What pissed you off today?

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

That's like saying laws against gay marriage aren't discriminatory because straight men aren't allowed to marry other men either, so everyone's being treated the same. It's 'true,' but it's disingenuously true. "Hey guys, you can have all the sex you want, just make sure it's only penises going in vaginas!" HMM WONDER WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE. I'm not the foremost authority on gay sex, but I'm at least in the top 10, and there's generally no penis-in-vagina action going on.

I also find the childfucking priest example to be disingenuous. The law as it currently stands allows a (male) teacher to do the same thing with an underage (female) student, and yet no one seems to be upset about this despite heterosexual men far outnumbering non-heterosexual men and the latter example consequently being far more likely than the former. Either the state of California is currently using the (existing) law to allow all sorts of abhorrent degeneracy (possible, I haven't checked, but no one seems to be complaining about that so I find it unlikely), or there's no reason to assume the priest wouldn't immediately be deemed a sex offender by the judge, and gay people being involved is the only reason people are getting upset about this, because... well, I don't really need to say why, do I?

[Adami]

That's like saying laws against gay marriage aren't discriminatory because straight men aren't allowed to marry other men either, so everyone's being treated the same.

I do believe that argument was made on this very forum in the past.

[cramx3]

I get into work this morning and the building security system is down so all the doors to the secure areas are locked and can't get into making it impossible for me to work... like how does this happen? 

[Adami]

I get into work this morning and the building security system is down so all the doors to the secure areas are locked and can't get into making it impossible for me to work... like how does this happen?

...skynet?

[Stadler]

That's like saying laws against gay marriage aren't discriminatory because straight men aren't allowed to marry other men either, so everyone's being treated the same. It's 'true,' but it's disingenuously true. "Hey guys, you can have all the sex you want, just make sure it's only penises going in vaginas!" HMM WONDER WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE. I'm not the foremost authority on gay sex, but I'm at least in the top 10, and there's generally no penis-in-vagina action going on.

I also find the childfucking priest example to be disingenuous. The law as it currently stands allows a (male) teacher to do the same thing with an underage (female) student, and yet no one seems to be upset about this despite heterosexual men far outnumbering non-heterosexual men and the latter example consequently being far more likely than the former. Either the state of California is currently using the (existing) law to allow all sorts of abhorrent degeneracy (possible, I haven't checked, but no one seems to be complaining about that so I find it unlikely), or there's no reason to assume the priest wouldn't immediately be deemed a sex offender by the judge, and gay people being involved is the only reason people are getting upset about this, because... well, I don't really need to say why, do I?

To Adami's point, I've made it (in context, though).  They're not EXACTLY the same though. 

You're right about your example of teachers; but whether you use priests on one side, or pedophilic teachers on the other, the change in law doesn't address that.  That's my main point.   I think we ought to be spending more time having a meaningful discussion about what behavior we're trying to drive here.  That's a more honest discussion than the one that throws a law up because 'we have to act NOW!' then wall-papering quick fixes because a special interest doesn't like the way it 'appears'.   I just don't see how the former makes this about "sexual orientation inequality".   

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I mean, it's about sexual orientation inequality because as it stands, an 18 year old gay guy in California could have to register as a sex offender if he and his 17 year old boyfriend do anything other than stare at each other lustfully. If that doesn't register to you as sexual orientation inequality, all I can do is offer you one of these:

[Stadler]

I mean, it's about sexual orientation inequality because as it stands, an 18 year old gay guy in California could have to register as a sex offender if he and his 17 year old boyfriend do anything other than stare at each other lustfully. If that doesn't register to you as sexual orientation inequality, all I can do is offer you one of these:

Can't see the image, at work.

I disagree.    When I was 18, I dated a girl that was 17, though we never had full intercourse.   As it stands, all the sex I had with her would have qualified me for sex offender status, no questions asked.  Since I wasn't then and am not now a homosexual, and yet my penalties would have been exactly the same, I do not see that as sexual orientation inequality. 

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Yeah, this is just the 'straight men can't marry each other!!' argument wearing a different coat. 'Sure you can have sex, as long as it's the type your orientation precludes you from having' isn't discrimination, neato. Frankly I find that assertion deeply offensive, but on the other hand my interest in debating this has dwindled to nothing, so whatever, I guess.

[Stadler]

Yeah, this is just the 'straight men can't marry each other!!' argument wearing a different coat. 'Sure you can have sex, as long as it's the type your orientation precludes you from having' isn't discrimination, neato. Frankly I find that assertion deeply offensive, but on the other hand my interest in debating this has dwindled to nothing, so whatever, I guess.

Well, it's kind of not cool to hit-and-run with a falsely presented the argument  and then say "I'm bored, bye!".   I am reading the plain language of the law as indicated in the document.  If you want to read things into it, that's on you.  But it's problematic to do that, to read things into it, THEN holding me to that arbitrary reading.  I don't know nor care what the assumptions are about the sex lives of the people of California, and neither does the law.  I just know this:   if a person does x, they get punished, and nothing in that logical statement includes a variable for "sexual orientation".  The rest is on you.

(Interestingly, I've done a little research.  The origin of the Sex Offender Registry was to target the Mob, back in the '30's.  It was (ab)used in the 50's with respect to LGBTQ people, but the law was changed in the 70's to decriminalize certain acts between adults, but the restrictions were kept vis-a-vis minors.  The California courts upheld the peen-vag distinction in 2015, on the sole grounds that it would harm any potential children if the fathers were automatically forced to register as a sex offender (jobs).  It has nothing to do with orientation.   I also found out that out of the roughly 100,000 people on the California Sex Offender registry, only about 2,400 (plus/minus a couple hundred) are on there for this issue; even if EVERY ONE of them is a LGBT teen, that certainly does not amount to "targeting"; if anything the LGBT community is LESS likely to be on the list than a straight offender.)

I'm actually rather liberal in terms of my identity politics positions; I just happen to also hold the view that sloppiness in interpreting laws (and making assumptions that others perhaps do not hold) is a deep problem in our country right now.  You'd think that if we (general) learned anything over the past four years, it's that "sloppiness" in our governance is a big problem.   The data does not support the position that this is "fixing" inequity.  To get a law passed on those grounds - with arguments like yours, that to oppose them is "offensive" - is a big problem. 

[Kotowboy]

.

[jingle.boy]

Wow... no one's been pissed off in the last 4 months?!?!?  Well, "pissed off" is too strong for this topic, but "mildly irritated" isn't strong enough.

I like following this page/site "Yup That Exists".  There's some really cool and neat things that pop up.  This ain't one of them.



The comments  ... this one got me - "yeah and it's not just a trans/gender neutral thing as well, It's also the fact that traditional decks of cards are really patriarcal (sic) since the queen is always weaker than the king."

Are you fucking kidding me?  What's next, renaming chess sets - oh wait, the Queen is stronger than the King.  Fucking "woke snowflakes".

ALL PRECIOUS METALS MATTER!

[pg1067]

Wow... no one's been pissed off in the last 4 months?!?!?  Well, "pissed off" is too strong for this topic, but "mildly irritated" isn't strong enough.

I like following this page/site "Yup That Exists".  There's some really cool and neat things that pop up.  This ain't one of them.



The comments  ... this one got me - "yeah and it's not just a trans/gender neutral thing as well, It's also the fact that traditional decks of cards are really patriarcal (sic) since the queen is always weaker than the king."

Are you fucking kidding me?  What's next, renaming chess sets - oh wait, the Queen is stronger than the King.  Fucking "woke snowflakes".

ALL PRECIOUS METALS MATTER!

Oh FFS!

It must be very proud of its creation.

A mildly amusing video on the subject:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAMyMdPjGeo

[TAC]

We need to liberate the 1's.

[Stadler]

As a Bronze, I'm deeply, DEEPLY offended.   

[pg1067]

As a Bronze, I'm deeply, DEEPLY offended.

I too am a Bronze, but I self-identify as a Gold.  This is our safe space.   

[wolfking]

What about the joker?

[Ben_Jamin]

So that No One is excluded. The Ace is now 0(Zero). 

[Herrick]

Those cards are a lame idea but not surprising. Is there any chance it's a joke?

[PetFish]

Are you fucking kidding me?  What's next, renaming chess sets - oh wait, the Queen is stronger than the King.  Fucking "woke snowflakes".

ALL PRECIOUS METALS MATTER!

Nice.

I could never follow that group, I would jump out a window in a matter of days.

I hate all this "woke" shit and the worst part is that you think it can't get any lamer and it always does.

[jingle.boy]

Are you fucking kidding me?  What's next, renaming chess sets - oh wait, the Queen is stronger than the King.  Fucking "woke snowflakes".

ALL PRECIOUS METALS MATTER!

Nice.

I could never follow that group, I would jump out a window in a matter of days.

I hate all this "woke" shit and the worst part is that you think it can't get any lamer and it always does.

It's actually usually really cool shit, like scientific breakthroughs, space stuff, cool planetary discoveries.  This is actually the first time I've ever seen something full of so much BS there.

[Stadler]

So that No One is excluded. The Ace is now 0(Zero). 

Gene and Paul have been saying that for years. 

[jingle.boy]

So that No One is excluded. The Ace is now 0(Zero). 

Gene and Paul have been saying that for years. 

[pg1067]

So that No One is excluded. The Ace is now 0(Zero). 

Feels excluded...

[Ben_Jamin]

So that No One is excluded. The Ace is now 0(Zero). 

Gene and Paul have been saying that for years. 

[Cool Chris]

Do the numbered cards still have different values? If so, that's perpetuating numeric inequality.

[Kotowboy]

What pissed you off today?

*deeeeep breatthhhhhhh* 


Nah just kidding. love you. x

[PetFish]

Do the numbered cards still have different values? If so, that's perpetuating numeric inequality.

OMG MAKE IT STOP!  This doesn't even seem unbelievable these days.

Did you hear the one where they don't allow parents to buy school supplies outside of the school?  They *must* buy them from the school so that every kid has the same ones and not some fancy-shmancy brand-name ones that may make other kids feel inferior/poor/etc.  Like if you have Elmer's glue you're automatically better than anyone using Great Value glue.

 

[Stadler]

Do the numbered cards still have different values? If so, that's perpetuating numeric inequality.

OMG MAKE IT STOP!  This doesn't even seem unbelievable these days.

Did you hear the one where they don't allow parents to buy school supplies outside of the school?  They *must* buy them from the school so that every kid has the same ones and not some fancy-shmancy brand-name ones that may make other kids feel inferior/poor/etc.  Like if you have Elmer's glue you're automatically better than anyone using Great Value glue.

 

That kind of stuff drives me crazy.  It's not making everyone BETTER, it's dumbing everyone down to the same level.

[lordxizor]

That's stupid as hell. They're robbing parents of a chance to teach their kid a valuable life lesson. If Billy comes home sobbing about having generic school supplies you give him an age appropriate lesson on budgets, spending priorities, and the fact that generic products are nearly always as good as the name brand ones.

[pg1067]

Did you hear the one where they don't allow parents to buy school supplies outside of the school?  They *must* buy them from the school so that every kid has the same ones and not some fancy-shmancy brand-name ones that may make other kids feel inferior/poor/etc.  Like if you have Elmer's glue you're automatically better than anyone using Great Value glue.

 

Schools in my area have "kits" available, but you're not obligated to buy them, and the purpose is to make it easier for the parents.  That's just nuts.

That kind of stuff drives me crazy.  It's not making everyone BETTER, it's dumbing everyone down to the same level.

[Kotowboy]

What about the joker?

It invented the deck.

[Lethean]

I think the cards are cool and would totally buy a deck if shipping was less.  And if I had people to play cards with.

[XJDenton]

I think the cards are neat. You may not be bothered that they are, but French suited playing cards ARE patriarchal. And you aren't required to use these new ones.

[Stadler]

I think the cards are neat. You may not be bothered that they are, but French suited playing cards ARE patriarchal. And you aren't required to use these new ones.

Never say never - I know there are practical exceptions - but I'm always leery when things are just assumed to be "bad" just because.    You say "patriarchal" in a way that implies that.   There IS an order to many things in life, and to act or teach that there isn't giving our kids the full measure of what life is like.  Whether it's something basic like the food chain, or something more of a construct like the hierarchy at work... it's not the foundation for a healthy world view IMO.

[Lethean]

I think the cards are neat. You may not be bothered that they are, but French suited playing cards ARE patriarchal. And you aren't required to use these new ones.

Never say never - I know there are practical exceptions - but I'm always leery when things are just assumed to be "bad" just because.    You say "patriarchal" in a way that implies that.   There IS an order to many things in life, and to act or teach that there isn't giving our kids the full measure of what life is like.  Whether it's something basic like the food chain, or something more of a construct like the hierarchy at work... it's not the foundation for a healthy world view IMO.

A deck of cards isn't lying to kids.  The creator isn't trying to deny that there is or was patriarchy, but rather to change one element so it no longer is patriarchal.  Maybe this will go nowhere other than to the people who have already bought it.  Maybe in a few centuries everyone will be using non-patriarchal cards.  Doesn't mean history will no longer be taught.  But maybe it will be one less little thing girls have to accept as "just the way it is."