|
Discendo Vox posted:You repeatedly insisting that democratic government is a religion does not actually make it so. You're going to have provide proof to the negative then. Many who are rightwing Christians routinely mix their nationalist symbolism with their religious symbolism, as if God and America are synonymous. Liberalism is also not immune to this bias - Biden speaks of the country "not going backwards" as if America consistently bends towards good the longer time goes on, mimicking Barack Obama's thoughts on a moral arc of history. But there's no reason for there to be a moral arc of history unless one assumes that evil only comes from ignorance, good from knowledge, as if evil is not perpetuated knowingly. That would itself not be religious thinking, would just be a sort of technocratic fetishism, except the emphasis on campaigning at the moment isn't outreach and education but instead vote shaming those who wish to abstain or vote third party. This lends itself to the notion that voting Democrat is a kind of absolving act, a Day of Atonement, for all the evils of prior American history. Jon Stewart called the Democratic Party the "party of history." The Democratic Party routinely honors the sacrifices of the past while ignoring the sacrifices of today. This type of act can only be framed as religious observance since there's no expectation placed on the Democratic Party to deliver on its promises or indeed to perfect the country - it is only the support of it that matters, a way to show that whatever genocides or civil rights abuses or whatnot cannot be pinned on a voter because they voted for the Lesser Evil and therefore can only be praised, not criticized.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:You're going to have provide proof to the negative then. He’s not going to. The idea of Democracy as religion in the context of American politics was a Niebuhr piece title Democracy as religion published in Christianity in Crisis. It’s not some loving fringe concept. DV just doesn’t want to talk about it and would like to pretend it’s not a viable or appropriate discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:17
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:im asking less "is this legally possible" than "will political elites entertain this in the slightest" if it functionally reduces their ability to broker power. my cynical take is that people in higher political office see more utility in preserving broken systems if they can manipulate them towards power for their party. gerrymandering, and its validation by the judiciary, is probably the most prominent example Again, there is not reason to think that this works differently than it has historically, and there is precedent for such reforms under circumstances where parties had far, far, far more control. If anything the current era is marked by a relative lack of party control, and the relatively incredible accessibility of both national and local party systems. The machines of today are way, way less powerful than they used to be; they've been breaking down all the time. Qtotonibudinibudet posted:i assure you more people on average participate in the vote for their federal representative than their local Democrat party who knows what the gently caress board (much less the internal party dealing between those board members). far more of the electorate participates in the former, but at least in my district the only viable candidate has been decided by the latter. democracy shouldn't need to be something you can only meaningfully participate in if you have time to do politics as a hobby. i (and the vast majority of people less interested in local politics than i) should not be obligated to delve into party minutiae to participate in our government You're describing the basics of civic participation. This has always been how it functions; again, it's more accessible than it has been in the past, and voting is the de minimis element, as others have stated previously. To the degree that you're able to improve the outcomes, or further shift that representation and the associated underlying issues of representation and information involved, great. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:You're going to have provide proof to the negative then. Many who are rightwing Christians routinely mix their nationalist symbolism with their religious symbolism, as if God and America are synonymous. Liberalism is also not immune to this bias - Biden speaks of the country "not going backwards" as if America consistently bends towards good the longer time goes on, mimicking Barack Obama's thoughts on a moral arc of history. But there's no reason for there to be a moral arc of history unless one assumes that evil only comes from ignorance, good from knowledge, as if evil is not perpetuated knowingly. That would itself not be religious thinking, would just be a sort of technocratic fetishism, except the emphasis on campaigning at the moment isn't outreach and education but instead vote shaming those who wish to abstain or vote third party. This lends itself to the notion that voting Democrat is a kind of absolving act, a Day of Atonement, for all the evils of prior American history. Jon Stewart called the Democratic Party the "party of history." The Democratic Party routinely honors the sacrifices of the past while ignoring the sacrifices of today. This type of act can only be framed as religious observance since there's no expectation placed on the Democratic Party to deliver on its promises or indeed to perfect the country - it is only the support of it that matters, a way to show that whatever genocides or civil rights abuses or whatnot cannot be pinned on a voter because they voted for the Lesser Evil and therefore can only be praised, not criticized. You're using the fact that a Democratic politician is trying to get people who are not voting or voting for someone else to vote for his party as your evidence that democratic government is a religion. That's pretty nonsensical. Some of this is also just blatantly counterfactual nonsense: "there's no expectation placed on the Democratic Party to deliver on its promises" How do you define a religion? Unrelated note: paragraph breaks would make your post far more readable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:How do you define a religion? If you’re looking for the modern grounds for using religion as critique of culture (and thus government) by religion. The big places for that are Christianity in Culture by Richard Niebuhr and a Theology of Culture, by Paul Tillich. If you want a short TLDR on using religion to critique things outside religion the introduction section of the text “Film as Religion” will get you through in about half an hour. If you really want to dig into the full scope and historical meat of the Christian criticism of civic religion that’s more complicated. The influence of the development of the Roman state on the idea of God during the inter testament period, the inversion on Roman symbols (like birth narratives) in early Christianity and the Christian Logos in conflict with the Stoic Logos are just like the start. If your looking for an criticism at the intersection of Marxism, religion, bourgeois democracy, and fascism read The Socialist Decision by Paul Tillich. Those two questions I asked DV that he doesn’t want to answer are from that, those are two enlightenment myths that are used to support democracy in a bourgeoisie republic, that the bourgeois principle undermines and breaks even as it uses them for support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You're using the fact that a Democratic politician is trying to get people who are not voting or voting for someone else to vote for his party as your evidence that democratic government is a religion. That's pretty nonsensical. It's eight sentences, give me a break. There's multiple definitions of religion, and to a point, religion is nigh undefinable, but I made a point of comparing it implicitly to the atonement practices of Abrahamic faiths. Apparently I'll have to make that more explicit - it's secular atonement. The "counterfactual" is actually very provable! Biden said that his administration was going to make a push to cure cancer, not within his term as was admittedly falsely supported, but that was the end goal. That goal was dialed back fairly quickly. Biden also gave up on the public option The list goes on of unkept promises from the Biden administration, but that's less important than the fact the overwhelming sentiment from liberals is that Biden should not be held accountable for these promises, neither at the polls nor even in public remarks, lest it bring Donald Trump into power. I'm going to need a more substantiative response from you in the future other than throwing counterfactual around about easily provable claims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It's eight sentences, give me a break. You're using the fact that Biden has promised to cure cancer, and hasn't, among other promises as an example of why "there's no expectation placed on the Democratic Party to deliver on its promises". But this ignores that he has moved towards many of his promises even if he has not fully accomplished them. College debt being a good example. I would argue that when a politician or political party makes a promise the expectation is that they want to do these things and will move towards them. Politicians making grandiose promises they cannot fully fulfill is old news, but I don't think it's reasonable to say there's no expectation to deliver on them at all. I'm not sure what you think you've proven. Do you think when Biden made that claim people gave it no weight at all? If you mean democratic government is a religion in that it is a cause or principle, held to with ardor and faith then I don't think it's controversial and I would agree. The disagreement may be coming from the difficulty in defining it. Your atonement argument doesn't make sense to me as an argument that it's a religion, especially if you have to stick "secular" in front of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Okay, so, from a personal perspective here, what's a promise Biden would break or an act he could do that would make you not vote for him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Okay, so, from a personal perspective here, what's a promise Biden would break or an act he could do that would make you not vote for him? I don't think I can draw a hard red line on a single thing without picking something unrealistically extreme (i.e. what if he ate a live baby on stage during the debates???), but Biden's administration has made defending transgender people a priority. If that were to reverse I would find it harder to vote for him. I'd still vote for him over Trump if that were the only thing that changed, but I'd be more unhappy about it. You can think of it as cumulative, I guess. If I had no expectation that Biden would deliver on his promises, or at least do everything he can to achieve them, I would not vote for him. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Mar 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I am probably going to eat a probe for this but it feels like the people who were never going to vote for the Democrats and Joe Biden never want to acknowledge anything good a Democratic President does because that would mean having to acknowledge that progress can be made under the Democratic Party. All one has to do is look at BIF or the IRA and see that it's like 70% of the Green New Deal. Or the fact that they are doing loan forgiveness, or insulin price cost reductions, or having the government negotiate certain drug prices via Medicare and Medicaid. I am not saying that any of this means that is was enough or is a panacea but it's progress. I'm going to respond to this here because I assume this is how it is supposed to work? Are we allowed to do this, I've got no loving clue but don't want to get another probation for responding to stuff in the wrong thread. The thing is that anything good done by the democrats is, almost inherently, not enough to actually change anything of worth or note. It will effect people positively, it may even make certain peoples lives better in ways that are important and necessary. But the chief problem is that it is not enough to actually improve things for a large portion of people. There is a lot to complain about when it comes to the idea that we need, in this time when we are being told that democracy and the rule of law are on the edge of slipping away if Republicans get into office, that we can decrease the price of some drugs for people and, after four years, maybe have a trial for a former president. 70% of something that is already not enough is not good enough. Once again we have an increasingly large amount of people who are unable to live and increasing profits for gigantic corporations. It means that there is precious little need or desire to look at the "semi-good" things and treat them as anything other than sticking plasters for grievous wounds. And once again this is all asked to be burdened upon the people least able to bear it because that's how our systems are set up. The agency of the Israeli government is in part based on the fact that the US keeps providing both weapons and preventing UN resolutions being passed. The fact that you think that this is some sort of weird "I'm so smart" idea instead of an actual belief people hold is also telling because it implies that there is no way that people can actually have a difference of opinion and instead are merely pretending they are, The good done does not stop the bad done and the bad done, in this instance, is litterally so bad it's the worst crime we, as people, can commit. That is why people are perhaps a little terse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
You don’t live here though. When the infrastructure act funds B a local government to add sidewalks and modern crosswalks to a very busy road that an elementary school is on, you will never ever know it happened. There are intensely local things that get affected by if the US federal government is more or less functional. Boring things many people do not realize are federal driven. Of course they don’t matter to a person living in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You don’t live here though. They still matter in part as I still have to live in a world very much shaped by the United States. But what part of what I said is only specific to the USA? It's using examples from the US but the generalities are common across a great number of places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The good done does not stop the bad done and the bad done, in this instance, is litterally so bad it's the worst crime we, as people, can commit. That is why people are perhaps a little terse. I object to people arguing that there's little difference between the fascist and non-fascist candidate and to downplaying the insurrection in 2020. I suspect it isn't an uncommon sentiment. Reframing this as "people are perhaps a little terse", especially from someone who would not actually have to live in the country with the fascist leader, comes across as deliberately offensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Yeah but all those “semi-good” things do actually matter here within the US where the election is taking place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yeah but all those “semi-good” things do actually matter here within the US where the election is taking place. Bar is this an unironic “but at least the trains run on time” argument about funding a genocide or am I reading it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
selec posted:Bar is this an unironic “but at least the trains run on time” argument about funding a genocide or am I reading it wrong? What do you mean by this? Is saying anything positive about a government that also does bad things an "but at least the trains run on time” argument? Or are you just trying to imply that another poster is a Nazi?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You don’t live here though. You've deployed this line of reasoning a few times and it's playing the person not the issue. The reason a lot of non-Americans are heavily invested in American politics is because they have such a large impact on our lives as well. You're the superpower so deploying "you don't live here though" is totally unfair especially when there are people in the world whose lives get far more hosed up by America than Americans lives do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
selec posted:Bar is this an unironic “but at least the trains run on time” argument about funding a genocide or am I reading it wrong? No, and that would be a pretty exaggerated way to interpret it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
as a notorious biden-hater i think it's fair for me to chime in and say that you can still hate biden and the atrocities he enables while also saying that the things that biden has done for the US are good for us and have improved our lives. it's not apologist to say that he did something was done that benefited you or others, it's apologist to say that you like him because he did something that benefited you or others in the same breath that you condemn his support for genocide. biden sucks massively. biden has done good things for me and my family. these two statements are not mutually exclusive, and should not be if we want to continue enforcing any level of nuanced discussion here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
selec posted:Bar is this an unironic “but at least the trains run on time” argument about funding a genocide or am I reading it wrong? I think Josef bugman is correct in saying these kinds of things are "not enough," but I don't quite follow the electoral implications of that. I don't see how Biden losing will lead to a situation where "enough" is actually done (apologies if this was not the intended point- I haven't followed the entire conversation leading up to this). And the decent things that "aren't enough" are still really loving important to the affected people. Bar Ran Dun was apparently pointing this out, and I have no idea how you could read their post the way you did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I read it as "at least they're not criminalizing trans people" or whatever "small" things Biden is preventing the Republicans from doing domestically. The "semi-good" things are not just basic functioning government. They're preventing a potentially horrific slide into a regressive totalitarian nightmare, which is very much a possibility the more power the Republicans are allowed. Every time the centrist party bows to the right they're enabling the slide into the totalitarian nightmare. The right wing becomes more extreme in response. That is why I think what the democrats are doing is not enough, passively sliding right is what is going to create fascism. It's not that the Democratic party isn't helping people, it's that they're not helping people enough to prevent them being radicalised against the system because the system loving sucks for people and they're not making it sufficiently better to keep people wanting the system to exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
hooman posted:Every time the centrist party bows to the right they're enabling the slide into the totalitarian nightmare. The right wing becomes more extreme in response. That is why I think what the democrats are doing is not enough, passively sliding right is what is going to create fascism. It's not that the Democratic party isn't helping people, it's that they're not helping people enough to prevent them being radicalised against the system because the system loving sucks for people and they're not making it sufficiently better to keep people wanting the system to exist. If people are radicalized against the system because the Democrats are ineffective at providing a system that actually works for people, then that is inevitable at this point. The Democrats in power are "decorum poisoned," or more generously they have a belief in the importance of procedure and norms to maintain stability. So these politicians will never do "enough" without a big enough majority they are unlikely to get any time soon. If they need to lose to Republicans to be replaced, irrevocable damage will be done. The conclusion I would draw from your very valid insights are that primaries are really important and we should do a heck of a lot more to make sure our dissatisfaction is heard during them. What you're saying is largely reasonable, but I don't see how the situation would improve if Democrats (even conservative Democrats) lost more often to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
Nate Silver had an interesting post on his Substack yesterday:quote:Democrats usually assume that they win elections though turnout rather than persuasion. It’s not a crazy proportion, by any means. But it looks like a losing approach for 2024. quote:Meanwhile, with their base becoming increasingly college-educated and politically engaged, it’s now Democrats who overperform among higher-propensity voters. – but at least as a default, Democrats should probably root for lower rather than higher turnout in November, a big change ...(In a bit of good news for Biden, this also implies that he’ll probably gain ground when pollsters shift over polls of registered voters to polls of likely voters.) With so many Independents, they might not be the populist party anymore. quote:Nevertheless, this is a bad data point for White House. In the poll, only 83 percent of voters who say they chose Biden in 2020 plan to vote for him this year, whereas 97 percent who voted for Trump plan to vote for Trump again. quote:
quote:Is it Biden’s age? All the evidence points toward age being a major factor. Is it to the point where Democrats ought to pull the emergency lever and nominate a different candidate instead? quote:Is it that Biden's support in 2020 came from voters who thought that Trump mishandled the COVID pandemic — an issue which has now faded from public view — and voters see a country that still has a lot of problems? That could be a hard problem to solve, because it stems from a sort of Faustian bargain that Biden made in 2020, overpromising what might be possible with new leadership. Nevertheless, Biden does have a lot of substantive, bipartisan accomplishments that he can tout. The White House often doesn’t focus on this, instead devoting a high percentage of their bandwidth to the dangers of Trump. quote:Or is it the decreasing loyalty of Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters to the Democratic Party? In the Times poll, nonwhite voters were considerably more likely to switch from Biden to Trump. There are many theories for this apparent shift. Some are frankly quite bearish for Democrats, implying that they’ll need to rethink their entire coalition, not something easily done in the next eight months. quote:Biden can still win – to repeat myself, the calendar just turned to March, and likely voter polls may have better news for him. But the widespread assumption among Democrats that they can just run back their 2020 strategy or take a page from the Obama 2012 playbook appears to be flawed. There are still plenty of swing voters, and they’re swinging toward Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I don't really see the Democrats passively sliding right, to be honest. I think that Biden's actions with regards to Gaza are absolutely monstrous and unforgivable, but his domestic policies are well to the left of Obama, and a world away from Bill Clinton, to compare him to the last two Democratic presidents. The Democrats have apparently been moving left, if anything. My apologies, I should have been clearer, the slide to the right I was talking about is in rhetoric. The most recent case of which is the Border bill. The "sensible center" is from now on a militarised border. I don't think the democrats have been moving "left" any more than the Tories have in the UK, it's just that crises are becoming so severe that the response capital demands to them has resulted in more needing to be done. I wouldn't place Biden to the left or the right of Obama or Clinton as they are all aligned along the neoliberal servant of capitalist agenda. I think to say that people being radicalised against the system is inevitable is fatalism, it's just abandoning hope that things can be better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
hooman posted:My apologies, I should have been clearer, the slide to the right I was talking about is in rhetoric. The most recent case of which is the Border bill. The "sensible center" is from now on a militarised border. Do you think the border bill was 100% democrats? Did you not follow how that came to be and how they needed to give the Republicans something in order to get a bill passed? Could you define "left" for me here because I'm worried you are using a different definition than most if you think Biden Obama and Clinton are all the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
hooman posted:You've deployed this line of reasoning a few times and it's playing the person not the issue. Right the consequences of our presidential election have a huge, possibly unique consequence among world elections. It’s not like opting out of other votes. It’s especially strange, inconsistent, to also go : “both sides are the same” so it doesn’t matter to the US Presidential. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you think the border bill was 100% democrats? Did you not follow how that came to be and how they needed to give the Republicans something in order to get a bill passed? Could you define "left" for me here because I'm worried you are using a different definition than most if you think Biden Obama and Clinton are all the same. Absolutely not, I know exactly the reasons given for the Democrats doing that, it's just that they've now established agreement that a militarised border is the response to a manufactured crisis. They have absorbed rather than countered the "build the wall" rhetoric. I think you can find a lot of fine gradiation between Biden, Obama and Clinton, I don't mean to imply they are identical (especially Clinton with regards social policies and welfare) what I mean is in terms of the broad agenda they are pursuing. EDIT: To be very clear, I am not making a "Biden has done nothing good" argument here. hooman fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Right the consequences of our presidential election have a huge, possibly unique consequence among world elections. I have never said both sides are the same, don't put words into my mouth. It's not just the Presidental election, that is only one component. It's the movements of your entire political system that affects us. My argument about vote withdrawl is specifically targeted at representatives to change the direction of a party as a whole. As others have pointed out, having a left wing president with a right-centrist party behind him will result in nothing getting done. Please try to respond to the dumb poo poo I actually say rather than the what you imagine I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
since it tends to come up a lot, an answer to "would trump really be worse than biden on palestine": Trump calls in to Fox to rant about how Israel has to "finish the problem". yes. of loving course he would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 15:51
|
|
|
Kith posted:since it tends to come up a lot, an answer to "would trump really be worse than biden on palestine": The thing I’m curious about is what Democratic opposition to Trump on Israel would look like. It’s a real rock and a hard place when Trump is saying genocidal poo poo openly (rather than just enabling a genocide quietly) and the Dem base naturally opposes whatever it is he’s for, because that’s about what our politics look like nowadays, and the Dem AIPAC donation manager is screaming down the phone to shut up because Trump is right, and that they have to go along with it or face a primary challenger, did you see what we did to Cori Bush? What does managing that tension for a middle of the road Dem look like? We might find out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Biden's administration has made defending transgender people a priority. If that were to reverse I would find it harder to vote for him. Could you explain what he has done to defend trans persons, let alone as "a priority"? Everything I've seen is barely anything. For instance: https://www.hrc.org/resources/president-bidens-pro-lgbtq-timeline. Everything on here is: hosting a dinner, calling for action, proposing a plan, and other performative measures the result in headlines that provide an assumption that he's doing something without actually meaning anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Could you explain what he has done to defend trans persons, let alone as "a priority"? https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/what-president-bidens-lgbtq-executive-order-does-and-doesnt-do (based on https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...al-orientation/) quote:What yesterday’s order does mean, though, is that this administration is prepared to vigorously defend and enforce the legal protections that LGBTQ people enjoy under federal law. Every state considering anti-trans bills barring trans people from sports must now consider that they will face a U.S. government that is not facilitating anti-trans discrimination but actually enforcing Title IX’s protections to stop it. Every employer, every landlord, every health care provider that is considering firing or evicting or denying health care to a transgender person must now think about the fact that all three branches of the federal government have made clear that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is illegal. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/biden-executive-order-anti-trans-laws-and-conversion-therapy (based on https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ex-individuals/) quote:Biden’s executive order, which comes during Pride month, asks the federal health and education departments to expand access to gender-affirming medical care and find new ways to counter a flurry of bills passed in US states by conservative lawmakers this year that ban these treatments for transgender youth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Here's two easy concrete examples, which are two executive orders he has signed: The operative verbs in all of that are things like "must now consider" and "asks [entity] to do a thing." That's the exact thing I was talking about regarding performative announcements that are not actions creating a specific outcome. I appreciate your help in proving my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
The Sean posted:The operative verbs in all of that are things like "must now consider" and "asks [entity] to do a thing." That's the exact thing I was talking about regarding performative announcements that are not actions creating a specific outcome. I appreciate your help in proving my point. I would suggest actually reading the executive orders before being smug about how it proved your point. They are fairly short and easy to understand. "asks entity to do a thing" is the language the article writers chose to describe an executive order which says "entity shall do thing".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I would suggest actually reading the executive orders before being smug about how it proved your point. They are fairly short and easy to understand. "asks entity to do a thing" is the language the article writers chose to describe an executive order which says "entity shall do thing". I did and I maintain my thoughts on the matter. The Sean fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
Kith posted:since it tends to come up a lot, an answer to "would trump really be worse than biden on palestine": I'm saddened by the idea that it was still coming up, so I guess I appreciate trump being very clear about it for the benefit of those who were fooled into the idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Could you explain what he has done to defend trans persons, let alone as "a priority"? Note that I don't work on lgbtq issues and I don't have a particular stance on how much of a priority they are for the Biden admin, but the link you provided absolutely shows action. Taking the first three things- 1. Rule finalized which restores anti-discrimination protections in federally funded health care. That's pretty clear "doing something" 2. Remarks at a dinner- depends on how much you consider raising awareness and trying to visibly show acceptance to a minority community is doing something. 3. Proposed rule for safety requirements and barring conversion therapy in foster homes that lbtq youth are placed in. Notice of proposed rulemaking is again clearly "doing something".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Note that I don't work on lgbtq issues and I don't have a particular stance on how much of a priority they are for the Biden admin, but the link you provided absolutely shows action. Taking the first three things- For 1 quote:These principles are reflected in the Constitution, which promises equal protection of the laws. These principles are also enshrined in our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws, among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.). In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Fair Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522), along with their respective implementing regulations — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary. This is from the EO. It's stating that it's already supposed to be protected so the EO doesn't really do anything new on it's own that I can see. For 2 I'm all for awareness and it can be valuable but in this specific context that we are discussing it I feel it can easily be attributed to performative action. Letter From Birmingham Jail, etc. For 3 quote:(a) The Secretary of HHS shall establish an initiative to reduce the risk of youth exposure to so-called conversion therapy. As part of that initiative, the Secretary of HHS shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law: For 3 iii and iv those are a little more concrete. I still have a bit of an issue with that it's not a specific plan but the others are less substantial in my opinion. As well, I bring up again that my disagreement was with the statement "biden is making protecting LGBTQ+ persons a priority" because it doesn't really seem like a priority. Has he done nothing at all, I can't say that. Has he made this a priority, definitely not. Trans persons that I know personally and online do not feel that he is protecting them; anecdotal, sure, but that is my experience. Further, I did not see anything in there that outright banned conversion therapy. I would be very happy to be proven wrong as that poo poo is evil. In anticipating counter-arguments of "he's suggesting different parts of government doing something, and that's a strong use of his power," it's a less substantial use of his power compared to sending money and weapons to fund a genocide or bypassing federal laws to make sure the border wall gets built. For those latter cases he didn't just suggest that different agencies consider whether or not to get it done. He just did it. That's what a priority looks like. The Sean fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
The Sean posted:For 1 Having an FTC notice makes it effectively impossible to advertise. Its effectively the death penalty for a service. A published notice (legally, an open ended cease and desist) that they consider "conversion therapy" to be a fraudulent service (on the advice from experts and testimony of victems that it doesn't actually work) starts the timer for the penalty on day one. quote:(B) If the Commission determines in a proceeding under subsection (b) that any act or practice is unfair or deceptive, and issues a final cease and desist order, other than a consent order, with respect to such act or practice, then the Commission may commence a civil action to obtain a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which engages in such act or practice— After the notice is publicly published, literally going up on the street and telling someone your starting a conversion therapy camp costs up to 10000 bucks a day. Also they will likely make the owner give refunds. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Having an FTC notice makes it effectively impossible to advertise. Its effectively the death penalty for a service. A published notice (legally, an open ended cease and desist) that they consider "conversion therapy" to be a fraudulent service (on the advice from experts and testimony of victems that it doesn't actually work) starts the timer for the penalty on day one. That is great to hear and something that I did not know. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 07:53
|
|