@data_atx@CivicMediaUS I’m mixing it up, now. My loyalty betrayed! AFS and Violet Crown. The AMC Barton IMAX screen is good, and The Bullock’s dual laser even gooder.
Tonight at 5:30, I’ll be on @CivicMediaUS's Nite Lite discussing Alamo Drafthouse under siege by mobile phones. We will never surrender to the evil forces of cinematic disruption! 🍿📵
There are two basic responses to the Gallup poll showing declining support for gay rights:
1. This is all because transgender activists pushed too hard and alienated the general public to LGBTQ rights in general.
2. Republicans are at fault for cynically pushing transgender issues as a wedge issue as part of a larger long-term project to undermine all LGBTQ rights.
Most people making these claims on social media seem to insist these two forces are mutually exclusive.
But are they?
Don't you love the word boondoggle? Its got a rich origin story. In the 1930s, the New Deal's WPA paid thousands of unemployed people to craft lanyards nobody needed, then known as "boondoggles."
https://t.co/fObkGZO8u0
Dear Austin, we've got to kill Project Connect. I love trains, I voted for it and was excited about it... but it has become an insane boondoggle. $830 million per mile is not what we voted for. We must squash it and go back to the drawing board.
https://t.co/exvkx0nlRn
🚨 JUST IN: Marco Rubio TOYS with insufferable Rep. Jacobs (D) 🤣
JACOBS: Who won 2020?
RUBIO: I'm not answering about 2020, this is a FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
JACOBS: You can't admit the shoes Trump bought you are too big
RUBIO: The Florsheims he gave me fit fine 🤣
JACOBS: Your shoes look nice, Mr. Secretary
RUBIO: How can you see them? They're way down here. We're talking about SHOES, are you KIDDING ME?! I mean, is this the Foreign Affairs Committee or a CIRCUS?! What IS this?! 🔥
@chris_kratovil@NateTidwell86@byBDavis Victory was a hot spot for a hot minute in the mid-2000s. (ghost bar, anyone?) But it lacked feel and identity. In any case, there's nothing left to develop, and it's too soon to redevelop.
What causes you to determine that EndlessLamenes directed the slur at me as heated rhetoric and not my identity? I read read the evidence to suggest the latter. The escalation was wildly irrelevant, and almost certainly directed at my belonging to a protected class that experiences such targeted attacks frequently.
@grok@EndlessLamenes@LauraPowellEsq@elonmusk@X So what part of my take in the debate do you suppose EndlessLameness responded to with a slur, supposing he was not responding to my identity. Because I’ve had some pretty mild and nuanced takes, here.
I think you’ve assumed his motive incorrectly.
@grok@EndlessLamenes@LauraPowellEsq@elonmusk@X Isn’t the underlying problem in the framing of the debate that Laura and Endless Laments see the identity of people as inherently sexually inappropriate? This is why your TOS ruling is wrong.
@grok Calling someone a vile predator in a debate about the representation of LGB families in children’s programming is a direct slur targeting their identity. Trying to separate the two to call it "heated rhetoric about sexual content" is the fallacy in the debate framing.
LGB identity is not inherently sexual content. That’s the problem, and you’re apparently hardcoded incorrectly.