Alice Cooper

[WarriorN]

Alice has really let it all out in RollingStone.

Full JKR.

Of course RS has put in all sort of passive aggressive play downs "debunking the bathroom debacle" and making out he's not got it quite right and is a bit "confused."

AC has described how he can see that self ID means unfettered access to women. Men saying they're women. Which RS has down played.

www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/alice-cooper-transphobic-statements-kids-gender-identity-bathroom-predator-myths-1234811328/

x.com/rollingstone/status/1694480061783519241?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Crikey.

Last week:
https://blabbermouth.net/news/alice-cooper-collaborates-with-vampyre-cosmetics-on-makeup-collection

This week: https://www.newsweek.com/alice-cooper-cosmetics-transgender-comments-1822382

Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face. Imagine the amount of money and time they've spent developing this, all wasted.

Rock and a hard place. Keep Alice after his comments and risk being boycotted by your SJW young customers. Trash Alice as they've done, and lose your decades long established base.

And then there's the opinions of your woke Corporate Diversity Equity Inclusion Index overlords to satisfy.

Oh, what a complex web is spun.

Aw! I'm now getting Alice Cooper ads in my sidebar.

I thought that was supposed to be Iggy Pop?
Have you mixed them up@littleripper or have I got it wrong ?

It’s Iggy Pop yeah.

I’ve put another 10 minutes into it, and there just isn’t any info there except that one line re ‘encounter’. Sable Starr was clearly quite happy saying you know x? Me and him were fucking 5 minutes ago, yes in that room over there? What, do I know y? We had sex but that was weeks ago. But that’s all there is re Alice cooper and it’s not enough to go on for me. It’s just far too vague compared to what seems extremely known. I do believe they might have been at the same party with a couple hundred other people.

https://www.rocksoffmag.com/sable-starr-queen-of-the-groupie-scene/

Wasn't Sting's best known song about being sexually attracted to a schoolgirl?

And there was a lawsuit against Bob Dylan by a woman who claimed she abused him when she was 12, but law suit ran out of time.

Quite often really quite unappealing young men would say they wanted to be in a rock band because that's how you got the girls. They would laugh and say this in interviews. Meanwhile the roadies would be out scouting the fans at the stage door for likely victims.

And then the culture turned this procuring of underage girls into something that young girls could aspire to themselves by becoming a groupies https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/25854/1/the-70s-groupies-who-broke-the-rules-of-style-sexuality

The Santana statement then retraction is an interesting one.

IMO his initial statement was pretty narrow-minded. He is clearly religious so I guess it makes sense that this is why he would say that God made bodies the way that they are. As an atheist, I could overlook my disagreement with him on that (in favour of my agreement with the general principle that he and I clearly both share about there being 2 sexes) but then he goes on to talk about anything else basically needing to stay in the closet. Generally "in the closet" is a phrase that applies to sexual orientation. It's very ambiguous as to what he meant: trans people shouldn't be seen out and about in public, gender identity views should be kept private, cross-dressers should literally keep the clothes in the closet, all gay people and trans people are abhorrent?

He's taken down his apology and replaced it with something equally ambiguous.

I find myself in general agreement with the statements made by Alice Cooper. But not really at all with Carlos Santana.

Article on the statement, apology and retraction

Tbh, it's all a marketplace of ideas. Santana is an evangelical Christian, he has as much right to declare trans is wrong or mistaken, as trans advocates have for saying that gender is a spectrum and GC words are actual violence.

For me as a non believer in god, organised religions and the current neo religion, we either let all religious/neo religious thoughts be made unimpeded, or we frown at all of them.

Since I believe in free speech, anyone can proudly declare that binary sex is on a spectrum, bimodal mammals can change sex, chemical and surgical castration is ok for teens...AND God created male and female and never the twain shall meet, and certain activities should not be made public.

What's it gonna be, freedom to be pro trans/TRA, and freedom to disagree and disapprove...or not?

Makes sense.

From my point of view (and to put it in social media speak), I'm going to scroll on past if I don't agree with an entire statement but I do agree with the core of it. The core in this case being the immutability of sex.

To continue in social media speak:

IMO if I like it, I'm supporting the words of the statement in full. If I comment, I now need to qualify my support (which detracts from the main message).

A good example is Matt Walsh. He says some great stuff online about gender identity. I've definitely liked at least one of his tweets. But when he starts talking about how important it is to bring his boys up to be "real men" (he says he makes no apologies for this - fair play to him), I disagree.

I'll always call out something I disagree with if I think it's unfair to someone else, even if I agree with the core message. Otherwise I'll just scroll on by and let others (in this case, others who believe in God) add the likes.

Having all these different viewpoints helps very much. I uphold the right for everyone to be allowed their own beliefs in a free society (including, perhaps controversially,, a belief in gender identity).

If I dislike the impact of the belief, that's where I take issue. Otherwise, believe what you like. The issues that I have with the impact of gender identity belief would fill the internet 😁 The issues that I have with the impact of religious beliefs (e.g. on girls and women in Afghanistan or Iran) would also be pretty numerous. But would take up less virtual shelf space than the gender identity stuff.

Hopefully obvious but I also uphold the right to believe that sex is immutable. Not least because it's also what I believe.
Thank goodness for Maya getting that written in law as a protected belief. It used to annoy me that it couldn't be recognised as "real" or "true". But it doesn't anymore. Quite the opposite in fact. I also believe that the world is round. I don't need to have it written in stone that this is real and true. Pretty much everyone shares this belief and that's good enough. I honestly think we'll get to a tipping point where it becomes very clear in public discourse that the majority belief is that sex is immutable.

It's quite hard to credit in what is meant to be the "free" west that it turns out free speech doesn't exist And whilst in Iran or China where the state intervenes the moment someone says something against state orthodoxy, here we have what, commerical concerns, social media, doing the same. But in this case an unregulated and unaccountable group dictating to the majority.

It's quite hard to credit in what is meant to be the "free" west that it turns out free speech doesn't exist

Hmmmm...it's a big topic. I'm not sure it's that simple.

Let's assume there was a period through the 20th century where "Free Speech" was a core value in the West.

That was driven by two things, one laudable, one less so.

Laudable: the experience of totalitarianism in Nazi Germany, Communist countries in Asia and the Soviet Bloc, and the utter horror of allowing that to happen again.

Less laudable: "Freedom" becoming a - I guess the best word is "brand value" - of the West in the ideological struggle with its political enemies. Not an actual commitment or valuing of free thought, messy as it can be, just using its fragility as a tool/threat to keep your population patriotic.

But the ability to wield free speech, to take part in any public debate and have your voice heard, was not equally bestowed. So the insight of Wokeism, when it is at its best, is that the West's "Free Speech" has often just been the freedom of those with power to say what they want about those without. Hence the Woke emphasis on "Lived Experience". Because the voice of someone who has experienced a thing but does not have the power to state their opinion loudly and confidentiality should not be drowned out by someone who only has a theoretical belief but has the confidence and power to state it loud and proud.

I remember Boris in his heyday with his Oxbridge debating society confidence in saying the unsayable and arguing either side of the argument and I remember thinking it's easy to be that "dispassionate" voice when you argue about things that never actually touch you or threaten you.

And I remember arguing for deplatforming when it was about what to do about holocaust deniers, and that lies can be told a hundred times faster than they can painstakingly be disproven.

I'm not sure what my point is here, but as my experience as a gender critical woman brings me more into the orbit of (for want of a better description) the "unexamined" right wing, I do worry that the loudest voices for free speech are the ones least inclined to consider how that speech may be limited implicitly by lack of social power to ever even try to raise a voice at all.

FFS autocarrot

Because the voice of someone who has experienced a thing but does not have the power to state their opinion loudly and confidently should not be drowned out by someone who only has a theoretical belief but has the confidence and power to state it loud and proud.

Hmmmm...it's a big topic. I'm not sure it's that simple.

Thanks for your response. I wasn't trying to be that deep, but more expressing frustration in the sense that in the countries I referred to it is a fact that those in authority say what is or is not acceptable.

What we have are unaccountable faceless groups who (based on pandering to consumers) create arbitory rules.

And at the moment despite some (right wing?) outlets challenging the received status quo (trans = approved, sex based rights = wrong think) these is no mechanism to get the unspecified power group to change.

Seems like men who sexually abused young girls simply because they were in the same rooms and the culture around them said it was ok to do it, would have quite a useful insight into the risks of removing social conventions on single sex spaces. I wish he'd put it like that though.

Seems like men who sexually abused young girls simply because they were in the same rooms

When I was growing up it was really common for young girls to be told never ever be alone in a room with a man.

We youngsters thought aren't the adults so old fashioned and victorian in their attitudes. But it turns out they were right.

Dont forget it was the treatment of women by the alternative and radical poltics culture of the late 60 and 70s by men, who assumed having a "freer" society was about having a society where women where freely available to men, that was one onf the main impetuses for what became Women's Liberation.

I think this is interesting within that whole context of groupie culture and underage girls (and occasionally boys too.)

They sexual revolution really did think it could, and should, throw out all of the boundaries. Sex was for anyone who wanted it, including young teenagers - because that was the nature of sex as they conceptualized it. It was good and natural, and anti-sex sentiments were prudish, oppressive, ruined your sex life permanently by giving you baggage, and were just silly.

If sex is a fun leisure activity without serious consequences, to be undertaken very casually, why not let young teens indulge?

We know the premises are all wrong. Many older people knew that too. But a heck of a lot of people bought into it all, including adults and even parents. As well as the people who were simply predators themselves.

Young guys in rock bands are probably about the last people I'd expect to clue into the fact that this was a seriously problematic idea, and maybe some of the old boundaries were actually pretty sensible and important. It wasn't part of their personal experience to see the bad consequences of that behaviour because they were young, they were still immature themselves, probably thought they'd have loved to get laid when they were the same age, and free love and sex fit in with everything rock and roll said about life. And all those drugs don't make for great decision making either.

I think it was really older people who bore the most responsibility for it all. On the other hand, the ones who did speak out were considered old fogeys and laughed at. Looking back it seems like a kind of collective madness.

I think it was really older people who bore the most responsibility for it all. On the other hand, the ones who did speak out were considered old fogeys and laughed at. Looking back it seems like a kind of collective madness.

Although older people, mainly women, spoke out against it, it wasn't an age thing any more than baby boomers have stolen young people's cash.

It was men, ie the dominant patriarchal culture just spoke about being sexually liberated, but what they meant was being able to tell women they owed them (men) sex. And older men benefited from this because they too could get easier acess to young womn and persuade them it was the modern thing to do. Previously this would have happened behind closed doors.

The real sexual revolution started with the Beatnik's who many people fail to acknowledge hugely influenced, effectively enabled 60s hippie culture.

It certainly wasn't an age thing that allowed a male "leader" to say the only position for women in the movement was prone.

Even if age groups have some common concerns, within each age group you can be absolutely certain that male privilege and expectations of male needs being catered for first will be what dominants.

This is really not my point with regards to age.

Older people certainly bought into it, and I think I suggested that in my post. Some for personal benefit, and some also because they really believed it, men and women both.

But a bunch of young men in their late teens and twenties would not be the group that I would especially expect to have insight into why it would be a problematic way of thinking. Many of those same men now, when they get asked in interviews, or if you talk to them, have a much clearer idea of why that kind of environment could be really damaging, especially to girls. Which is largely due to maturity and more experience of the world.

Young people need the guidance of older wiser people, but that idea seemed to go out the window in the 20th century to a large extent. It was almost flipped upside down, and we still see that now with adults looking to their teenagers to see what is "right".

Pop singer Róisín Murphy has apologised after criticising the use of puberty blockers by transgender children.

The Irish musician, formerly the frontwoman of Moloko who has since released a series of acclaimed solo albums, had dismayed swathes of her fanbase – which includes a sizeable LGTBQ+ quotient – with a statement posted on her personal Facebook account.

She wrote: “Puberty blockers are fucked, absolutely desolate, big pharma laughing all the way to the bank. Little mixed-up kids are vulnerable and need to be protected, that’s just true.” She pre-empted criticism, writing “please don’t call me a terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist], please don’t keep using that word against women”.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/aug/29/roisin-murphy-apologises-puberty-blocker-trans

Her apology for wrong think https://twitter.com/roisinmurphy/status/1696510651378582006

The apology is a depressing submission to groupthink. Actually says she should have known that she was "stepping out of line".

Actually says she should have known that she was "stepping out of line".

No she responded as an individual to what she sees as harmful drugs.

She shouldn't have to correct her thoughts because some unaccountable blob (or even bots) automatically goes into over drive against any comment querying the false theory of trans.