Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

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

This needs to be a major part of the Democratic campaign, but done exclusively through PACS. Tie every Republican to their accused, plead guilty, and convicted pedophiles. Force every single one to answer questions about "groomers" in their own party and why they're not doing more to "clean house".

Put them on defense on their home turf, since we've already seen how easy that is to do after Madison Cawthorn spun hilariously fictitious stories of lawmakers inviting him to sex parties and doing bumps of coke in front of him, resulting in Republican lawmakers facing heat from their constituents.

[Endus]

*ahem*

Anti-masking anti-vaxxing flat-Earther Nazis still exist. Yes, there are people that fucking stupid. You just can't understand that mindset because it's too far gone from human sentience.

I understand such people exist. I just recognize that there's a lot of grift to those who express such views. Intentional lies, knowing lies, because it's an attempt to convince people to follow along without thinking. To not invest any belief in the actual argument, just blind faith in those epressing it. Like when a YEC cuts a video about scientists rebuilding an australopithecene's bipedal gait at the image of said scientists grinding plaster down to make a manipulatable model, and claims that he's grinding down the fossil itself to edit the actual bones. They knew that was a lie, when they said it, and anyone listening them either knew it was a lie or didn't ever care what the truth might be, and was just looking for self-congratulatory affirmation so they didn't have to truly believe anything.

The old maxim was to not assign to malice what can best be summed up with stupidity, but frankly, it's mostly fuckin' malice. People with legitimate mental limitations are, IME at least, way more likely to be kinder than these fucks. I'm not saying these malicious twits are brilliant, but malice is at the core of why they're execrable, not stupidity. Nobody's a transphobic bigot because they're too stupid to not be. They're a transphobic bigot because they're an abusive, sadistic asshole. They might be super easy to debunk because they're also stupid, but then you've got people like J.K. Rowling who're pretty clearly not particularly stupid. Just evil.

[tehdang]

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.

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids, and their experts would do a better job raising them and introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity, and religion. I don't think you can conceive of the political losses after framing parental rights as parents stupidly thinking they own their kids.

[Canpinter]

I understand such people exist. I just recognize that there's a lot of grift to those who express such views. Intentional lies, knowing lies, because it's an attempt to convince people to follow along without thinking. To not invest any belief in the actual argument, just blind faith in those epressing it. Like when a YEC cuts a video about scientists rebuilding an australopithecene's bipedal gait at the image of said scientists grinding plaster down to make a manipulatable model, and claims that he's grinding down the fossil itself to edit the actual bones. They knew that was a lie, when they said it, and anyone listening them either knew it was a lie or didn't ever care what the truth might be, and was just looking for self-congratulatory affirmation so they didn't have to truly believe anything.

The old maxim was to not assign to malice what can best be summed up with stupidity, but frankly, it's mostly fuckin' malice. People with legitimate mental limitations are, IME at least, way more likely to be kinder than these fucks. I'm not saying these malicious twits are brilliant, but malice is at the core of why they're execrable, not stupidity. Nobody's a transphobic bigot because they're too stupid to not be. They're a transphobic bigot because they're an abusive, sadistic asshole. They might be super easy to debunk because they're also stupid, but then you've got people like J.K. Rowling who're pretty clearly not particularly stupid. Just evil.

I think you may have a hard time getting in the mindset because your a smart man but there really are alot of people out there who are for lack of a better word stupid

They have never been taught actual critical thinking skills or how to deconstruct the conservative/bigoted ideas they where raised in.

This dosnt mean we treat them with kid gloves or not call them out but it's important to remember alot of these people have no intellectual framework to actually examine what they believe.

[Edge-]

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids

This is not an argument to begin with. The government has an absolute interest in the health and well being of minors in general, hence why children can be removed from their parents if they're shown to be abusive or neglectful.

and their experts would do a better job raising them

While this is objectively true in many instances, this is not what is actually proposed or being discussed and is a pointless strawman.

introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity, and religion.

In what way, though? Context is key here, and also very inconvenient unless your argument is, "I'm a hatful bigot and think that my child being aware that gay people exist and are human beings deserving of equal rights and respect is just outrageous!"

They're not talking about Mickey Mouse raw dogging Pluto, dude.

I don't think you can conceive of the political losses after framing parental rights as parents stupidly thinking they own their kids.

"Parental rights" is a strawman argument in service of the culture war - which you acknowledged being the central point of the "don't say gay" bill to begin with. It's not an actual policy position and has no critical thought behind it.

It's just the next phase of the "CRT" bogeyman, complete with all the same dishonesty that folks crying the loudest about "CRT!!!" who also couldn't even describe what it even means. They're so mad about something because they don't understand it and that just infuriates them.

[Canpinter]

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids, and their experts would do a better job raising them and introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity, and religion. I don't think you can conceive of the political losses after framing parental rights as parents stupidly thinking they own their kids.

No it adds the subtext that NO ONE owns the kids. Parents have guardianship not ownership.

[Muzjhath]

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids, and their experts would do a better job raising them and introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity, and religion. I don't think you can conceive of the political losses after framing parental rights as parents stupidly thinking they own their kids.

Should a teacher be allowed to talk about what she did over the weekend with her husband on a Monday morning in kindergarten? To get some children to maybe state something interesting that happened?

Yes or No?

[DarkTZeratul]

They're not talking about Mickey Mouse raw dogging Pluto, dude.

Well, Ted Cruz is, but frankly that says a lot about Ted Cruz.

[Breccia]

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids

The government says kids aren't allowed to smoke, drink, vote, drive, sign up for the army, have sex, drop out of school, see a titty flick or have a full-time job until they reach a certain age. And through all of that, nobody's once used the slavery card. Especially with the childhood labor prevention laws.

[uuuhname]

introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity

as if our culture doesn't teach kids from the moment they have self awareness that being cis gendered and heterosexual is "the standard". but no, teachers telling thier students they're gay or non binary means they are "introducing" sexual identity and gender identity" instead of doing what I imagine some people do which is brag about the hot chick they plowed that weekend to their class.

[Flarelaine]

You better believe that this adds the subtext that the government actually owns your kids, and their experts would do a better job raising them and introducing topics like sexual identity, gender identity, and religion. I don't think you can conceive of the political losses after framing parental rights as parents stupidly thinking they own their kids.

Well, parents do not own their kids. No human being owns another.

[PhaelixWW]

In the US it’s legal to own prisoners.

Bold claim. Source?

[Zan15]

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.

well the fact that florida would have to take on a billion dollars in debt service and a few billion in having to fund everything disney does in that county will stop them from actually doing anything meaninful.

imagine an entire county getting a 2-3k tax increase in an election year.

[Endus]

Bold claim. Source?

13th Amendment explicitly bans slavery except in the case of convicts. I'd disagree that it's chattel​ slavery, which is whewhere ownership comes in, bubut the point is that the UUS government is absolutely legally entitled to enslave people.

[Poopymonster]

The government says kids aren't allowed to smoke, drink, vote, drive, sign up for the army, have sex, drop out of school, see a titty flick or have a full-time job until they reach a certain age. And through all of that, nobody's once used the slavery card. Especially with the childhood labor prevention laws.

There is an exception for family owned farms. There are no brakes on that slave train.

[Kaleredar]

well the fact that florida would have to take on a billion dollars in debt service and a few billion in having to fund everything disney does in that county will stop them from actually doing anything meaninful.

imagine an entire county getting a 2-3k tax increase in an election year.

…and all of that after the price of housing in Orlando has shot up 40% in the last year.

I think this bloviating is a toothless threat designed to rile conservatives up. They’ve been pushing a lot of these things recently in Florida, trying to galvanize the republican voters base.

[PhaelixWW]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thir...s_Constitution

The 13th Amendment. Welcome to the 19th century.

Involuntary service is not the same as ownership. Prisoners still have rights. Just not... all of them.

[shimerra]

Involuntary service is not the same as ownership. Prisoners still have rights. Just not... all of them.

Most forms of slavery granted slaves some rights, just not all of them. So that excuse goes out the window.

Slavery also does not automatically mean ownership. THe literal second definition according to Webster : : the state of a person who is held in forced servitude .

A person in prison whose freedom is withheld and forced to do labor fits that definition exactly. The US government can force you to labor. And either the US gov or a private company benefits from your labor while you are given a pittance if anything more than what keeps you alive. That's not even a stretch to call that a modern form of slavery. People are just generally okay with it because it's seen as a punishment for wrong doing even though the private prison system literally exploits prison labor to inflate profits. Sounds pretty slavery like to me even if you insist there's a overseer cracking a whip.

All this is true even before we factor in historical context. And guess what? The 13th Amendment loophole was entirely included so that Southern slaveholders could just abuse the law and round up their newly freed former slaves and force them to labor in prison.

[Ripster42]

Most forms of slavery granted slaves some rights, just not all of them. So that excuse goes out the window.

Slavery also does not automatically mean ownership. THe literal second definition according to Webster : : the state of a person who is held in forced servitude .

They're disputing ownership, not slavery.

[PhaelixWW]

Slavery also does not automatically mean ownership.

He's the one who claimed "ownership".