguardian.com

With protesters in the single digits, Trump has ordered the military to use full force to eliminate them.

Thats is patently a lie from someone. Its not single digit people. I cant believe prople are allowed to post such falsehoods.

There is plenty of video out there of whats going on in Portland. So, proclaiming falsehoods like this is easily disproven. Shame on anyone putting out garbage like this.

Doea this look like single digit protestors? Take a look starting at 5:16. Then lets go to the night. Take a look at 6:00.

Login to view embedded media

Justin Thearea · Thursday at 1:15 PM

This is a good thing, but how much better it would be if Christian students and teachers took their Bible to school every day. ( I know that some do, but not all.)

rambot · Thursday at 1:10 PM

Servus said:
It's not really about actual empathy. It's really about capitulating to the leftist woke agenda. They just replaced "woke" with "empathy", because "woke" was co-opted as a pejorative for their agenda.

Honestly, you're just making this up right?

Because this reads like self serving nonsense more than anything resembling reality.

rambot · Thursday at 1:08 PM

RDKirk said:
“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...

The full quote:
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

This particular observation seems VERY particular to Paul's situation of being in chains.

I mean, 12 vrs later is....

"27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ."

Not sure how being insincere and selfish reflects that.

com7fy8 · Thursday at 1:07 PM

Bob8102 said:
I have confusion and concern both about God’s will for me and my salvation.

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

Bob8102 said:
Assuming I already am a Christian, I should be seeking, as they often pray, “Your [God’s] will be done, not mine.” I want to be saved and I want to do my will, not God’s. This contradiction causes me much doubt and confusion.

Well, we are not going to have peace about doing our own wills.

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

We have rest while doing God's will.

Delvianna · Thursday at 1:06 PM

essentialsaltes said:
It's hard to find archived material now that the glossary is gone, but I dug deeper

ADL Backgrounder Turning Point (last edited 2023)

Since the group’s founding. Kirk has moved further to the right and has promoted numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud and Covid-19 and has demonized the transgender community.

Kirk also promotes Christian nationalism: the idea that Christians should dominate the government and other areas of life in the US.

TPUSA continues to attract racists to the group. Numerous TPUSA representatives have made bigoted remarks about minority groups and the LGBTQ+ community.

White nationalists have attended TPUSA events, even though the group says it rejects white supremacist ideology.

Kirk has created a vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists, who speak and attend his annual AmericaFest and other events sponsored by TPUSA.

at the end of the article is a long list of statements by TPUSA members or speakers they find objectionable.

Here's one detail from a more general article

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)
Charlie Kirk of the far-right student group Turning Point USA said on his show that Texas should “deputize a citizen force and put them on the border” to protect “white demographics in America.” He added that the left is focused on “bringing in voters that they want, and they like, and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.”

And from a PolitiFact look at Turning Point

The Anti-Defamation League does not categorize Turning Point as a hate group, Pitcavage said. "It does have this checkered or spotted history with regard to individual members or local leaders in Turning Point USA making racist or otherwise problematic comments… but it’s not the ideology of the group itself."

Thanks! While some of it is generics like "made bigoted remarks about minority groups..." but doesn't actually state what he said, what they do quote is definitely problematic. No one should be above reproach or correction. Not good that the glossary was deleted and I state again, that the glorification of him is being taken way too far.

I'm glad some people have said that he made them decide to go to church again and other things, but I personally didn't like the point of his arguments which were mostly political. But people are claiming he was "doing the Lord's work" which I find ridiculous. Could God use his arguments for good? Absolutely, but I equate that to the Lords work and not Charlie's.

rambot · Thursday at 1:02 PM

RDKirk said:
Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:

If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."

If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.

Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.

Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).

Seems tough to parse out the minutae of every feeling of someone we don't know triggered by a situation we weren't privvy to. It seem likes we could simply trust the person telling their story is aware of their emotional state.

Vambram · Thursday at 1:01 PM

GOP senator rips Dems on shutdown: Can’t make sense out of crazy | Fox News Video

Sen. Markwayne Mullin joins 'America's Newsroom' to discuss the Democrats' shutdown demands and healthcare push.

www.foxnews.com

Clare73 · Thursday at 1:00 PM

fhansen said:
Claire, as intelligent as you are you nonetheless seem to go out of your way to avoid logic and truth here. Consider the whole chapter, the whole letter, together. Humanity became truly guilty of possessing that sin,

We don't "become inherently guilty of possessing/inheriting someone else's sin" (Eze 18:20),
nor are we acquitted of possessing/inheriting someone else's sin that we don't possess.
Guilt of someone else's sin must be imputed to us (Ro 5:17), charged to our account,
as righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Ge 15:6), charged to his account.

Humanity became guilty of Adam's sin by imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17,
the only sin that caused death between Adam and Moses, Ro 5:14, when there was no law to sin against to cause man's death, Ro 4:15), just as humanity becomes righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Both guilt of Adam's sin and righteouness of Christ are imputed to mankind (Ro 5:18-19).

sfs · Thursday at 1:00 PM

o_mlly said:
The most violated First Principle by evolutionist is the first one. [...] The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess.

Okay, let's start there. First issue: that doesn't appear to be a standard statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says that everything has a cause. Second issue: even as normally stated, it's far from self-evident, as can be seen from the many arguments about it and the many version of it in philosophical circles.

Third, and much the most important: you have a great deal of work to do to demonstrate that the principle, in whatever form you posit and assuming it's true, prohibits evolution. As you have stated the principle, it's trivially false: we routinely see being A give rise to being B with properties that A did not possess: acorns do not have leaves and roots, water vapor does not have hard pointy bits, and so on. So there's obviously more to applying the principle than is evident from your statement of it here.

Given that state of affairs, could you spell out the process by which you apply the principle to real world processes? Let's start with a simpler case than evolution. Take photons. Photons have neither mass nor charge. Can photons produce electrons, which have both mass and charge? That is, can they give them something that they don't themselves already possess?

Latest activity

Latest activity

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

New Surge in Support for Replacement Theory Rhetoric (2021)