The Don't Say Gay bill

It does give one pause.

It's pretty creepy actually. A couple of childless internet personalities obsessed with kids ages 5 to 8, while also taking shots at the "gay agenda." Where have we seen that one before?

In other "folk like Paladin and UA are all for X until it stops them hurting the left or minorities" news...

Corporations are people. We've heard that tune from the GOP for years when it comes to getting money or votes. Now, though... it seems it only holds unless they come out against GOP hate bills like this. Then "they have no right!!"...

And fuck the Florida Lt. Gov for making me side with DISNEY here:

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/03/florida-lt-governor-goes-facist-disney

At your monthly NAMBLA meeting?

FFS, man, don't be a fucking tool all your life.

The Elephants have made tool a tribal identity.
Heaven forbid one get kicked out of the tribe.

No actually that was pretty funny.

It's inaccurate. Why would NAMBLA take shots at the gay agenda?

Fucking lazy and sloppy. No wonder you tried to trade me your wife. Less pressure.

What does Marlon Brando have to do with this?

Could have sworn Paladin said he had grandkids. But he also could have been talking hypothetically.

Well, to be precise, Disney gives zero fucks about the bill either way - they like so-called "business friendly" politicians who take their money and stay out of their way. If said politician also happens to be a full bore nazi well, that would just be an unfortunate mildly embarassing side issue.

put enough pressure on them and AFTER the bill is inevitable say "oh, snap, we should probably have said something" wait for the news cycle to churn and go back to business as usual.

Same as all those companies that said "we're not going to donate to pro-insurrection Congress folk" and that pledge didn't survive the same goddamned year until they reneged. ALL of them.

God I hate to do this but the Idaho bill doesn't - YET - actually say that.

What they did was take a pre-existing law that banned female genital mutilation AND banned out-of-state trips to accomplish what the bill forbids AND establishes a penalty of up to life in prison, and inserted - via this bill - the anti-trans treatment ban.

BUT

The travel ban specifically says if you leave for the purpose of doing that which is described in *SUBSECTION 1* (the genital mutilation stuff) it's a crime and the trans stuff is in *subsection 2*

Of course, once that's pointed out the assholes will probably revise it but the original tweetstorm had it wrong according to the plain language of the bill.

Note on lines 37-40 specifies "act prohibited by subsection 1" then note the highlights in the second image

My understanding was that there was some discussion about this bit originally, along the lines of "what if we tell their parents and the child is then endangered or abused?" and so they CHANGED THE GODDAMN LAW and now it was - basically - WHEN YOU KNOW that it would put the child at risk, take a few weeks (I think it's 3) to formulate a plan for outing the kid in a controlled setting rather than just, I dunno, texting them or some shit.

Again - this is specific to when you KNOW you'll put the kid at risk you must DO SO ANYWAY.

I'm sure that 's just an oversight

I'm gonna humor your bad faith bullshit exactly once in this thread.

Any reasonably sophisticated observer of politics, both in the immediate and in the long long history of bigoted legislation understands the term "chilling effect" - this isn't the only bill of this sort moving through state legislatures (MS just passed an anti CRT bill that never mentions or defines CRT in the text of the bill at all and, in fact, is worded in such a vague way that it bans teaching American Exceptionalism) but the intent is to chill speech that MIGHT get your ass in trouble with the censors, so you refrain even from that which isn't directly specified.

If you say "curriculum about sexual orientation or gender identity" you can CLAIM "well we just don't want sex ed in first grade" which is fine because no such thing exists anyway but the INTENT is that you cannot acknowledge even these existence of such things - nevermind that the only way any fool could refer to any mention of such - as in anti-bullying material - is if you cannot conceive of these in any frame of reference that doesn't center fucking. Which is particularly bizarre regarding GI which has exactly nothing to do with how or whom or if you fuck.

Thus, a teacher who doesn't want right wing zealot Christianists up her ass 365 days a year will go out of her way to not mention, and suppress any student mention, of these topics. Your parents are a couple of gay guys? Keep your mouth shut about it. Your teacher is a lesbian with a wife, well, call in sick on the day we talk about our families i guess. Otherwise you are "grooming our kids with your perverted teaching about sex!!!!!!!!!!"

And YOU know this. You KNOW this. Do the world a favor and stop pretending to be a good-damn cement head idiot like that other fool who probably ***IS*** that much of a moron.

Let the teacher be pushing literally any idea he approves of, like say "pull yourself up by your bnootstraps" and THAT ain't "political" - it's only political when it doesn't confirm your biases.

Which is why all these varieties of "parental rights" to sue and/or harass teachers over curriculum is straight garbage - because if you have 5 kids in a class you proably have at least 4 contrary opinions about how and what should be taught in the class. It's a recipe for chaos and a plan to effectively destroy public schools, it just goes down better when you flavor it with bigotry.

Define "Instruction"

Explain why saying "people who are romantically attracted to those of the same sex exists, and it's FINE...people who feel like their sprit doesn't match their body exists and it's perfectly okay. We should have empathy and be kind to such people, even if they are different from us, and not be mean to them" is inappropriate at any grade level?

Because THAT is instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Some people are not like you and that's okay" is as important a message as we can possibly teach to kids and it's the ONE message above all that fucking terrifies bigots of all stripes who cannot conceive of a world in which there are not sort of people that they, personally, are better-than.

Or are you one of those fools who cannot conceive of the existence of gay people without immediately fixating on what's getting done with all the penis?

And THERE it is. I am once again forced to revise downward my estimation of your...intelligence?... which is now approaching my estimation of FF

I mean, possibly it's bad faith trolling like UA without the antagonistic attitude - but otherwise it indicates you're either an idiot or have a perverse view of human relationships.

This would be less laughable if you ever considered applying it to ALL indoctrination.

Which literally starts with the goddamned pledge of allegiance. You do not now and never have objected to indoctrination writ large, only to indoctrination into concepts you disagree with.

And all those bozos in Florida who claim to object to all indoctrination haul their spawn off to the weekly indoctrination center without fail from before the little runts can understand the language specifically BECAUSE they want them indoctrinated.

This writeup of the bill is interesting in that it directly responds to many of the things UA was saying about it in this thread:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502311162439942147.html

Copy and pasting is giving awful formatting, so if you don't want to follow the link here's screenshots.

too large didn't read.

Don't worry if you follow the link you can get it in Tweet form.

I agree with Carl Icahn that the current crop of corporate leaders are not that good at their jobs and are only looking out for their own bank accounts. These people think playing both sides of the fence is best for business. It will be a rude awakening when they realize the right side of the fence consists of neo-fascists who are inherently anti-capitalistic.

If I understood the world, I would agree with you, right? Fuck off.

Do I recognize that there are conservatives and fundamentalists who will undermine anything that seeks to acknowledge anyone else as humans? Yes.

Do I also recognize that there are LGBQWERTY+*&$# people seeking to lurch beyond "live and let live" staight to guilting society into pandering to their every entitled whim? Also yes.

I am saying a compulsory public school is not the battleground for that conflict just because your audience is not allowed to argue with you. I will no more have a teacher saying things like "You're going to burn in hell for xyz" than I will "Memorize my pronouns and meow at me or you are a bigot," and my reasoning is the same: These things are beliefs. They are opinions, and I find it insidious for an educator to abuse their authority to present their opinions as unimpeachable truisms with binding consequences before those students are intellectually developed enough to discern facts and logic from feelings and wish magic, then challenge a premise on that basis.

This is only appropriate for a discussion, a debate. Not a browbeating session where they are expected to sit quietly and absorb until unquestioning compliance demands they jump through another hoop.

What entitled whim?
Name one.

1) buying gay wedding cakes.

You chose to ignore at least one example in there. Suffice it to say that nobody gets to impose on others to placate their own self-important emotions. Say something or refrain from saying it. Choose your own terms or allow them to be chosen for you. Acknowledge or refuse to acknowledge. Accommodate uniquely or treat everyone exactly the same.

Theofascists and the alphabet mafia exhibit some strikingly similar behaviors in these areas. They both leap from the assumption that they alone hold the moral high ground, an justify any imposition on that basis.

How, exactly?

I just explained how. The only way to be more precise would be to dig up specific incidents for you to dismiss as narrow anecdotes.

Vaguely.
I suspect it's deliberate.

Which might expose your little equivalence game to be a sham.

Anything destroyed by scrutiny deserves to be.