N.H. state rep must pay $200K and apologize after drag queens settle defamation case

[RileyG]

I prefer to reserve the term evil for things that are actually evil such as serial killers and sociopaths.

That’s fine. You do you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They’re dressed us a demon. The whole moment is satanic.

But not a sexy demon.

 

[RileyG]

But not a sexy demon.

I guess that’s a matter of personal taste

 

[ozso]

Is that an actual image from an event? Yeah. Totally appropriate for children. NOT.

Far as I know. I've seen plenty of Children's library drag queens that are just about bizarre. The ones with full beards are the creepiest. This isn't wearing a kilt or Milton Berle.

 

[ozso]

That is evil.

Yes and obviously demonic is the look he's going for. Let's make sure the kiddies are comfy and cozy with any adult, no matter how off the scale creepy they seem. Bye bye stranger danger.

 

[RileyG]

Far as I know. I've seen plenty of Children's library drag queens that are just about bizarre. The ones with full beards are the creepiest. This isn't wearing a kilt or Milton Berle.

I agree. It’s quite odd, in my opinion. But I’m not a parent so my opinion really doesn’t matter, apparently.

 

[RileyG]

Yes and obviously demonic is the look he's going for. Let's make sure the kiddies are comply and cozy with any adult, no matter how off the scale creepy they seem. Bye bye stranger danger.

I have a friend who thought DQSH is cute. I think children would actually be scared by them because they’re so exaggerated. Maybe not? Who knows?

 

[comana]

I have a friend who thought DQSH is cute. I think children would actually be scared by them because they’re so exaggerated. Maybe not? Who knows?

Children don’t hide fear. If the they were afraid they would try to leave and some would cry. The pictures I have seen show children engaged and happy.

 

[ozso]

I have a friend who thought DQSH is cute. I think children would actually be scared by them because they’re so exaggerated. Maybe not? Who knows?

The idea is to get them comfortable with what they're naturally repulsed by.

 

[ozso]

I agree. It’s quite odd, in my opinion. But I’m not a parent so my opinion really doesn’t matter, apparently.

All adults should be concerned with the best interest of children. All the members of government started out as children. I'm old enough now to have been an adult when several senators, governors and congress were children.

 

[RileyG]

Children don’t hide fear. If the they were afraid they would try to leave and some would cry. The pictures I have seen show children engaged and happy.

Are you so sure? Maybe they’ve been exposed to it over and over they think it’s “normal.”

Drag queens still aren’t child friendly.

 

[comana]

Are you so sure? Maybe they’ve been exposed to it over and over they think it’s “normal.”

Drag queens still aren’t child friendly.

If they think it’s normal, then not likely to be afraid. How is it harmful since they are not being harmed? As far as the children are concerned, it’s just another costume character.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In what way is dressing as a women an adult form of entertainment? It certainly was not when it was done for laughs on shows like Johnny Carson or Jack Benny. The most I can see here is that drag can be entertainment which wearing a kilt generally is not.

Simply "dressing as a woman" isn't "Drag".

There's a difference between sketch comedy, and this:

A drag show is a form of entertainment performed by drag artists impersonating men or women, typically in a bar or nightclub.

The modern drag show originated in the speakeasies and underground bars of 1920s and 1930s Prohibition America, in what was known as the Pansy Craze. Drag became a part of gay culture and a form of entertainment usually enjoyed by adults in bars.[1] Modern drag shows continue to evolve, incorporating various elements of performance art and entertainment. Weekly drag shows often feature a blend of Cabaret style drag and TributeDrag acts with adult comedy, providing an immersive experience with audience participation and special celebrations.[2]

No. Dressing in drag is not a political statement. It is at most entertainment.

It is when it's a story time for kids, with books like these as the reading material:

Book List | Drag Queen Story Hour NYC

www.dshnyc.org

If that was the conversation you might have a point. From what I have seen the conversation is people saying "we don't want those disgusting perverts reading to kids. They are trying to groom them and we don't want the kids to think they are in any way OK."

As I noted, the "groomer" accusations are a dishonest attack.

But likewise, these are examples of "dishonest defenses"

(actual posts from this thread)
"Performing or simply reading books aloud to children"
"There is nothing salacious about reading a story to kids. Schools and libraries should be grateful for properly vetted volunteers to kid-friendly events, no matter their occupation."
"The mear act of men dressing in women's clothes is not "adult entertainment""
"Conservatives are absolutely fixated on the habits of LGBTQ people and what they do in their bedrooms."
"What about women wearing trousers and bomber jackets?"
"What if DQSH is just for fun?"


There's nothing directly political about a being a Farmer, however, if a library had a "Farmer Story Hour", and the Farmer who showed up was wearing an NRA shirt and was reading "Guns and Freedom" by Ted Nugent, or "Crippled America" by Donald Trump, it would be quickly acknowledged that there were political motivations at play, and nobody would accept the the flimsy defense of
"What's wrong with being a farmer or simply reading books to children?"


In this instance (like the one in my hypothetical example), it's not "just reading to children", the organization openly acknowledges that they have an ulterior motivation. The reason why they're reading books like "worm loves worm" and "the hips on the drag queen go swish swish swish" to a room full of 10 year olds (while wearing clothing associated with a form of entertainment that became a staple in gay clubs and bars) is, by their own words, "to have kids see queer people as role models, explore their gender fluidity, and be bright lights of change in the future".


When their "allies" on the left try to deny that thinking that they're "helping", they're actually doing them a disservice.

As I mentioned, it breeds conspiratorial thinking among some people on the right. When you take the more reasonable conclusion off the table, you leave people with just the unreasonable ones.

EX: If people are trying to downplay it as "just wanting to read to kids", and it's "just for fun", and "it's not indoctrination, they just want to perform in front of the children"


If you take the reasonable explanation off the table (their explanation, and the accurate one) "They want to inculcate the next generation of voters with values that will lead them to vote the same way as them and support policies that are friendly to their community"

...then which answers are left in terms of reasons for why a man would want to wear a low cut dress, blonde wig, and lipstick, and bring a book called "the hips go swish swish swish" to read to a room full of elementary school students?



Corny example: If bought a bone saw to butcher my own meat, and directly said "this is why I'm buying this, I want to butcher my own animals", if people who thought they were my allies knew the other side had some moral objection to that and would try to bash me for it, and thought they were doing me a favor by trying to get out in front of it by saying "no no no, Rob doesn't plan on butchering his own meat, you're all overreacting, he's just really interested in bladed instruments that can cut through bone and flesh...but he's definitely not going to butcher meat with it"

That's going to drive the other side to some pretty conspiratorial thinking regarding "Hmmm...why does Rob really want that bone saw".

 

[RileyG]

If they think it’s normal, then not likely to be afraid. How is it harmful since they are not being harmed? As far as the children are concerned, it’s just another costume character.

Ok.

I don’t know how it’s normal, but that’s your view.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If they think it’s normal, then not likely to be afraid. How is it harmful since they are not being harmed? As far as the children are concerned, it’s just another costume character.

It's not just a costume character, it's a person reading books to them promoting a specific set of worldviews.

As I noted earlier, everyone does it. I would assume the reason religious parents send their kids to religious camps and Sunday schools is because they want the next generation to side with them when they become adults.

The denial of that reality is what causes the argument to devolve to the point of "blinders" vs. "conspiracy theories"


Example: Nobody's going to be "physically harmed" by a presentation involving reading materials promoting conservative economic ideals like trickle-down economics, but nobody would suggest that it's as benign (as in "implication-free") as reading "Cat in the Hat" to them.

 

[Belk]

Simply "dressing as a woman" isn't "Drag".

There's a difference between sketch comedy, and this:

A drag show is a form of entertainment performed by drag artists impersonating men or women, typically in a bar or nightclub.

The modern drag show originated in the speakeasies and underground bars of 1920s and 1930s Prohibition America, in what was known as the Pansy Craze. Drag became a part of gay culture and a form of entertainment usually enjoyed by adults in bars.[1] Modern drag shows continue to evolve, incorporating various elements of performance art and entertainment. Weekly drag shows often feature a blend of Cabaret style drag and TributeDrag acts with adult comedy, providing an immersive experience with audience participation and special celebrations.[2]

It is when it's a story time for kids, with books like these as the reading material:

Book List | Drag Queen Story Hour NYC

www.dshnyc.org

As I noted, the "groomer" accusations are a dishonest attack.

But likewise, these are examples of "dishonest defenses"

(actual posts from this thread)
"Performing or simply reading books aloud to children"
"There is nothing salacious about reading a story to kids. Schools and libraries should be grateful for properly vetted volunteers to kid-friendly events, no matter their occupation."
"The mear act of men dressing in women's clothes is not "adult entertainment""
"Conservatives are absolutely fixated on the habits of LGBTQ people and what they do in their bedrooms."
"What about women wearing trousers and bomber jackets?"
"What if DQSH is just for fun?"


There's nothing directly political about a being a Farmer, however, if a library had a "Farmer Story Hour", and the Farmer who showed up was wearing an NRA shirt and was reading "Guns and Freedom" by Ted Nugent, or "Crippled America" by Donald Trump, it would be quickly acknowledged that there were political motivations at play, and nobody would accept the the flimsy defense of
"What's wrong with being a farmer or simply reading books to children?"


In this instance (like the one in my hypothetical example), it's not "just reading to children", the organization openly acknowledges that they have an ulterior motivation. The reason why they're reading books like "worm loves worm" and "the hips on the drag queen go swish swish swish" to a room full of 10 year olds (while wearing clothing associated with a form of entertainment that became a staple in gay clubs and bars) is, by their own words, "to have kids see queer people as role models, explore their gender fluidity, and be bright lights of change in the future".


When their "allies" on the left try to deny that thinking that they're "helping", they're actually doing them a disservice.

As I mentioned, it breeds conspiratorial thinking among some people on the right. When you take the more reasonable conclusion off the table, you leave people with just the unreasonable ones.

EX: If people are trying to downplay it as "just wanting to read to kids", and it's "just for fun", and "it's not indoctrination, they just want to perform in front of the children"


If you take the reasonable explanation off the table (their explanation, and the accurate one) "They want to inculcate the next generation of voters with values that will lead them to vote the same way as them and support policies that are friendly to their community"

...then which answers are left in terms of reasons for why a man would want to wear a low cut dress, blonde wig, and lipstick, and bring a book called "the hips go swish swish swish" to read to a room full of elementary school students?



Corny example: If bought a bone saw to butcher my own meat, and directly said "this is why I'm buying this, I want to butcher my own animals", if people who thought they were my allies knew the other side had some moral objection to that and would try to bash me for it, and thought they were doing me a favor by trying to get out in front of it by saying "no no no, Rob doesn't plan on butchering his own meat, you're all overreacting, he's just really interested in bladed instruments that can cut through bone and flesh...but he's definitely not going to butcher meat with it"

That's going to drive the other side to some pretty conspiratorial thinking regarding "Hmmm...why does Rob really want that bone saw".

I'm on my phone so I'll respond more fully when I can get back to my PC. The one thing I'll state here is "Drag" and "Drag show" are different. The definition of drag is

clothing more conventionally worn by the other sex, especially exaggeratedly feminine clothing, makeup, and hair adopted by a man.
"a fashion show, complete with men in drag"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm on my phone so I'll respond more fully when I can get back to my PC. The one thing I'll state here is "Drag" and "Drag show" are different. The definition of drag is

clothing more conventionally worn by the other sex, especially exaggeratedly feminine clothing, makeup, and hair adopted by a man.
"a fashion show, complete with men in drag"

But even with that definition, it's still "not just drag"

If we're trying to reduce it to "just wearing clothing associated with the opposite sex", then half of the 80's rock bands would fit that description.

It's the fact that they're wearing the garments associated with a form of entertainment that was prevalent in gay clubs (which isn't the same as "just wearing women's clothing,

...combined with their mission statement (which, they're not even trying to hide the fact that they're trying to instill certain social/political values in kids...they're not bashful about acknowledging that that's the reason why they're doing it)

...combined with their reading material selection (which as I noted, are almost exclusively in the genre of LGBTQ activism)


Trying to reduce things to some benign sounding, superficial definition as to abstract it and separate the aspects of it to make it "not sound so bad" is being disingenuous.


"They're just wearing women's clothing" and "They're just wanting to read to kids" (with out honestly acknowledging the context and the finer details how the aspects are dove-tailing together), and "Look, people wear kilts and nobody gets upset"

...would be like if I carried a knife into a store while wearing a ski mask and said "give me your money", and someone tried to dismiss/defend it with "He's just carrying a piece of metal that's attached to a plastic handle...there's nothing inherently wrong with simply having an object made of metal, and all kinds of things have plastic handles. People wear ski masks all the time for a variety of purposes, there's nothing nefarious about simply wearing a ski mask... and people ask other people for money all the time, it's no big deal to ask someone if they can give you some money

 

[Belk]

But even with that definition, it's still "not just drag"

If we're trying to reduce it to "just wearing clothing associated with the opposite sex", then half of the 80's rock bands would fit that description.

It's the fact that they're wearing the garments associated with a form of entertainment that was prevalent in gay clubs (which isn't the same as "just wearing women's clothing,

...combined with their mission statement (which, they're not even trying to hide the fact that they're trying to instill certain social/political values in kids...they're not bashful about acknowledging that that's the reason why they're doing it)

...combined with their reading material selection (which as I noted, are almost exclusively in the genre of LGBTQ activism)


Trying to reduce things to some benign sounding, superficial definition as to abstract it and separate the aspects of it to make it "not sound so bad" is being disingenuous.


"They're just wearing women's clothing" and "They're just wanting to read to kids" (with out honestly acknowledging the context and the finer details how the aspects are dove-tailing together), and "Look, people wear kilts and nobody gets upset"

...would be like if I carried a knife into a store while wearing a ski mask and said "give me your money", and someone tried to dismiss/defend it with "He's just carrying a piece of metal that's attached to a plastic handle...there's nothing inherently wrong with simply having an object made of metal, and all kinds of things have plastic handles. People wear ski masks all the time for a variety of purposes, there's nothing nefarious about simply wearing a ski mask... and people ask other people for money all the time, it's no big deal to ask someone if they can give you some money

Yes, they are reading to kids in order to normalize their behavior and show that they are not bad people. That is a far cry off what they are being accused of and not in any way nefarious. It most certainly is not on the level of robbing a store. Good grief.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, they are reading to kids in order to normalize their behavior and show that they are not bad people. That is a far cry off what they are being accused of and not in any way nefarious. It most certainly is not on the level of robbing a store. Good grief.

Correct, which is why I said all the "groomer" accusations were dishonest as well.

I wasn't trying to say what they were doing was on par with robbing a store, I was just providing an exaggerated example of how language can be watered down into overly-literal semantics for the purposes of downplaying something.

I'd also argue that, based on their own mission statement and chosen reading materials, they're not "simply trying to normalize their own behavior", in many cases. They're also encouraging kids to engage in some of it. Encouraging little kids to "explore gender fluidity", and doing things like activities in "The Dragtivity Book" (which has exercises like "Pick your own drag name" and "Circle your pronouns")


Does a 9 year old kid need to engage in some of the aspects of it in order to be informed about it or taught tolerance for it? Or do things like quasi-participation and "gamification" perhaps have a tendency to cross the line from "informing" to "indoctrinating"?

For instance, I would assume you want kids to be informed about different ideological viewpoints and what they entail, and wouldn't want kids to be mean to people simply because of those different viewpoints.

But on the flip side, in order to inform kids about, say, the different political viewpoints in the US...
...would kids need to do a "Ron Paul Story Hour" with a "Libertarian Activity Book" including exercises like "Circle all the ways the fed has ruined the economy", "Taxation is Theft crossword puzzle", "Rank these federal departments in order of which is the most wasteful", and then a happy little illustrated story about "Timmy the Taxpayer"...the story about a little boy who worked hard to get gold, and has to protect it from the "Government Gremlins" who seek to take it from him and give it to "Lazy Larry"?

Or would one look at that and say "hang on a minute... This looks like more than just teaching kids about what libertarians believe, it kinda sounds like you're trying to steer them into holding some of those beliefs"

If someone tried to boil that down to merely "This is just about reading to kids, while explaining that libertarians exist, and that you shouldn't be mean to little Johnny if you find out his parents are libertarians", would anyone be buying that as an explanation?