Controversial Teddy B ear Teachings

[ozso]

Why do you assume nefarious motives here? Maybe it isn't someone "getting" people to believe they don't fit into the rigidly defined sexual boxes, maybe they've come to that realization all by themselves. Due to their own personal experiences and feelings.

I mean...if this is some kind of economic conspiracy to make money for big pharma, as some contend, it seems to me there are easier ways to make a buck.

Also...I've spoken to people who are trans. They actually believe the things they say they believe. It isn't something they've been told to believe...in fact, quite a few have come to the realization despite other people trying to tell them their feelings are wrong.

How can someone else tell you that your feelings are wrong?

-- A2SG, seems to me that's where the nefarious motives may come in.....

Actually it's mostly a misguided attempt at good intentions via woke liberalism, that's led to millions of children deciding they're transgender/genderfluid/nonbinary.

Eventually those all those folks will probably realize they've created a nightmare instead of a utopia. And then spend decades trying to get things back to what they were.

 

[A2SG]

Actually it's mostly a misguided attempt at good intentions via woke liberalism, that's led to millions of children deciding they're transgender/genderfluid/nonbinary.

Who is making this "attempt", exactly? What is their agenda? What's the endgame, exactly? What do they gain...whoever they are?

And why are you convinced people aren't coming to realizations about their own sexuality all by themselves?

Eventually those all those folks will probably realize they've created a nightmare instead of a utopia. And then spend decades trying to get things back to what they were.

Who are these folks, exactly?

And what, exactly, is nightmarish about people exploring their sexuality, even if that doesn't conform to yesterday's stereotypes about it?

How is that a threat to anyone else?

-- A2SG, lots of nefarious motives here, but a significant lack of actual people claiming responsibility for doing these nefarious things.....

 

[ozso]

Who is making this "attempt", exactly? What is their agenda? What's the endgame, exactly? What do they gain...whoever they are?

And why are you convinced people aren't coming to realizations about their own sexuality all by themselves?


Who are these folks, exactly?

And what, exactly, is nightmarish about people exploring their sexuality, even if that doesn't conform to yesterday's stereotypes about it?

How is that a threat to anyone else?

-- A2SG, lots of nefarious motives here, but a significant lack of actual people claiming responsibility for doing these nefarious things.....

Millions of children having it implanted in their minds that they're something different from reality probably isn't going to work out well for them and society in the long run. Keep in mind that there's a growing trend among kids to also decide that they're a different race and even a different species. And the only argument against those notions are the same as the arguments against the milions of kids who now think they're transgender/genderfluid/nonbinary.

 

[rambot]

When will folks finally see the enormous folly of woke liberalism?

"We need children being taught all about the trans rabbit hole".

Result: Millions of children go down the trans rabbit hole - as predicted.

Not plural "millions".
Also, we don't teach them "all about" it at all.

"We need narcotics to be legalized".

Result: Huge increase in hundreds of people staggering around stoned out of their gord on fentanyl and tranq in areas where narcotics have been legalized - as predicted.

Wow. That is a terrible, TERRIBLE misrepresentation of the opioid epidemic. Besides the idea. Also, I'm not even sure what you're referring to when you say "narcotics"? I didn't know a place in the US where the use of opioids without a prescription is legal, NOR where with a prescription, it is illegal.

Liberals advocate for legalization of drugs or street drugs. In Canada, cannabis was legalized. Guess what, youth use WENT DOWN/stayed the same
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-two-year-marijuana-no-increase-use-1.5781423

The only other place that has tried FULL legalization of ALL street drugs in Portugal. I don't have time to get into that but please feel free to do your research to see if this point remains supported by reality.

"Let's greatly reduce border control".

Result: sanctuary cities become overwhelmed with illegal immigrants pouring in - as predicted.

Literally NEVER heard a liberal say let's REDUCE border control". That said, I HAVE SEEN Republicans vote to strike down INCREASED funding for border patrol. Ahhhh, those woke Republicans.

"Let's defund the police and greatly reduce law enforcement".

Result: massive looting, muggings, and carjacking - as predicted.

1) Please cite evidence that there is an increase in these things.
2) Please cite evidence of a DECREASE in police funding
3) Please show the correlation between these two
4) I can show you PLENTY of instances where mental health crisis support teams would do FAR better than police officers.


Why More Police Funding Is No Route to Public Safety



Correlation does not equal causation

 

[ozso]

Not plural "millions".
Also, we don't teach them "all about" it at all.

Wow. That is a terrible, TERRIBLE misrepresentation of the opioid epidemic. Besides the idea. Also, I'm not even sure what you're referring to when you say "narcotics"? I didn't know a place in the US where the use of opioids without a prescription is legal, NOR where with a prescription, it is illegal.

Liberals advocate for legalization of drugs or street drugs. In Canada, cannabis was legalized. Guess what, youth use WENT DOWN/stayed the same
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-two-year-marijuana-no-increase-use-1.5781423

The only other place that has tried FULL legalization of ALL street drugs in Portugal. I don't have time to get into that but please feel free to do your research to see if this point remains supported by reality.


Literally NEVER heard a liberal say let's REDUCE border control". That said, I HAVE SEEN Republicans vote to strike down INCREASED funding for border patrol. Ahhhh, those woke Republicans.




1) Please cite evidence that there is an increase in these things.
2) Please cite evidence of a DECREASE in police funding
3) Please show the correlation between these two
4) I can show you PLENTY of instances where mental health crisis support teams would do FAR better than police officers.


Why More Police Funding Is No Route to Public Safety



Correlation does not equal causation

I'm just seeing the usual denial disclaimers I've seen before that aren't in step with current events.

 

[rambot]

I'm just seeing the usual denial disclaimers I've seen before that aren't in step with current events.

Denial disclaimers like providing evidence to support the idea that your argument is incorrect OR that I am expecting you to provide evidence of your argument is supported "in current events"? Because you provide no proof that it is in "step with current events".

If your position is as strong and as unassailable as it is in your mind, then either you can provide clear and undeniable evidence of your statements (with GREAT ease), or your position is being informed by inflammatory rhetoric, specious evidence, and fear.

 

[ozso]

Denial disclaimers like providing evidence to support the idea that your argument is incorrect OR that I am expecting you to provide evidence of your argument is supported "in current events"? Because you provide no proof that it is in "step with current events".

If your position is as strong and as unassailable as it is in your mind, then either you can provide clear and undeniable evidence of your statements (with GREAT ease), or your position is being informed by inflammatory rhetoric, specious evidence, and fear.

I'm going by what I see on the news on a regular basis. And of course I haven't been compiling evidence in the process. This is a situation where someone is giving their opinion based on observation, and the other person denies it's happening and then demands a bunch of proof, which he most likely knows the person hasn't complied, and probably isn't going to start laboring on that, while claiming it can be done with the wave of a hand. This is a really common and trite tactic.

 

[rambot]

I'm going by what I see on the news on a regular basis. And of course I haven't been compiling evidence in the process. This is a situation where someone is giving their opinion based on observation, and the other person denies it's happening and then demands a bunch of proof, which he most likely knows the person hasn't complied, and probably isn't going to start laboring on that, while claiming it can be done with the wave of a hand. This is a really common and trite tactic.

Do I understand you right though? You saying that what you see "on the news" (HOW many times have I heard "I don't trust the news" on this website I don't know), is informing your opinion. And you are TOTALLY certain that you remember the details of these news reports so precisely that you'll just ignore any contravening proof.

Because I think one mistake is in thinking that your opinion is based on "observation". It's not.
It's based SOLELY on the news you HAPPEN to be watching. Observation, as a means of objectively informing your view by watching the totality of events play out unfiltered. When you watch a news source, ANY news source, you are not observing anything that hasn't been filtered through editors, editorial boards, producers, directors, reporters, etc..... Unless your news is constantly citing (and ideally linking to reports and studies), how do you know what what you see matches the society wide experience?

I've already pointed out how some of what you say is demonstrably untrue and you can't be bothered to defend your position in any way? Can't be that strong of a position I guess..


And then you seem to think that providing evidence for your position is "trite"? If you think support is unimportant to your argument, the argument being made is unimportant.


All this besides the point that your argument about woke opioids doesn't appear to even make sense.

 

[ozso]

Do I understand you right though? You saying that what you see "on the news" (HOW many times have I heard "I don't trust the news" on this website I don't know), is informing your opinion. And you are TOTALLY certain that you remember the details of these news reports so precisely that you'll just ignore any contravening proof.

Because I think one mistake is in thinking that your opinion is based on "observation". It's not.
It's based SOLELY on the news you HAPPEN to be watching. Observation, as a means of objectively informing your view by watching the totality of events play out unfiltered. When you watch a news source, ANY news source, you are not observing anything that hasn't been filtered through editors, editorial boards, producers, directors, reporters, etc..... Unless your news is constantly citing (and ideally linking to reports and studies), how do you know what what you see matches the society wide experience?

I've already pointed out how some of what you say is demonstrably untrue and you can't be bothered to defend your position in any way? Can't be that strong of a position I guess..


And then you seem to think that providing evidence for your position is "trite"? If you think support is unimportant to your argument, the argument being made is unimportant.


All this besides the point that your argument about woke opioids doesn't appear to even make sense.

I've seen what's actually going on and my little opinion blurb wasn't all that detailed. And I've already been through the routine where certain people deny there's been a large degree of getting little kids interested in transexualism, along with the huge influx in narcotics use in areas where they've been legalized, rampant crime, and out of control illegal immigration. Probably because that would amount to admitting that the ideology and policies of woke liberalism is failing so badly.

 

[DaisyDay]

No people are mad because millions of children are being inundated with transgender/genderfluid/nonbinary ideology, which apparently has lead to millions of children thinking they're transgender/genderfluid/nonbinary, as I already cited. What you're arguing for isn't a factor any longer. Instead of creating acceptance for a few, it's resulting in millions of children becoming what were the few into the many. The idea was for the majority to accept the minority. But what's actually happening is the majority is becoming what was the minority - as predicted.

As predicted by whom?

 

[rambot]

I've seen what's actually going on and my little opinion blurb wasn't all that detailed.

What does that mean you've "seen what's actually going on". Do you think people who disagree with you haven't seen the same thing?

And I've already been through the routine where certain people deny there's been a large degree of getting little kids interested in transexualism,

1.6 is the number I've seen. I don't consider that a very large number....but yes, that is totally just me.

along with the huge influx in narcotics use in areas where they've been legalized,

See I don't even know what you're talking about here and I was hoping you'd clarify?
Which narcotics have been legalized? Where?

rampant crime,

Some crimes are going up....some down. Violent crime SHOT up 2019-20 and then calmed back down. The general trend is improvement.

and out of control illegal immigration. Probably because that would amount to admitting that the ideology and policies of woke liberalism is failing so badly.

It's really easy to think they're failing when all you have is your own "observations" of an ideology that you disagree with.


Good heavens. I see the word "woke" in a post and it discredits everything so fast. I have such a prejudice against that word.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I've seen what's actually going on and my little opinion blurb wasn't all that detailed. And I've already been through the routine where certain people deny there's been a large degree of getting little kids interested in transexualism, along with the huge influx in narcotics use in areas where they've been legalized, rampant crime, and out of control illegal immigration. Probably because that would amount to admitting that the ideology and policies of woke liberalism is failing so badly.

I don't think actual liberalism is particularly "woke". Leftism does, however, have a higher degree of overlap with it.

It should be noted, however, that not all of the things you describe are the result of "woke liberalism".

For instance, If you're talking to someone suggesting there should be no such thing as borders, and no drug should be restricted, you could be talking to a leftist, or you could be talking to a staunch libertarian.

I'll also play it fair, while you're correct in that some policies of the far left are making things like crime worse in inner cities, in other cases, the crime issues are already there, and liberal policies are just simply not the stand-alone antidote to correct them. There is a subtle difference there between "specifically causes a problem" and "simply can't correct an existing problem".

For the latter, based on perusing crime rates by city, while liberal policies are failing to correct the problem, it would appear conservative policies aren't able to correct them either.

For instance, Mayor Holt is the republican mayor of Oklahoma City, a GOP mayor in a state with a GOP Governor, 2 GOP senators, and a statehouse that has 2/3 republicans.

The end result, Oklahoma City has a much higher crime rate than the more rural areas of the state...and the end result:

You'll find the same with places like Fort Worth TX and Omaha NE (also big cities led by GOP mayors)

...so basically the same dynamic we see in most other places. High population density areas with elevated poverty rates have more crime than the burbs. (regardless of red or blue team leadership)

 

[rambot]

I don't think actual liberalism is particularly "woke". Leftism does, however, have a higher degree of overlap with it.

It should be noted, however, that not all of the things you describe are the result of "woke liberalism".

For instance, If you're talking to someone suggesting there should be no such thing as borders, and no drug should be restricted, you could be talking to a leftist, or you could be talking to a staunch libertarian.

I'll also play it fair, while you're correct in that some policies of the far left are making things like crime worse in inner cities, in other cases, the crime issues are already there, and liberal policies are just simply not the stand-alone antidote to correct them. There is a subtle difference there between "specifically causes a problem" and "simply can't correct an existing problem".

For the latter, based on perusing crime rates by city, while liberal policies are failing to correct the problem, it would appear conservative policies aren't able to correct them either.

For instance, Mayor Holt is the republican mayor of Oklahoma City, a GOP mayor in a state with a GOP Governor, 2 GOP senators, and a statehouse that has 2/3 republicans.

The end result, Oklahoma City has a much higher crime rate than the more rural areas of the state...and the end result:
View attachment 339547

You'll find the same with places like Fort Worth TX and Omaha NE (also big cities led by GOP mayors)
View attachment 339548

...so basically the same dynamic we see in most other places. High population density areas with elevated poverty rates have more crime than the burbs. (regardless of red or blue team leadership)

I'm curious about what crime is like in rural America. I can say that in my province, rural crime is...actually pretty rough (well, prevelant).

 

[ozso]

1.6 is the number I've seen. I don't consider that a very large number....but yes, that is totally just me.

I actually did post evidence that number is a lot higher now. And you ignored it twice.

 

[ozso]

As predicted by whom?

All the pearl clutchers.

 

[rambot]

I actually did post evidence that number is a lot higher now. And you ignored it twice.

Which post was it in? I thought I read the article you posted and it gave the number 1.6million.

EDIT:
Apologies. It appears I did read your article in post 11.
Where to start with this mess:
1) The 1.6million refers to 18-64 year olds.
There is LITERALLY no number given for children. There is a percentage of 1.4% of kids 10-18 I think it was.

"A lot higher now" you write in Post 11?
You said that "1.8 number is way outdated now". Well, if we use the numbers in your article (1.4%)
There are approximately 28million kids aged 10-18 in the US (feel free to go confirm that number).
1.4% of 28million is: 392,000.
So that's about 22% of the number you said was "outdated".

So no. You didn't post evidence of butkiss. Frankly, your imperfect source didn't really say anything meaningful toward your claim at all.


To be honest though, I'm not convinced your WRONG; you're likely right I'd say. I mean logically you are right. Like how prevalence of left handedness increased once people stopped thinking that left handed people were from the devil.


I just want to be convinced by evidence and not some random online who thinks supporting your position is not a consequential part of holding one.

 

[Margaret3110]

There is several things truly baffling to me about all of this.

The assumption that you, or anyone ever knows what is going on in someone else's brain; the lack of trust in other people because you think they can't know themselves; the hubris that you DO know them.
LATE EDIT:
[my bold]. I would argue this point is factually inaccurate. In my school division, and, amongst the surprisingly large number of teachers I know in different locations across western Canada, not a SINGLE one has ever been instructed to teacher "You might". Because it is a matter of accepting OTHER people; that's the purpose behind ANYTIME these conversations come up. If there is a kid already thinking this way, I want them to just have an adult hear that it is okay to be that way; even if so many adults tell them it is not. I'm not going to imply or suggest ANY kid in my class is that way. It doesn't even make sense....for the very reasons you provide.

Maybe it's not being framed that way anywhere in schools. I don't know if it is or not. But in the last couple of years I have seen an explosion in trans-related content for kids. For instance, I am now fairly frequently asked (by government, medical personnel, etc) what pronouns my young son prefers and whether he identifies as a boy. Several different book series that I have read to him, that are aimed at fairly young children (like 4-9 years old) suddenly have transgender/nonbinary characters or are discussing gender identity within the latest book.

It's a little jarring to be honest. And no that's not because I have something against transgender people or think they don't know themselves or whatever. I don't. But sometimes I would like to just read my son a bedtime story without trying to explain why one character uses "they/them" pronouns.

I had a friend in high school who was trans, back in the dark days before it was everywhere. Nobody that knew him (he uses male pronouns) was surprised when he transitioned. I understand this isn't every trans person's experience, but I am genuinely confused by some of this ... like someone I know who is transitioning now to the shock of this person's spouse and children and everyone around them. My bewilderment is real, I'm not trying to be obnoxious.

 

[ozso]

Which post was it in? I thought I read the article you posted and it gave the number 1.6million.

EDIT:
Apologies. It appears I did read your article in post 11.
Where to start with this mess:
1) The 1.6million refers to 18-64 year olds.
There is LITERALLY no number given for children. There is a percentage of 1.4% of kids 10-18 I think it was.

"A lot higher now" you write in Post 11?
You said that "1.8 number is way outdated now". Well, if we use the numbers in your article (1.4%)
There are approximately 28million kids aged 10-18 in the US (feel free to go confirm that number).
1.4% of 28million is: 392,000.
So that's about 22% of the number you said was "outdated".

So no. You didn't post evidence of butkiss. Frankly, your imperfect source didn't really say anything meaningful toward your claim at all.


To be honest though, I'm not convinced your WRONG; you're likely right I'd say. I mean logically you are right. Like how prevalence of left handedness increased once people stopped thinking that left handed people were from the devil.


I just want to be convinced by evidence and not some random online who thinks supporting your position is not a consequential part of holding one.

And you wonder why I don't go on article gathering snipe hunts.

 

[ozso]

Maybe it's not being framed that way anywhere in schools. I don't know if it is or not. But in the last couple of years I have seen an explosion in trans-related content for kids. For instance, I am now fairly frequently asked (by government, medical personnel, etc) what pronouns my young son prefers and whether he identifies as a boy. Several different book series that I have read to him, that are aimed at fairly young children (like 4-9 years old) suddenly have transgender/nonbinary characters or are discussing gender identity within the latest book.

It's a little jarring to be honest. And no that's not because I have something against transgender people or think they don't know themselves or whatever. I don't. But sometimes I would like to just read my son a bedtime story without trying to explain why one character uses "they/them" pronouns.

I had a friend in high school who was trans, back in the dark days before it was everywhere. Nobody that knew him (he uses male pronouns) was surprised when he transitioned. I understand this isn't every trans person's experience, but I am genuinely confused by some of this ... like someone I know who is transitioning now to the shock of this person's spouse and children and everyone around them. My bewilderment is real, I'm not trying to be obnoxious.

Trans and children has become ubiquitous. Schools are flooded with it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm curious about what crime is like in rural America. I can say that in my province, rural crime is...actually pretty rough (well, prevelant).

It could vary by rural/suburb locality...but the general pattern is that violent crime is worse in the major cities, and much less so as you move 20-30 minutes outside of them.

But as a point of reference, the closest major city to where my "official address" is, would be Cleveland.

Cleveland doesn't have a stellar reputation in terms of violent crime rates...it's pretty bad.

The suburb where my official residence is (I say that, because I've been living the semi-nomadic life for the past several months and been all over the place...over a dozen states and two provinces in 8 months), hasn't had a murder since 1998...and ironically, has a city council that constantly bounces back and forth between Democratic/Republican majorities, and has even had members who are unaffiliated with either major party. Just in the past 8 years, there have been 2 Greens, a Reform, and a Libertarian. ...granted, at that level of government, with so little control over the grand scheme of things, it's not that hard to be an "other" as one can always simply claim "Well, I'm with you, but my hands are tied because of state & federal laws" and getting elected can be as simple as being likeable when someone bumps into you in a grocery store.

...not to mention, the Democrats and Republicans in that area aren't really all that different. Which kind of ties into the "regional component to politics" that I'm always harping on lol