politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn't complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don't think I can get through to you.
I would flip it around and say if you don't view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn't equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it's okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say "I don't think sexual drag in front of children is an issue" and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.
Laws are enforced when the enforcer's perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I'm choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
I don't accept your premise. I've said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn't going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.
Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be "sexual gesticulations", as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
You should post the full sentence. The fact that you are leaving it out suggests that you aren't being entirely honest with your arguments.
Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don't mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.
That... doesn't answer my question at all, and I'm beginning to suspect you aren't good at paying attention.
That doesn't define what a "sexual gesticulation" is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?
It basically just means sexual gestures. You can look up what the word means. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Oh, it basically just means this thing that isn't clearly defined. Oh, you can just look it up. Look it up where, exactly? What texts are legally admissible to define this? Is it dealer's choice? And where is the line drawn, because a gesture can be sexual in one context and not in another. If someone thinks all drag is sexual, would that not influence how they interpret such a gesture?
This is what I meant. You made a big deal about it being supposedly "clearly defined". When shown that a crucial part of the law isn't clearly defined, you don't actually care, because it never actually mattered to you if it was. So what was the point of all this? Why did you waste my time with this act?
You could hone in on any law and be as pedantic as you are being
This isn't pedantic. Have you even read the law that you keep demanding everybody else read? The law makes reference to a strict definition for the word "premises", but it's pedantic to expect one for "sexual gesticulation"? They did that on purpose.
It's very easy to admit being wrong about the law being clearly defined, that you just didn't think of every way it can be abused. However, I don't believe you actually care about it being clearly defined at all. That's why you're deflecting now and suddenly acting all disinterested. You've been caught and now you're defending your ego.
So I have to ask again; why the act? What was the purpose of all this? Simply be honest about your beliefs and stop with all this smokescreen nonsense. You don't have to act like a weasel if you just say what you really believe.
You're a bit crazy. I told you how I feel. If you don't like it then stop responding. I have been consistent the entire time.
So you're just done engaging with what I say and are now deflecting, got it. I was correct when I said that the clarity of the law was never important to you and wouldn't affect your support of it.
I already said I think you're being pedantic and you keep harping on the same thing over and over. I think the law is clear enough and I don't forsee anyone not doing inappropriate shit to be prosecuted under this law. You could apply the same criticism to literally any law. In the context of legislation, this bill is pretty clear what it prevents. If you disagree, fine, move on.
It's not pedantic to expect the law to hold the same standard to "sexual gesticulation" as it did to "premises", but it's clear you suddenly lost all that enthusiasm you had before to actually defend the law on its merits. I'm just sad that the conversation about the actual text of the law couldn't even make it further than the first question.
Have a good day.
You are unbearable lol. You posted a "gotcha" and I didn't bite so you stubbornly disregard anything I said in response. Have a good one, I hope you come up with some better arguments next time.
I'm actually curious, what did I stubbornly disregard? Because I can list things you stubbornly refused to engage with, but I'm not aware of any point of yours that I didn't respond to. If I did, I will happily do so now.