|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I haven't dropped anything. I've been puzzled from the beginning why if people look like they fit in there should be a problem at all. Well then do you agree that the right-wing's attempt to force people to use bathrooms where they don't look like they fit in by applying legislative power or pressuring school administration is, in fact, authoritarian? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
"Take your business elsewhere" is the only response we need to this perceived discrimination. We do not need a state involved. Capitalism would sort it out. Capitalists don't care about your religion or skin color, they just want your money. And when most of your customers will take their business elsewhere if you allow black people or gays to patronize your establishment, then the invisible hand in Capitalism will in fact reinforce the problem, not fix it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
That's why I wonder why there's a problem at all There wasn't any particular problem. Until right-wing groups such as Republican State Legislatures attempted to force little girls to use the little boys room. Do you agree that the right-wing's attempt to force people to use bathrooms where they don't look like they fit in by applying legislative power or pressuring school administration is, in fact, authoritarian?
The first thing I heard about all this was that the mayor of Houston was putting a law in place to open public restrooms to transgender people. If people had been fitting in for decades why was this necessary? Because Texas is filled with right-wing authoritarians who made life difficult for people -denying them access to a reasonable restroom, housing, employment etc, and some people sought to give those whose lives were being made difficult redress in law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is that happening? I don't see why that matters. My point was that 'capitalist forces' cannot be relied upon on the grounds that being more inclusive means more custom since the notion that being more inclusive means more custom is not necessarily true. There have been local establishments boycotted for being 'gay friendly', but I haven't got the numbers sufficient to do a business analysis of all current situations. It certainly has happened, I would strongly expect there were some places where having a 'blacks are equal' philosophy for a public business such as a restaurant would have resulted in the majority of your custom going elsewhere prior to the sixties in the USA. The same for gays in the 70s and 80s. Currently its more difficult to be sure, because, you know the regulations in place prohibit a lot of those shenanigans. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's that approach of running to and using an authority to force your dissenters into compliance rather than working with them and coming to an agreement that I find distasteful. Are you sure that people generally don't try to come an agreement in these cases? I mean legal action is a matter of public record. Private discussions less so. The guidelines were a useful tool to point to during those discussions. When agreement cannot be reached, then civil action takes place, in some instances (probably the minority of them). There are often months of exchanging letters, meetings and discussions before the legal action finds its way into a hearing or court. Court's and other such bodies are often reluctant to hear a case where such attempts have not been made. The guidelines were useful. They provided a sense of security that the Federal government has their back. Revoking the guidelines indicates a certain attitude, and the comments justifying the revocation reinforce this impression: The Federal government doesn't have your back, even in principle, this should be an issue for the States. It is not totalitarian to be upset about this development. It is not about having the Feds tell people what to think. It's about what the Federal government thinks, and the message that sends in both situations and the fear of what the future holds. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The report says they'll be casting the spell once a month until he's removed from office, starting in February. I didn't hear about it soon enough to pray against it. That's not how prayer works. It isn't a countermagic spell. God knew what was in your heart in this matter even if you didn't pray.
Whether you believe in the efficacy of witch spells or not, isn't there something just a tad anti-democratic about using any special tactics for a political purpose to defeat a President half the voting population elected? Tell that to the religious/right who used 'special tactics' against Obama. Incidentally, you claimed you hadn't dropped the transgender bathroom law discussion regarding totalitarian tactics there. But then you never answered my question as to whether the laws you disagree with in this matter are totalitarian tactics of the right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's not the government that I'm calling totalitarian, it's the mindset of the people who are outraged. Can you give a real life example of someone exhibiting this mindset? It'd help understand what you are trying to communicate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Lying propaganda straight out of the Marxist playbook designed to promote class warfare by inventing Oppressor-Oppressed classes and encouraging the persecution of one by the other. When little girls are forced to use the boys room, as per the laws you disagree with, the little girls are not being oppressed in any fashion? When someone says 'you should let little girls in school use the little girls room' is that totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to complain when someone decides to abandon that sensible statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Marxism is a hate purveryor that always ultimately promotes murder. You don't need to refer to Marx to make any point you want about people's special needs. I didn't. Here are my questions again: When little girls are forced to use the boys room, as per the laws you disagree with, the little girls are not being oppressed in any fashion? When someone says 'you should let little girls in school use the little girls room' is that totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to complain when someone decides to abandon that sensible statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's not federal laws in general that I have a problem with. Title IX is great Do you object to people clarifying what Title IX means? Do you object when that clarification is abandoned? Do you find it objectionable when people find it objectionable when that clarity is lost?
It's being outraged because you cannot rely on the feds for guidance on things like which bathroom choices people should make that I think is far enough to call totalitarian - even if technically the usage of the word is not strictly correct. The guidelines do not give guidance on which bathroom choices people should make.
quote: The guidance doesn't say anything about what bathroom you should use. It says that a trans-girl should be treated as a cis-girl under Title IX. This includes bathroom use:
quote: Stakeholders were asking for clarification from the relevant Federal Departments. Those departments issued a set of guidelines to clarify some specific points raised regarding he general nature of Title IX.
I'd prefer free individuals interacting over an authority dictating behavior, not visa versa. Title IX is the only authoritative thing in effect which you say 'is great'. The guidelines merely state that the protections in Title IX should extend to transgender students. Individuals are still free and can still interact regardless of the guidelines which merely are intended to clarify Title IX:
quote: By saying it should be construed to mean 'gender identity' rather than biologically determined sex (which isn't strictly a coherent thing anyway). Why is being upset at those guidelines being abandoned totalitarian? They don't demand what bathrooms people should use anymore than Title IX does. Title IX doesn't say cis-girls must use bathrooms for cis-girls. It simply prohibits discrimination of girls. The guidelines just assert, in consistency with other decisions made by courts, that transgirls are to be regarded as girls when interpreting what Title IX is prohibiting. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you have a child with a penis who thinks they're a girl and wants to use the girls' bathroom but the school doesn't want them to. That should be the school administration's decision. If there's really a discrimination case to be had then it should end at the individual state, imho. So the State can provide the funds, and they don't get the Federal funds. That's the way it was intended to work. Or do you want to force the liberals in California to fund a school they think is being unjustly discriminatory in Texas? Wouldn't that also be totalitarian? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Meanwhile, the state is exactly the right level to screw with your life totally to the nth detail, but that is not totalitarian. I'm not speaking for Faith, but there is a certain type that argues this...unless State level laws are displeasing, such as the Oregonian law that means people have to serve wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. At which point it should be down to the individual. But bathrooms? No that should be down to the State, or maybe if they are inclined to be disagreeable the the school Administration should have total authoritarian control, but failing that a single individual objector should control other people's bathroom usage. Whatever 'level' of control gets what they want, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I call the gay marriage law wrong and unjust The 14th Amendment?
it does force conformity to a view opposed by a large part of the population that used to be protected by the First Amendment maybe that's a better argument than my argument here. The 14th Amendment just says everyone is entitled to equal protection under law. I assume you are mixing this up with the non-discrimination in public accommodation statutes? These only 'force' public accommodations to not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age and so on. They don't force conformity to a view on any individual. That's why you are allowed to not hold that view. So since you remain free to disagree with the statutes, I fail to see anything remotely totalitarian at play here. Is it totalitarian to make little girls to use little boys room and deny them access to the little girls room, for years and years and years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
The point is the First Amendment that promises religious freedom is prior Sure, so you do agree that rights can have primacy over other rights - but then, your religious freedom isn't being inhibited. It's your freedom to practice business how you want that is being inhibited. You are free to say same-sex marriage is wicked. You are free to not have a same-sex marriage. But you aren't free to run a public business how you like, even if your religion says so.
Punishing Christians for acting on their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment. They aren't. They can be punished for violating business regulations. They can operate a business in such a way as to not violate business regulations AND not serve cakes for same-sex weddings. That's what the Kleins did, they changed their business model so it presumably now complies with the law. It would be unfair of them to have the advantages of a public accommodation while not playing by the same rules as everyone else.
I'm talking about gay marriage here. The bathroom problem \is something else. Yes, I know. But you said you weren't dropping the bathroom problem and you've avoided answering the question about whether those laws are also totalitarian. Is it only totalitarian when the left does it? Or will show me you are consistent and fair and will condemn the right when it acts in a way that should be construed as totalitarian as you are using the word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
now you are saying that a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, doesn't count as prohibiting Christian freedoms. The laws that prohibit discrimination came from the State legislatures. The Klein's ran afoul of State law, passed by the Oregon State Legislature. SCOTUS only ruled that same-sex marriage is as much a right as heterosexual marriage and that States cannot usurp this right and all the rights and priveleges of one must apply to another (such as tax benefits, healthcare etc etc). It says nothing about what private citizens must do. The Oregonian anti-discrimination law was passed years before SCOTUS made its ruling. You continue to mix these up - they are quite different things. SCOTUS did not 'pretend' to be Congress. They did not enact any laws. It was the State legislatures that enacted the laws that private business owners are subject to, and have been penalized under. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024