Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

Conservatives like to shout about what might happen to them and completely ignore what is happening to others.
It essentially boils down to "forget about those assholes being oppressed, what if they're given protection and that negatively affects me?!"

It's not, except in your paranoid fever dreams.

Then why is that text included?

You're not oppressed by hurtful words, snowflake.

That he's sticking to this, means he's ignoring fucking everybody.

Incompetent? Unaware? A lying piece of shit who knows better? You folks be the judge. Don't worry, Albert always will if you won't.

I see everyone deflecting by beating the "enhancement" drum. My point is there should be no circumstances where someone claiming to "feel harassed or intimidated" should result in fines or imprisonment, even if it's only in conjuction with some other crime. It should never be a factor in any way.

No you don't, or you could back it up by answering points in posts.
For someone who cries blood over people ignoring your precious arguments, you sure feel entitled as fuck to do it to everyone else on Earth.

Get fucked.

Oh, also arson and trespassing, which I know this crowd loves under other circumstances.

@Uncle Albert is fine with the KKK existing.

Oh, good, when you start barking like Daddy Drill Sargent, that'll be my go-to.

"Fine with it" and "unwilling to ignore individual rights in a witch hunt" are not interchangeable concepts.

Feel the freedom!

Bull fucking shit.
You pick-and-choose like a motherfucker.

What an interesting thing to say.

And the wrong jury, and the wrong appeals court and the wrong Supreme Court, but okay, you *don’t* actually believe the reasonable person standard is sufficiently protective. That’s unfortunate; it means this is an empirical question. Fortunately, seeing as this is an amendment to an existing law, you should have no trouble showing some actual cases under the pre-4474 law that you find objectionable. Obviously they won’t be about gender identity, but because it was before the “intimidate” definition was added, it would have been much easier for your wrong DA to charge under it.

So, gimme your best. What’s the most egregious abuse of the previous version you can find?

Another quality example of if you want to yell that word at them that should be fine damnit after all it's only the Spanish word for black.

Taking issue with the word reasonable is bizarre, since it's basically just reusing the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard used everywhere in the legal system of multiple countries.

Why not? What exactly do you think you can do without resulting in files or imprisonment if you don't have "someone claiming to 'feel harassed or intimidated'", that will result in fines or imprisonment if you do?

The text saying you're not allowed to harass people?

Laws against stalking are fucked, all it needs is one overzealous prosecutor and it will effectively be illegal to walk on the same street as someone else!

pages of arguing with UA makes me miss murderface.

It would be really great if UA understood by US legal definition he is not a reasonable person and therefor will not be the reasonable person standard the law uses. It is funny how obviously radical people feel they are what is referred to by reasonable.

Indeed. UA thinks it's reasonable to harass and intimidate people for who they are, whether they be black, trans, or any marginalized person. We're afraid of losing our lives. People like @Uncle Albert are afraid they're losing privileges they once had.

Some of this goes to real ignorance of legalese. UA hears things about reasonable and thinks that is what he feels is reasonable. This is not some floating term which varies based on what he feels. There may be some change over time for such a term, but that would come by precedent and argument.

UA and the racist bunch want to think that these laws apply to their unreasonable ideas. In the case of trans kids and their needs reasonable would have a huge medical and scientific component. Bigots would not be considered reasonable no matter how many big words they string together like a drunk monkey.

In the end all this arguing comes down to UA trying to scare and intimidate trans people. He cannot stand trans people exist and wants to play tough guyu on the internet. He takes joy out of seeing trans people in fear from his hate and rhetoric. People should know UA is more afraid of a trans person and if he got mouthy with a drag queen he better get on that bike and peddle his ass off and hope she cannot run fast in her platforms.

I am sure if he ever met one it would be yes mam, ok miss, you look really good in that dress. Please don't hurt me! HELP ME JENEE!

Food for thought: there's never been a fanatic who said or thought "I'm a fanatic!! I'm fuuuucking craaazyyy!! I looove being fuuuckiiing craaaazyyy!!! ".
Nope, they all thought/think they're rational.
Himmler thought the holocaust was logical as fuck.
There are doomsday Christians that think hoping for nuclear Armageddon is logical as fuck.
They all think they're goddamned Vulcans.
UA has expressed open glee at the idea of a societal collapse.
Does that sound like Spock, or Colonel Green?
Hm?
All right then.

It is not even dog whistling with him anymore.

When I was young and had not yet met a lot of black people because I grew up in the white suburbs. I almost bought into the poor black narrative. Some of that was actually because of comics like chris rock. I love chris rock, but as a young white kid I needed a real education in blackness to fully understand that it was a joke and not actually political sometimes. I can get not grasping the full level of racism and blaming a certain segment of society for their predicament.

There are two factors I see. First, the shit is so overwhelming and actively destructive you have to keep swimming harder than normal just to keep up with the chains pulling you down and the people stepping on top of you. Yes, there are some of those things for white people, but not like it is for black people or other POC. The second problem becomes why would you want to get anywhere in society when it isn't yours and it so easily could be taken away. I recognize that with my GLBT feelings. Yeah, I would love to participate in a community where I am welcome and appreciated as a white person in the suburbs. It is not perfect, but I have opportunities and support. As soon as I am outed all of a sudden people are worried about associating with me, some are trying to knock me out of where I am, I have to perform better because I have to show my worth or else be replaced with a less "Problematic" person.

you are a problem to a lot of people, and that does not automatically come along with white skin like it does with black people. Worse yet whites took parts of black culture they liked and made it awesome in their community while shitting on the black people who did it. OMG do white people resent things when they are excluded from them. Things like positively using the N word, or being big in rap, hip hop, or R&B. we stole the fuck out of the blues. We did everything we could to steal Jazz. Then when we have the woodstock music revolution to "rock and Roll" it is all a bunch of white hippies and we had Jimmy so we are covered with the black thing. Dear Boomers, you did need to dig below the white crust of your protest rock because all of them were getting famous on sounds black people were making and were not getting famous for.

I am glad black people took and held rap and R&B and stuck white people with country. even now you have a young black star like Lil Nas coming along and doing country with some soul. One of the problems with country is it needs a better back beat IMO.

Anyway, I am rambling like always, so onto the next post.

Oh, and...

Does anyone here believe that if some dick followed UA around in Wal-Mart giggling like a mean girl, snapping pictures, and going "huh, huh, huh, huh!! Stupid ginger! Stupid ginger!" over, and over, and over, and over, for his whole shopping time, and out into the parking lot, that he'd be all passive resistance?
Does anyone believe that for a fucking instant?

Particularly if it were in the middle of an aggressive PR campaign intended to paint all gingers as child molesters.

Looks like I will have to step up and vote no on Issue 1 here in Ohio, and hope there are enough reasonable people left in this shit hole to keep it from passing. Voting yes on Issue 1 would raise the voter approval threshold of Constitutional amendment requirements to 60% rather than the current majority vote (50.1% or greater).

The reason this is so crucial for them is that in November, Ohio will finally have a ballot initiative to protect a woman's right to choose, and it will be amended to the Ohio Constitution. You can see where I'm going, I think. This would greatly benefit the conservatives in Ohio's general assembly, which often submits its own amendments (it would give the amendment inbuilt YES votes by default at a ratio of 1.5 to 1), while making it much harder for minority movements to reach that number. So if 53%, even 59%, more than half the voting population of Ohio, want to protect a woman's right to abortion, it would still fail. It's a bullshit tactic.

So of course I'm against it.

Now, if you would like to see what the people who are in favor of Issue 1 are saying, please watch this lovely ad: