Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[DarkTZeratul]

Republicans weren't pounding the table demanding that Disney take a stance.

And yet, they're the ones threatening major legislative reprisals for doing so.

That would be Democrats that couldn't impact the legislation and were trying to exercise power despite that.

So it's not okay for Democrats to demand they take a stance despite having no power to force them to, but it IS okay for Republicans to use their power to punish them for taking a stance? Once again, you argue that partisan fuckery is perfectly acceptable so long as the Republicans are doing it.

[postman1782]

Breaking News: The four largest U.S. airlines — United, Delta, Southwest and American — dropped their mask requirements for domestic flights after a judge struck down the federal mandate.

Some federal judge just blatantly undermined the CDC and other federal governments with this ruling getting much praise from the right than the left. So much for Judicial Activism huh?

Our judicial system has a place, but this is a pretty dangerous ruling coming to our policy for an ongoing pandemic. I admit I have not read or gone deep into the ruling but I'm betting this is not based on any medical arguments that COVID has died down. I'm betting this is all about meh libbbbbbbbberty!

I should also note that some of the airlines were very reckless announcing this in middle of flights and midday. Thus, people who boarded today and next few days had some expectation of mask mandate.

Biden or the CDC has filed an appeal.



The federal judge who struck down the CDC's mask mandate for travelers was a lame duck Trump appointee who was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association for "the short time she has actually practiced law and her lack of meaningful trial experience."

Well of course this explains that judge to a T.

What is really funny, is that this judge that made this judgement, was never a judge before, she was barely anything before she was nominated, even got the unqualified response by the American Bar Association, but she is now in there for a lifetime appointment. It will be appealed, and probably overturned because the judge is a fucking moron.

[tehdang]

And yet, they're the ones threatening major legislative reprisals for doing so.

As long as you can acknowledge the series of events leading up to Disney making the decision.

So it's not okay for Democrats to demand they take a stance despite having no power to force them to, but it IS okay for Republicans to use their power to punish them for taking a stance? Once again, you argue that partisan fuckery is perfectly acceptable so long as the Republicans are doing it.

Democrats and media allies did the pressure campaign because they couldn't get enough legislative power through voting. They can try to get corporations to levy some amount of power by acting in their partisan interest. The actual criticism and response is a key part of engaging with what happened. If Disney chooses to be a partisan actor against the citizen's representatives in the legislature, they should expect political backlash.

And, to address some of the vagueness in your question, "it is okay for" them to lose tons of money over this. It's also fine if any corporation decides to go out of business on some cultural battlefield that the board and CEO feel strongly enough about. It's fine to call them all idiots for doing so. It's okay to call it a bad business decision, or ineffectual in its aims, or short-sighted. They could've told off the journalists and activists, done absolutely nothing, and that would be okay too. Florida government could decide to let it slide, or that current, public backlash is enough, and that's okay for Florida to do that.

As they should, going against human decency is sort of a big thing. Why should Disney go along with DeathSentence and his first step to ridding Florida of gays? Why does it upset you that Disney went against him?

The people that think "they should," especially people that refer to the governor as "DeathSentence," and think this is "his first step to ridding Florida of gays" are the people that Disney seeks to please through acting in this way. In the same way, citizens and their representatives that think it's backwards and destructive and support the legislation, and feel very strongly about it, should rethink any legislation tailored for neutral companies just seeking to make money. If the roles were reversed, and a major corporation champions HB 1557 legislation in a blue state, and they've got those sweet, sweet tax breaks, go for it.

What are you talking about? They do that shit all of the time, they just want corporations to let them do it which is why when one goes against it Republicans try to shut them down and attack them. What you meant is they don't look for PUBLIC endorsement. Republicans love the quiet endorsement of their policies.

You can have your secret endorsements. I'm happy with "Republicans didn't push them to come out for/against the legislation" to be admitted as true and "They do this all the time, secretly, silence is complicity" to be your view. It's a little conspiratorial, I'll admit, but maybe you can show it to be true and relevant on some topic in the future. Quiet endorsement also looks a lot like a business trying not to alienate some portion of its consumers. "Why haven't you spoken out? Your silence is tantamount to endorsement!" does meet "We're here to sell you shoes, man, not make political statements."

[Kaleredar]

As long as you can acknowledge the series of events leading up to Disney making the decision.

Democrats and media allies did the pressure campaign because they couldn't get enough legislative power through voting. They can try to get corporations to levy some amount of power by acting in their partisan interest. The actual criticism and response is a key part of engaging with what happened. If Disney chooses to be a partisan actor against the citizen's representatives in the legislature, they should expect political backlash.

And, to address some of the vagueness in your question, "it is okay for" them to lose tons of money over this. It's also fine if any corporation decides to go out of business on some cultural battlefield that the board and CEO feel strongly enough about. It's fine to call them all idiots for doing so. It's okay to call it a bad business decision, or ineffectual in its aims, or short-sighted. They could've told off the journalists and activists, done absolutely nothing, and that would be okay too. Florida government could decide to let it slide, or that current, public backlash is enough, and that's okay for Florida to do that.

The people that think "they should," especially people that refer to the governor as "DeathSentence," and think this is "his first step to ridding Florida of gays" are the people that Disney seeks to please through acting in this way. In the same way, citizens and their representatives that think it's backwards and destructive and support the legislation, and feel very strongly about it, should rethink any legislation tailored for neutral companies just seeking to make money. If the roles were reversed, and a major corporation champions HB 1557 legislation in a blue state, and they've got those sweet, sweet tax breaks, go for it.

You can have your secret endorsements. I'm happy with "Republicans didn't push them to come out for/against the legislation" to be admitted as true and "They do this all the time, secretly, silence is complicity" to be your view. It's a little conspiratorial, I'll admit, but maybe you can show it to be true and relevant on some topic in the future. Quiet endorsement also looks a lot like a business trying not to alienate some portion of its consumers. "Why haven't you spoken out? Your silence is tantamount to endorsement!" does meet "We're here to sell you shoes, man, not make political statements."

This sentiment is no different than saying that, “because voters supported segregation” it would be justified for Disney (or some other company) to have faced bitter political reprisal in the south for depicting interracial couples or integrated classrooms in the 1950s and 1960s.

Meanwhile, you are ALSO saying that, were a company to be supportive of a politician that supported segregation, they should be immune from criticism because “they’re just trying to make money”

This is no different.


There are such things as right and wrong in this world.

[Endus]

There are such things as right and wrong in this world.

And again; in reference to the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the sole intent of that bill is to inflict needless suffering and hardship on LGBT teachers and, particularly, children. It's intentional cruelty for cruelty's sake, and no other purpose whatsoever.

If you can't see how "wrong" that is, objectively speaking, you're part of the problem, and one of those seeking to harm innocent children.

[Levelfive]

And again; in reference to the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the sole intent of that bill is to inflict needless suffering and hardship on LGBT teachers and, particularly, children. It's intentional cruelty for cruelty's sake, and no other purpose whatsoever.

If you can't see how "wrong" that is, objectively speaking, you're part of the problem, and one of those seeking to harm innocent children.

Well it IS also meant to have a chilling effect, as a message, the same way they're doing with Disney, lest other companies even think of criticizing Republicans and their "policies." If (as) people suffer violence because of it, the message is just that much more clear.

Love, too, how the free speech crowd is all in on government punishing speech they don't like:

"Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. “It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.”"

https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1...hOAiXVgk7ZHoaA

[Dontrike]

The people that think "they should," especially people that refer to the governor as "DeathSentence," and think this is "his first step to ridding Florida of gays" are the people that Disney seeks to please through acting in this way.

"Acting this way" = "Not wanting to treat the gays like they are evil." That's a dumb fucking way of putting that by the way and if you have a problem with a company being against anti-gay/trans then you're the problem. Gays/trans are not evil, grow up and stop listening to cultists.

Quiet endorsement also looks a lot like a business trying not to alienate some portion of its consumers.

And by endorsing it quietly they would alienate people, except in this case the endorsement is being against an entire class of people. You understand how one is alienating a group for existing while the other is being against a law and upsetting a bunch of homophobes. Gee, I wonder which is better? I give you 3 chances to guess. I'm sure you'll get it wrong.

[Endus]

"Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. “It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.”"

https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1...hOAiXVgk7ZHoaA

"CA values" like "don't abuse and marginalize LGBT people just because you're an outrageous bigot about other people's personal lives that don't affect you in the least."

[tehdang]

This sentiment is no different than saying that, “because voters supported segregation” it would be justified for Disney (or some other company) to have faced bitter political reprisal in the south for depicting interracial couples or integrated classrooms in the 1950s and 1960s.

Meanwhile, you are ALSO saying that, were a company to be supportive of a politician that supported segregation, they should be immune from criticism because “they’re just trying to make money”

This is no different.


There are such things as right and wrong in this world.

It matters how similar in obvious moral right-wrong character the Florida legislation is to slavery and segregation to use such a weighty comparison. That's why I devoted a paragraph to answer the "is it okay/is it not okay to...?" If they have some abhorrent moral wrong on their hands, maybe it would be like white plantation owners in the south preferring to drink iced tea and not debate the civil rights of their slaves. If it's more like the biggest supporters of eugenics and lobotomy, and may I remind you, against people convinced they were in the moral right and the science was behind them, then such political actions from companies against elected representatives seem more foolhardy. We can't really get into the debate on which situation it more resembles, because the underlying issue is among the banned topics. You should at least see things from both sides, and I gave you a start in a paragraph you quoted.

"Acting this way" = "Not wanting to treat the gays like they are evil." That's a dumb fucking way of putting that by the way and if you have a problem with a company being against anti-gay/trans then you're the problem. Gays/trans are not evil, grow up and stop listening to cultists.

Remember that the argument against is that kindergarteners are too young and impressionable to be taught about sex and perhaps being born in the wrong body. I just finished saying what I think about corporations taking stands they sincerely feel strongly about, and how I saw this result from a pressure campaign of media and activists, so I'm not going to repeat myself at length here. The two sides don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and that's precisely why trying to call it a black and white issue of treating gays like they are evil is like saying abortion is a black and white issue of whether babies deserve the right to live. It frames it in the way most conducive to one specific take on the controversy, and I hope you see that as an issue.

And by endorsing it quietly they would alienate people, except in this case the endorsement is being against an entire class of people. You understand how one is alienating a group for existing while the other is being against a law and upsetting a bunch of homophobes. Gee, I wonder which is better? I give you 3 chances to guess. I'm sure you'll get it wrong.

There are people that feel this way about a great number of subjects, so I don't see any real solution in where you're going here. Your parental rights in education bill is another's atrocities in the Sudan and still a third's intervention in climate change. People can go up to a swimwear brand and demand they hold a press conference and pledge money on <issue of importance>, and some companies will join in passionately, and others dismiss them as nutjobs. Maybe it goes without saying, but people disagree with you on the teacher's vs the parent's place in cultural issues impacting children, and they also plan trips to Disney World, and maybe they aren't just evil transphobes who are politically convenient to dismiss.

[uuuhname]

lmao how dare you not respect me being a bigot! stop not respecting me for being a bigot! ya'll are the real bigots here!
*dramatic hand jerking motion*

[Canpinter]

I just love how this is all framed as " parental rights" we need to get over this stupid notion that parents somehow own their kids.

[uuuhname]

I just love how this is all framed as " parental rights" we need to get over this stupid notion that parents somehow own their kids.

even worse they try to frame it as if the conservative side of this topic isn't entirely based entirely on bigotry. OR EVEN WROSE that no, that bigotry is in fact "honest and genuine concern" and you have to treat it as such. it's so gross and transparent in what it's trying to be.

[Kaleredar]

Well it IS also meant to have a chilling effect, as a message, the same way they're doing with Disney, lest other companies even think of criticizing Republicans and their "policies." If (as) people suffer violence because of it, the message is just that much more clear.

Love, too, how the free speech crowd is all in on government punishing speech they don't like:

"Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. “It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.”"

https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1...hOAiXVgk7ZHoaA

I’m sure they love Disney’s California money, however.

Honestly Disney is in such a strong place in Florida that I really doubt that anything will come of this. Which is good; it means they can lobby against hateful legislation largely with impunity. I’m not sure that “people that love Ron desantis” outnumber the “people that love Disney” crowd here.

[uuuhname]

we're so worried about those nasty fucking gays being nasty and gay around children by... existing, in their disgusting gayness. I don't give myself away by conflating a sexual orientation with being sexual /s.

[Kaleredar]

we're so worried about those nasty fucking gays being nasty and gay around children by... existing, in their disgusting gayness. I don't give myself away by conflating a sexual orientation with being sexual /s.

Apparently they don’t think educating children about the existence of lgbtq+ people would largely be “some men love men” and “some women love women” and so on and various important things such people have done throughout history, and instead automatically default to thinking someone is going to be telling 5 year olds “well you see Steve likes raw-dogging twinks” and “Suzy likes watching another woman stare up at her from between her legs while they’re tongue-deep in her.”

[Endus]

We can't really get into the debate on which situation it more resembles, because the underlying issue is among the banned topics. You should at least see things from both sides, and I gave you a start in a paragraph you quoted.

I do see "both sides". One side has no argument other than a willful desire to inflict suffering on innocents, particularly children. That's literally what I see.

That you admit you can't discuss this without stooping into forbidden hate speech just makes my case for me.

Remember that the argument against is that kindergarteners are too young and impressionable to be taught about sex and perhaps being born in the wrong body.

And that's not an argument. It's an expression of the desire to inflict that suffering on children who are already experiencing dysphoric symptoms, by refusing them information that would help them understand their own identity. It's an expression of the desire to maintain bigotry against the non-cis and non-het, by only allowing cisgender and heterosexual expressions to be introduced to young children.

The law is not intended to prevent any such information being given to kindergarteners. It's intended to only block such information if it's anything but cishet. Otherwise, no teacher or books could ever refer to marriages or romance in any respect. Even the classic "and she married the prince and they lived happily ever after" would have to be banned, because that's the level of discussion the law targets.

Pretending otherwise is willful disinformation, and demonstrates your complicit dishonesty in this attack against basic human decency.

The two sides don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and that's precisely why trying to call it a black and white issue of treating gays like they are evil is like saying abortion is a black and white issue of whether babies deserve the right to live. It frames it in the way most conducive to one specific take on the controversy, and I hope you see that as an issue.

Abortion isn't about "whether babies deserve to live". Anyone making that argument is already being intentionally dishonest.

It's about women's basic human rights to bodily autonomy and health care. And if you oppose abortion rights, you're a misogynist seeking to subjugate women. 100% of the time, in every single instance, no matter what other equivocations you throw at the subject.

Saying "but I really believe in my views" just means you're openly and honestly bigoted rather than just pretending to be for yuks, or something. Nobody thought you didn't believe in your views. We're condemning you because those views are bigoted and solely target vulnerable people to inflict undue harm upon them, for the sake of that harm itself.

Your parental rights in education bill is another's atrocities in the Sudan and still a third's intervention in climate change.

Why the fuck would any parent have any "right" to force a teacher to not talk about her wife to her class? While supporting her colleague's right to talk about his wife?

This was never about "parental rights". Don't pretend that lying to my face is an argument; you're just being abusive and treating me like I'm too stupid to understand what's going on. And I'm not. I see right through you.

Maybe it goes without saying, but people disagree with you on the teacher's vs the parent's place in cultural issues impacting children, and they also plan trips to Disney World, and maybe they aren't just evil transphobes who are politically convenient to dismiss.

Feel free to provide even a single valid, rational, reason-based argument for how they might not be bigots, around this issue. I'm not gonna accept "maybe there's a magical justification out there nobody can voice, you haven't proven there couldn't be" bullshit; I'm not prancing around here trying to prove a negative for you. Give me one justification that isn't bigoted. Just one. Should be trivial, if you're right, no?

- - - Updated - - -

I just love how this is all framed as " parental rights" we need to get over this stupid notion that parents somehow own their kids.

I mean, we could point out that a large justification for public education in general, and the limited guardianship teachers possess over their students, all exists precisely to oppose parental abuses of their children. As a teacher, if your kid tells me you hit them with a belt, you can talk to the police and child protective services about it; I'm not letting you pick your kid up from the school. Your "rights" don't matter more than the child's, and if push comes to shove, the schools and teachers can and will oppose your parental "rights" where it harms those children.

[Endus]

Should be. Sadly this is entirely based in the idea that knowing something exists will turn kids into that thing. As opposed to reality where these kids are born the way they are.

If that hypothesis held true, there wouldn't be any gay people, because the overwhelming amount of cishet-reinforcing books and films and whatnot would have "turned" those kids cisgender and straight.

Like, nobody making that argument actually believes it. It's too fucking stupid. It's a cover for their real argument, which is "LGBTQIA kids might realize it's okay to be their honest selves", which bigots obviously can't accept.

[uuuhname]

Apparently they don’t think educating children about the existence of lgbtq+ people would largely be “some men love men” and “some women love women” and so on and various important things such people have done throughout history, and instead automatically default to thinking someone is going to be telling 5 year olds “well you see Steve likes raw-dogging twinks” and “Suzy likes watching another woman stare up at her from between her legs while they’re tongue-deep in her.”

because as with Murphy's law, there should be a law stating: every "accusation" a conservative makes against another, is in fact, a thinly veiled confession. change my mind.

[Endus]

There are plenty of people that believe ridiculous nonsense because it's easier than reality. See religion for reference.

I wouldn't even go that far. There are religious extremists, obviously, but a lot of religious types just make one or two relatively small leaps of faith in terms of a premise they can't philosophically or materially prove (or else it wouldn't be faith), and the rest proceeds somewhat rationally from there. If site rules allowed, I could break down specific details (I nearly went to seminary and minored in religious studies in college), but there's plenty of room for faith that isn't "ridiculous nonsense".

[uuuhname]

like, we straight up have lawmakers with child brides out here trying to pass legislation to ban trans people from having access to the services they need. like, everything they accuse LGBTQ+ people of, they are guilty of a thousand time's over.

- - - Updated - - -

it seems pretty clear to me these people simply see LGBTQI+ people as competition... for some reason.