Conservatism

How would they be judged, or how should they be judged? The answer to your question you can see in historical newspapers. It's been done. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has been going on for decades, there are numerous cases of aggression outside of explicit wars.
I think the more necessary question is how they should be judged, especially since this is stemming from the question of if use of force is justified against individuals involved in prohibiting abortion.

Should we be applauding armed struggle, and therefore concluding that it is the morally right thing to do for Palestinians as argued here? Which parameters should we then base it on, and would it make Israeli police and soldiers all complicit in violating the rights of a population and hence violence against them a form of resistance and not just bare naked terrorism.

Was it the "right" thing to do in apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow America....

"I'm wholly incapable of--and disinterested in--good faith engagement, and so I'm compelled to acknowledge rights violations of individuals and subsequently frame defense against those violations as an act of aggression. This certainly isn't the first time I've been so compelled and it's unlikely to be the last."
Isn't that the debate though - how it would be framed/legitimised.

If a pregnant person guns down a "pro-life" politician, would it not be seen as an aggressive act? You equate it with rape, but that is self-defence against a violent, aggressive action whereas the former is instigating violence in the hopes of dissuading a violation of their rights.

I'm not convinced that there's no distinction at all, which is where the use of the word comes from.
 
I think the more necessary question is how they should be judged, especially since this is stemming from the question of if use of force is justified against individuals involved in prohibiting abortion.

Should we be applauding armed struggle, and therefore concluding that it is the morally right thing to do for Palestinians as argued here? Which parameters should we then base it on, and would it make Israeli police and soldiers all complicit in violating the rights of a population and hence violence against them a form of resistance and not just bare naked terrorism.

Was it the "right" thing to do in apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow America....
I think there's been more than enough information provided already for you to answer those questions. Questions that are honestly pretty basic. Apartheid? Jim Crow? Are you serious?

The fact that you're still framing these as questions makes me very suspicious. You seem to be trying very hard to walk away from the obvious answer, under a massive umbrella of "just asking questions". The examples you've chosen are not only a big red flag, but one with a massive white circle in the middle with a swastika in it.

How about you stop asking questions and start providing your own position and justifications?
Isn't that the debate though - how it would be framed/legitimised.
No.

That was the question of "would" vs "should". You said it was about how should they be judged, and now you're saying it's not again.

Get your story straight. Is it about the truth, or is it about perceptions?
 
Last edited:
How about you stop asking questions and start providing your own position and justifications?
So, back in the Human Rights thread I gave this response:

Non-violent resistance when faced with such problems has been vindicated throughout history (e.g MLK and Gandhi).

I don't know if the initiation of violence, up to and including lethal force is the moral thing to do when there hasn't been a violent act perpetrated on the victim of the rights violation. It seems a simple comparison at a glance - bodily autonomy from abortion restriction vs rape, but killing someone seems an escalation that I'm not (yet) convinced is morally sound.

Ditto with the killings referenced in the al jazeera article I posted.

Maybe I see it as a rubicon that needs a higher justification than some here.

But could it then be applied to other rights violations, such as those denied the opportunity to seek asylum?

I don't think you've given a position on TexRex's question that initiated this and would be interested in that.

Get your story straight. Is it about the truth, or is it about perceptions?
Sorry, confused what you mean here. What truth are you talking about?

That response you quoted was in reference to the use of the word "aggression"
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the initiation of violence, up to and including lethal force is the moral thing to do when there hasn't been a violent act perpetrated on the victim of the rights violation.
Reasonable. People might differ depending on the circumstance, but it's an understandable position.

So why are you trying to apply this to situations where violence is inherent to the conflict? Israel/Gaza, apartheid, Jim Crow, these are all state policies of disenfranchisement and inequality backed by and enforced with violence.

Gazans/Palestinians, black South Africans, and black Americans weren't initiating violence, they were responding to the violence used against them by the state that is/was in de facto control of the territory in which they live.

Which is why these situations are not sensible comparisons to abortion rights. While denying someone an abortion can kill them just as dead as a rifle can, the implementation of the "violence" of abortion denial is subtle and diffuse. It does not lend itself as well to direct response the way that an invading or occupying force does.

As such, it's probably worth not conflating abortion rights with what appears to be actual genocide. These are separate problems and they should not be treated the same way.
 
Last edited:
Reasonable. People might differ depending on the circumstance, but it's an understandable position.

So why are you trying to apply this to situations where violence is inherent to the conflict? Israel/Gaza, apartheid, Jim Crow, these are all state policies of disenfranchisement and inequality backed by and enforced with violence.

Gazans/Palestinians, black South Africans, and black Americans weren't initiating violence, they were responding to the violence used against them by the state that is/was in de facto control of the territory in which they live.

Which is why these situations are not sensible comparisons to abortion rights. While denying someone an abortion can kill them just as dead as a rifle can, the implementation of the "violence" of abortion denial is subtle and diffuse. It does not lend itself as well to direct response the way that an invading or occupying force does.

As such, it's probably worth not conflating abortion rights with what appears to be actual genocide. These are separate problems and they should not be treated the same way.
Because you turn a corner when resorting to violence, even when it is a last resort to protect your rights. And can those Palestinian attacks on police and soldiers always be claimed as responding to and not initiating violence?

This piece articulates the effects much better than I could, but in essence you're affecting your moral authority over the oppressors, and potentially setting up problems for the future in terms of how communities function together and how you then address different problems.

Again I ask, would those who are denied their right to claim asylum be allowed, morally to attack those responsible for such restrictions? Arguably they could be under greater threat to life than those seeking an abortion.
 
Last edited:
Because you turn a corner when resorting to violence, even when it is a last resort to protect your rights. And can those Palestinian attacks on police and soldiers always be claimed as responding to and not initiating violence?
In an occupied territory? Yes.
This piece articulates the effects much better than I could, but in essence you're affecting your moral authority over the oppressors, and potentially setting up problems for the future in terms of how communities function together and how you then address different problems.
Right, but that's not then a question of whether you were justified to use force. It's a question of what is the most effective strategy to achieve the outcomes that you want. Just because you may be justified to use force doesn't mean that it's the best solution. If Conor McGregor swings a punch at me I'm more than justified to swing back. It's probably a much dumber idea than running like a mother ****er though.

For some reason you seem to imply that if you can use violence you should. I disagree. There are two parts to consider - is violence justified and is it an effective solution to the problem that you face?

There are many situations in which you may be justified in using violence, and it is still not desirable. I suspect that abortion rights is one of them. Violence may be justified depending on the situation (eg. a mother who will die if she does not receive an abortion), but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best choice for individuals or for groups in either the short or long term.

But because abortion rights is a nuanced and complex situation that covers everything from frozen embryos to ectopic pregnancies to rape victims, I don't think that there's a one-size-fits-all answer to "is it acceptable to use violence?" or "is using violence an effective way to instigate change?" It is, like many complex things in life, situational and personal.
Again I ask, would those who are denied their right to claim asylum be allowed, morally to attack those responsible for such restrictions? Arguably they could be under greater threat to life than those seeking an abortion.
Given your previous poor choice of analogies, I decline to equate claiming asylum with abortion rights. If you think they're the same and that discussing asylum would be more fruitful than just discussing abortion directly, then you'll have to convince me.

I think you're going to extraordinary lengths to avoid simply discussing the topic at hand. Why not just talk about abortion rights instead of constantly reaching for analogies?
 
"Denying asylum is worse than abortion prohibitions, actually."

Connie rats: "Consent shmonsent."

Why are conservatives so wont to ignore others consent anyway? To paraphrase that once fat bitch and present rotting corpse Rush Limbaugh, "consent is the last moral for the left; you can do anything you want so long as there's consent, but as soon as anyone doesn't, here comes the rape police."
 
In an occupied territory? Yes.

Right, but that's not then a question of whether you were justified to use force. It's a question of what is the most effective strategy to achieve the outcomes that you want. Just because you may be justified to use force doesn't mean that it's the best solution. If Conor McGregor swings a punch at me I'm more than justified to swing back. It's probably a much dumber idea than running like a mother ****er though.

For some reason you seem to imply that if you can use violence you should. I disagree. There are two parts to consider - is violence justified and is it an effective solution to the problem that you face?
I'm going to read up some more on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before answering this point.
There are many situations in which you may be justified in using violence, and it is still not desirable. I suspect that abortion rights is one of them. Violence may be justified depending on the situation (eg. a mother who will die if she does not receive an abortion), but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best choice for individuals or for groups in either the short or long term.

But because abortion rights is a nuanced and complex situation that covers everything from frozen embryos to ectopic pregnancies to rape victims, I don't think that there's a one-size-fits-all answer to "is it acceptable to use violence?" or "is using violence an effective way to instigate change?" It is, like many complex things in life, situational and personal.
Right, which is where I'm hesitating on what the bar is for violence to be considered justifiable when speaking about abortion.
Given your previous poor choice of analogies, I decline to equate claiming asylum with abortion rights. If you think they're the same and that discussing asylum would be more fruitful than just discussing abortion directly, then you'll have to convince me.
They're not the same. My point is, this is another example of a human rights violation.

What are we looking at when we decide if violence would be an appropriate response.
I think you're going to extraordinary lengths to avoid simply discussing the topic at hand. Why not just talk about abortion rights instead of constantly reaching for analogies?
I spoke more about this in the Human Rights thread.

"Denying asylum is worse than abortion prohibitions, actually."
Never said that - see above.
 
I spoke more about this in the Human Rights thread.
I'm not trawling all over the site to collect your comments on the off-chance that they might be relevant. If you have something appropriate to say in response to me, then say it. Don't send me on a treasure hunt.
 
JR Majewski, a controversial GOP House candidate in Ohio, is refusing to drop out of the race after referring to Special Olympics participants as "****ing retarded."

"After carefully considering the pressure and attacks by the Washington Establishment Machine, my family and I have decided that there is no mission more important than continuing this race and standing strong for the patriots I committed to fight for," Majewski said in a defiant statement on Wednesday.
I'm with the machines on this one.

ohio.jpg


Just level the entire state. There's nothing of value there.
 
"I will not be threatened!", cries Majewski as the local GOP censures his moronic belligerence.

Funny he should say that as he looks like a fat version of this guy:

Djf-zdQUYAAhPkQ.jpg_large.jpg
 
I'm not trawling all over the site to collect your comments on the off-chance that they might be relevant. If you have something appropriate to say in response to me, then say it. Don't send me on a treasure hunt.
There was a discussion as to who could be considered culpable, and then about how abortion prohibition is a violation of rights.

Since rape is a violation of bodily integrity through force, there's no doubt about the use of force, even including lethal force in self defence.

Where the disagreement arose was whether similar force could be used when a pregnant person was in a situation where their rights were being denied. I believed that any actors who may be targeted would only have an indirect relationship to the instance where the person was having their rights violated, and so was reticent to say violence would be warranted (even though the more vocal supporters can be easily identified).

The comparison with those unable to even try and claim asylum was because if the allowance of violence was to prevent the rights violation, could a similar argument be made for those denied their right to claim asylum.
 
Come out of "Connie vermin/nativist parasite" mode for a minute.

Consider what really happens, in the real world.

You could convince people that someone is morally justified in force against Lila Rose....but what about the other extremes of the debate. Most people think abortion at any stage of gestation later stages of gestation should still be prohibited (wrongly) - so would an advocate for keeping the laws (if high upper limits exist) be as legitimate a target as Rose?

Then what about ownership of your body when deciding on transgender therapy options as a minor, and those curtailing such rights?
 
Last edited:
Come out of "Connie vermin/nativist parasite" mode for a minute.

Consider what really happens, in the real world.

You could convince people that someone is morally justified in force against Lila Rose....but what about the other extremes of the debate. Most people think abortion at any stage of gestation should still be prohibited (wrongly) - so would an advocate for keeping the laws (if high upper limits exist) be as legitimate a target as Rose?

Then what about ownership of your body when deciding on transgender therapy options as a minor, and those curtailing such rights?
Voting is not a rights violation, it is speech. Telling someone, including the government, that you think xyz should happen, even if that is immoral, is not a rights violation.

What the government does with that speech can be a rights violation. If the government violates human rights, even due to speech, it is still a rights violation. Also, in the US at least, most people do NOT think abortion at any stage should be prohibited.
 
Last edited:
Voting is not a rights violation, it is speech. Telling someone, including the government, that you think xyz should happen, even if that is immoral, is not a rights violation.

What the government does with that speech can be a rights violation. If the government violates human rights, even due to speech, it is still a rights violation. Also, in the US at least, most people do NOT think abortion at any stage should be prohibited.
Ah, I was basing it on this and meant to say later stages:

 
Come out of "Connie vermin/nativist parasite" mode for a minute.
lol. No. I call things as I see them.

On the topic of connie vermin and nativist parasites (okay so this particular Venn diagram is likely to be one big circle):
Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill on Monday afternoon that would have allowed state and local law enforcement to arrest people they believe to be in the country illegally.

In her short veto letter, Hobbs told state lawmakers that the bill did nothing to “secure our border, will be harmful for communities and business in our state, and burdensome for law enforcement personnel and the state judicial system.”

She also said it presented “significant constitutional concerns.”

Hobbs’ veto came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court put a similar Texas law on hold that was set to go into effect at the end of the week.

State Senator Janae Shamp, the sponsor of the Arizona bill, quickly criticized Hobbs’ veto.

“The Legislature did its job to protect our citizens, but Governor Hobbs failed to do hers. Vetoing the Arizona Border Invasion Act is a prime example of the chaos Hobbs is unleashing in our state while perpetuating this open border crisis as Biden's accomplice,” Shamp wrote in a news release.

Hobbs’ staff told AZPM last week that the Governor was likely to veto the proposal.
The bill passed on strict partisan lines in both of the state's legislative chambers, with Republicans holding slim majorities in each, and is unlikely to garner a 2/3 majority to overcome the governor's veto.
 
The newest episode of 60 Minutes should be used by mainstream media as a blueprint for how to responsibly cover far-right ”parental rights” group Moms for Liberty.

Too often, Moms for Liberty and its co-founders have received coddling rather than questioning from mainstream media outlets. In many interviews, Moms for Liberty representatives mischaracterized the group’s activities without meaningful pushback from reporters. Critical details were omitted, including Moms for Liberty’s routine harassment, extremism, and violent threats directed at librarians, teachers, and school officials.

It’s likely that Moms for Liberty was expecting standard media coddling, because the moment 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley began asking even softball clarification questions, co-founders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich visibly fumbled.

At one point in the interview, Descovich asserted that “there are rogue teachers in America’s classrooms right now,” followed by Justice repeating a classic Moms for Liberty talking point: “Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology.”

Pelley asked, “What ideology are they being indoctrinated into?”

Descovich jumped in with a non-answer, “Let’s just say children in America cannot read.”

Instead of dropping the question, Pelley highlighted their evasiveness and continued to ask, “What ideology are the children being indoctrinated into?” No answer.

Justice’s fearmongering claim that children are being “indoctrinated into ideology,” followed by her inability to actually articulate what ideology she was referencing, is representative of Moms for Liberty’s overall strategy of creating fear about something the group can’t even identify.

Pelley later asked Justice and Descovich about Moms for Liberty’s frequent use of the extremist smear “groomer” to describe those that disagree with the group’s activities, ranging from librarians to, well, us.

Pelley wasn’t asking hardball questions, but Justice and Descovich were clearly unprepared for even the slightest bit of pushback. Unsurprisingly, right-wing media are already scrambling to vilify 60 Minutes and conduct damage control for Moms for Liberty.

Justice appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room the day after the interview aired and accused Pelley of dishonestly editing the segment. Justice then spoke with Fox News Digital, claiming that the interview was “heavily edited” and they were “censored” by CBS News. Newsmax host Rob Schmitt said 60 Minutes was “advocating for the LGBTQ agenda in schools” and described the segment as “biased.” BlazeTV’s The Steve Deace Show jumped to defend Moms for Liberty’s use of “groomer.” Megyn Kelly — who previously hosted a Moms for Liberty fundraiser — blasted Pelley for the interview, saying he “failed America’s children'” and calling him “disgusting.”

Despite these protests from right-wing media, 60 Minutes showed that it took minimal prodding for Pelley to unmask Moms for Liberty’s façade and expose the group's strategy for what it is — loudly repeating empty talking points about right-wing boogeymen like “critical race theory” or accusations of “groomers” in schools, all intentionally crafted to mobilize its extremist base. However, the illusion is shattered when its leaders are pressed for details because their boogeymen aren’t real.
lol

"Unsurprisingly, right-wing media are already scrambling to vilify 60 Minutes and conduct damage control for Moms for Liberty.

Justice appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room the day after the interview aired and accused Pelley of dishonestly editing the segment. Justice then spoke with Fox News Digital, claiming that the interview was 'heavily edited' and they were 'censored' by CBS News. Newsmax host Rob Schmitt said 60 Minutes was 'advocating for the LGBTQ agenda in schools' and described the segment as 'biased.' BlazeTV’s The Steve Deace Show jumped to defend Moms for Liberty’s use of 'groomer.' Megyn Kelly — who previously hosted a Moms for Liberty fundraiser — blasted Pelley for the interview, saying he 'failed America’s children' and calling him 'disgusting.'"


 
LOL, this "we have gay members" response has real "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are Black" energy. 60 minutes of appeal to majority.

 
Last edited:
The neverending story...

End Wokeness has led a horde of right wing influencers in calling for a boycott of Doritos after the company's Spainsh division distributed a 50-second video on Instagram featuring a transwoman who made an edgy tweet when she was fourteen for which she later apologised.

Doritos have deleted the video and cut ties with her. I bet that won't stop the cancellers though now that their blood is up.


Screenshot_20240306-182949.png
 
Last edited:
lol. No. I call things as I see them.
But then, wouldn't that include a significant amount of the population?

As said before, most people are in favour of certain limits on abortion, and most believe a yearly cap on immigration numbers is sensible. Does that make them "vermin" and "parasites"?

If a politician voted for laws that had even a high upper limit for abortion access, could use of force against them be morally justified?
 
Ah.
CANDACE OWENS (HOST): Well, I'm going to be honest with you that these claims keep coming up too often in Hollywood for me to be comfortable with it. Right? We saw this — obviously, it's not just now the Diddy lawsuit, it's not just now Michael Jackson we also have seen these claims with Kanye West notoriously, obviously, when he tweeted out, I'm about to go Defcon 3 on some Jews. And the media freaked out, and people in the Jewish community were, understandably, very scared not knowing what he meant. And I very much abstained from speaking much about the issue because people were so emotional that people couldn't hear even if I had shared. And even when Kanye did share that he was speaking about specific people in Hollywood that he believed were coming after him and were trying to control him — he actually named some of those individuals. He shared personal text messages of a friend of his, a personal trainer to the stars, who, again, happens to be Jewish, was threatening to put him in the hospital and to drug him against his will.

...

And here's what else I will tell you, when that Kanye situation went down, I was being threatened by a person named Rabbi Shmuley, a person that Michael Jackson put on his enemy list. A person that I had never heard of was threatening me and saying that unless I came out and said things explicitly against Kanye, he would effectively ruin my life. He said that he would take out a front page ad and smear me as an antisemite. And it wasn't just him, it was also his daughter. They're messaging me saying, don't mess with Jews. Very bizarre stuff, and they have not stopped, to be clear. And him and his daughter have consistently pulled clips from this show, taken them out of context, and tried to convince Jewish people that I hate them.

...

OWENS: It's utterly ridiculous. It's insane. I know many Jewish people watch this show. Many Jewish people are my friends. And so what I believe is something that should be explored is whether or not what's happening is that, just like within all communities, there are gangs. Right? Gangs can form. We understand this. In a Black community, we've got the Bloods and we've got the Crips. Well, imagine if the Bloods and the Crips were doing horrific things — murdering people, controlling people with blackmail, and then every time a person spoke out about it, the Bloods and the Crips would call those people racist, would get the media to say those people were racist. Any person that was talking about a specific gang, a small group of people would say, oh my God. No, no, no, no. That's like slavery. You can't at all say anything bad about the Bloods and the Crips, and the entire Black community believed it and was scared and thought, oh my God. Like, is slavery actually coming back? It would be emotional manipulation because, of course, we would know that despite the fact that the Bloods and Crips are Black, that the majority of Black people do not support the crimes that they have committed. The crimes that they continue to commit. It's a gang.

What if that is what is happening right now in Hollywood, if there is just a very small ring of specific people who are using the fact that they are Jewish to shield themselves from any criticism? It's food for thought. Right? And I think, again, there have been enough people that are speaking out about a ring in Hollywood, also a ring potentially in D.C., that we should start to ask those questions, all of us - Black, Spanish, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, all Americans should want answers because this appears to be something that is quite sinister.
 
Conservatives: "Children can't legally consent."

Also conservatives: "You're a child until we say otherwise."

Florida celebrated International Women's Day last week by treating the state's young women like children. On Friday, state lawmakers approved a bill banning 18- to 20-year-olds from being strippers or from working in any other capacity at an adult entertainment venue.

Like a similar bill passed in Texas in 2021, the Florida bill claims to be a blow against human trafficking. As with so many attempts to "protect" people from sex work, this one has major potential to backfire and make abuse and exploitation worse.

It's also part of a growing movement across the U.S. to push up the boundaries of childhood, making all sorts of things once legal for 18- to 20-year-olds now off limits.

Under the new measure, Florida adults under age 21 will be barred from working at strip clubs, burlesque establishments, adult bookstores, or any other businesses that fit under Florida's definition of adult entertainment. Currently, people can do so legally upon turning 18.

On March 5, the Florida Senate voted nearly unanimously to raise this minimum age to 21. Only three senators voted no. A few days later, only three members of the Florida House voted against it.

The measure is now with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. If he signs it, the law will take effect July 1.

Young adult strippers and adult venue staff would not themselves be subject to penalty. Rather, the bill would make it a crime to knowingly employ, contract with, or otherwise permit someone under age 21 to work in these businesses.

Doing so would be a second-degree felony—punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000 if the young person shows any part of their butt, (female) breast, pubic area, or genitals "with less than a fully opaque covering," or shows "covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state." It would be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment of up to a year and/or a fine of up to $1,000, if the young person remains fully clothed.

And it doesn't matter if an establishment is tricked by a fake ID.

"For purposes of this section, a person's ignorance of another person's age or a person's misrepresentation of his or her age may not be raised as a defense in a prosecution for a violation of this section," the bill states. (It also says the employment must be done "knowingly," so it's unclear exactly how these two standards can coexist, unless you take knowingly to simply mean "you knew the person worked there" but not necessarily "you knew they were under 21.")

A person who uses a fake ID to get a job wouldn't be punished at all, mind you; only the folks who fail to catch this deception are in trouble. It's a topsy-turvy view of criminal liability, in which someone who intends to break the law is innocent and someone trying to follow it is guilty.

Basically, the only way for an adult business to avoid liability under this law is to run background checks on all workers or contractors or avoid allowing anyone who seems even remotely young to work.

Worse still, liability doesn't stop at the person who does the hiring or runs the business: It extends to "an owner, a manager, an employee, or a contractor" who lets the young adult work. Theoretically, this means anyone employed at a strip club where an under-21-year-old worker slipped through the cracks could be liable for not reporting it.

Florida lawmakers say the measure is meant to stop sex trafficking. (Sex trafficking is legally defined as prostitution involving force, fraud, coercion, or minors.) Young adults working at strip clubs are "likely to be trafficked and sold into prostitution and sex slavery," Rep. David Borrero (R–Doral) said during legislative debate. "We ought to be on the side of young girls who are barely legal."

But neither Doral nor anyone else marshaled evidence that strip clubs are sites of "sex slavery," nor that requiring strippers to be 21 or older could put a dent in this supposed scourge.

Even if sex trafficking is an issue at strip clubs, it's unclear by what mechanism barring young adults from stripping would stop it. The whole thing with criminals is that they don't tend to care what the law says. Are we really supposed to believe that someone willing to force someone else into prostitution will suddenly stop because their victim can't legally work at a strip club?

If a young woman is being coerced into sex work, she will almost certainly still be victimized after this law takes effect. But now that will take place in a more private venue, with fewer people around who might help the victim.

Likewise, if a young woman is independently determined to do sex work, this likely won't stop her. But instead of working in a relatively safe setting such as an official strip club, she may choose to work at an underground venue go into full-service sex work (which is illegal) instead. That is, she'll turn to black market options that increase the likelihood of exploitation or abuse.

I've heard people argue that the issue is actually underage people working in strip clubs, and that raising the minimum age will make it easier to stop this. But again, no one produces evidence that underage strippers are really an issue.

In any event, cops are still going to have to investigate people's actual ages to suss out the validity of any reports that a stripper looks too young. Only now, "too young" will be an expanded category, giving authorities more impetus to drop in for age checks.

In short: Laws like these do nothing to plausibly "stop human trafficking," and they may make it worse. Meanwhile they give the authorities more power to police strip clubs and the people who work at them. Even when a business isn't doing anything wrong, cops can always claim a "tip" that someone looked young to go in and check the identities of people working there.

And there's an even simpler reason why these laws are no good: They impinge on the freedom of young adults for no good reason. Just because some people would prefer a society where no 19-year-old tries to dance sexy for money, it doesn't follow that no 19-year-old should have the right to do so.

"This is just another way for women to be controlled," said Rep. Michele Rayner (D–St. Petersburg) during the debate about the bill last week.

It's also another way to keep defining adulthood up, so that people previously granted most of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood are increasingly defined as legally and morally equivalent to children. These days, 18- to 20-year-olds are often barred not only from drinking legally but also smoking, stripping, and vaping.

These bans should be successful, considering how well the minimum drinking age has stopped young people from consuming alcohol…right? AHAHAHAHA. If anything, setting a minimum age of 21 to legally purchase or drink alcohol has made alcohol consumption among young people more risky. But like the people who look at the failed war on drugs and think we just need to drug war harder, some people see the disaster that is banning college students and other young adults from drinking and think: Yeah, let's try that with more things.

It's madness. But infantilization of young adults is all the rage these days. And then we wonder why so many of them are depressed, anxious, or convinced it's everyone else's job to make them feel "safe."
 
If there had been any doubt that the Judicial Conference made the right move ordering districts to randomly assign judges to cases seeking national injunctions, the unhinged rage from prominent right-wing judges should clear that right up.

While federal courts randomly assign cases to the judges in the courthouse, in geographically expansive districts with far-flung outposts there might be a single judge in the building, obviating the illusion of randomness. And that presented an opportunity for cynical actors to plop requests to halt the functioning of the entire federal government upon a one-judge courthouse occupied by someone sitting by sole virtue of their MAGA patronage. It’s exactly how mifepristone got banned across the country when activists dropped their lawsuit against the Biden administration in totally logical Amarillo.

In the interest of quelling fears of improper forum-shopping, the new rule says that cases seeking national (or statewide) injunctions cannot automatically be assigned to the courthouse where they’re filed, but must be randomly assigned in a process that includes all the judges in the district.

Seems beyond fair. So obviously… GRRRRRRR!
But [Judge Edith] Jones in an email pointed to a federal statute that gives district courts control over the allocation of cases on their dockets.

“Aside from many complications spawned by this new policy, and the fact that complaints started with the patent docket, not about ‘federal’ cases, it appears to conflict with that law,” she said.

[Judge James] Ho said if “reformers are sincerely troubled by venue shopping, they can start by examining the serious concerns that have been voiced about our Nation’s bankruptcy and patent dockets.”
Reform is illegal… also this reform should be about bankruptcy and patent cases? These people can’t complete a sentence without contradicting themselves. But, more importantly, there’s a reason why this rule didn’t reach those other areas and — psst, Jones and Ho, the call is coming from inside your circuit!

Back in 2022, after the Waco division suffered a deluge of patent litigation, the Western District of Texas issued an order to randomly assign patent cases across the district. Almost as if, in these non-politically charged cases, the local courts can figure out how to deal with forum shopping on their own. And maybe the reason for a national rule stems from the existence of bad faith actors on certain courts.

The sort of bad faith actors who would run around whining about random assignment.
 
Conservative is when you cry like a little bitch because others live their lives in a manner of which you disapprove...and you long for the state to punish them for their heterodoxical transgressions.

Screenshot-20240315-130734-Samsung-Internet.jpg

Connie. Vermin.
 

Latest Posts

Back