|
The GOP is going to be even worse in 2018. Like shits going to get really bad if the lead up to inauguration is any indicator.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:The GOP is going to be even worse in 2018. Like shits going to get really bad if the lead up to inauguration is any indicator. there are 33 senatorial seats up for election in 2018. It's safe to assume the house is too gerrymandered at this point to be anything other than republican controlled. Of those 33 up for re-election, 24* are democratic, 8 republican, and 1 independent. The republicans are from Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. They don't really have to do anything to get worse. Basically their stranglehold on the government is secure until 2020 at the earliest. *Bernie is listed on wikipedia as independent since that's how he was elected, but I'm including him in the democratic numbers for this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Willing to Not really. The toxx is stupid poo poo, since it's what's let D&D turn into a garbage dump since the election. But considering the changes the GOP has proposed making to ethics procedures, it seems like they know that it's a quick jump from controlling the government to not, and they seem to have less popular appeal than the Democrats did back in '08.The GOP is also entirely better at the game of politics than Democrats have been at least since Clinton's presidency, if not all the way back to LBJ. So the filibuster will only exist as long as it doesn't get in the way. The only way I think it sticks around long term is if the GOP is confident that they buck the trend and pick up seats in the mid term elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:23
|
|
on the bolded part?
|
Ok they backed off the ethics changes. Can you suggest that we take kids from their parents for Wrong Think again so we can just see this to it's logical conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Ok they backed off the ethics changes. Good to hear something positive happening. I still have real doubts that serious systemic changes aren't going to get pushed through until we reach divided government again. quote:Can you suggest that we take kids from their parents for Wrong Think again so we can just see this to it's logical conclusion. Yes, because that's the logical conclusion of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Ok they backed off the ethics changes. What "wrong think"? Some of those beliefs parents have are abusive, and they should have their kids taken away
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:What "wrong think"? "wrong think" is whatever the people in charge say it is. So the abusive beliefs would fall under "religious views" and be considered exempt. Unless it's not Christianity, then the child's welfare becomes more important. At least, that's how it would probably play out. As it is, parents can have children die under their care to their beliefs (such as Church of Christ, Scientist which believes prayer can cure everything), and not be held accountable until it becomes a trend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:"wrong think" is whatever the people in charge say it is. Still child abuse. As a queer kid raised in a conservative home schooled Christian household, I was raised to believe I was going to burn in hell for my gender identity. I didn't know all this at the time I was a little kid, I just thought I was a bad person regardless. That poo poo is child abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:"wrong think" is whatever the people in charge say it is. Remember: You are talking about Conservatives that defend parents who starve/beat their children for not being proper, good Missionary position Christians. They protect people that allow their children to die tortuous diseases because "Prayer will save them" They would rather their child die than be gay or not Christian. Think about that. The very group that says Abortion is Murder is okay with murder when it defends their wacky religious ideals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Still child abuse. I agree. I'm just pointing out that our courts favor letting people use religion as an excuse for things that should be inexcusable. I was raised the same way and my parents weren't even hard core fundamentalists. But the message was clear: be straight and cis or you will burn in hell. I was so happy when it was amended to be "you can feel that way, just don't every act on it" because that meant I could go to heaven when I died if I was first miserable on earth. Maybe that's why I was begging God to kill me for so many years (suicide was also a sin, so that was right out). Our country isn't built on Christian values but they sure are ubiquitous in the southern US (and probably elsewhere, but that is my personal experience). Even people who don't go to church or say their prayers at night believe the Christian version of reality because it can be all they've ever heard about. Can you charge an entire region of the country with child abuse? Can you tell parents that they are not allowed to teach their religious views to their own kids? I agree that it can be child abuse, but I also know there is no easy fix because people here are free to believe whatever they want to believe. As for me, I'm agnostic now, practically atheist. Imagine that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Your upbringing sounds similar to mine, and yah, I live in the south.. I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore, tbh. Your right, it's terrible, but what can you do when everyone believes it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Your upbringing sounds similar to mine, and yah, I live in the south..  
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
quote:Denmark will become first country to no longer define being transgender as a mental illness (more here) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
That's really good I think. What would changing it to a neutral diagnosis even mean though? Like practically. Like how would it effect seeing a therapist and begining hrt and such?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Eimi posted:That's really good I think. What would changing it to a neutral diagnosis even mean though? Fuckhead crazies get told to shove it up their rear end using their flimsy justifications to "fix" such a terrible "dangerous illness" on some small bit of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Fuckhead crazies get told to shove it up their rear end using their flimsy justifications to "fix" such a terrible "dangerous illness" on some small bit of thought. I guess I meant more on the professional side. Removing ammunition from the fuckheads on the right is always a good thing. It would matter a great deal to a friend of mine who lives in I think New Hampshire, where she says she's always been beaten down by that stigma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Eimi posted:That's really good I think. What would changing it to a neutral diagnosis even mean though? Like practically. Like how would it effect seeing a therapist and begining hrt and such? I believe it was kept in the DSM so that it could be treated as medically necessary care, and covered by insurance. I know that my insurance goes on a lot about medical necessity when it talks about covering trans related healthcare items. I've been puzzling over this for a while.. The "mentally ill" thing is totally used all the time to minimise our experiences and reinforce us being excluded from discussions about ourselves (because obviously the "not mentally ill" person is better capable of talking about poo poo, even poo poo they have no experience of). But, with that aside, the sequelae of untreated gender dysphoria really does constitute the characteristics of mental illness - clinically significant distress that interferes with the activities of normal life. I was clinically depressed and suicidal before I transitioned. I'm not now. But I guess that's a really subtle argument that doesn't condense into a nice soundbite and leaves a lot of gaps for political exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
You pretty much sum up my thoughts on why having it in the DSM is a good thing because yeah being untreated is a bad thing, and having medical recognition that your feelings are real helps fight denial in its own way. But there is very much that downside as well. It's an issue where I guess it matters what they do next. (I also wish transitioning cured my depression, though it's done wonders for my overall mental health)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Eimi posted:You pretty much sum up my thoughts on why having it in the DSM is a good thing because yeah being untreated is a bad thing, and having medical recognition that your feelings are real helps fight denial in its own way. But there is very much that downside as well. It's an issue where I guess it matters what they do next. (I also wish transitioning cured my depression, though it's done wonders for my overall mental health) Transitioning cured my depression. The anxiety on the other hand? Through the roof! And gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The treatment is accepting that you are transgender and doing whatever sort of transitioning you are comfortable with. Being transgender is not a mental illness, but the dysphoria caused ignoring or burying it is. That's the distinction that must be kept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I would worry about striking it from things like the DSM because yeah, that would immediately end up with a certain sort of person coming out with "well there's nothing wrong with you* just deal with your own problems" *except morally, evil sinner etc. Which seems unhelpful. Things that need care carry an inherent stigma unfortunately and I don't know how you get rid of one without the other without a general mental-health-positivity change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Yep, the distinction is that being trans isn't a problem, but being anxious and upset as a consequence is, so the goal is to treat the dysphoria not the transness. Which most of my trans friends find the best way to handle, though a couple are still uncomfortable with having anything in the DSM at all, and I can't really blame them for that either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:So the question is whether the GOP is vindictive enough to cut off their own nose to spite their face? Did you see their very, very first act upon convening? You know, the attempt to flatline their own ethics watchdogs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Yes, just as I saw the same drat thing happen in Australia  All because a state anti-corruption watchdog was too successful and found a tonne of corrupt politicians - most of whom were from the right wing party which currents hold power. To no one's surprise. So they fired the head of the commission and nixed the proposed federal watchdog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is holding a TV conference where they intend to announce an HB2 style bill. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/watch_live_now_texas_lt_governor_announces_anti_transgender_bill
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is holding a TV conference where they intend to announce an HB2 style bill. it's worked so well everywhere else they've done it so why not!  /s
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
i guess they figure it'll be harder to boycott half the country then one state
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i guess they figure it'll be harder to boycott half the country then one state
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
The bathroom bill put forth in Alabama says that you can have unisex bathrooms, but only if you have a security guard watching it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:The bathroom bill put forth in Alabama says that you can have unisex bathrooms, but only if you have a security guard watching it. Well of course. Alabaman unisex toilets are remarkably rare, so you need some way to ward off poachers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Anybody know when we're likely to get a ruling on whether or not these bathroom bills are constitutional? Any guesses as to the ruling? I really hope we don't get a federal version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:Anybody know when we're likely to get a ruling on whether or not these bathroom bills are constitutional? Any guesses as to the ruling? I really hope we don't get a federal version. if a bathroom bill passed nationally it basically means we get to do the naughtiest possible passive resistance ever. ill be a urine rebel!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
*busts down door where an slightly feminine looking cis man is peeing* Urine big trouble!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
I can't wait for the fun Alabama's bathroom bill will bring!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:The bathroom bill put forth in Alabama says that you can have unisex bathrooms, but only if you have a security guard watching it. I don't understand why
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:*busts down door where an slightly feminine looking cis man is peeing* Funny thing, the people who care about bathroom bills don't give a poo poo who uses men's bathrooms. Transmen just aren't a thing to the vast majority of anti-transgender advocates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:I don't understand why It helps if you realize the entire thing is founded on spite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
But it's unisex
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
The guard is there to keep an eye out for the many rapists that appear into being when men and women use toilets in adjoining stalls. Really it's just making it a financial hardship to have a unisex bathroom so places wont do it. Though I'd love the specs on how much it costs to hired a bathroom attendant to "guard" your single restroom vs. building a second one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
The Republicans I don't think be able to get a federal bathroom bill through the votes are just not there , however they should be able to dismantle the LGBT protection s within the department of edu
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:The Republicans I don't think be able to get a federal bathroom bill through the votes are just not there , however they should be able to dismantle the LGBT protection s within the department of edu They don't have to do anything to dismantle them. The guidance documents that extend those protections will just be nullified in the Pence administration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 16:53
|
|