|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 01 2023 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 01:11 Kyadytim wrote:For me, the most upsetting part of the Creative LLC case is that the request that triggered the lawsuit seems to be fake. The person who allegedly sent it claims to not have sent it, and also has been happily married in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years. It was also sent the day after the case was filed. This case existed entirely so that conservative litigation teams could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule in favor of legal discrimination. www.theguardian.com That might be upsetting in terms of how you view the court, but it could also be encouraging in terms of what impact it'll have. If they had to make up a case it prolly won't be difficult to find a web designer, even for gay couples. I'm guessing today, this is a case where being publicly known for refusing to provide services for gay weddings will cost you more than you gain. Not saying it's not problematic but I'm pretty confident gay acceptance isn't contingent on legislation. I can also accept the argument that a website is more related to free speech than other services are (even if this is disingenuous from the people making that claim), and thus I dunno if this creates a precedent for other services. Maybe it does but I dunno.
This post is super emblematic of why I don't post on this site anymore. You and many others have no fucking clue how bad this ruling is for queer people and how bad things are for us or y'all simply don't care and I've come to realize that there is no amount of evidence or experience I can show that will make y'all or other people change their minds. People are jumping at the opportunity to attack queer people throughout the US. Nazis are actively assaulting queer people and being celebrated for it by the conservative base. The Civil Rights Act is dead and the Democrats and Biden will not do anything to fix the SC, they'll just send out links to ActBlue. The US is a decaying police state with no revolutionary potential and will not get better, and I've given up hope in general for most everywhere else, so fuck it, I'll just post this and leave for good:
![[image loading]](https://images2.imgbox.com/54/51/uegyih58_o.jpg)
|
On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree?
If a presidential candidate campaigns on reforming the supreme court and wins with a comfortable margin that would probably provide them with the political capital and cover to pack the court.
|
On July 01 2023 10:29 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 01 2023 01:11 Kyadytim wrote:For me, the most upsetting part of the Creative LLC case is that the request that triggered the lawsuit seems to be fake. The person who allegedly sent it claims to not have sent it, and also has been happily married in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years. It was also sent the day after the case was filed. This case existed entirely so that conservative litigation teams could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule in favor of legal discrimination. www.theguardian.com That might be upsetting in terms of how you view the court, but it could also be encouraging in terms of what impact it'll have. If they had to make up a case it prolly won't be difficult to find a web designer, even for gay couples. I'm guessing today, this is a case where being publicly known for refusing to provide services for gay weddings will cost you more than you gain. Not saying it's not problematic but I'm pretty confident gay acceptance isn't contingent on legislation. I can also accept the argument that a website is more related to free speech than other services are (even if this is disingenuous from the people making that claim), and thus I dunno if this creates a precedent for other services. Maybe it does but I dunno. This post is super emblematic of why I don't post on this site anymore. You and many others have no fucking clue how bad this ruling is for queer people and how bad things are for us or y'all simply don't care and I've come to realize that there is no amount of evidence or experience I can show that will make y'all or other people change their minds. People are jumping at the opportunity to attack queer people throughout the US. Nazis are actively assaulting queer people and being celebrated for it by the conservative base. The Civil Rights Act is dead and the Democrats and Biden will not do anything to fix the SC, they'll just send out links to ActBlue. The US is a decaying police state with no revolutionary potential and will not get better, and I've given up hope in general for most everywhere else, so fuck it, I'll just post this and leave for good: [img]https://images2.imgbox.com/54/51/uegyih58_o.jpg[/im]
I think the last time you posted here you were saying that trans kids were being removed from homes with loving parents to be put into foster homes. When I asked you for a single example you couldn’t provide one and told me that’s what people on Twitter who you trusted were telling you. A few months ago it was front page news everywherewhen a woman at the cheesecake factory that probably had one too many Skinnylicious margaritas said some nasty things to an LGBT person. The idea that there’s some epidemic of nazis beating up queer people while the conservatives cheer them on sounds a little far fetched. Why is it not all over the news? If saying nasty things is front page news worthy than these assaults should be even more newsworthy and if they are as prevalent as you make it seem we should hear about it. Are they just not getting captured on some of the 300 million smartphones?
You’ve been posting for years now constantly invoking genocide and nazism and hitler. It’s absurd. The LGBTQ population is exploding. 20% of gen Z identifies as LGBTQ. That’s 1 in 5. That’s double the rate of millennials and millennials are double the rate of Gen X and Gen X is double the rate of baby boomers. Either your posts have no basis in reality or this is the worst attempt at genocide in history.
|
Norway28552 Posts
If that is how you want to interpret and react to that post then I wish you the best of luck in your post-tl life. I also don't understand your meme but oh well.
What I meant is that acceptance for gay marriage has moved from 26% to 71% since 1996, and from 60% to 71% since obergefell. It's at 89% for people aged 18-29. Even 'the south' is at 64, and Republicans are at 49%. This law is a setback, sure, but it is wholly insignificant compared to how much more accepting society has become in the past decades, and I think the same poll in 2033 is gonna have higher, not lower numbers.
Not trying to paint the situation as entirely positive. I'm sure trans oeople in the rural south have it very difficult. Hell trans people have it difficult pretty much everywhere is my impression. I didn't post about that, though.
https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup
Here's a source for bjs 20% number. It sounded too high but seems to check out!
|
Yeah comparing being denied a wedding website (or services in general) to things like this:+ Show Spoiler +
does seem overboard. But I don't see plasmidghost doing it (at least not in this post).
For the record: from of the 3 recent decisions of SCOTUS I only find the AA decision to be ok. The other two read like conservative mumbo-jumbo alternative reality BS.
|
On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree?
As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them).
As is indicated by plasmids amazing post, it's already immeasurably bad here. If one is relatively comfortable, and doesn't want to truly empathize with people outside a very small circle, it seems passable enough.
But if you just scratch the surface a little bit, you uncover a gaping, festering, horrific wound stretching across great swaths of marginalized and oppressed communities. If you focus in for a moment on individuals instead of the statistics, it's absolutely gutting and enough to bring just about anyone tears. That's without even pausing for a moment to consider we do worse abroad. People are still being maimed, killed, and born with various (sometimes terminal) disabilities from the toxic and undetonated ordinance that's just littered around the warzones where we slaughtered innocent families en masse and poisoned the land of those they didn't burn while looting anything of value. The illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians continues under the auspices of US diplomacy, more coups than you have phalanges, and a level of cynical hegemonic domination over so much of world affairs that the current dependence on the dollar that underpins so much of the US economy is something that even I don't think Kwark is exaggerating about when describing how inexorable it is from the existing world economic system.
Basically, Pre WWII Germany picked up where the post civil war US left off and post WWII US picked up where Nazi Germany left off. But the US focused on the world domination part first and is now flirting (I can't stress enough how bad it is Trump is even able to compete let alone is leading in polls) with going full mask-off fascism.
That's all ominous enough on it's own, but when you realize that Democrats plan is to just never lose again or win back control from what even some of the more moderate among them readily identify as fascists through elections in/over the next 20 years (and maybe you get some rights back then, or maybe just lose more of them slower), it's hard for things not to feel hopeless.
It's not easy, but I'm still holding out for a mass awakening of people's revolutionary spirit in the US. Granted this forum hasn't exactly inspired a lot of hope in my capacity to help realize that.
|
On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them).
That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right?
|
On July 01 2023 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them). That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right? I mean I think it's a game of calvinball on the deck of the Titanic, but probably.
That said, paired with a modern New Deal (ideally, less racist and such) even just a sincere fighting effort against a pretty unpopular court (and anyone else standing in the way of popular&pragmatic policies like public healthcare) could yield huge results.
|
On July 01 2023 20:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them). That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right? I mean I think it's a game of calvinball on the deck of the Titanic, but probably. That said, paired with a modern New Deal (ideally, less racist and such) even just a sincere fighting effort against a pretty unpopular court (and anyone else standing in the way of popular&pragmatic policies like public healthcare) could yield huge results.
I agree. It's better than nothing!
|
On July 01 2023 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 20:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them). That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right? I mean I think it's a game of calvinball on the deck of the Titanic, but probably. That said, paired with a modern New Deal (ideally, less racist and such) even just a sincere fighting effort against a pretty unpopular court (and anyone else standing in the way of popular&pragmatic policies like public healthcare) could yield huge results. I agree. It's better than nothing!
Unfortunately Democrats aren't going to do even that much. It's pretty much just "cross your fingers, close your eyes, pull the lever and hope it's not your dignity/rights/life on the chopping block next (putting aside indefinitely those you've already lost and/or never had)"
Which, to be honest, isn't so much new as it is naked and increasingly encompassing people that thought they were safe.
|
On July 01 2023 17:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:If that is how you want to interpret and react to that post then I wish you the best of luck in your post-tl life. I also don't understand your meme but oh well. What I meant is that acceptance for gay marriage has moved from 26% to 71% since 1996, and from 60% to 71% since obergefell. It's at 89% for people aged 18-29. Even 'the south' is at 64, and Republicans are at 49%. This law is a setback, sure, but it is wholly insignificant compared to how much more accepting society has become in the past decades, and I think the same poll in 2033 is gonna have higher, not lower numbers. Not trying to paint the situation as entirely positive. I'm sure trans oeople in the rural south have it very difficult. Hell trans people have it difficult pretty much everywhere is my impression. I didn't post about that, though. https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallupHere's a source for bjs 20% number. It sounded too high but seems to check out!
Sigh. Yes, the surface level fact-check holds up. But underneath the surface BJ's argument is completely invalid, and plasmidghost's emotional outburst describes reality much better.
Sounds strange? Please let me explain.
The vast majority - over 70% - of individuals among the LGBTQ of Gen Z identify as bisexual. That's 15% of Gen Z. The remaining LGBTQ individuals make up 6% of Gen Z.
Bisexuality is not exactly the most difficult sexual orientation to hide from the public when compared to homosexuality, so it makes sense that a large portion of LGBTQ are not facing major social repercussions from conservatives.
In contrast, only 1.8% of Gen Z identify as transgender, which is the group that faces the vast majority of conservative backlash.
I would not phrase that as an "exploding" population, and so I'm not convinced by the argument that the level of discrimination as described by plasmidghost would have to be seen at every corner and captured by many cameras. I'd consider this argument highly fallacious due to a misrepresentation of the facts.
But that's not all.
Those individuals among LGBTQ who rightfully fear discrimination don't purposefully go out into the places where they will be discriminated against, but rather the opposite. Here in Austria for example it is known that the majority of homosexuals aren't yet comfortable with PDA. Now consider how this public discomfort affects transgender people. LGBTQ tend to live very much among one another, because that's where they feel welcome, understood and protected. This strongly reduces the rate of discrimination and general hostility.
I'm really hoping one day we can fall less easily for the conservative tactic of mostly-factual-but-usually-contextless presentation of fallacious arguments. But I'm not holding my breath.
I've explained this before, what they're doing is called "quotemining". This is a manipulation tactic that creates a distorted reflection of reality with only a superficial level of "facts and logic" and leaves people far more misinformed than before.
Many conservatives do this very deliberately, and the rest of them fall for the misinformation due to their ideological bias, and so they spread it to all the social media and message boards out there, like this one on tl.net.
|
|
|
On July 01 2023 20:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 20:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else. The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist. One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights. As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them). That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right? I mean I think it's a game of calvinball on the deck of the Titanic, but probably. That said, paired with a modern New Deal (ideally, less racist and such) even just a sincere fighting effort against a pretty unpopular court (and anyone else standing in the way of popular&pragmatic policies like public healthcare) could yield huge results. I agree. It's better than nothing! Unfortunately Democrats aren't going to do even that much. It's pretty much just "cross your fingers, close your eyes, pull the lever, and hope it's not your dignity/rights/life on the chopping block next (putting aside indefinitely those you've already lost and/or never had)" Which, to be honest, isn't so much new as it is naked and increasingly encompassing people that thought they were safe.
You should then go back to socialisms true home in America and support Minnesota politicians. They at least remember how to fight for change and get things done even with small margins.
|
On July 01 2023 22:14 Magic Powers wrote:
In contrast, only 1.8% of Gen Z identify as transgender, which is the group that faces the vast majority of conservative backlash.
I would not phrase that as an "exploding" population, and so I'm not convinced by the argument that the level of discrimination as described by plasmidghost would have to be seen at every corner and captured by many cameras. I'd consider this argument highly fallacious due to a misrepresentation of the facts.
I'm really hoping one day we can fall less easily for the conservative tactic of mostly-factual-but-usually-contextless presentation of fallacious arguments. But I'm not holding my breath.
I've explained this before, what they're doing is called "quotemining". This is a manipulation tactic that creates a distorted reflection of reality with only a superficial level of "facts and logic" and leaves people far more misinformed than before.
Many conservatives do this very deliberately, and the rest of them fall for the misinformation due to their ideological bias, and so they spread it to all the social media and message boards out there, like this one on tl.net.
Quite wrong. The explosion of transgenderism is even much higher than the explosion of LGBT as a whole. For example the amount of youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria and seeking gender affirming care has doubled in just a couple years. My initial post only claimed a doubling in LGBT over an entire generation. I think you will be hard pressed to find a mathematician that considers a doubling over a generation to be a faster “explosion” than a doubling over 2 years. The idea that I’m quotemining by talking about a doubling in LGBT over a generation when I could have been talking about a tripling or quadrupling in specifically the trans population is silly.
|
On July 02 2023 00:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 22:14 Magic Powers wrote:
In contrast, only 1.8% of Gen Z identify as transgender, which is the group that faces the vast majority of conservative backlash.
I would not phrase that as an "exploding" population, and so I'm not convinced by the argument that the level of discrimination as described by plasmidghost would have to be seen at every corner and captured by many cameras. I'd consider this argument highly fallacious due to a misrepresentation of the facts.
I'm really hoping one day we can fall less easily for the conservative tactic of mostly-factual-but-usually-contextless presentation of fallacious arguments. But I'm not holding my breath.
I've explained this before, what they're doing is called "quotemining". This is a manipulation tactic that creates a distorted reflection of reality with only a superficial level of "facts and logic" and leaves people far more misinformed than before.
Many conservatives do this very deliberately, and the rest of them fall for the misinformation due to their ideological bias, and so they spread it to all the social media and message boards out there, like this one on tl.net. Quite wrong. The explosion of transgenderism is even much higher than the explosion of LGBT as a whole. For example the amount of youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria and seeking gender affirming care has doubled in just a couple years. My initial post only claimed a doubling in LGBT over an entire generation. I think you will be hard pressed to find a mathematician that considers a doubling over a generation to be a faster “explosion” than a doubling over 2 years. The idea that I’m quotemining by talking about a doubling in LGBT over a generation when I could have been talking about a tripling or quadrupling in specifically the trans population is silly.
This does not address my argument at all, you're only arguing over semantics.
|
Northern Ireland23702 Posts
I think there’s a mistake in conflating increased precedence of trans people with increased tolerance in any kind of linear relationship.
There’s an accompanying backlash with that increase in visibility, that I think you absolutely see towards trans people. Something I think is very deliberately stoked for political gain as well.
I mean in another sphere, increased levels of migration doesn’t necessarily end up with a more positive view of migrants, indeed it’s often the exact opposite.
As an aside hopefully this isn’t the end of plasmids’ posting here, often gives very valuable insight
|
On July 02 2023 00:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2023 20:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 20:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 01 2023 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The US political system would probably implode rather quickly. Granted Biden could stand to do something drastic since he's currently losing to a fashy insurrectionist.
One problem Biden's facing is that the net loss of rights under his administration can't be changed by simply reelecting him. In fact, there's no indication electing him (or Democrats at the national level) will do anything to stop the ongoing decay of people's rights.
As it sits I get the feeling Democrats/their supporters are going to basically end up saying "well the rules say that's how it works, so fascism wins. We'll get them next election!" like they have with SCOTUS. If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down. All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced. Realistically speaking, you're looking at more than a decade before that has a possibility of paying off and hoping Sotomayor retires at a favorable time, unlike RBG. Losing the presidency just once in the next 3-6 cycles (or failing to fill a vacancy again) could easily extend the time horizon for a SCOTUS that isn't stripping people of bodily autonomy, voting rights, etc. into several decades away. All that assumes the fashy insurrectionist that's polling ahead of Biden and/or his proteges/supporters don't destroy US democracy in the intervening decade(s). "You'll lose even more rights even faster if you don't elect us!" isn't exactly an inspirational message to carry you through several must win elections in a row. What do you see as the way of breaking the impact the supreme court has? What can a progressive candidate do that isn't vulnerable to the supreme court deciding they disagree? As gobbledy points out there's adding Justices. Even if Republicans just do it back when they win, at least then it's a back and forth instead of one loss costing you a decade+ on top of the decade+ it seems people will already have to wait to get their rights back (and maybe stop losing them). That would also require Congressional Republicans to allow Biden / Dem presidents to add more SCJs though, right? Unless Dems completely controlled both the legislative and executive branches? I'm thinking about how Garland just simply wasn't allowed to even be considered by Republicans. Biden can't just unilaterally decide to add more SCJs *and* appoint them without Congressional approval, right? I mean I think it's a game of calvinball on the deck of the Titanic, but probably. That said, paired with a modern New Deal (ideally, less racist and such) even just a sincere fighting effort against a pretty unpopular court (and anyone else standing in the way of popular&pragmatic policies like public healthcare) could yield huge results. I agree. It's better than nothing! Unfortunately Democrats aren't going to do even that much. It's pretty much just "cross your fingers, close your eyes, pull the lever, and hope it's not your dignity/rights/life on the chopping block next (putting aside indefinitely those you've already lost and/or never had)" Which, to be honest, isn't so much new as it is naked and increasingly encompassing people that thought they were safe. You should then go back to socialisms true home in America and support Minnesota politicians. They at least remember how to fight for change and get things done even with small margins.
Klobuchar is never happening and socialists will never like her if for no other reason than she's a notoriously nightmarish boss to her workers.
That aside, I don't believe it is a matter of memory or knowing better how to eke out momentary crumbs anyway (assuming this wasn't just empty rhetoric). Any socialist leader worth their salt will probably just be thrown in prison by the US government like Debs or assassinated by them like Fred Hampton.
Basically the only hope as I see it is Democrats under 40ish rejecting Dem leadership's plan to just have them wait 10-20+ years to maybe get their rights back (but much more likely just lose them slower) and Dem leadership to get behind (or at least out of the way) of a revolutionary movement.
As we learned in 2016 though, Democrats would rather lose to someone like Trump than even a social democrat like Bernie Sanders, let alone a full blown socialist. Because when you look past some superficial appeals from them to various marginalized groups, they politically align better with Republicans than socialists.
|
On July 01 2023 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
As I always say: There is no legal mechanism for the supreme court to enforce their rulings. It is purely theater and tradition
Biden has the option to just kinda look at the supreme court, flip them off, and do what he wants with student loans or whatever else.
I agree, the president should ignore the other branches of government and simply do whatever he feels is necessary. It's the only way to keep a fascist from getting elected.
On July 01 2023 01:11 Kyadytim wrote:For me, the most upsetting part of the Creative LLC case is that the request that triggered the lawsuit seems to be fake. The person who allegedly sent it claims to not have sent it, and also has been happily married in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years. It was also sent the day after the case was filed. This case existed entirely so that conservative litigation teams could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule in favor of legal discrimination. www.theguardian.com
Whether you agree with the decision or not, judicial review is based on the idea that you can't pass illegal laws - it's not necessary to wait for an application of an illegal law, or wait for a prosecution based on it, or wait for a number of prosecutions against people that intentionally cripple them and make it economically infeasible to defend against the injustice - as in the case of civil asset forfeiture for example - to make that determination.
On July 01 2023 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:
If anything, what we have learned is that whoever happens to be sitting in the president's chair at the time of a supreme court justice dying is the most important parameter in american politics. Voting dem, regardless of who, has only become further ingrained. Let's say some fiery socialist dem won in 2020 instead. We just learned their student loan forgiveness would have been shot down.
All that matters right now is the supreme court. Abortion, student loans, affirmative action, all of the hot button items are just settled by the court. So all you can really do is camp out the chair for the next time one needs to be replaced.
There is nothing stopping the president and legislature from passing a law spending trillions of dollars forgiving as much student loan debt or any other debt as they please. They simply know that's a) an irresponsible and poor idea and b) politically impossible due to there's nothing you can reach across the aisle and trade for something that enormous. The result is pretending it's possible through EO, then passing an EO as a political maneuver so when it gets struck down as being clearly beyond the president's power, people get tricked into blaming Supreme Court justices for what's ultimately the president's inability to pass a law and trying to legislate by EO.
The same goes with abortion, the idea is the Court was legislating from the bench. You can get state or federal laws passed. The idea of either side packing the Court with the specific intention to turn it into an un-vetoable super-legislature because they can't win enough elections to do things the correct way is not the road you want.
|
On July 02 2023 00:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2023 00:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 01 2023 22:14 Magic Powers wrote:
In contrast, only 1.8% of Gen Z identify as transgender, which is the group that faces the vast majority of conservative backlash.
I would not phrase that as an "exploding" population, and so I'm not convinced by the argument that the level of discrimination as described by plasmidghost would have to be seen at every corner and captured by many cameras. I'd consider this argument highly fallacious due to a misrepresentation of the facts.
I'm really hoping one day we can fall less easily for the conservative tactic of mostly-factual-but-usually-contextless presentation of fallacious arguments. But I'm not holding my breath.
I've explained this before, what they're doing is called "quotemining". This is a manipulation tactic that creates a distorted reflection of reality with only a superficial level of "facts and logic" and leaves people far more misinformed than before.
Many conservatives do this very deliberately, and the rest of them fall for the misinformation due to their ideological bias, and so they spread it to all the social media and message boards out there, like this one on tl.net. Quite wrong. The explosion of transgenderism is even much higher than the explosion of LGBT as a whole. For example the amount of youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria and seeking gender affirming care has doubled in just a couple years. My initial post only claimed a doubling in LGBT over an entire generation. I think you will be hard pressed to find a mathematician that considers a doubling over a generation to be a faster “explosion” than a doubling over 2 years. The idea that I’m quotemining by talking about a doubling in LGBT over a generation when I could have been talking about a tripling or quadrupling in specifically the trans population is silly. This does not address my argument at all, you're only arguing over semantics.
The explosion of LGBT population only relates to my argument that it’s absurd to repeatedly invoke genocide for an exploding population. It has nothing to do with the first paragraph of my post that if Nazis were going around beating up trans people in random attacks there should be a lot of film footage of this. The argument for that is the ubiquity of cameras in our society. Not just smart phones but business security cameras, Public transit cameras, traffic cameras, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
