The Swamp

I sort of get L-Jam's point but would rebut that the person in question could have just used it as a learning/teaching opportunity with his kids and didn't have to freak out about it. There are trans people in the world (if the performer was in fact trans -- it's not entirely clear) just as there are black, Asian, gay, etc. Hiding your kids from any of that isn't going to do them any good. (I'm not saying L-Jam was saying that, just making a general point.)

Didn't get beyond the first paragraph. "I'm intolerant and it made my kids cry" was enough.

Where did it say the play was making Little Red Riding Hood trans?

From what I read, they just had a dude playing a female part. It's dress up. Kids get that. Would there have been a big fuss if they had a woman play the role of the Big Bad Wolf? It's a fucking play with people dressing up to be different people.

Good god. Talk about trying to inject your personal politics into everything.

I don't know from the quote. If it's just some dude dressed up as Little Red Riding Hood, then I'd probably just tell the guy to lighten up. If he was playing it all Liberace-style flamboyantly, and then the librarian was being a condescending, pseudointellectual academic dick about it, and again there's not enough info from the quote other than his words, then he's got a point.

bfj wrote:

L-Jam3 wrote:You know what. I think this guy has a point. I think the library should have at least let the parents know that Little Red Riding Hood was going to be a drag performer and have the parent give the opportunity to see if they wanted their kids to show it. My kids are 9 and 6 and they have an idea what transgender is from last season of Survivor, and I have no problem explaining it to them, but I can see why a parent would be pissed.

It's a play. People get dressed up and play parts. If he is playing the role "straight" and it isn't inappropriate what difference does it make who plays the part?

Does this asshat need prior notice if the wolf was played by a human, or the Grandmother played by a 25 year old? FFS, he took several leaps here to assume they were pushing a transgendered agenda. Fucking snowflake.

It wasn't an issue until the guy made it one by pulling his kids from the event.

DID AN ACTUAL WOLF PORTRAY THE BIG BAD WOLF OR WAS IT A HUMAN TRYING TO PUSH SOME CORT OF CROSS-SPECIES FREAKY SEX ON A BUNCH OF KIDS?

L-Jam3 wrote:I don't know from the quote. If it's just some dude dressed up as Little Red Riding Hood, then I'd probably just tell the guy to lighten up. If he was playing it all Liberace-style flamboyantly, and then the librarian was being a condescending, pseudointellectual academic dick about it, and again there's not enough info from the quote other than his words, then he's got a point.

Yeah, it wasn't like that at all. It was a 20 year old straight, Christian male just doing his job.

Well, in that case, fuck that guy.

Shirley wrote:Would there have been a big fuss if they had a woman play the role of the Big Bad Wolf?

How do you know the Big Bad Wolf was even a male? Nice sexist assumption.

(Yes, I'm sure the wolf is referred to as "he" in the tales. But still.)

Doesn't the Big Bad Wolf end up cross-species and cross-gender dressing anyway when he dresses up as Grandma to try to fool Little Red?

Being surrounded by some fairly conservative people, I've seen people share Matt Walsh's "stories" and I knew from the start this was complete bullshit.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Shirley wrote:Would there have been a big fuss if they had a woman play the role of the Big Bad Wolf?

How do you know the Big Bad Wolf was even a male? Nice sexist assumption.

(Yes, I'm sure the wolf is referred to as "he" in the tales. But still.)

Doesn't the Big Bad Wolf end up cross-species and cross-gender dressing anyway when he dresses up as Grandma to try to fool Little Red?

He huffed and he puffed and he blew their house down.

And yeah, that story DOES already have cross-dressing in it!

I've followed Matt Walsh on Twitter for a while now...this type of thing is par for the course. He views homosexuality/transgender as a disease or mental disorder. His rampage of the day today is no one is covering the Nashville church shooting...too busy talking about NFL players kneeling. He is at best a troll...at worst a complete asshole.

GoodKarma wrote:I've followed Matt Walsh on Twitter for a while now...this type of thing is par for the course. He views homosexuality/transgender as a disease or mental disorder. His rampage of the day today is no one is covering the Nashville church shooting...too busy talking about NFL players kneeling. He is at best a troll...at worst a complete asshole.

Why the hell do you choose to follow on Twitter somebody you describe as "at best a troll...at worst a complete asshole"? I follow a few conservatives to learn their points of view, but I don't consider those people I follow to be trolls or assholes.

Dollars to donuts that dude watched Bugs Bunny as a kid and didn't freak out.

sancarlos wrote:

GoodKarma wrote:I've followed Matt Walsh on Twitter for a while now...this type of thing is par for the course. He views homosexuality/transgender as a disease or mental disorder. His rampage of the day today is no one is covering the Nashville church shooting...too busy talking about NFL players kneeling. He is at best a troll...at worst a complete asshole.

Why the hell do you choose to follow on Twitter somebody you describe as "at best a troll...at worst a complete asshole"? I follow a few conservatives to learn their points of view, but I don't consider those people I follow to be trolls or assholes.

I like to, as I say, get perspective on the crazy. It's my personal belief that I shouldn't complain about it if I don't study or experience it.

I worry about people like him because what they really do is prey on ignorance.

Marty Jannetty answers the question none of us are asking:

Gross.

I never liked the Rockers largely because there was just something about the way Jannetty looked...I guess I'm vindicated a quarter-century later?

Seems a little less gross when you find out he didn't raise her or know she existed. They met as adults. I guess she thought she was his daughter, but apparently she isn't. So have no genetic or familial relationship to each other.

Shirley wrote:Seems a little less gross when you find out he didn't raise her or know she existed. They met as adults. I guess she thought she was his daughter, but apparently she isn't. So have no genetic or familial relationship to each other.

Still...and at best the age disparity is still fucking gross.

Johnny Carwash wrote:I never liked the Rockers largely because there was just something about the way Jannetty looked...I guess I'm vindicated a quarter-century later?

Like Steve Perry.

Also, ewww and very surprised he's from a southern state.

brian wrote:

Shirley wrote:Seems a little less gross when you find out he didn't raise her or know she existed. They met as adults. I guess she thought she was his daughter, but apparently she isn't. So have no genetic or familial relationship to each other.

Still...and at best the age disparity is still fucking gross.

Yeah, "having thought it at least plausible at some point that she was your daughter" ought to disqualify her as someone you'd try to have sex with, but that's just me.

[insert Trump joke here]

Yeah, odds of Ivanka being asked to take a DNA test this weekend are pretty high.

She's got those plate glass window lips - I'd get a second test

Facebook is a cesspool. I only log in after larger events to see who on my friends list I need to delete. Between Charlottesville and Kaep, it's been about 15 or so. I have more decent friends than I thought.

Facebook -- where you're judging Christians when you say that the power of prayer itself is hopeless to stop mass shootings.

Brontoburglar wrote:Facebook -- where you're judging Christians when you say that the power of prayer itself is hopeless to stop mass shootings.

I had to walk away from the phone when I saw that.

Oh, come on. If I had a dollar for every time a Swamper came to the defense of religious people for me attacking a religious idea, I'd probably have like 58 bucks.

Jerloma wrote:Oh, come on. If I had a dollar for every time a Swamper came to the defense of religious people for me attacking a religious idea, I'd probably have like 58 bucks.

Is it ironic that you're kind of being a martyr right now?

Jerloma wrote:Oh, come on. If I had a dollar for every time a Swamper came to the defense of religious people for me attacking a religious idea, I'd probably have like 58 bucks.

I stopped responding to political stuff on Facebook.

The Sybian wrote:

Jerloma wrote:Oh, come on. If I had a dollar for every time a Swamper came to the defense of religious people for me attacking a religious idea, I'd probably have like 58 bucks.

I stopped responding to political stuff on Facebook.

I quit following the people whose political views piss me off. (I didn't necessarily unfriend them - just unfollowed their postings.)

Same. Made that stupid website more tolerable.

I made the mistake of responded to someone who said that the neighbor who exchanged fire with the gunman "stopped" the massacre. I said that 26 people dead is not my definition of "stopped".

DaveInSeattle wrote:I made the mistake of responded to someone who said that the neighbor who exchanged fire with the gunman "stopped" the massacre. I said that 26 people dead is not my definition of "stopped".

That was part of the narrative I heard elsewhere.

Including From This Asshole

Trump referred to Willeford as a “brave man” and said “if he had not had a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead… It’s not going to help.”

"It" refers to tougher gun laws.

Pruitt wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:I made the mistake of responded to someone who said that the neighbor who exchanged fire with the gunman "stopped" the massacre. I said that 26 people dead is not my definition of "stopped".

That was part of the narrative I heard elsewhere.

Including From This Asshole

Trump referred to Willeford as a “brave man” and said “if he had not had a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead… It’s not going to help.”

"It" refers to tougher gun laws.

Even worse, right after the quote Pruitt gave, Trump claimed that Chicago has the nation's strongest gun laws and "it's a disaster." Recycling the favorite trope of anti-black racists, ever since Obama got elected, of treating Chicago as an archetype for black criminality.

New York, which has very strong gun control laws (remember Plaxico's prison stint?) is the safest big city in America. St. Louis, which has significantly more violent crime per capita than Chicago, has pathetically weak gun laws. So Trump's attempted point falls apart under even minimal scrutiny.

Even though Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation (there are ZERO gun stores in Chicago), it is very easy to bring guns in from neighboring counties and especially from Pence's home state of Indiana

Avram wrote:Even though Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation (there are ZERO gun stores in Chicago), it is very easy to bring guns in from neighboring counties and especially from Pence's home state of Indiana

Some deterrence is better than no deterrence.

I've countered that assertion several times by asking "so if Chicago lessened the strictness of its gun laws, would its murder rate go down?"