[HoosierDaddy]

It's a joke that he's even a serious candidate. People who REALLY hate the government have no reason to vote for someone serious. Small government types are not his chief supporters.

[Terez]

I tried to go to a Bernie rally in Milwaukee the other day. I have been needing to go to Milwaukee for a while now to scan a rare book at the UWM library, but I had been putting it off because it's a long way to drive (3 hours one way) for a book, even if it's rare and I really need it. I ended up getting another book I needed scanned before I headed over to the State Fair Park, where I arrived an hour before the doors were supposed to open. That was not early enough; they turned me away at the security booth. So I went back to the library and scanned some more stuff before driving home.

Other than that, I have nothing to offer at this point but comedy. I "watched" this while I was scanning another book at home, meaning I mostly listened to it. The voices are pretty good.

[Primateus]

Grief, on 25 March 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

Honestly, I find the "crybully" stuff incredibly ironic.

these people are doing the exact thing they're complaining about.

It's ALWAYS like that, pretty much everywhere.

My own bias tells me that the right is more guilty of it than the left, but really, it's on both sides. This is just the "newest" tool in the evergrowing toolbox of trying to silence dissent, along with namecalling, goalpost moving and many other tools.

[worry]

A pretty good breakdown of the NC preemptive anti-anti-discrimination law. https://www.washingt...-anti-lgbt-law/

Where it might stand constitutionally, where it stands in the history of discrimination, and how the courts have treated anti-gay discrimination in the past. Like contrary to seeming popular perception -- especially among the kind of bigots who talk about the "gay agenda" -- LGBTQ people aren't really a protected class, and recent court victories have rested on other legal issues. Fighting this one might have to as well, unless the court is really feeling proactive.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 01 April 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

I tried to go to a Bernie rally in Milwaukee the other day. I have been needing to go to Milwaukee for a while now to scan a rare book at the UWM library, but I had been putting it off because it's a long way to drive (3 hours one way) for a book, even if it's rare and I really need it. I ended up getting another book I needed scanned before I headed over to the State Fair Park, where I arrived an hour before the doors were supposed to open. That was not early enough; they turned me away at the security booth. So I went back to the library and scanned some more stuff before driving home.

Other than that, I have nothing to offer at this point but comedy. I "watched" this while I was scanning another book at home, meaning I mostly listened to it. The voices are pretty good.

Thank you for linking that. I love @Midnight but this takes the fricking cake.

"I'm the Beast! I'm the Beast at the end of the Bible. You're all gonna die."

Lol.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 April 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

Thank you for linking that. I love @Midnight but this takes the fricking cake.

"I'm the Beast! I'm the Beast at the end of the Bible. You're all gonna die."

Lol.

I have never seen @midnight or even heard of it. This came to me from a friend in Poland, on Facebook. Having never heard of the show, I didn't expect the impressions to be any good, so I was pleasantly surprised. Even SNL's Trump is not anywhere near this good, or at least he wasn't last time I saw him try, when Tina Fey was on to endorse him.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 01 April 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 01 April 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

Thank you for linking that. I love @Midnight but this takes the fricking cake.

"I'm the Beast! I'm the Beast at the end of the Bible. You're all gonna die."

Lol.

I have never seen @midnight or even heard of it. This came to me from a friend in Poland, on Facebook. Having never heard of the show, I didn't expect the impressions to be any good, so I was pleasantly surprised. Even SNL's Trump is not anywhere near this good, or at least he wasn't last time I saw him try, when Tina Fey was on to endorse him.

I'm usually in bed way before @midnight, but it is very popular amongst those who can watch it (college kids).

[worry]

That's not the usual format (which is basically three comedians riffing on the Internet/pop culture news of the day), but James Adomian (Bernie) is on the show often enough as himself that it made sense, and I think they do small tours of these characters thus their total pro performance (largely improvised every time they do it, afaik). I don't usually like impression comedy but James Adomian is reaaaaaallly talented.

[Terez]

I don't usually like impression comedy because it usually sucks. I like good impression comedy.

[Tsundoku]

Oponn Relationship, on 01 April 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

A pretty good breakdown of the NC preemptive anti-anti-discrimination law. https://www.washingt...-anti-lgbt-law/

Where it might stand constitutionally, where it stands in the history of discrimination, and how the courts have treated anti-gay discrimination in the past. Like contrary to seeming popular perception -- especially among the kind of bigots who talk about the "gay agenda" -- LGBTQ people aren't really a protected class, and recent court victories have rested on other legal issues. Fighting this one might have to as well, unless the court is really feeling proactive.

Genuine question here:

How many toilets do people want then? I would have thought it would be if you have a penis you use this toilet, it has stalls if you're uncomfortable using the trough. If you have a vagina you use this toilet. If you identify/dress/are transitioning as a dude but still have a vagina, use the stall. If you identify/dress/are transitioning as a woman but still have your penis, well hey there - it's all stalls!

Toilets are a tool, not an expression of your innermost ... whatever. If you are one of the many subdivisions I hear Facebook now has for gender identity (seriously, wtf?), it can come down to: do you wear undies that cater to a vagina, or a penis? It doesn't say anything bad about you, it's just what's practical.

[worry]

What's practical for this guy?
https://twitter.com/...845760287494144

[amphibian]

Tsundoku, on 02 April 2016 - 04:10 AM, said:

Oponn Relationship, on 01 April 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

A pretty good breakdown of the NC preemptive anti-anti-discrimination law. https://www.washingt...-anti-lgbt-law/

Where it might stand constitutionally, where it stands in the history of discrimination, and how the courts have treated anti-gay discrimination in the past. Like contrary to seeming popular perception -- especially among the kind of bigots who talk about the "gay agenda" -- LGBTQ people aren't really a protected class, and recent court victories have rested on other legal issues. Fighting this one might have to as well, unless the court is really feeling proactive.

Genuine question here:

How many toilets do people want then? I would have thought it would be if you have a penis you use this toilet, it has stalls if you're uncomfortable using the trough. If you have a vagina you use this toilet. If you identify/dress/are transitioning as a dude but still have a vagina, use the stall. If you identify/dress/are transitioning as a woman but still have your penis, well hey there - it's all stalls!

Toilets are a tool, not an expression of your innermost ... whatever. If you are one of the many subdivisions I hear Facebook now has for gender identity (seriously, wtf?), it can come down to: do you wear undies that cater to a vagina, or a penis? It doesn't say anything bad about you, it's just what's practical.

The problem lies less in the anatomy than in what level of violence results from other people's discovery of your anatomy.

Trans people get hurt all the time - particularly the non white ones - and it is mostly men doing the violence. It's safer for most trans people to use the women's bathroom because most women don't resort to violence or effect as much damage as male attackers do.

The number of trans bathroom predators is probably an order of magnitude (at least) smaller than the number of trans people who get beat up in the bathrooms.

One terrible part about this is that the bill went through in a single day. It had that much legislative support and politics surrounding it that it shot right on through. I'm sure that some of its opponents let it go through to say to the public that the idiots across the aisle did something that bad, but these are people's lives we are talking about.

[Tsundoku]

@Worry
Is someone there checking birth certificates before you walk in? No? Then they use the gents.

I suppose if someone were to follow this person around and yell "Hey, they shouldn't be using the gents, that's against the law!", sure, there may be a fine or some such drivel. Or not, remember, there are plenty of laws on the books that simply aren't enforced because of indifference or common sense. Then old mate can turn around and have the complainer prosecuted for harassment or something like that.

It's an unenforceable law, leave it to quickly wither, die and be struck off in a few years along with other outdated shit.

You know what? Turn all public toilets into unisex - no gents or ladies. Just row after row of stalls, treating all the same. You can't complain of discrimination after that.

@Amph
You walk in and use the stall, how can anyone ID you as trans and assault you then?

If someone knows you are trans and wants to assault you, sad to say but they're going to get you pretty much anywhere. That's just hate-crime/bullying behaviour and 57 different types of toilets aren't going to help that one iota.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 April 2016 - 04:51 AM

[worry]

You are advocating that already-vulnerable people break the law and put themselves in harm's way, instead of advocating for a deliberately demeaning, dehumanizing law be undone. Now I know that's not your actual belief about trans people, but it's the effect of a "what's the big deal?" take on it.

If someone knows you're trans and hates it, maybe they'll find an opportunity to beat you and maybe they won't -- I get the "evil-doers do evil, cuz that's what they do" reasoning. But being forced to go into the restroom with someone -- a small, indoors, secluded location -- and facing that possibility every time you have to pee in public means a proactive, deliberate fear campaign has been enacted against you. By your government. Imagine having to fear for your life regularly, perhaps daily, just for being you. Why should that exist? Why should we let our government create that?

[Tsundoku]

@Worry
1. Who's going to pay for it?
2. Where are these 57 different types of toilets going to go?
3. Unfortunately, that's life. If someone knows you're trans and wants to harm you, a toilet door isn't going to stop them, especially if they're drunk/on drugs etc.
4. Actually, a TRANS toilet door would be like painting a target for these types of jerks. And let's face it, it would be worse in certain states/regions than others.
5. If people don't know you're trans, then what's the harm? They won't find out with a rude shock if you use the stall.
6. A woman has the perfect right in most western countries to dress in a risque fashion, get drunk and flirt with heaps of people, while being retaining the right to choose if they want to go home/have sex with someone, or not. Even in the most enlightened country, it doesn't always work like that. That's a terrible thing, but it's life and until we change ALL human psychology for the better, it's always going to happen somewhere to some poor lady. How can you protect everyone, everywhere, all the time? You can't. You just do the best you can, educate each generation better than the last, have good police and enforce the (non-stupid) laws.
7. On breaking the law in a casual fashion - do you ever exceed the speed limit? Especially in an area where's there's no radars and it's long, straight, open and in good condition? Congratulations, you just broke the law. Do you own a business (in Australia, not sure about other countries) and play the radio without paying a fee to some umbrella royalties organisation? Congratulations, you just broke the law. Pissing in "the wrong toilet" is up there with that. It's only when conservatives draw some sort of fucked-up parallel between trans people using the "wrong" toilet and sex crimes that we hit a snag, and frankly I believe most areas in the west don't automatically equate "trans" with "sex pervert/deviant/pedo". You have to go to mouth-breathing cousin-fucking Hicksville for that. Which always makes me laugh - inbred hicks accusing other people of being morally repugnant.
8. ... shit, I forgot.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 April 2016 - 07:08 AM

[worry]

I think you're hooked on the Facebook thing and applying it to bathrooms, but that's just now what is going on. Women (including trans women) want to go to the bathroom in the women's restroom, men (including trans men) want to go to the men's restroom. There's not like a Dr. Seussian bathroom skyscraper happening. This law gets in the way of that normal human function, deliberately and with the intention of demeaning trans people.

The rest...I dunno, I don't mean to be a jerk, but I'm kinda with amph on that. This "If people don't know you're trans" take is so weird. Transitioning is -- by its very nature -- transitioning. It's perfectly obvious in many cases what someone's "birth certificate" sex is, and deliberately forcing them by law into a potentially hostile, harmful environment shouldn't be a function of government. And even if you can "pass" perfectly, what's the harm? How about one more kick, this one sanctioned by your government and fellow citizens, telling you how worthy of being despised you are. The stats on suicide attempts by trans people are already ludicrously high (the moderate count is ~41% have had at least one attempt), and discrimination is a risk factor for higher likelihood.

"You can't protect everyone" is never an excuse not to enact protective laws (for instance, the ones against murder), but is an absurdity to bring up when we're discussing proactively discriminatory laws.

As far as #7, you're just wrong. Violence against trans people isn't rare, it's relatively common. In fact, trans people are more likely to be the victims of violence at the hands of police than others (http://www.avp.org/s...hvfactsheet.pdf).

[Tsundoku]

Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I'm kinda with amph on that.

??? As far as I can tell you're not at all coming across as a jerk. I probably am, but after re-writing my posts a few times I went with "well, that's the best I can do at the moment". If you still think I'm a jerk, that's your right. Just don't expect to say it and not cop it in return if you do it in a "jerkish" way yourself. I have some patience, but I am not a "turn the other cheek" type person.

I took the "Dr Seussian bathroom skyscraper" thing (great image btw) approach because ... ah, it's hard to articulate but I will try. Here's the process:

To start we have male and female toilets.

"Trans" toilets get created because trans men-to-women and women-to-men want somewhere they can be comfortable. As a side benefit, it stops (I do not know the appropriate word to use so I will use "normal" meaning in the statistical sense, please do not take it as an insult) normal people being weirded out. Fair enough, that works for both sides and is considerate. Stops awkward questions for Mums (or dads) taking their kids to the loo too.

But Trans men-to-women and women-to-men don't want to be around each other and want separate toilets. OK.

Old mate "Gender fluid" pipes up and says "What about me?" I have seen a couple of short segments on generally-responsible programs in which these people have said (basically) "Some days I feel male, and some days female". Which toilet to they use on any given day - Male or female? Then we get the idea of comfort (for both the gender fluid person and others using the same facilities) and what are the others using that toilet going to think and feel?
EDIT: not that it matters what others think and feel, but what they do. But since you want to win hearts and minds, you have to be considerate of what people think and feel and ... gah, it's a minefield!

Since I don't use Facebook I have absolutely no idea how many other options there are on the dropdown box, but do you get my meaning? If it's all about how you feel then the possibilities are ... well, not infinite but certainly far more than the few poor examples I have given.

Hence my half-serious-but-now-maybe-sorta-serious idea about unisex public toilets. Covers all bases and promotes a greater acceptance of all-types-are-normal. If you're a kid going to the loo with your parent and you see all sorts of people going in and out of the stalls, you're going to grow up more likely to accept broader definitions or "normal" aren't you? And it's not just toilets, but duplicate this across society (to the degree that you can).

A couple of generations from now they'll look back and wonder how we could all have been so backward. 50 or so years ago, even in Australia, white breads like me, especially in rural areas, would have been iffy about sharing the trough with a Indigenous Australian. Now it's not even something you think about. I'm more likely to be wary if dudes are drunk/on drugs/looking for a fight than what they look like.

I had something else but lost it because I have a lousy memory and am a slow typist.

EDIT2: I just want it on the record that I am not cool with that law, I think it's a dick move (pardon the deliberate pun). I think it is morally wrong and impossible to enforce. However it introduced the idea of extra toilets and then blah blah blah ... being a practical person, I wondered what the a solution could be.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 April 2016 - 07:41 AM

[worry]

The thing is, I'm still not getting where you got the "extra toilets" thing from. There weren't extra bathrooms being built in Charlotte (capital of North Carolina) for trans people, this law wasn't made to stop any such thing from happening, and it's meant to prohibit anyone (ie any local gov) from even attempting to protect trans people in existing bathrooms. All Charlotte did was say people who identified as women could use the women's room (they weren't forced into avoiding the men's room if that's how they passed though), and trans men could use the men's room. It was about people using the bathroom comfortably without intrusion; there was never going to be special bathrooms. Maybe you're seeing references to a "trans bathroom bill" elsewhere and misreading it; that's just shorthand for a bill regarding trans people using the usual "men's" and "women's" bathrooms. There's no literal, separate "trans bathroom" at issue here.

As far as unisex bathrooms, I think that's at the beginning stages of catching on, actually, but that's just a sense I'm getting over time, not something I have ever seen actual stats on. It has some upsides and some downsides of its own, I imagine, especially in areas that are more isolated or sparsely used, but I don't think it's a bad idea.

Still, this is both a matter of human dignity and how a government functions (and how the two interrelate). Should a government proactively nurture human dignity? Should a gov let people do that on their own? Should a gov proactively suppress human dignity (for some)? Because this law is squarely in the third category.

[Tsundoku]

Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

The thing is, I'm still not getting where you got the "extra toilets" thing from. There weren't extra bathrooms being built in Charlotte (capital of North Carolina) for trans people, this law wasn't made to stop any such thing from happening, and it's meant to prohibit anyone (ie any local gov) from even attempting to protect trans people in existing bathrooms. All Charlotte did was say people who identified as women could use the women's room (they weren't forced into avoiding the men's room if that's how they passed though), and trans men could use the men's room. It was about people using the bathroom comfortably without intrusion; there was never going to be special bathrooms. Maybe you're seeing references to a "trans bathroom bill" elsewhere and misreading it; that's just shorthand for a bill regarding trans people using the usual "men's" and "women's" bathrooms. There's no literal, separate "trans bathroom" at issue here.

That's the problem. I got it from somewhere, can't recall where now. One of those links I guess. I do know I didn't spontaneously generate the idea myself, I was commenting in reaction to what I saw as an impractical concept.

EDIT: something else just occurred to me.
Just being Lucifer's Advocate here, but what about the right to feel safe/comfortable for others suing those facilities? A woman is in the ladies and for all intents and purposes a dude in a dress walks in. Only in some small inner-city areas are you going to get the case that noone bats an eyelid. That reaction gets worse the more ... uhm ... rural you get. What about their rights/feelings?

EDIT2: is there a gender identity thread?

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 April 2016 - 08:26 AM

[Gorefest]

Tsundoku, on 02 April 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

Just being Lucifer's Advocate here, but what about the right to feel safe/comfortable for others suing those facilities? A woman is in the ladies and for all intents and purposes a dude in a dress walks in. Only in some small inner-city areas are you going to get the case that noone bats an eyelid. That reaction gets worse the more ... uhm ... rural you get. What about their rights/feelings?

Which of their rights/feelings is actually under assault, in that case?