The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Or like restricting murderers access to homicide I kid, I kid. Start a thread, I'll comment there too. Pssh, don't give me that pedantic crap; words are defined by how they are used.If I say a song is cool are you going to question me on how a song can have a temperature?

No I don't.And why does it matter? Why are you more interested in "pegging" me than understanding what I actually think?Basically everything you're saying about me is wrong, but you're obviously more interested in what you think about me than what I actually think. So have fun with that.

Okay, I'm not really on either side either. And I see both sides employing totalitarian thought and tactics.I don't mind calling a spade a spade... Am I? It's fairly common usage these days, and I'm not requiring anything of anybody. I'd hope that you'd use my words in the ways that I intended, but I have no way demanding requirements. It's not the government that I'm calling totalitarian, it's the mindset of the people who are outraged. That's regardless of what the guidelines actually say.

But I do know what totalitarian means, maybe "cheeky" is a good word for this.To use the dictionary's terms: I see people subordinating their individual selves to a centralized authoritarian and autocratic hierarchy to control personal aspects of their lives. They're looking to the federal government to help them figure out which bathrooms people should use, for crying out loud. And from that message:

quote:

---

Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws.

---

It's not federal laws in general that I have a problem with. Title IX is great. 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.I'd prefer free individuals interacting over an authority dictating behavior, not visa versa.

No, not at all. The first amendment prevents the federal government from violating a preexisting right. It limits the government rather than giving it more authority.It doesn't identify people's characteristics and tell people how to behave. All it does is say what congress cannot do.That's the opposite of these guidelines and the mentality of expecting the federal government to advise you on which bathrooms people should use.

You'll need to support that because that's not what the guidance, itself, says.

quote:

---

In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students.

---

Too, only one state passed a law restricting bathroom use *before the guidance was issued (abe for pedantry).Edited by New Cat's Eye, : see *

I'd say that you guys are the ones struggling with the vocabulary. You're more hung up on my word choice than what I'm trying to say. Shallow and pedantic Then don't participate?I would be asking why the person thought the Right was anarchistic, what they were seeing that made them think that, how they thought that fit, what the problem is and what they wanted to do about it, etc.Why care what particular name was called? Especially if the name doesn't fit. Huh? You think that a little girl should ask the federal government if she's directed to the men's bathroom? I'm sorry, that's confusing. What are you asking?I'm not sure I understand, but I think my answer would be that she should look to her parents.

Before the guidelines? How many? That wasn't true when you acknowledged Message 293 and it isn't true now.

From Message 423: Well, I mean, it is in the thread title. Wasn't this thread a bit of a joke to begin with? 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.From Message 424: Well that cannot be from before the guidelines... From your tracking link:

quote:

---

From 2013 to 2016, at least 24 states considered "bathroom bills," or legislation that would restrict access to multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities on the basis of a definition of sex or gender consistent with sex assigned at birth or biological sex. North Carolina is the only state to enact this type of legislation.

---

So, the claim that the guidelines were in response to multiple states passing laws is false. The guidance, itself, even says that the feds were being approached with increasing questions from the schools and parents, as I've already quoted. We can't be talking about the same thing. What in the guidelines prevents a legislator from formulating and proposing a bill?That the public schools may risk federal funding may make them not want to, is that what you're talking about? That's spelled "howbow dah" now Once we get back on track, I'll try again to show you what I see is the totalitarian nature of this type of approach to government.The typical lefty response to leaving it at the state is that there could be states that decide to do things differently. Like, there isn't enough total control of a centralized governing body to rule everyone and make sure we're all doing the same things... hmm.

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.

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.

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.

A bit of both, I guess. Perhaps, but we're talking about the "civil right" of a child to decide to use the bathroom with people of the opposite biological sex because they feel like they are a different gender.That people think we need to call on the feds to help us figure this one out is what I'm calling a totalitarian mentality. It's not good enough to let the local politics decide, they must have total control of the whole country in the making of this decision. There can be no dissent. If your not 100% on board then you are a terrible person. Plus, look at all these other things you must think because you're not with us on this one. That feels like a totalitarian mentality to me.Out of curiosity: Why aren't bathrooms segregated by sex instead of gender? Like, penises in that room and vaginas in that one? And if segregation by some type is the goal, why base it on something as vaporous as this new gender thing - where you can feel like whatever you want? How does that keep the groups intact and separated? No, the sub-thread that came from Message 229 ended at Message 293 where you acknowledged my reply.This sub-thread stems from Message 417 where passing was explicitly claimed:

quote:

---

You do realize that the Federal guidance on bathroom rules was because there were laws states were passing restricting bathroom use.

---

That claim has been proven false. And you already acknowledged my reply to that:

quote:

---

What really happened was that Trump issued an executive order rescinding the Obama guidelines that protected LGBT use of the restrooms of their gender identity.

​

Obama's guidelines weren't what protected them. Title IX is what, still, protects them. The guidelines were just help on interpreting that law.

​

The law says that schools can't discriminate based on sex, and now kids are saying that their gender is different from their sex, so the schools we're looking to the feds to tell them how to handle it (presumably so they don't loose federal funding).

​

This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline.

​

Not really. 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.

---

So now what?...From Message 455: The Vatican? Too brutal? Even today?What about kingdoms?Regardless, I'm not talking about regimes. I'm talking about people's mentality and their approach to the governments. So this is beside my point (not that I'm assuming this was meant for me, just sayin').Also, a false assumption people are making about me: I don't think the individual states are the perfect place for people to go to the government. You can have the same totalitarian mentality regardless of the level of government you go towards. Going to the feds though, especially because you cannot allow for other states to make different decisions than the one you want, is an even more totalitarian approach than sticking to more local levels.Oh, here's another one: I'm not saying that an individual can be totalitarian like a government can, I'm saying that they can have tendencies to prefer governments that have total control - that is, their mentality is one of a totalitarian nature. So, yeah, totalitarian is a bit of a joke in that it's hyperbolic, but it does look like the shoe fits so I see where people are coming from. I thought it would be interesting to explore the thoughts that lead to this kind of stuff, but we got too hung up on the verbiage to get anywhere.And here's the rub with this:It's not the threat of brutality from the people who have the totalitarian mentality. It's being against the idea of giving the feds more power, in general. Once you start going to far, that's how you get things like Trump. Now look at the mess we have.It's like with the cellphone tracking technology the feds got. Being against that idea is not because you're afraid that the feds are going to look at your selfies. It's because you don't want that technology getting into the wrong hands. And that is what happened, the tech got out.The left keeps handing more power to the feds and making them in charge of more decisions, and then we get Trumped. Woo hoo.

Weird, I haven't objected to a single law. Oh well, I'm spent. Have a nice day.

Door locks are stupid and don't do anything worthwhile, but we all have them anyways.