The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Huh? Me personally? You couldn't have read my posts.If you did, you'd know that I was talking about the guidelines that the Obama administration issued on Title IX and how they relate to schools.

He's surely aware of that. What you are missing is that you've been accusing the rules of being totalitarian, and you've been very vague about who is being dictated to.Advice to schools is not about what bathrooms you should use, but it instead about state organizations dictating what bathrooms folks should use. In the absence of such guidance, states are acting in a way that is completely authoritarian. Yet you express no objection to that state of affairs.In short, your complaints are a sham. And not just pedantically as you've accused. If you missed jar's point, that's fine. But that same point has also been made here by several others. You have yet to respond to any of those posts. It may well be that I'm on your ignore list, but I'm not the only one besides jar who has made the point you seem to be avoiding at all costs.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've lost count of how many times I've written that I don't think the rules or laws are totalitarian.I'm talking about an individuals mentality in their approach to the fed gov. What are you looking to them for? What do you want to get out of them?If it's total control that you're looking for then I'm calling that totalitarian. The guidelines say that a school must allow students to use restrooms consistent with their internal sense of gender rather than their biological sex. Start a thread on it, I'll comment there too. Kiss my ass, liar.

So as suspected, you have no point or even a comment related to the topic, reality or even use of the English language.You are saying that if someone looks for a totalitarian government it is a totalitarian position.Got it.Now what does that have to do with the topic, reality or even use of the English language?

If calling the left names is "a bit of a joke," why are you taking it seriously by defending it? Laws at the state level are not totalitarian while laws at the federal level are? This seems a bit inconsistent. The claim was that multiple states had bills in the pipeline, and that is true. The Obama guidelines slowed or halted many of the state-level bills limiting LGBT bathroom rights because they would have conflicted with Title IX. It isn't uncommon for Title IX disputes to end up in court - one recently reached the Supreme Court. Risking loss of federal funding is not taken lightly. It seems unlikely that any state would pass legislation risking all its public schools losing federal funding. How is state government not a "centralized governing body"? I'm guessing that what you're really trying to express is a preference for laws as close to local level as possible. That's fine, and certainly there are going to be valid arguments concerning the right level for each legal issue, but that doesn't make the highest levels of government totalitarian, and it certainly doesn't make an opinion about LGBT rights totalitarian.--Percy

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.

This appears to me to make no sense. So an individual wants to go to the girls room. What should their approach be when the state passes a law saying that they cannot? And why isn't the state being totalitarian?Of course, you've been asked these questions over and over. You are full of shite. You've actually come up with some definition of totalitarian that cannot apply to a government but only to individuals reacting to being forced not to do something they should be able to do.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That might have been his position. Except that he thinks going to your boss about some policy that he abused is also totalitarian. Further he claims that the guidelines are not totalitarian, but the mindset of the person wanting to use the bathroom that fits is totalitarian.

First you say I'm trolling, now you say I'm taking it seriously. How about you just respond to what I write and forget how I'm taking it? Yes, but not just. Going to the feds is more totalitarian than going to the state, but the approach can be similar.The left likes to go to the feds because then you can control all the states. That's even more totalitarian. I responded to a claim that explicitly said "passing" and you replied to that response. If you changed it, that's a different claim. And that doesn't prevent legislators from proposing anything, nor does rescinding it "free" legislatures to start making proposals.But yes, avoiding the loss of federal funding would make a legislator think twice about what they are proposing. As I said before, and you acknowledged:

quote:

---

The guidelines didn't prevent legislation or add anything to the already existing law, it just helped the schools know what to do to keep their legal obligations.

​

Rescinding the guidelines doesn't take away anything. The schools can still follow them if they need help figuring out how to keep their legal obligations.

---

Legislators could still follow them too. Now, they may think they don't have to because they were rescinded; is that all you were trying to say? Don't be so pedantic.

This reasoning does not work. As most folks are doubtless aware, the first amendment applies to a lot more than the federal government or even to Congress. The first amendment applies to both legislative and executive branches at all levels of government (due to incorporation via the 14th amendment). The University of North Carolina is prohibited from violating the 1st amendment just as is the president of the United States.So if the state of Georgia want to ban "Gone with the Wind" within its borders, why isn't the first amendment, or at least the author's attempt to use the courts to enforce the first amendment totalitarian?Answer. Because the line of reasoning that extends laws limiting state government in this way is horse ca-ca.

I am at a loss how an individual can be totalitarian. He seems to think people supporting bathroom rights have a subconscious desire to be under a totalitarian government.
Or does he have me even more confused than I thought.

Still not a correct use of the term. But then again you just want to use a word that sounds and feel inflammatory.

I did respond to what you wrote. I pointed out how it was contradictory, first saying that the thread title is "a bit of a joke," then saying you were going to show how it was actually true. Which is it? When dealing with civil rights, that's the federal level. The word "passing" doesn't appear in any of my posts in this thread, and what I recall originally saying was that there were bills in the pipeline that would resume now that the guidelines have been rescinded. Let's see, ah yes, Message 229: Are you sure you're not trolling? I think I pretty much said what I meant. There were LGBT bathroom use laws in the pipeline that were put on hold after Obama issued the guidelines, and now they can reenter the legislative pipeline. Beyond Title IX and the Obama guidelines there are civil rights issues.In related news the AP reports that North Carolina will lose around $4 billion over the next 10 years due to their bathroom bill (North Carolina’s bathroom bill cost the state almost $4 billion, new analysis finds).--Percy

On the top floor of the House at Checkpoint Charlie, in Berlin, they have a permanent exhibition, detailing the suffering of people at the hands of various totalitarian regimes.In one room, there is a collection of sketches and descriptions, depicting the experiences and memories of a survivor of a North Korean torture camp. As an example, he describes how the guards would regularly rape the prisoners, and if a woman fell pregnant as a result, they would wait until she was several months pregnant, and then beat and stamp on her stomach in front of the inmates, until she aborted the unborn child in a bloodsoaked horror movie, before being left to die in agony and the sort of misery that cannot be imagined.Anyone who describes as totalitarian, the sorts of laws in a liberal democracy, which address which toilet a transgender person can use, is diminishing in an insulting and dangerous way, the genuine suffering of people at the hands of genuine totalitarian regimes. Anyone who thinks that it is totalitarian for liberals to say that people should be required to respect the rights of minorities, is perfectly welcome as far as I'm concerned to offer to swap their suffering for the genuine suffering of someone like the survivor of that North Korean horror camp.The word "totalitarian" is rightly used as a mark of shame to describe regimes like North Korea. To use it to describe the laws and leanings of a liberal democracy weakens the fight against those regimes - and it makes you look a complete idiot.

^^^ yup.