/townhall/ - Townhall

It's been a debate in another thread in how much companies should interfere with politics. Surely I would probably have a different reaction if it was Disney advocating banning gay rights and such.

Though, I feel that what is happening in Southern states in this year is appalling to say the least.
So in that sense, I feel it's worrying that the government there is also retaliating so harshly against Disney.
They could just, ya know, ignore them. Or better yet, do away with their stupid bullshit.

Yes

Companies shouldn't be involved in such political matters

Companies shouldn't be given special tax statuses to begin with

Disney is far worse, and for that matter deals with far worse regularly, than the people they're complaining about anyway.

>>10881
The framing here makes no sense.
>Jewish, LGBT, and disabled
>traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled
Is this to say that Jewish and disabled people cannot be traditionalist?
What does Judaism and disability have to do with not indoctrinating children on sexual matters?
Please explain.

This seems like a disingenuous effort to imply "If you do not support LGBT, then you are also against Jews, and therefore a Nazi."

friendly reminder that Walt himself was very likely an antisemite.

Disney's "outrage" against the bill was a flaccid non-apology to try to appease internal dissent after the fact without actually having to commit any real resources besides 10 minutes of their PR Department's time. So as far as being "business friendly" goes retaliating against the largest employer in the state for not showing enough enthusiasm when they suck your dick might not be the best move. The media tour touting it as retaliation definitely isn't the best move if you don't want this bill getting eviscerated in court. At the same time, does anybody *actually* think Disney pays for any public services? There are no "Disney" hospitals or police departments. Utilities, maybe, but they don't need to have a lawless fief in the middle of the state to be billed for water and electric.

Either way it has nothing to do with governing Florida, positive or negative. The whole function of this controversy seems to be getting shown two dumbasses and picking which one has the dumbest ass as a means to broadcast one's political stance while pretending not to see the other dumbass squatting in the corner licking his on feces.

So yeah. What does this mean for Florida? That we don't have a governor until 2024 when Desnatis decides he wants to live in a whiter house, after that it's either fucking Crist again (kill me) or whoever was sucking off DeSantis the hardest at the time (probably that guy because "free and fair elections").

>>10886
I agree with this, essentially.

I'm hoping with fingers crossed that bigotry and discrimination is fundamentally unpopular with the residents of multiple southern states such that politicians running as new George Wallace types lose badly.

>>10895
While it's certainly possible for disabled and/or Jewish individuals to share the bigotries of the Nazi era today in 2022 America when it comes to LGBT people, generally this tends to not be the case at all, with civil rights organizations connected to one particular minority vouching for other victims for the most part. The Anti-Defamation League in terms of the U.S. Jewish community is a great example. See: https://www.adl.org/stand-up-against-hate

>>10898
Disney's actions were rather skim milk like and weak in terms of doing the absolute bare minimum to speak up against bigotry. At the same time, though, that kind of makes their demonization at the hands of the Floridian government all the more baffling. I do think that Disney shouldn't be viewed through any kind of real positive lens. And likely the company needs to pay far more for a lot of services.

>>10900
Let's say Disney was still run by the sorts who founded it.
Rampant and open racists, and were pushing the same sort of bigotry they're supposedly standing against today.
Would you say that they should still be given special tax status by the state, given free reign to govern themselves, with their own privately controlled police forces, fire departments, and other such government functions?

Or would their political allegiance suddenly change whether or not that pile of favoritism by the state is acceptable?

>>10900
Just because group A vouches for group B, that doesn't mean that any attack (real or imagined) on group B is necessarily an attack on group A.  If your goal is to be logically consistent, then you cannot conflate the two.  But if you're just slinging mud, then sling away.

>>10908
A very large number of major corporations are known for giving their profits to Republicans and otherwise promoting Republican causes.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/us/politics/congress-corporate-donations-2020-election-overturn.html

Examples include JPMorgan Chase, Boeing, Pfizer, General Motors, Ford, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, and UPS.

In my life, personally, I've not avoided any interaction with those firms due to their political interests. Nor have I heard collectively of them being punished by government action at the hands of Democratic politicians in any sense. Such things don't just happen.

You're very clearly promoting a straw man. It's not both sides that use the state to persecute private companies due to taking ideological stances. It's not even really an issue of Democrats versus Republicans. It's something done by some Republicans in opposition to perceived Democratic leanings within certain companies, actions done at the protest of not just Democrats but other Republicans and also many independents. It's a matter of far right extremists versus everybody else.

>>10912
It's not "slinging mud". Nazi style bigotry applies to all three groups that've been mentioned, and all three have been united in fighting against Nazi style bigotry. That's how the American civil rights movement in general has operated over the past multiple decades. I'm honestly not even sure what you're getting at here. Jewish community organizations understandably know, generally speaking, that there's no fundamental difference between hating somebody for being born a certain way in terms of being handicapped in a wheelchair versus being born a transgender woman versus being born of whole or partial Jewish ancestry. Prejudice is essentially the same across all three situations.

>>10921
You are missing the point.  Is this intentional?

If I give you the complete benefit of the doubt and say that Nazis exist and hate all 3 groups, that still doesn't mean that anyone who opposes any one group opposes all three.  It also doesn't mean that someone who opposes even Jews is a Nazi.  (Have you ever heard of Islam?)  It also doesn't mean that the fact Nazis exist in your mind justifies lumping people together with them if they oppose one of these groups.

Jews and disabled people have literally nothing to do with the contention of the topic.  It is a strawman to suggest that "If you oppose LGBT, you also necessarily oppose Jews and disabled people."  If anything, it shows the weakness of your position defending LGBT because you can't defend LGBT without drawing in other groups that fundamentally have nothing to do with it.  Nazis existing is irrelevant.

Nazis hate Jews.  Nazis also oppose LGBT.  Therefore everyone who opposes LGBT also opposes Jews (and disabled people, I guess).

You have a subset problem.

And that's before we even address the issue that opposing what someone is pushing for is not the same as hating them for their inherent characteristics.

>>10929
You're missing the point yourself.

We're talking about how American far right activists are hating all three of these groups at the same time currently, for the same inherent justifications in all three cases currently, and are fighting all three of them at the same time politically currently. While all three of them are in opposition back. Right now.

If Steve the Politician forms a "I Hate Blond People, Redhaired People, and Bald People" political coalition and enacts a movement to persecute those groups at the same via heavy-handed government (imagine if in this alternate world the situation was an exact parallel to Florida, with redhaired teachers being fired for their jobs as punishment for their hair), then it's rather absurd to pretend as if somehow as a random person who's bald that my situation is unrelated to redhaired and blonde people. And that there's no larger struggle. Come on.

I really don't understand what you're getting at all.

Prejudice and the fruit of (discrimination), defined as hatred of people for being born different than you because they're supposedly inherently inferior to you, is morally and practically the same in these multiple instances.

>>10930
So wait, wanting people to not talk to children about sexual matters, is a far right position?

Since when do the "people in wheelchairs" have an apparent need to talk to other people's children about sexual matters?  Is a desire to talk to other people's children about sexual matters, the thing that defines "people in wheelchairs?"  Are "people in wheelchairs" activist groups pushing for the ability to talk to children about sexual matters?
Why do "Jews" have an apparent need to talk to other people's children about sexual matters?  Is a desire to talk to other people's children about sexual matters, the thing that defines "Jews?"  Are "Jewish" activist groups pushing for the ability to talk to children about sexual matters?

Of course not.

So then it is illogical to say "wanting someone to not talk to other people's children about sexual matters, means that one opposes Jews and/or disabled people."

These groups are completely irrelevant.  It is a smear tactic you are using, nothing more.

What part of talking to other people's kids about sexuality is an inherent aspect of your life that is both completely outside of your control and a god-given right that you are born with that should be supported by other people, especially the parents of the children you want to talk to about sexual matters?  You can't help if you have red hair.  But you can choose to not talk to kids about sex.

There's a name for people who want to sexualize kids.  and it ain't "people in wheelchairs" or "Jews".

>>10931
Are you seriously so removed from reality that you think that this debate is about "sexualizing kids"?

Do you genuinely think that the civil rights activists fighting on behalf of the Jewish community, LGBT community, disabled community, et al are all out there are promoting "sexualizing kids"?

I'm honestly dumbfounded.

Is this a prank? A joke? Are you genuinely trolling me?

Is this one of those Q-Anon conspiracy things that you believe in, like there's some supposed evil conspiracy out there created by the lizard people who also faked the moon landings and the Holocaust?

>>10932
>Are you seriously so removed from reality that you think that this debate is about "sexualizing kids"?
I can tell you what the debate isn't about.  It isn't about the plight of Jews.  It isn't about whether people in wheelchairs are being fairly considered.  It isn't even about whether LGBT is allowed to exist.  It isn't about gay marriage.

It is about whether young children should be talked to about sex and sexuality.

>Do you genuinely think that the civil rights activists fighting on behalf of the Jewish community, LGBT community, disabled community, et al are all out there are promoting "sexualizing kids"?
No, I'm saying that these activist groups are irrelevant to the issue, and the fact that one pushes for something doesn't mean the others necessarily agree.  And it also doesn't mean that if you oppose one, that you oppose all three.  Apples and oranges.

>Is this a prank? A joke? Are you genuinely trolling me?
Nope, I'm just picking apart your framing for what it is - illogical, likely deceptive, possibly malicious.

>>10934
If you actually think that there's some kind of evil conspiracy going on to "sexualize kids", then I'm genuinely scared of your delusional detachment from reality.

I hope that you don't own any guns, or, at least, you won't use them on any innocent victims.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this is a civil rights matter about discriminating against people, particularly LGBT kids, LGBT parents, LGBT teachers, and others. Motivated by hatred. I hope that the pro-liberty and pro-freedom side wins.

>>10935
>If you actually think that there's some kind of evil conspiracy going on to "sexualize kids", then I'm genuinely scared of your delusional detachment from reality.
Do I need to start posting videos of teachers on Tiktok, talking about indoctrinating children?

>I hope that you don't own any guns, or, at least, you won't use them on any innocent victims.
ad hominem, reported.  :  ^)

>>10936
I don't know if there's much of a point of future discussion if you're this level of violently delusional in a scary fashion.(Please be civil, and avoid insulting each other even when disagreeing in the extreme.)

>>10937
Are words violence, now?

Please, enlighten me on why parents should support untrained individuals talking to their young children, without the parent's knowledge or permission, about sex and sexuality.

What is the moral good, in untrained individuals talking to young children, without the parent's knowledge or permission, about sex and sexuality.

Why are Jews supposedly in support of people talking sex/sexuality with young children, in a manner that is very much antithetical to Judaism itself?  Since you can't, why pretend that people oppose Jews over something that Jews are themselves in opposition to?

Why is Disney in support of people who push for the ability of others to talk to young children, without the parent's knowledge or permission, about sex and sexuality?  What part of talking to young children about sex and sexuality, without the consent or knowledge of parents, necessitates special corporate status and tax breaks, funded by the very parents who oppose such measures?

Interesting questions...

>>10938
There simply is no evil conspiracy of people out there to "sexualize children".

I suppose in your diseased mind others happening to be born different than you are supposedly inherently more likely to abuse children, but this is as objectively false as claiming that the Earth is flat.

You appear to be genuinely insane.

What you're pretending is happening not only isn't happening, but it's being used as a fig leaf excuse for violence against others.

Please seek mental help.

>>10921
You claim I'm promoting a "straw man" while refusing to answer the question.

Would it be acceptable to you to let a far-right corporation that actively pushes for racist policies be given a massive amount of power to the point where they can directly control the police of their given region, on top of massive tax breaks not enjoyed by the common man?

Your playing the pointing game doesn't change the question.
Though quite frankly, the idea that left-wing politicians have never targeted right-wing business or finances is laughably naive at best, anyway.

>>10939
>>10939
i am going to assume this post snuck through before i issued my ban above, but please take note that ad hominems, insults, are not allowed on townhall. You may disagree, even to the most extreme level, but discourse must remain civil or bans may be issued.

>>10941
I mean if somebody is this level of violently extremist in terms of absolute denialism, I don't think that it's useful to engage with them, so I won't anymore.

I will say that it's depressing that I need to live my life in physical fear of such people, but it can't be helped.

>>10942
How is it "violently extremist" to point to things that are, objectively, as a statement of fact, happening?

>>10939
>There simply is no evil conspiracy of people out there to "sexualize children".
Is it because it's not "evil" or because you think there's no "conspiracy"?  Because there is demonstrably a concerted effort of like-minded individuals working in (relative, partially failed) secrecy to put a discrete plan into action, even if it isn't a top-down imposition.

>I suppose in your diseased mind others happening to be born different than you are supposedly inherently more likely to abuse children, but this is as objectively false as claiming that the Earth is flat.
Not at all.  It would be useful if we could discuss the actual issue of contention, but in order to do that, the web of deflections you've constructed around it first have to be addressed.

I know that you don't agree with the right wing (or centrist) position on the underlying issue.  But let me put it in a way you can hopefully understand, and then maybe you can formulate a more compelling argument, which I would actually like to hear.

1)  "Right wing" individuals have evidence of individuals admitting how they do or seek to indoctrinate kids in school.  (This is indisputable.)
2)  "Right wing" individuals oppose this indoctrination.
3)  "Right wing" individuals support legislation to prevent this indoctrination.
4)  The Florida legislature passed legislation intended to prevent this indoctrination.
5)  "Left wing" individuals oppose the legislation.
6)  Disney supports those who oppose the legislation.

Now the problem with 5 and 6 is that they don't follow from 1, 2, or 3.  As much as people scream against the supposed "Don't Say Gay" bill, they do nothing to address the underlying concerns, which is that indoctrination is demonstrably happening, parents are opposed to it, and the law is intended to address it.  The logical conclusion then is that indoctrination is the goal of those who oppose the bill, because they don't address either the indoctrination itself or why any part of the law is thought to be necessary.  So then, if Disney seeks to support the indoctrination of kids, why should those who oppose the indoctrination continue to support Disney, especially monetarily via special privileges that no one else has?

>You appear to be genuinely insane.
Perhaps, but not for this reason.

>What you're pretending is happening not only isn't happening, but it's being used as a fig leaf excuse for violence against others.
You really want me to start posting videos, don't you...

>>10942
I've not suggested anything resembling violence.

>>10944
>>10947
Has it really not occurred to you two that normal people such as myself actually want schools to teach that hatred of people due to being born different is wrong, to explain why the Holocaust happened, and to also detail why things like the Holocaust shouldn't happen again?

I suppose you consider this to be "woke indoctrination of kids", as right wing extremists, but for me and the vast bulk of the country it's more a matter of "racial and religious prejudice is wrong and shouldn't exist the same way brain cancer and car accidents are wrong and shouldn't exist, because they all destroy lives" and "teach children morality".

I mean, like, I know that people like you tend to support bullying in escalation and feel that children who've overweight, autistic, shy, gay, overly tall, transgender, and so on should be physically beaten up or otherwise verbally attacked in schools... hardline conservatives say that "suffering builds character" and "get tough"... but people like me think that all children should be loved and respected for who they are.

I mean, at the heart of it, I want children to be treated like how Fred Rogers of 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood' would treat then. To your ilk, this is evil and inherently communist. I get that. But I don't care.

I mean, at heart, if you sincerely think that teaching kids not to act like the sorts of people who's behavior lead to the Holocaust is not only evil but part of a child molestation project because you think that LGBT people are inherently all child molesters... I honestly don't know what to say other than to politely ask you to seek mental help.

>>10957
>>10958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Do you have a concise, logically sound argument that doesn't require 15 irrelevant statements to support it?  I would like to hear it if you do.

If you're trying to argue a case, your straw men and ad hominems aren't particularly effective.  Does calling us evil hateful far right Holocaust denial supporters (where did that even come from?) serve a purpose of some sort?

>>10958
>>10962
But seriously, though.
Is there a good argument to defend the "Don't say Gay" bill?

And why are sanctions placed against a company that speaks out against it.

Is there a true objective way to adequately defend this?
Even if one would say "It's about not forcing classes on sex being taught to 8 year olds", is there any reason that this was a priority issue?

>>10962
Do you have an actual response?

At any rate, though, I guess there's no point in continuing this since you and people like you passionately hate me and people like me no matter what we ever say or do, just for being born different.

>>10963
to defend the bill?  Yeah, why would I want anyone talking with a 6-year-old about sex or sexuality.  "Don't Say Gay" is the Leftist nickname which is misleading at best, but let's go ahead and take it at face value...  Why would you want someone saying anything about "gayness" to a 6 year old?  It has no place in the classroom at that age.  Maybe focus on teaching them how to color between the lines, or how to add 3+5, rather than trying to influence them or seed their minds with things they won't fully understand for many years.

>And why are sanctions placed against a company that speaks out against it.
Removing special privileges is not the same as imposing sanctions.

>Is there a true objective way to adequately defend this?
It's not objective.  No one claims that it is.

>Even if one would say "It's about not forcing classes on sex being taught to 8 year olds", is there any reason that this was a priority issue?
It doesn't have to be a priority.  Some people thought it was important, and so it was addressed.  The same can be said of literally any legislation.

>>10964
Do you want me to break it down point by point?  You've already failed to show your reasoning.  But ok, I'll rip it apart for you since you insist...

I don't dislike you.  I don't passionately hate you.  I think you're funny.  And I think you try to leverage your LGBT status for virtue points since you have no coherent arguments otherwise.

>>10957
>Has it really not occurred to you two that normal people such as myself
what defines you as normal, exactly?  be precise.

>actually want schools to teach that hatred of people due to being born different is wrong,
They've done this for many years, even before people felt the need to introduce sexuality to prepubescent kids.

>to explain why the Holocaust happened,
non sequitur, completely irrelevant

>and to also detail why things like the Holocaust shouldn't happen again?
non sequitur, completely irrelevant

>I suppose you consider this to be "woke indoctrination of kids",
It depends on how you go about it.  In the manner being described, yes, that's exactly what it is.

>as right wing extremists,
I'm a centrist, thank you very much.  Your failure to acknowledge nuance in arguments that aren't 100% in agreement with you does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you thinks the same.  But we'll get to that more later.

>but for me and the vast bulk of the country
argument from (assumed) popularity.  means literally nothing and isn't an argument.

>it's more a matter of "racial and religious prejudice is wrong ... because they all destroy lives" and
That's not why they're wrong, per se, and also it does not logically follow.   Can you make a coherent argument why they're wrong?  (I'm not saying they aren't wrong, but this seems like you're pulling a Manley.)

>and shouldn't exist the same way brain cancer and car accidents are wrong and shouldn't exist
non sequitur, completely irrelevant

>"teach children morality".
Again, I think the stats would disagree with you here.  Overriding parents' ability to impart their own morality, behind the parents' backs, with covert classroom indoctrination is not something that's going to be widely supported among parents.  i.e. It is not the role of your 2nd grade math teacher to teach you ethics.

>I mean, like, I know that people like you tend to support bullying in escalation
hahahahaha that's hilarious, laugh out loud funny

>and feel that children who've overweight, autistic, shy, gay, overly tall, transgender, and so on
again, widening the subset to include as many supposedly "oppressed" people as possible, because the argument won't stand on its own otherwise.

>should be physically beaten up or otherwise verbally attacked in schools...
oh yeah, I definitely think this.  you got me!

>hardline conservatives say that "suffering builds character" and "get tough"...
that's generally true; I'll give you that one.

>but people like me think that all children should be loved and respected for who they are.
I agree.  Unfortunately for your argument, no part of loving or respecting people for who they are involves talking to 7 year olds about sexuality.

>I mean, at the heart of it, I want children to be treated like how Fred Rogers of 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood' would treat then.
How often did Mister Rogers talk about sex on his show?

>To your ilk, this is evil and inherently communist. I get that. But I don't care.
oh, ok then.

So here's your problem.  1) You haven't identified a coherent problem; instead you lump all the world's evils together, from the Holocaust, to bullying, etc., and try to use it as justification for anything you like, which is absurd.  2) You haven't demonstrated why "saying Gay" to 6 year olds solves any of the supposed problems.  3) The solutions you propose were already there before teachers started taking it upon themselves to talk with prepubescent children about sexuality.  4) You haven't justified why teachers should be able to do this behind the parents' backs.  5) You haven't demonstrated how "not saying Gay" to children is in any way a problem.

>>10965
>Why would you want someone saying anything about "gayness" to a 6 year old?

I'll preface that I haven't read the bill.

My understanding of the concern some people have that isn't super fearmongering, is that with the wording of it, at least in some places, is that it's too vague. That there is the possible scenario of even just a casual admittance from a gay teacher that they're in a same-sex marriage could be seen as a violation and allow parents to sue the school/teacher. Something as innocuous as simply having a photo of themselves with their spouse on the desk, and the child asks about it could cause this to happen is the concern that I've heard aired from someone who seemed to be airing a concern about the wording.

In instances where it comes up, I think it is okay to inform even very young children that not all romance is between a man and woman. Should it be part of the curriculum for six year olds? No, definitely not. I'd simply hold gay teachers to the same standard as heterosexual teachers in terms of what is appropriate to have displayed on one's desk for example. Obviously a gay photograph in kink gear is as unacceptable as a heterosexual photograph with the same gear.

To take an example situation. Let's say there is a man who is gay, and he teaches this hypothetical class of six year olds. On his desk he keeps a picture of himself and his husband, dressed in regular street clothes and holding each other, let's say over the shoulders. An exchange occurs where student Billy asks Mr. Example who that is in the photo with him, and Mr. Example tells Billy that's himself and his husband. Billy asks something along the lines of "You can do that?" and Mr. Example tells Billy that people can, they're called gay people, and Mr. Example is one such gay person. Mr. Example would probably then tell Billy he should ask his parents if he wants to know more.

In this scenario I think this is a fine interaction. Mr. Example answering some questions in a way that answers the immediate situation and prompts the child to ask within their own family. I believe the concern is that even something as tame as this situation, one I would say is perhaps even tamer than if a young child has a teacher who gets pregnant and is suddenly exposed to a facet of where babies come from.

Again, I would need to read the bill. My understanding of concerns as I've heard them is that even an example like this would violate the law as written due to vagueness, or at least prompt a homophobic parent to take things to court and maybe have a case.

Personally, I don't see much reason to treat gay relationships and straight relationships differently when answering a child's questions. You dodge anything explicit like your life depends on it and just say that you like to kiss a certain type of person. And if they try to push you defer to the parents.

As for the bill, if all of these are valid concerns and leaves it open to exploitation by bigoted bad actors, it tells me that there probably needs to be another editing pass before it can be implemented.

>>10969
That's a reasonable concern, and the most valid criticism is the vagueness.  The one major flaw in my opinion is that it can be interpreted to apply even into high school in certain readings.  If people were complaining explicitly about the vagueness, I would agree with you.  But that's generally not what the activists are complaining about.

It's also the case that people are seeking to use situations such as what you describe, specifically to draw attention to their own sexuality, and to talk about it with children.  One woman for example placed a rainbow flag on the wall of the classroom, specifically in place of the American flag.  And when students asked her about it, this was her invitation to launch into her spiel.  This is entirely inappropriate.

Where to draw the line is debatable.  But the bill at least seeks to establish a line, and for that I give it credit.

>>10957
>>10958
You're making a lot of uncharitable assumptions about where people stand on an issue. Outright insinuating that someone wants to harm children, or ascribing bigotry like believing all LGBT are child molesters is pushing if not into simple name calling, it's certainly making an attempt at character assassination to dismiss the arguments that way.

If you vehemently disagree, that's fine, but you do need to keep things more civil than this. As stated here earlier in the thread. >>10941

Lower the temperature please.

>>10970
There's many examples of teachers crossing lines they shouldn't, unfortunately. The examples given are certainly over the line, though less egregious than, say, the examples of outright sexual activity between a teacher and a student.

Taking the flag example, I guess I'd need to hear exactly what her spiel was. The response could vary depending on exactly what she said, the age of the students, and so on. Taken as a whole with this information anything from a verbal reprimand of the teacher to being let go. Either very minor or very harsh depending on exactly what happened. Neither okay but a better grasp of the situation would be required before I could make a judgement call in this instance.

Were I a lawmaker, on my previously suggested additional round of editing the word choice, anything that seems as though it is particularly targeting LGBT people just for existing should probably be reworded to a more universal language to apply to all sexualities including heterosexuals as a matter of what is and isn't appropriate behavior. Just as heterosexuals can use evasive language to answer the questions of children in what are inherently sexual matters, LGBT folks can as well. Clarifying language in the bill would be useful for this, more explicitly drawing the line. And I would argue that if for LGBT folks something as simple as a photo of themselves with their spouse is "too sexual," then the same must apply to straight teachers as well.

Now I doubt the bill actually has any wording whatsoever about things like simple photos, but it's important when writing laws to consider how bad actors may misuse it. The sort of folks who would consider a gay person simply existing in the role of a teacher is inherently pushing sexuality on their children. These people are out there, in what numbers I cannot say, simply that they do.

At this point though I'm going on hearsay. At this point though this bill seems to be politically tainted anyway. If the goal behind it truly was to explicitly disallow discussing sex with very young children, then a bipartisan bill that is universal with input from both parties to ensure it would hopefully be in the works. Considering the polarized state of the parties though, coming together to work on a bill that accomplishes the goal with nuance and care?

I... kinda fucking doubt it. Which is a shame. Because if drawing the line was the intent, it's been fucked. It's too hot of an issue now and all the political capital is as ash on the wind.

>>10972
>And I would argue that if for LGBT folks something as simple as a photo of themselves with their spouse is "too sexual," then the same must apply to straight teachers as well.
I agree.

>At this point though this bill seems to be politically tainted anyway.
I see at least half a dozen distinct groups pushing against each other.  Unfortunately there's no way to reconcile them given the bizarre coalitions that have formed, making useful compromise impossible.

>>10957
>>10958
I won't dwell on this too much since staff's already called it out, but I do have to say, I think this is a big part of the trouble right now more than anything else.
There's a disconnect between the 'sides' that I fear only seems to grow over time. Presumptions of either playing a con, being disingenuous, or otherwise just lying, results in an impossible dialogue that at best only furthers the division.
I don't know if there's a solution to this, but it certainly won't end well, I fear.
Then again, I've a mite of a nihilistic view of the world at the moment. So maybe I'm just doomongering.

Because I'm merely born inferior, though the eyes of others, it's regarded by far right extremists here and elsewhere okay to fire me from my jobs, bully me as a child in schools, deny me health care service, kick me out of my homes, and goodness knows what else.

In the case of the anti-childhood measures that're being talked about now, we're quite literally talking about far right extremists trying to remove teachers from their positions just as a consequence of them happening to be transgender as well as punishing children with same-sex married parents as being somehow evil in comparison to other students with straight parents. This happening at the same time of students who happen to be, say, bisexual or whatever themselves being harassed into tears. And it goes on. And on. If you're in any way connected to schooling, whether as a principal, student, or whatever else, a target is now on your back, and you can be shot at any moment for offending a bigot's feelings.

I'm not sure how we can sugar coat this.

We're talking about genuine, Nazi style bigotry-- the belief that certian people are born lesser than others, thus they deserve less rights-- with the excuse of child protection being used not just to attack parents and teachers but the actual kids themselves. You're not allowed to exist. You're not allowed to talk about yourself. To share about yourself. To express yourself in any way. Everything that you can do or say offends their "Christian family values" by your mere existence.

Hell, the far right extremists here are even deliberately attempting to encourage people to commit suicide, and they're succeeding!

See: https://time.com/6173081/suicidal-thoughts-lgbtq-youth/

And for a specific example of far right extremists attacking suicide prevention efforts, see: https://news.yahoo.com/right-wing-groomer-attacks-target-suicide-prevention-service-for-lgbtq-youth-130037286.html

I don't think it should be controversial for me and people like me to at least have the right to life.

It's genuinely pretty horrifying that me merely having a picture of me being G-rated kissed by somebody on a picture in a frame on a desk is supposedly THE MOST EVIL THING EVER OH DARE YOU DISGUSTING PEDOPHILE HOW DARE YOU NOT KISSING NOT IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN etc... like... and somehow if a straight person does it, just fine... I mean...

How far does this go, I'm genuinely wondering?

How long until you guys put numbers on my arms? How long have I got? Honest question.

>>10979
>Because I'm merely born inferior, though the eyes of others, it's regarded by far right extremists here and elsewhere okay to fire me from my jobs, bully me as a child in schools, deny me health care service, kick me out of my homes, and goodness knows what else.
Nobody here said that.
Nobody here thinks that.

Is all you are going to do today insult people, straw man, and accuse them of being the rise and return of the 3rd Reich?
It seems remarkably unproductive.

>>10988
How many of us have to die before your ilk is happy? Honest question. At what number with the suicide rates reach a point where satisfaction is achieved? Is it 100%?

>>10989
Again; nobody suggested we wanted you to die.
You're acting the fool without cause.
I'm sorry you're so terrified of the boogiemen in the shadows, but that doesn't mean we're one of them.

>>10993
Do you really not care in the slightest that the political campaign of you and your ilk is killing people, deliberately encouraging them to end their lives due to the widespread bigotry and discrimination enacted by you Republicans?

>>10995
I've not seen evidence of such an absurd claim.

>>10997
"Absurd claim"? It's objective fact. As was just linked.

Your ilk is literally killing us.

And the worst thing of all is that you won't even be honest about how much you hate us: instead, I guess, you make up fake concerns about children being sexualized, all of these political actions harming us with brutal force all with the most transparent fig leaf of a clearly made-up caring about kids that doesn't exist.

I wish you'd at least be honest and go "Of course, I hate you".

>>10999
The claim was of a supposed political campaign of "me and my ilk".
Was such a term simply to mean "people I don't like"?
In that case, why shouldn't I consider you "and your ilk" personally accountable for any number of horrific acts?

>And the worst thing of all is that you won't even be honest about how much you hate us:
While I have quite a lot of distaste for you personally as consequence of your actions here in this thread alongside your remarks about me and others,  I do not hate you.
I find you a sad individual, and a solid warning of both the danger of political ideological extremism, as well as the decline of mental health care in our country.
But I do not hate you.

As to "us" I do not consider you to be the mouthpiece of anyone save yourself.
I do not hate whoever you consider to be "us".
I've no cause to.

>>11002
No, you can't "both sides" this.

I'll go into depth:

[A new study by the LGBTQ suicide prevention nonprofit The Trevor Project found that over the past three years, the rates of suicidal thoughts have trended upward among LGBTQ youth in America.]

[The survey, published Wednesday, found that 45% of LGBTQ youth had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and LGBTQ youth of color reported higher rates of considering suicide than their white peers. That’s a five percentage point increase overall from three years ago and a continuation of an alarming trend: comparing The Trevor Project’s annual national surveys over the past three years, reports of LGBTQ youth seriously considering suicide have increased from 40% to 42% to 45%.]

[The numbers are particularly stark when it comes to trans and nonbinary young people. 59% of transgender boys and men reported seriously considering suicide in the past year, as did 53% of nonbinary youth and 48% of transgender girls and women. 22% of transgender boys and men reported attempting suicide in the past year, compared to 6% of cisgender boys and men.]

[“I think that the biggest takeaway overall is that LGBTQ youth suicide is a public health crisis, and that so many of the challenges that are coming up in the world over the past three years are only exacerbating the crisis that we already knew existed,” says Amit Paley, the CEO and Executive Director of The Trevor Project.]

[LGBTQ youth face unique stressors that could exacerbate mental health concerns. Conservative state lawmakers have introduced a surge of bills targeting LGBTQ youth in the past two years, and roughly 240 anti-LGBTQ bills have been filed in 2022 alone, with roughly half specifically targeting trans people, according to a March 20 NBC News analysis. Lawmakers have particularly focused on trans youth, and 15 states have banned trans students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Two states have passed laws banning classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in certain grade levels. Three states have banned young people from accessing gender-affirming care. In March, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed state officials to investigate the families of trans youth who’d received such care for child abuse.]

[LGBTQ advocates warn such laws could have dangerous consequences. “We also hear from young people who are not in the states that are impacted by these laws yet, but who are just worried that there are so many people in the country who are using their time to attack LGBTQ kids,” says Paley. The report found that 60% of LGBTQ youth who wanted mental health care in the past year reported not being able to access it.]

Source: https://time.com/6173081/suicidal-thoughts-lgbtq-youth/

>>11002
>>11005
Your ilk is literally killing us.

I wonder if you look at the numbers of all of those children seriously planning out committing suicide due to the actions of your ilk and feel satisfied.

I really do.

>>11002
>>11005
>>11007
Again. Though. I still wonder about your fundamental dishonesty.

Why can't you just say "I hate you"?

>>11005
So I'm guilty of it because you say so, even though I've done nothing to endorse, encourage, or enable this.

>>11007
What actions have I done you genuine fucking psychopath?
Nothing.
I am not responsible for your delusional presuppositions of me.

>>11008
Because I don't, and as said, you're not an "us".
You're merely a single deluded individual on the internet

>>11010
It's amazing that you continue to engage in this psychological projection when you're buried deep in delusion and psychopathy, yet you only can see it in me and others.

I'm honestly sorry for you.

I hope that someday you can wake up.

>>11010
>>11012
Although I do hope that you're able to maybe reconsider your support of Republican actions that, to use your words, "endorse, encourage, or enable this" tragedy going on.

In the end, the anti-LGBT cause today is going to look as badly through the eyes of history as those who campaigned in favor of slavery, or of the divine right of kings, or cannibalism, or other such long-past ideas in which we wonder "What were they thinking?", really.

>>11012
Right I am a psychopath because I have the audacity to argue what people say, and be offended when somebody insists on guilty of shit that I've not done.

Fucking hell dude, consider touching grass once in your life. Maybe speak to somebody and learn some basic social skills.
Not everybody who disagrees with you on some minor political characteristic is Adolf fucking Hitler, you deluded loser

>>11013
My words were that I fucking don't do that shit, you braindead fucking moron.
Christ

>>11010
>"even though I've done nothing to endorse, encourage, or enable this."
What, is your biggotry so extreme that you can't even fucking read?

>>11016
Again, why the obfuscation?

Just say: "I hate you because you're born different."

Just say it.

Just talk about how glad you and your ilk is about the rising suicide rates of us.

>>11019
I don't so why the fuck would I, you illiterate dipshit.
I've set this multiple fucking times. Can you not read?

Why do you want to rape children?
If we're just going to start accusing each other of stupid things that obviously neither of us are responsible for, why shouldn't I go that route too?

>>11031
Just say it.

You already started this thread in terms of bigotry, with you believing that all LGBT people are in an evil conspiracy to sexualize children. You've already come into the thread from the first post thinking that I want to molest kids. So just say it.

Say "I hate you for being born different".

>>11034
Just say you want to rape children.

>You already started this thread in terms of bigotry, with you believing that all LGBT people are in an evil conspiracy to sexualize children.
Never fucking said that.
That's plainly a lie.

>You've already come into the thread from the first post thinking that I want to molest kids.
I absolutely fucking did not. At no point did I ever fucking say anything of the sort.
You're just a liar.

>>11037
I can say that because I was born different conservatives inherently hate me and think that I will molest kids, just because of my appearance and other things.

I don't like that, of course, but I understand that your ilk can't help but be like that.

Conservatives gotta conservative.

>>11043
I am a conservative and I don't hate you. So it's certainly not in inherent.
Even the dislike I do hold for you is based on your conduct, not what you are.
I don't think you molest kids either.

It seems to me you've got some major bigotries clouding your ability to engage with others.

>>11047
The bigotry, I can assure you, is from your ilk against us.

Again, your ilk is literally killing us.

>>11054
Considering you're the one who is talking about large scale groups, and the lumping people together, it does seem to be solely on your head.

As I said I do not consider you a representative of any one save yourself.
You do not speak for these various minorities.  Many such individuals are wonderful, reasonable people. Many of them do not leap to insane conclusions, calling anyone they disagree with fascist. Many of them are kind and considerate individuals with large capacities for empathy, and not cruel or rude or condescending as you act.

>>11055
We're not going to let your ilk kill us, though, that's the main thing.

>>11058
I don't want to, so such a fear is irrational

>>11060
It's not an irrational fear. It's fact. Conservatives are engaged in bigotry in terms of political actions such as this Flordia measure, and people are dying as a result. It should all stop.

>>11065
I've yet to see evidence that this particular bill is killing anyone.

>>10979
>>11019
>>11013
>>11012
i'm not even gonna bother linking all the violating posts, just yeah, you were asked to tone it down and completely ignored that warning. You have a history of this kind of posting on townhall and honestly i think the place is just bad for you and your mental health, so i'm issuing a permanent ban (townhall only). You are free to appeal if you want.

Also, locking the thread since we already gave it a chance to recover once.