US Politics: Sorry, we do make the rules.

[dsjj251]

18 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If so they did a fucking terrible job of writing it. 

LOL, no, they did a great job. Their point was that it should be so vague as they could use it against people however they choose. 

( I also do not support the bill. Im just saying they purposefully wrote it to be vague because they dont like Trans people, and they are pushing back on what they call "woke" culture)

Edited January 25 by dsjj251

[mormont]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

But still, the government has absolutely no business codifying an individual's identity as obscene or "prurient." 

This is the key point. Whatever the law, or protest, whether in the US or UK, the underlying idea is that the only reason anyone would be trans is that they get a sexual kick out of it. Trans identities and trans bodies are seen as inherently sexual - hence the obsession with the idea that trans people will sexually assault women in female spaces, or in this case that a performance that is in no way sexual becomes sexual when done in drag.

It's a bizarre view of the world that these bigots cling to, and it's harmful and insulting to trans people.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

If so they did a fucking terrible job of writing it. 

Did they?  Or did they want that vagueness in place?

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

You are going to have to provide a link, because that's not how its being reported over here

The bill itself is provided right above your comment.  There is all the necessary room in that wording to arrest someone in any place.  ALL THE ROOM IN THE WORLD because wearing clothing that supposedly doesn't agree with one's birth assignment as to gender, or where children are present, is in there.  Shades of England and Europe through most of the 19th Century, when women wearing men's clothes was a criminal act.

[BigFatCoward]

52 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The bill itself is provided right above your comment.  There is all the necessary room in that wording to arrest someone in any place.  ALL THE ROOM IN THE WORLD because wearing clothing that supposedly doesn't agree with one's birth assignment as to gender, or where children are present, is in there.  Shades of England and Europe through most of the 19th Century, when women wearing men's clothes was a criminal act.

But there are other points to prove also, that's not the end of the legislation.  

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

The bill itself is provided right above your comment.  There is all the necessary room in that wording to arrest someone in any place.  ALL THE ROOM IN THE WORLD because wearing clothing that supposedly doesn't agree with one's birth assignment as to gender, or where children are present, is in there.  Shades of England and Europe through most of the 19th Century, when women wearing men's clothes was a criminal act.

Unless it's a priest in a frock. Then we not only have to allow it, but we must bow down to them as being the chosen of God. And yeah they get to rape kids under protection of the law. None of this makes any sense.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

But there are other points to prove also, that's not the end of the legislation.  

So what?  It provides all the room necessary to arrest anyone anytime anywhere based solely on how they are dressed.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Did they?  Or did they want that vagueness in place?

If it’s not vague and gives specifics parameters  it can allow a lot of people can modify their aesthetic to just barely not break the law.

55 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So what?  It provides all the room necessary to arrest anyone anytime anywhere based solely on how they are dressed.

yeah it should be stated getting arrested alone could royally fuck up a person’s life even if it doesn’t end in conviction.

[DanteGabriel]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

However, because your country is fucked up and the right wing is insane I have no doubt they would try all sort of illegitimate prosecutions.  

I think you just don't understand on a visceral level how fucked up America's right wing is, and how eager they are to bend law into a cudgel that punish people they don't like. In my little suburban town in liberal Massachusetts, the library organized a Drag Queen Story Hour. Literally just reading kid stories to kids. 

The right wing chuds in our town lost their shit. Accused the librarians and the library committee, their own neighbors, of trying to sexualize kids and groom them. Tried to dox the drag queen and actually drove off the originally scheduled performer.

It's not even about prosecutions. The pretext is enough to get someone arrested and fucked around by cops, and getting arrested is enough to destroy someone's life here. It's about scaring people into hiding.

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

But there are other points to prove also, that's not the end of the legislation.  

Stubblefield has said that it was designed specifically to prohibit scenarios such as the one about reading to children, he has said that that example would be illegal under this law. I feel you are giving way too much credit to how lack of specificity is and will be used here by these people, and by design. Among other things is the designation of adult-only environments for people wearing clothing contrary to their ‘birth gender’. That’s just one completely subjective cudgel that will be used, as intended, to eliminate trans people from society. 
 

A law being used as specifically intended is not being abused. It’s like the ‘gun is just a tool’ thing…yeah, it’s just a tool, a tool designed specifically to kill humans (outside of hunting rifles etc. which I have no problem with if licensed and trained), so a handgun is not being misused when it kills humans, it is literally fulfilling it’s design function. Same for this bill.  

Edited January 25 by James Arryn

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Same for this bill.  

They turned the gun into a gun.

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Stubblefield has said that it was designed specifically to prohibit scenarios such as the one about reading to children, he has said that that example would be illegal under this law. I feel you are giving way too much credit to how lack of specificity is and will be used here by these people, and by design. Among other things is the designation of adult-only environments for people wearing clothing contrary to their ‘birth gender’. That’s just one completely subjective cudgel that will be used, as intended, to eliminate trans people from society. 
 

A law being used as specifically intended is not being abused. It’s like the ‘gun is just a tool’ thing…yeah, it’s just a tool, a tool designed specifically to kill humans (outside of hunting rifles etc. which I have no problem with if licensed and trained), so a handgun is not being misused when it kills humans, it is literally fulfilling it’s design function. Same for this bill.  

This works so much like the states pulling out of laws that were defunct, sometimes in the 19th c already, to deny women reproductive health care.  As mentioned prior -- women wearing men's clothes was a crime back in such days.  Those laws then can be revived too.  And will be, w/o doubt if They can, and far sooner than people might think. Men have always believed they get to decide how women should dress.  Which means women, among others cannot ever win or do anything right.  Not dressed glamorously and sexy, i.e. wearing sneakers instead of stiletto heels -- they write in outrage to the NYTimes (I am not making this up).  If she wear stilettos instead of sneakers she's a slut and asking for it.

They do this to males too: He was wearing pink sneakers teh gay it was so hurtful I had to beat the living shyte outta him.  And it worked.  He's dead. Even when not gay, just following the tiktok influencers of what the cool guys wear now.

 

Edited January 25 by Zorral

[Wade1865]

Really gotta hand it to George, the man has great taste when it comes to the finer things in life. It's actually poetic that they share the same name and provenance.

The man can do no wrong in my eyes.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

hence the obsession with the idea that trans people will sexually assault women in female spaces, or in this case that a performance that is in no way sexual becomes sexual when done in drag.

Or presenting child’s social structure being accepting towards a child’s gender identity as close to or tantamount to sexual grooming.

Doing things like referring to a trans boy with he/him pronouns or their preferred name is fearmongered as inevitably/likely to cause irreparable damage usually in some vague way.

 

They can never give any hard evidence for their hysteria to be justified of course.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

As mentioned prior -- women wearing men's clothes was a crime back in such days. 

It should be noted by back in the days we’re talking about the 1970s when what was feminine or masculine attire became much more nebulous. 

I imagine eventually we’ll see something like a butch lesbian get arrested for impersonating a man by wearing a suit at her wedding or prom though

Edited January 26 by Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

Generation alpha is going to get fucked.

[Zorral]

Republicans in Iowa want to ban food stamp recipients from buying foods like "white bread (gotta be brown), fresh meat (gotta be processed or tinned), white rice (gotta be brown, cooking oil (boil everything?), etc."

Poachers return you all!  Gonna arrest anybody with rabbit meat or venison or wild turkey, goose, duck, squirrel, etc.

Ya the future is definitely not a place I want to live. Particularly with AI chat etc. telling me the noose.

[karaddin]

Gotta make it very clear that you're punishing the poor, it can't look like there's anything else about it to make sure they get the insult

[Tywin et al.]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

Gotta make it very clear that you're punishing the poor, it can't look like there's anything else about it to make sure they get the insult

Friendly reminder the party of Jesus hates Jesus' message and teachings. 

[DMC]

Looks like McCarthy may have difficulty removing Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs committee as retribution for the Dems removing MTG and Gosar from their assignments.  Two Republican members - Nancy Mace and Victoria Spartz - have already indicated they won't vote to remove her.