Conservatism
- Thread starter HenrySwanson
- 1,545 comments
- 83,312 views
- 3,656
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Every accusation is a confession with certain groups of people.
I wouldn't wish having Walsh for a dad on anybody, let alone someone who's non-cis.
Last edited:
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 3,656
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Florida Sen. Blaise Ingoglia wants to 'cancel the Democratic Party' for previously supporting slavery
A Florida lawmaker has filed a bill that would call on the state to cancel the filings of any political party that "has previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery."
www.wptv.com
Mental. Illness.
This bitch cries about "cancel culture" (BOO!!!--it is a bogeyman in the same vein as "political correctness" [BOO!!!], after all) while, as conservatives so often do, willfully disregarding the fact that "cancel culture" (BOO!!!) is, fundamentally, free exercise of the right to expression, association, and property. "Cancel culture" (BOO!!!) notably lacks the legitimate state action that this bitch is swinging. Conservatives should recognize this fact because they don't hesitate to use what they so often decry as "cancel culture" (BOO!!!) when it suits their interests.
Do remember that Democrats in the time of slavery were themselves conservatives and even waved the "states' rights" flag that conservatives wave today (only when it suits them, of course--seeking federal enforcement of favored causes, like the drug war and federal abortion prohibition proposals) against Lincoln's strong federal government.
Oh and if you've been around this subforum at least a few years and you recall similar sentiment espoused here, your memory doesn't fail you. Compare the connie bitchfit cited in the article above with these remarks:
Practically verbatim. Quelle surprise.
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
TX Rep. Slaton Wants To End Taxes for People With Ten or More Children
State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Greenville) has filed House Bill 2889, which would roll back all property taxes for Texans with ten children. With more than $30 billion in surplus tax revenue being bartered about in this session of the Texas Legislature, top Republicans have made it clear that some...
Alluded to in the article ["Slaton has spent much of his time in the state legislature tacking on various anti-LGBT amendments to bills as part of his ideological crusade."] but not stated explicitly, H.B. 2889 ("Homestead Tax Credit for Certain Married Couples") grants this legal right only to couples consisting of a man and a woman (these terms are curiously undefined in the text of the bill, but are likely subject to conservative culture war definitions), and couples in which one or both individuals were previously divorced are ineligible. Only counted are children who were born or adopted after the couple were married, or those born to one of the two who is a widow and was subsequently adopted by the other after marriage. Also ineligible are otherwise qualifying married couples who are not homeowners. It's a cornucopia of state discrimination.
Eligibility for the credit is subject to an annual family audit and homestead appraisal. If either dies after approval for the tax credit, the surviving individual remains eligible for the credit as long as they remain unmarried. If one or more children of a qualifying family dies, the deceased are no longer counted and credit decreases accordingly.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
Equal protection under the law... for heterosexual married people who have not filed for divorce and own a home.TX Rep. Slaton Wants To End Taxes for People With Ten or More Children
State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Greenville) has filed House Bill 2889, which would roll back all property taxes for Texans with ten children. With more than $30 billion in surplus tax revenue being bartered about in this session of the Texas Legislature, top Republicans have made it clear that some...www.houstonpress.com
Alluded to in the article ["Slaton has spent much of his time in the state legislature tacking on various anti-LGBT amendments to bills as part of his ideological crusade."] but not stated explicitly, H.B. 2889 ("Homestead Tax Credit for Certain Married Couples") grants this legal right only to couples consisting of a man and a woman (these terms are curiously undefined in the text of the bill, but are likely subject to conservative culture war definitions), and couples in which one or both individuals were previously divorced are ineligible. Only counted are children who were born or adopted after the couple were married, or those born to one of the two who is a widow and was subsequently adopted by the other after marriage. Also ineligible are otherwise qualifying married couples who are not homeowners. It's a cornucopia of state discrimination.
Eligibility for the credit is subject to an annual family audit and homestead appraisal. If either dies after approval for the tax credit, the surviving individual remains eligible for the credit as long as they remain unmarried. If one or more children of a qualifying family dies, the deceased are no longer counted and credit decreases accordingly.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
Last edited:
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
So last Thursday, Bill Lee, the right trash, rat trash governor of Tennessee, signed into law S.B. 3, criminalizing drag performances in public and in venues where children may be present.
As shown above, though, S.B. 3 doesn't actually mention drag explicitly. The bill amends Tennessee Code defining "adult cabaret performance[s]" to include "male or female performers who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest." Said performances are thereby deemed to be obscene.
"Prurient interest" seems pulled from the ruling in Miller v. California, current Supreme Court precedent on obscenity not benefitting from First Amendment protections, but as the law is written and was passed, hits quite wide of the mark. Miller gave us a substantive test for obscenity which includes, with all relevant context, circumstances in which "'the average person, applying contemporary community standards,' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." That something simply appeals to prurient interest isn't sufficient under this prong. What's more, the test includes two more prongs ("whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law" and "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"), and that a single prong is satisfied, which it certainly isn't with regard to this law, isn't sufficient to prohibit expressive acts. All three prongs must be satisfied to be considered obscene and subject to prohibition.
This law is plainly unconstitutional and Republicans in the Tennessee state senate (the final roll call before the bill was sent up was 26-6 with no Republicans voting against and no Democrats voting in support) and the executive simply don't care because the vermin are motivated by conservative culture war grievance and moral panic.
Mental illness.
Last edited:
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I think that's absolutely fair. There's also repeated fruitless legal efforts following the 2020 election to delegitimize the judicial system. But I think Trump is a symptom in addition to a problem, and the authoritarian bent so present for a long time can now more comfortably be shown.
- 2,851
- Australia
It's intriguing to me that once upon time a "conservative" attitude dictated that not only was it ok for men to dress as "women" but that it could only be men dressed as "women" for stage performances. To me, it looks like it's still just seeking to control what's feared. Topically, it's basically opposite - but in principle, it's ultimately the same. That the expression of it could be opposite in different contexts all the more leads me to not care about opposing "conservatism" but rather care about opposing all forms of unjust/unjustified control. Seems that's what's in play here.
- 2,156
- United Kingdom
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
I'm not so sure that it's as much fear-based as is assumed. I think it's based more in judgment. Certain activities are deemed "wrong" and someone who participates in them is dehumanized and worthy of hate. If we're going deep here, maybe it's a level of self-hatred and a misguided desire to fight, destroy, crush, annihilate the things we don't like. That's how they've learned to deal with things they dislike, to fight them. To beat them out of existence.
I don't think a lot of conservatives fear men dressing or behaving in "non-masculine" ways. But I do think they consider it "wrong" and worthy of violence to correct.
Last edited:
- 2,156
- United Kingdom
That makes sense, although the next question is what decides what is "wrong", as @LeMansAid's example shows.
EDIT: Could it also be fair to say that conservatives tend to rely more on fear in their rhetoric, even if it isn't the instinct for their "reaction".
EDIT 2: Could feelings of inadequacy be a common theme....
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
Usually "different" = "wrong". But also things which they do identify with and have learned to feel shame for.
- 28,803
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
In which the Tennessee House of Representatives passes a bill to allow state actors to deprive disfavored groups of the legal right to marriage.
www.hrc.org
H.B. 878 amends the Tennessee Code to include a provision indicating those who may solemnize marriage--which includes active government officers ("all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors")--"shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person's conscience or religious beliefs."
While the state may not certify religious belief, the inclusion of conscience...or "vibes"...completely bypasses the notion that a belief must be sincerely held. No private actor should be compelled to render such a service for any reason, fine, but that a state actor may deprive Americans of a legal right absolutely runs afoul of the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause.
Every rat trash Republican in the state's House, which is every Republican in the state's House, as it happens, voted for the bill and they were joined by a single rat trash Democrat, a Rep. Dwayne Thompson. Whether ol' D-bag holds conservative views on marriage or is just plain stupid, I don't know. I suppose it doesn't actually matter.
Also passed in the Tennessee House was H.B. 30, a bill to amend the Tennessee Code relevant to "adult cabaret entertainment" defined as "entertainment suitable for mature audiences, including entertainment erotic in nature, and featuring go-go dancers, exotic dancers, topless dancers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainer," requiring performers to be permitted by the state to exhibit expression, with no distinction made for the presence of minors or lack thereof.
Obviously that which is suitable only for mature audiences is subjective, as even "maturity" is subjective, but note that other exhibitions which may be reasonably said to be only so suitable, such as stand-up comedy or live theater, aren't conditioned on issuance of a permit as male or female impersonators would be under this amended code.
Expression isn't free if it's conditioned on the issuance of a permit, and as has been the case as of late, no specific legitimate harm prevented or remedied by enforcement of this code is indicated.
H.B. 30 passed in the state House on strict partisan lines, with only rat trash Republicans voting in support.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
Human Rights Campaign: Tennessee Continues Obsession with Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation with House Passage of Religious Refusal Bill and Second Anti-Drag Bill
HB 30 Requires Drag Artists to Obtain Permit Before Performing; HB 878 Allows Government Employees Whose Job Includes Solemnizing Marriages to Refuse to Marry Any Couples Based on Religious Beliefs
While the state may not certify religious belief, the inclusion of conscience...or "vibes"...completely bypasses the notion that a belief must be sincerely held. No private actor should be compelled to render such a service for any reason, fine, but that a state actor may deprive Americans of a legal right absolutely runs afoul of the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause.
Every rat trash Republican in the state's House, which is every Republican in the state's House, as it happens, voted for the bill and they were joined by a single rat trash Democrat, a Rep. Dwayne Thompson. Whether ol' D-bag holds conservative views on marriage or is just plain stupid, I don't know. I suppose it doesn't actually matter.
Also passed in the Tennessee House was H.B. 30, a bill to amend the Tennessee Code relevant to "adult cabaret entertainment" defined as "entertainment suitable for mature audiences, including entertainment erotic in nature, and featuring go-go dancers, exotic dancers, topless dancers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainer," requiring performers to be permitted by the state to exhibit expression, with no distinction made for the presence of minors or lack thereof.
Obviously that which is suitable only for mature audiences is subjective, as even "maturity" is subjective, but note that other exhibitions which may be reasonably said to be only so suitable, such as stand-up comedy or live theater, aren't conditioned on issuance of a permit as male or female impersonators would be under this amended code.
Expression isn't free if it's conditioned on the issuance of a permit, and as has been the case as of late, no specific legitimate harm prevented or remedied by enforcement of this code is indicated.
H.B. 30 passed in the state House on strict partisan lines, with only rat trash Republicans voting in support.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
At the moment that runs counter to Obergefell does it not? I'd imagine this just sits on the pile of so many other pieces of legislation that Obergefell nullified but haven't been repealed. I wonder if this is intended to be taken to the supreme court to overturn Obergefell. I kinda doubt it given that it has so many other obvious problems (like the due process issue you pointed out).In which the Tennessee House of Representatives passes a bill to allow state actors to deprive disfavored groups of the legal right to marriage.
H.B. 878 amends the Tennessee Code to include a provision indicating those who may solemnize marriage--which includes active government officers ("all members of the county legislative bodies, county mayors, judges, chancellors")--"shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person's conscience or religious beliefs."Human Rights Campaign: Tennessee Continues Obsession with Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation with House Passage of Religious Refusal Bill and Second Anti-Drag Bill
HB 30 Requires Drag Artists to Obtain Permit Before Performing; HB 878 Allows Government Employees Whose Job Includes Solemnizing Marriages to Refuse to Marry Any Couples Based on Religious Beliefs
While the state may not certify religious belief, the inclusion of conscience...or "vibes"...completely bypasses the notion that a belief must be sincerely held. No private actor should be compelled to render such a service for any reason, fine, but that a state actor may deprive Americans of a legal right absolutely runs afoul of the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause.
Every rat trash Republican in the state's House, which is every Republican in the state's House, as it happens, voted for the bill and they were joined by a single rat trash Democrat, a Rep. Dwayne Thompson. Whether ol' D-bag holds conservative views on marriage or is just plain stupid, I don't know. I suppose it doesn't actually matter.
Female impersonators... could I do that with a walk? How about raising my voice a bit?
