. As I responded to Uke, attributing the hyperbole and overstatement of the tweets that you reference when you post these "laws" for discussion is probably unfair. You use enough hyperbole on your own anyways. You are certainly one of our "outrage" posters


I don't know if you are alluding to having an ivy league education and are disparaging my education but nothing gives anyone insight into a system eradication of transgender and LGBTQ communities if it isn't occurring. IMHO such language is just designed to get attention.

And yes, I am being completely dismissive that anyone can mind read a group of people to predict their future genocidal conduct, regardless of education level.


.

Every tweet citing a law in this thread misrepresents the scope of these bills (but obviously you did not post all these tweets).

.

Who cares about your eu comparison. Tennessee isn't even first on the list in the USA, it's 10th on a list of states that I would define as a top ten list of the worst states for civil rights violation.

Is this just dishonest framing by you to exaggerate how bad Tennessee is?

Jurisdiction 2018 rate per 100,000 of all ages 2018 rate per 100,000 adults 2018. Adults in prison or jail
Federal 50 70 179,200
State 580 750 1,919,200

Louisiana * 980 1,280 45,700
Oklahoma * 970 1,290 38,500
Mississippi * 920 1,210 27,500
Georgia * 850 1,110 89,700
Kentucky * 840 1,080 37,500
Alabama * 820 1,060 40,400
Arkansas * 820 1,070 24,700
Arizona * 750 980 54,600
Texas * 750 1,010 218,000
Tennessee * 730 930 49,300
Florida * 700 870 150,500
Missouri * 700 900 43,000
Wyoming * 700 910


Nothing is beyond dispute, especially when your claims lack any proof.


Every drag show I have attended involves stripping, sexual conduct, sexual language and alcohol. Anecdotally, my experience does not comport with your 100% are kid friendly drag shows.



Where did you get this cop told me idea? I read the actual legislative text signed into law. And again, it only applies to public places and has a sexual prurient component that is certainly has some subjectivity in it's enforcement. So in that sense, I would assume it has no application to a private gay bar but it could be used to arrest participants at a pride event, Mardi gras or a Titans game.

This is bit like retorting "all lives matter" to a "black lives matter" protester. Nobody referring to the horrific proposal as "kidnapping" is suggesting it is happening with a white van and candy. Obviously the criticism is that the state might use all your fluffy language about "responsibility to protect a child from harm" to legally remove kids from their families because of the healthcare they are providing to trans children. I actually think it is important that we use dramatic language to shock our senses to what is actually being proposed here and not just hide behind the legalese.

I'm not an outrage poster, what are you basing that on? If anything the opposite is true, I have a long history of being very tolerant of free speech and then other snowflakes being outraged at me. Why is "laws" in quotations? When a bill passes through both bodies of the state legislature and then is signed by the governor, it's not a "law", it's a law.
I brought up in my own posts that some of these laws may be declared unconstitutional before you "corrected" me by declaring them unconstitutional even though I already said that.

Just because a law may be declared unconstitutional in the future doesn't make that law not a "law" currently. I would guess that the Tennessee drag ban would survive a constitutional challenge based on the confusing wording of the bill and our conservative supreme court but that is up for debate.

I am not outraged, I'm just calmly stating my opinions and enjoying the discussion.

If you want to debate whether Tennessee has a history of treating minority communities unfairly in policing and in prisons then no one is stopping you. Go ahead

I actually don't know that this is as true. I think a big reason for all the bills in the last few years is because it is politically useful for them, a great wedge to animate the base. They might not actively disagree with those bills, but I don't what is animating the politicians is some deep seated belief that this is the correct thing to do for society, I think it is that it is the best thing for them politically.

I don't think conservatives have a grand plan on this issue. I think they have an endpoint they want to reach and a willingness to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks, following the anti-abortion playbook. I believe their desired endpoint is a total ban on gender affirmation surgery, or at least the states having the ability to institute such a ban, and for biological sex assigned at birth to be treated as one's immutable gender.

your point isn't mutually exclusive with my point.. the republicans in state houses aren't spending hours drafting these bills on their 30k a year salary.. they are getting them from the heritage foundation or other right wing evilcorp and being paid to submit them verbatim. i dont think most of them outside of the zealots care what it does or doesn't do for society. they have a goal to keep the PAC money coming so they push the bills the PACs give them to push. the goal of the rightwing nutjob think tanks is to get the laws to the right judges that will legislate from the bench.

i'd also clarify that this isn't a rightwing only thing, most of the state legislation is probably done this way.. it's just that when it comes from the left it's like out of state groups pushing marijuana legalization, when it comes from the right it's about oppressing people or installing religious rules on people.

I think they are for the most part genuinely anti-wokeness and anti-identity politics and see transgender people as low-hanging fruit that they can go after because society hasn't agreed to cancel anti-trans sentiment. It's just a matter of whether transpeople are at the top of their list of groups they want to screw.

The bigger picture is that they don't want government to tell them what to do and they don't like it when woke cancel culture can put pressure on them to behave even after they've hamstrung government.

I guess my point is that the mindset of many activists, whether conservative or progressive, is to perpetually push the agenda to the right or to the left, with only a modest amount of thought given to questions like "what is the proper end point?". No matter what the facts on the ground are twenty or thirty years in the future, they will deem the status quo to be an abomination. That's why I said that societies can end up in an extreme place over time, even in the absence of a grand plan.

This is an overgeneralization, of course. Not all activist types are like this, and not all issues lend themselves to this sort of thinking.

This probably reads like I am disdainful of the activist "type," but that isn't really true. They have been integral to many of the most important social movements (abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, environmental protection, etc.) in U.S. history.

Conservatives have a much easier time of this because they generally want to make it like (they think) it used to be at some previous point in time. They know what abortion law looked like pre-Roe. They know how LGBT were treated before the 1960s or whenever they think the moral decay of America started.

I do think some progressives have the unrealistic goal of society looking like it would "if everyone thought like me".

I agree with all of this, but that wasn't really my point. I was noting that, for someone like Pat Buchanan, being regressive is the point. It doesn't matter what the actual facts on the ground are. Any society would be too progressive for him because he defines himself as someone who opposes society as too progressive.

(I don't think I am explaining myself very well. For some reason, I'm having trouble getting the words out on this point.)

the fact that this thread is even a question when a speaker at the conservative convention just said we need to eradicate transgenderism from society and he got loads of cheers is hilarious in general..

Yes. Who btw is the designated person who speaks for all liberals?

so the argument is that a paid speaker at the national conservative convention where the former president and other elected officials spoke is not a fair representative of "conservative values"?

CPAC stopped being a forum for actual conservatives a long time ago.

What even is a "true conservative" in 2023?

Maybe that should be its own little thread.

Biden Obama Peloso AoC.

The only thing that conservatives care about is sticking it to the libs.

If liberals all of a sudden wanted to ban trans people, conservatives would start supporting them.

Reminds me of the funniest thing this girl I know said about her brother in law...."he's so lazy if they paid him to drink he wouldn't drink".

Conservatives traditionally thought to be a bunch of corporatist warmongers oppose intervening in Ukraine...because liberals support it.

Opposing the libs is really the only value that unites them. Otherwise it's absurd to act like some speech defines what they believe, just as it would be equally absurd to pretend like AOC speaks for all progressives.

I cant believe I'm agreeing with luckbox.

erm is this a thing anyone actually says?

I said it was an absurd idea, right?

i think the maga's only value is attacking the liberals.. i think conservatives simply believe that white hetero christian values are superior to all and that they should be preserved as law of the land..

i also disagree with the last part.. if the progressive caucus paid AOC to speak at an event equivalent to cpac then what she says at that event is quite literally speaking for progressives... not holding groups accountable for the ideas they actively promote through things like this is how you end up with these crazy genocidal speakers to begin with.