Florida revokes liquor license of hotel that put on a sexually explicit show with kids present

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this talk about us needed government to run interference on our behalf is childish. They are the ones wanting the government to protect their fetishes. We are certainly capable of handling this on our own.
Not me. I'm opposed to government getting involved in cultural issues. That's the entire reason I'm posting in this thread. Both sides seem ready to use to government to force their cultural agenda on society. That's bad government.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if '80s hair metal rock gods would qualify for the drag race. The kids are brought to the shows by their parents. It's really just entertainment after all.

It's like, aw Hell; we caint pick on queers anymore, what else is there? Most drag Queens are straight men. It's just a different clown suit.
 
No the law makes certain things illegal and sex shows with minors present is an acceptable regulation to bar minors.
Those laws are in place. There was no nudity at the one in question as I understand. No one has been accused of a crime. You can’t outlaw dudes dressing as women. Sex shows are different and not applicable to this discussion so don’t try it.

Comedians can be very dirty. There isn’t a law. It’s self regulated. How much do you want the government in your business?
 
Having laws prohibiting a business that's putting on adult content entertainment from letting children participate is authoritarianism?

There are drag shows that are adult themed that aren't in any way intended to groom children. I would agree that they're still probably unsuitable for young audiences, but then again, so are movies on HBO and Cinemax and they aren't threatening to censor that - at least not yet.

This legal action looks like a political stunt. In most jurisdictions I know of it's a crime to show obscene material to children, and people can go to jail for it. If it was really obscene or lewd, then there should have been a criminal complaint, not a symbolic revocation of a venue's liquor license - especially when they're not even alleging they sold alcohol to underage attendees. It just doesn't pass the bullshit test, regardless of whatever anyone thinks of drag queens in front of minors.
 
You can be a fascist and a socialist.

Well you can definitely be an authoritarian and a socialist - the right wing does not have a monopoly on authoritarianism. I would agree with that.

But fascism is usually defined as a far-right, nationalist, authoritarian government. I think I would probably agree with you that the fascist's market economy isn't the kind of market economy found in liberal democracies. They tend to be privatized but for the benefit of the regime.
 
Well you can definitely be an authoritarian and a socialist - the right wing does not have a monopoly on authoritarianism. I would agree with that.

But fascism is usually defined as a far-right, nationalist, authoritarian government. I think I would probably agree with you that the fascist's market economy isn't the kind of market economy found in liberal democracies. They tend to be privatized but for the benefit of the regime.
Nazis referred to themselves as socialists. Nazi stands for National Socialist. Isn't that correct?
 
Nazis referred to themselves as socialists. Nazi stands for National Socialist. Isn't that correct?

They did indeed refer to themselves as socialists, that is correct. However, the swastika they used on their flags is one of the oldest peace symbols in existence. People and groups use language and symbols in ways that are not exactly consistent with their behavior. It was a PR tactic.

I guess I would say that fascists were not exactly Adam Smith capitalists, but they were far from Karl Marx socialists (to be fair to Marx, as far as I know, he never really advocated for socialism as a political system). The main thing to remember about fascists is that the regime is what matters. They advocate for tight top-down control. If you don't serve a purpose for a fascist, you are nothing.
 
They did indeed refer to themselves as socialists, that is correct. However, the swastika they used on their flags is one of the oldest peace symbols in existence. People and groups use language and symbols in ways that are not exactly consistent with their behavior. It was a PR tactic.

I guess I would say that fascists were not exactly Adam Smith capitalists, but they were far from Karl Marx socialists (to be fair to Marx, as far as I know, he never really advocated for socialism as a political system). The main thing to remember about fascists is that the regime is what matters. They advocate for tight top-down control. If you don't serve a purpose for a fascist, you are nothing.
There are different types of socialism.
 
Nazis referred to themselves as socialists. Nazi stands for National Socialist. Isn't that correct?
during the growth of the nazis, there were different factions. One was lead by Otto Strasser, and was the socialism you refer to.

Hilter opposed it, and leaded a different faction. The strasser faction was defeated in 1926, and the strassers were expelled in 1930 and went undergound. Hitler was a capitalist, but a german national capitalist. The nazi name was orignally made to appeal to the working class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top