Tax Day Forum
Steven L. Taylor
·
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
·
58 comments
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
Abigail Thorn is a Trans national treasure.
Abigail Thorn is a Trans national treasure.
@Beth:
There is a difference, though, between wanting to be more manly or feminine (i.e., the same but more so) and wanting to be the opposite gender (i.e., something else).
If you’re trans that difference is not real because you have always been the gender opposite to the one you were assigned at birth (I assume).
But the anti-trans crowd doesn’t see it that way. And the same holds true, I think, for those who aren’t necessarily bigots but simply lack understanding.
So I’m not sure how convincing Thorn’s argument is to those who aren’t already supportive.
Even the New York Post is upset by Epstein’s best friend’s neofascist designs:
Trump says ‘home-grown’ Americans are next to go to El Salvador, tells Bukele ‘gotta build about five more places’ (New York)
Trans people are not plotting to throw US citizens in El Savadorian torture prisons, nor are trans people why Americans can’t afford rent and groceries.
Technical note.
When I click on the Outside the Beltway page header the first item below the header Trump Openly Defying the Courts states No Comments. When I click on the item there are 8 comments.
@Mister Bluster:
Same here. It also happened yesterday with another OTB post.
Kurtz:
I just wanted to copy and paste this. Everywhere. It’s amazing.
@drj:
Are you seriously trying to explain to a trans woman what the internal experience of being trans feels like?
@Mister Bluster:
I get the same thing also, the main front page does not refresh, gets out of sync with the comment count at the sub-posts. Yesterday and today.
@Beth:
Bingo.
@Stormy Dragon:
My point was that if something is binary in the experience of (let’s say) 99% of the population, using an argument that presupposes that something is, in fact, non-binary (even if correct) is probably not going to be very successful.
So I was mainly speaking about the assumptions of non-trans people.
Sorry, not sorry if that offends you.
As to this:
The above reflects the experience of a trans person I have had a conversation with. It wasn’t meant as an absolute statement, and I merely used it to make a point that being non-cis can come with its own blind spots as to how cis people think. I even left room for Beth to correct me if her experience has been different.
Once again, sorry, not sorry if that offends you.
Testing the comment counter.
Seems it’s still stuck.
The Fourteenth Amendment is at the core of the legal case against bans on gender-affirming care.
It uses a logic quite similar to that employed by Ms. Thorn. Pretty much every treatment performed as part of gender-affirming care is also performed on cis people. It follows that the only reason for ban is discriminatory. I’ve read this logic in a court decision. It has probably come up more than once.
It lays bare the lie about, ‘we’re just trying to save the children’. Cis girls under age 18 get something like 3000 breast augmentations surgeries per year. Far more than trans girls get.
Hormone blockers exist to treat younger cis girls who are experience early onset of puberty. Nobody thinks this harms them.
I think the context is quite different in the UK, so the arguments might look different as well.
However, I think “it’s my body and I can do what I want with it” is an argument that can co-exist with “this person is suffering and we should do something about that, or at least allow people to do something about that”.
Oh, boo hoo.
Trump to skip White House Correspondents’ Association dinner amid battle with press
When a person with a lengthy presence in the comments section and evidently reasonable intelligence drops a comment that is easily predicted to 1) persuade no other commenter and 2) infuriate not a few of them, shouldn’t we conclude that the fury is the point? Shouldn’t we wonder about why someone wants us so angry?
@drj:
You understand nothing of the issue.
Some of it is climate change, which the rapist’s “policies” are making worse, the rest is the loss or reduction of government spending on food programs and USAID, and here come the tariffs. So farmers are already looking for a bailout.
It’s what they voted for.
Meanwhile, the Chinese is ordering airlines to halt deliveries of Boeing jets.
All complications aside, I wonder if this is sustainable. It’s not like trucks or even ships, where there are lots of manufacturers all over the world. Even COMAC’s C919 can’t be produced fast enough to fulfill China’s domestic aviation needs.
Of course, it needs be sustained only long enough to harm the rapist in DC.
Here’s some free advice: before starting a trade war, remember that war is hell.
@Jay L Gischer: We should just keep doing what we all just did: ignore it.
Anyway, anybody having anything good for dinner tonight, or lunch or brunch tomorrow? In Berlin till next week, so I’ll hit up Frühstück 3000 in Schoneberg in the morning. Recommended.
A Danish friend baked a delicious, oniony homemade bread for me and the Polish boy. Undercooked it a tad, but it’s so flavorful I don’t mind. But we’re wondering if we could throw it in the oven, maybe? Or maybe cook it through on the stove?
Speaking of taxes… Is congress really going to pass an extension of the 2017 tax cut as well as the trump pander cuts, and balloon the deficit at a time when the value of the dollar is falling and US borrowing costs are increasing?
Maybe people are too easily convinced that taxes are bad, and that taxes = federal income taxes. I can give examples of years when the federal income tax was the fourth highest tax paid for a middle class family (mine). That is, payroll taxes, property taxes, and state/local income taxes were each greater than the federal income tax owed in a given year, thanks to the federal deductions and graduated tax rates that apply to everyone. And that goes for an area with only somewhat high state/local income taxes and property taxes (not an area normally discussed in the context of the SALT deduction issue).
Provocation! Remember the Maine! We are soooo going to invade!
These guys are going to guarantee it !!!
And if Trump has his way, Greenland will end up hosting his Gulag Archi-nemesis-alago for those who would dare oppose him.
@Eusebio:
The rapist probably thinks tax cuts are magic. Like tariffs, which are working even better than expected!
And not only that, but the IRS is getting its budget cut, which will mean a lot less personnel to audit tax returns, especially of wealthier people. In his substack column today, Krugman mentions a revenue shortfall just from income tax of around $500 billion (ie half a $trillion).
There’s the waste and fraud.
@Fortune:
Amazing is excessive, but thank you.
Taxman
The Beatles
1966
Several years ago I ran into an acquaintance that I had not seen in a while. She said she was working at the Jackson County (IL) Treasurers office, the place where I send my real estate tax payments. When I mentioned that I had put a verse from this Beatles song on the outside of the envelope when I mailed my check she said: “I know. We put them up on the wall.”
Random tidbit from Bluesky:
4Chan appears to have been hacked, with moderator names, IP addresses, and source code all exposed. This appears to have been made possible because 4Chan was running on positively ancient code.
@Scott: Does this mean we can have the comedian back?
Speaking of taxes, I tried to file my return yesterday, and ran into a problem. TL;DR, I need to renew my “electronic signature” (actually an encrypted certificate of some sort), in order to get something else that needs to go into the return. So, I had to hire an accountant to help (it’s easier this way).
On the upside, it also means I can get a tax refund in cash, rather than letting it be credited for next year’s taxes.
BTW, the return is generated by the tax collecting authority, and it included my salary, interests from government bonds, withholding of income taxes of both, and the payment of several deductible expenses (most of my expenses are not deductible). Were it not for the weird thing that requires the “signature,” I’d have finished filing in five minutes.
@DK: I thought Jay L Gischer was complaining about drj. I’m still new to the comments section and my comment wouldn’t infuriate anyone.
@DK: Just for the sake of clarity, I wasn’t addressing anything said today in this thread. Not that I disagree with your take.
@Joe: I was wondering whether they’ll let the nouveau correspondents (aka trash) from Breitbart, Gateway Pundits, Blaze, Twitchy, etc. attend. Assuming they are paying the Association dues.
@DK: Toasting slices either with a toaster or in a pan will help a little, but bread is a “can’t fix mistakes” thing mostly. Sounds like a good possibility for some savory-type pain perdeu (French toast) if y’all roll that way.
@Jay L Gischer: If the unnamed person’s unspecified comments are also (3) correct, (4) informative, (5) conversation-starters, and (6) not sad passive-aggressive half-hints that some unnamed person is a bot, maybe we shouldn’t assume fury is the only purpose?
@Eusebio:
A Republican-controlled Congress of a Trump administration that was elected by an actual plurality of both electors and popular vote? Hell yeah.
Seems appropriate to me on some sick, misanthropic level for some reason, too. (Insert Trumpish blather about patients, medicine, and recovery here.)
@Fortune:
I straight up said that I don’t think you’re a bot. Looking at the text of my comment, could I have made that point clearer? Probably.
Should I have been clearer that I was raising that issue to point out that most of your comments resemble a chatbot that mishandles a prompt? Probably.
Maybe the Turing Test comment in the last paragraph threw you off, but I figured that the preceding two or three paragraphs would have alerted the reader that I was referring to how we interact with you. Note that it’s a Turing Test in reverse—we are not trying to figure out if you are human, rather you present a test to determine whether we can adapt ourselves.
But, I literally refer to you as a person, repeatedly. Not just in that post, always. Yes, I phrase it to indicate that I hold some disdain toward your behavior, but never once have a stated that I think you are anything other than a person.
I have also explained to you why I do not call you a poisonous toad—I prefer not to dehumanize individuals. In fact, you made reference to dehumanization at some point after the poisonous toad explanation and commenters started referring to you as such.
You consistently quote-mine to draw a conclusion that you want to make. No amount of rewording or further explanation seems to get past your filter. You consistently ignore clarification requests for your own posts.
I have some sympathy for those who call you a toad, because you set standards for discussion that you violate without apology, you assiduously avoid engagement, you never stop to think maybe your 3 line response to an 800+ word comment or post was not enough to get your point across then blame everyone else, claiming that we don’t like disagreement. (FTR, I love debate, I love discussion, but I do expect an interlocutor to meat minimum standards of coherence, quality, and understanding.)
Also, I am not in the habit of passive-aggressive posts. Unless you count sub-responses as passive-aggressive, even if the text is direct. If I think something, I write it. If I’m writing as an exploration, it should be obvious to readers that I am trying to figure out what I think. The fact is, if you did operate in good faith, there would not be so many competing ideas about your motives.
Are you going to read this for what it says or find a creative way to turn the focus back on me? Take some responsibility. Take some ownership.
@Kurtz: I was replying to Jay L Gischer. It’s my fault, I was trying to duplicate his passive-aggressive style of not identifying the subject.
@Stormy Dragon:
On second thought: I was needlessly harsh in my previous comment.
I get where you’re coming from.
@Kurtz:
Also, you wrote a 677-word denunciation of me after I made the following comments:
I wouldn’t call you passive-aggressive, more like rabid.
@Kurtz: I agree about amazing, but your comment late yesterday was an insightful look into our community here that many have tried and failed to express before. Good work.
ETA: Thinking more about it as my comment loaded, Fortune is right. Amazing is a fair description.
AETA: Your comment 3 or 4 clicks up is another solid observation to a solid point.
@Fortune:
Fair enough.
To be honest, it’s kind of hard to read your bot comment as anything other than a reference to my post. Simply because I don’t see anything from today that approaches even a half hint that someone is a bot.
I didn’t think Jay was referring to my post, simply because I can’t imagine it would bother anyone other than you. On the other hand, Jay may have some complicated feelings about me. Hell, he may have a negative view of me overall. I don’t really know.
Actually, now that I think about it, I could see how that post could bother him. But if I intended to induce fury in someone, I would not choose Jay. That’s a near guaranteed failure.
@just nutha:
Thank you. It is nice to hear, because I hate almost everything I produce in any medium.
I’m unsure how I made it to my age without serious substance abuse or walking in front of a bus.
On yesterday’s Ancient Geeks, the hosts agreed Vader’s redemption wasn’t right.
I agree. But this also illustrates what I call the “Only the protagonists and such characters as they care about matter at all; everyone else is disposable.” I’m not sure whether this is a trope or a principle.
So, by saving the hero and protagonist, Vader is redeemed in any way that can possibly matter. Letting Tarkin blow up a planet, killing several subordinates for incompetence, slaughtering children at the Jedi temple, who cares? He saved Luke effing Skywalker! He’s a saint now, worthy of Jedi Heaven.
On the matter of killing the emperor, that’s a sore point from the prequels for me. Which also touches on one movie contradicting the other. First, what did Obi Wan tell Anakin before taking on Doku in the second movie? That they should take him on together. What do Obi Wan and Yoda do in the third movie? Take on the emperor and Anakin separately.
Right then, the emperor was the relevant one. Anakin was the underling who commanded no troops, had no political power, no followers, no plans, nothing. They should have taken on Palpatine together first, then dealt with Darth Anakin later.
But then what about the original trilogy, if the emperor is defeated before he can build the Death Star and cackle like a B-movie or comic book villain?
Jay L Gischer: Could you clear it up? I think you’ve been making passive-aggressive comments implying I’m a bot for months. Please state clearly whether I’m right or wrong about it.
@Stormy Dragon: A minority depends on allies to help protect their rights. And when that minority is based on a difference on something so fundamental and ingrained that people don’t see it within themselves… you may want to pay attention to how they view your experiences and nudge them along the right path rather than shut them down.
Because there’s every chance that drj (or whomever) will also get to speak to people you can’t reach.
In the 1980s and 90s, enough gay people came out of the closet that a large number of Americans found out that they did know someone who was gay (or lesbian, or bisexual — although there are many, many people who assume that bisexual men don’t really exist, even now). Trans folks don’t have that option.
The US population is roughly 0.5% trans, or some other number that means most people don’t interact with trans people on a regular basis. That means you don’t get the opportunity to speak to them, and you’re dependent on allies.
You do you, of course, but I’d think you would want cisgender people to make a well-meaning muddy mess of explaining things to other cis people, and for them to explain what the cis view of trans folks is around trans folks, so you can prod them closer to the truth and knowing their understanding can help you break it down into small bite sized chunks that cis people can digest, rather than just shut them down.
I’m reminded of something from one of the Buddhist teachings, where it is explained that the sutra does not contain the truth, it points towards the truth. That’s what you want from allies — pointing vaguely in the right direction, but inspiring empathy and dispelling fear.
On the other hand, I think the same sutra says that if you try to show the moon to a cat by pointing to the moon, the cat will just sniff your finger.
Why do I think of Buddhism? Because for most people who are just their gender and that’s it, understanding what it means for it not to be that way is like figuring out the sound of one hand clapping. (Except there are rumors that a one-handed person three villages over is clapping and molesting children)
Oh, for fuck’s sake, the trollish freak has people discussing whether he is trolling or just trollish…
This is why moderation rules should be a little bit loosely-goosey and the ban hammer applied as much on vibes than precise rules.
The freak wants to be banned without a well-defined cause. Whether it’s so he can feel superior, or brag to his friends, or say “so much for the tolerant left” — I don’t know. If I had the ban hammer I would give him what he wants. It’s a win-win. He’s happy. I’m happy. Other people probably exist too, and they’re probably happy.
@Gustopher: I don’t want to talk about me, but if half of the comments are about me I’ll respond.
@Gustopher:
Yup.
Let’s try to steer the conversation in another direction.
I found a video about the impact of tariffs on Boeing. I hadn’t thought about it, past the impact on all industry and commerce. I had no chance to see the video (Ep. 4 of Severance took precedence), but it reminded me how much of Boeing’s last new plane, the 787, was sourced from multiple countries (to cut costs).
I don’t know whether that’s the case as well for the MAX and the much delayed 777X, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were. While more directed and conscious, commerce is a lot like life: it evolves and adapts to changing circumstances.
Lower trade barriers and tariffs, and business will evolve in response. Throw the barriers and tariffs back up suddenly, and it’s like the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. The change is too abrupt, and the things they did to continue in business no longer work.
@drj:
Except that difference is fundamentally irrelevant. Trans or cis, the care is the same. The only difference is that one group gets the care basically without question and the other group gets denied the care and is segregated into weird care ghettos. The estrogen I get is the same my cis partner would get for menopause care.
Thorn’s argument is that we are entitled to the same care that everyone else gets because we are human and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. That’s a fundamentally stronger argument than an argument about a medical condition.
So, like I get where you’re coming from with this (and I assume positive intent), but it is expressed poorly. Also, this is at its core an esoteric argument that gets battled over constantly. I am of the opinion that it would have been better for us had it not broken containment, even if I sort of agree with it.
It’s also easy for me to sort of agree with it because I have enough circumstantial evidence that I was one of the kids that came out and insisted I was a girl at a very young age and then had it beaten out if me. I’m also a very binary trans. It’s easy for me to explain to cis people where I fit in that esoteric nonsense. It gets way more complicated way faster than people who haven’t been dealing with it their whole lives imagine.
Also, think about your gender, why are you that gender? Have you ever really thought about the why? You might say I’m this because I have these parts. What would happen if those parts disappeared? Would you cease to be that gender? I’d guess no.
Cis people don’t have to prove their gender. It just is and the whole world just accepts that cis people are telling the truth. Because cis people just accept their gender as true without thinking about it they get to decide that they are “normal”. Because it feels normal to you it feels immutable.
I think that’s what really freaks cis people out. Trans people are a mirror that shows that cis people do not have a monopoly on “normal” and what feels immutable actually isn’t.
That’s the real difference between cis people and trans people, we get to and have to deal with that terror. We have to move through it and accept it. That’s what transition really is, acceptance.
@Gustopher:
So, first off, just to be clear, there’s basically no daylight between me and Stormy on this. I desperately want to be a Mon Mothma type. But I’m not. I’m much more of fundamentalist. A Luthen Rael.
Here you’re eliding the critical part of gay liberation where gay men and lesbians pointed at Trans people, Gender Non-conforming queers and bisexuals and said “we deserve rights and we’re not like those freaks.” Every decision taken in those battles were at the expense of people like me and you.
So, no. I’m a fundamentalist. I just understand that sometimes I have to try and talk pretty and sometimes I have to stick my finger through people’s eyes.
@Kurtz: I almost never know to what Jay is referring when he doesn’t specify. Then again, I almost never have any concern about not knowing either. On average, Jay seems like someone worth considering as a model for humanistic aspirations.
I’m more of a misanthrope, sadly.
@Fortune:
Two, and with a qualification, all three, of your examples fit a category I mentioned in my comment last night. But, allow me to address them.
I did not even notice your reply to Kathy. I would not have been compelled to your comment even if I had. Even then, it would have been to ask for specifics.
I read your reply to wr as sarcastic. If that read is correct, this is an instance that does not bother me. @wr is a pugilist. If you return the favor, I don’t consider that worthy of criticism.
However, if you notice, wr did make a point about your definition of terrorism. I would not have taken that approach, because I am almost positive that you would not attempt to justify setting fire to the PA Governor’s Mansion.
I do think that you tend to use those instances to claim that people here are only ever hostile to you. But I get your reaction in this instance.
Also note that when I first started noticing your comments, I am pretty sure I mentioned that maybe we should be a little less vitriolic. I was one of the ones who advocated giving you a chance to explain, and tried to draw substantive engagement out of you. Sorry, but that’s not foaming-at-the-mouth behavior.
Most importantly:
I replied to Bernius, because he responded to the Edsel target of terrorists comment. That is the thread that directly spurred my observations—more like, crystalized what I thought. I have been trying to understand you for a long time now—so my comment reflects quite a bit of effort. Again, not rabid behavior.
I note here that you did not respond to the Bernius reply, which was wholly substantive and also included a reminder to the rest of us about the risks of partisan or ideological lensing. I am unsure what else you would want.
One recent instance I did not mention: you made a series of comments the other day. When challenged, your reply was something about the lack of disagreement in the thread other than your comments. But in the vast majority of cases, including in that forum, your disagreement is limited to “no” or “I disagree” but with a few more words. That serves no one. It adds nothing other than registering that you have a different viewpoint, without explanation.
There have been times that you gave detail. But it’s usually not all that compelling, because it does not fully answer what’s behind the original comment. Here, I am thinking of gVOR’s political influence of money and power.
I gave a detailed explanation of gVOR’s argument, I also allowed that it makes sense that it you would say that the original comment was not a full argument. I explained that as well. I also demonstrated how your examples were inadequate to answer the underlying premise.
Then, I directly asked if your argument was, money is neither necessary nor sufficient for political power so there is no connection.
To my knowledge, and I checked a few times the next day, you never replied to either. Even if I concede that you thought the first post was dumb, and not worthy of a response, why not answer the direct question? I mean, that question was in no way loaded.*
Perhaps you didn’t see it. That would be my usual assumption. But you have a habit, pointed out to you by several of us, of avoiding substance. At some point, a pattern justifies skepticism of motive and good faith. So why give you the benefit of the doubt?
Expectations of good faith can be abused. Your patterns of behavior suggest to some that you are playing that game. I long held off from concluding that they were correct all along. But I have seen too much.
You have seen glimpses of what it looks like for me to go rabid. I hate it. It’s not good for me. It may provide momentary fun, but in the end that bit of enjoyment is not worth how I feel afterward. And it’s not healthy discussion.
I have little hope that you will even attempt to understand anything I say. Whether that is willful, ideological, partisan, or deep faith in Biblical prophecy, I do not know for sure. More salient for you: do you know?
*There is plenty of literature that provides alternative frameworks, offensive and defensive arguments. Those are found in political theory, philosophy of law; really, in just about every social science field. That literature is rich and deep. You can basically find whatever approach you want.
@just nutha:
This is what I’m afraid of.
This French toast idea makes me think it can be turned into a garlic bread, since it’s so oniony. I always feel garlic bread is a little mushy inside. It’s late here, tomorrow’s project. Danke.
@just nutha:
My kinda guy.
Also my kinda guy!
@just nutha:
I made a similar comment not that long ago.
My view: every political movement requires some Jays for persuasion, some wrs and DKs for teeth, and some levelheaded ones who understand when to deploy each end of the spectrum.
That’s simplified a bit, but a reasonable short version.
If anybody here has even passing interest in cybersecurity, some truly jaw dropping news that funding has been allowed to lapse for the program that serves as the de-facto standard for identifying and managing allvulnerabilities:
Cybersecurity World On Edge As CVE Program Prepares To Go Dark
The article does a good job of laying out in layperson terms what’s at stake, but basically, every cybersecurity solution and cybersecurity team out there relies on CVE info to secure against attacks from hackers, be they nation states, organized crime, or lone wolves.
Nothing political about it that I know of so no reasons jumping immediately to mind why this was allowed to happen.
Good thing nothing critical in most folks everyday lives needs to be protected from hacking.
Absolutely wild.
If anybody here has even passing interest in cybersecurity, some truly jaw dropping news that funding has been allowed to lapse for the program that serves as the de-facto standard for identifying and managing all vulnerabilities:
Cybersecurity World On Edge As CVE Program Prepares To Go Dark
The article does a good job of laying out in layperson terms what’s at stake, but basically, every cybersecurity solution and cybersecurity team out there relies on CVE info to secure against attacks from hackers, be they nation states, organized crime, or lone wolves.
Nothing political about it that I know of so no reasons jumping immediately to mind why this was allowed to happen.
Good thing nothing critical in most folks everyday lives needs to be protected from hacking. (/sarcasm)
Absolutely wild.
@Beth:
And here you are eliding a lot of the history that didn’t exclude us. Respectability politics was an element of the 1990s queer liberation movement, but there was also Act Up, and the far more “radical” section of the movement.
My experiences may differ from yours at the time though, as mostly movement people just didn’t think I existed — that bi* is just a stopping point before coming out as gay — and I was included as “future gay.”
I have seen more anti-trans stuff in queer spaces the past few years than I saw then. But I’ve also been paying attention to it more.
(These anti-trans LGB types are fools if they don’t think they’re next — and there aren’t enough trans folks to satisfy the fascist hate machine)
But overall I’ll stand by my point that the trans community needs to rely upon (somewhat clueless) allies, and that inviting them in and gently correcting is far better than shutting them down. There just aren’t enough trans folks to reach everyone directly.
I would not be surprised if there were more measles cases than trans people in the US by the end of the year.
I guarantee that I will never understand trans folks. Everything gender-related aligns for me, and is on easy mode. (Or maybe I have no gender and just haven’t noticed because I like easy mode), so it’s entirely outside my realm of experience — nothing even comparable. But I don’t have to understand them to know that they exist, deserve rights and respect, and the opportunity to live their lives.
——
*: it was a simpler time when we just had one word for people attracted to both men and women. And a really ugly flag. No pan, omni, sexually fluid, demi-whatever with penis in retrograde and couch ascending or whatever. (I’m not big on labels… if they help someone understand themselves, good for them, but I think it’s a very boring party game. Like Settlers of Catan**)
**: not actually a party game, but such a terrible game.
I wonder if there’s an app like the creepy one Mike Johnson and his son use to share their porn interests, but which categorizes the porn and just assigns a label to the viewer. I think there’s a whole bunch of young queer kids who would really like a “definitive” answer… oh, god, there would be kids who would change their habits to try to get their preferred label…
And, for our right wing gotcha trolls, I will say that when I use “kid”, I’m saying anyone under 30. That said, actual children are exposed to so much sexualized content and sexual content these days, what the hell, let them get this hypothetical app too. What harm could it cause?
@Kathy: I went to Trader Joe’s today, and I was surprised that tariffs seem, at least, to be already affecting store inventory. Lots of empty shelves and missing items.
@Kathy: I went to Trader Joe’s today, and I was surprised that tariffs seem to be already affecting store inventory. Lots of empty shelves and missing items.
@Beth: Here you’re eliding the critical part of gay liberation where gay men and lesbians pointed at Trans people, Gender Non-conforming queers and bisexuals and said “we deserve rights and we’re not like those freaks.”
@Kurtz:
I’m inclined to agree, but also to note that movements seem not to have all of them at the necessary times and to the necessary proportions. When I was growing up, the students and disciples of Marcuse were not up to the task of propelling the movement.
In the same way, the students and disciples of Bill Bright were not up to the task of leading the next generation of evangelicals. The fact that Bill Bright was no Herbert Marcuse didn’t help any either. The moral of the story was both leftist thought and evangelicalism suffer because of what they became.
@just nutha:
I read a brief item, I forget where, that some merchants are planning a tariff surcharge.
It’s the same as raising prices, naturally, but it puts the blame where it belongs. it also leaves no doubt who pays the tariffs.
I hope many merchants do this. I’d love it if all of them did (probably too complicated).