Bill Would Require California Retailers To Have Gender-Neutral Sections; Violators Face Fines

[Metaphor]

Why are you more interested in State level US politics than the state level politics in your own country?

I'm not. I'm interested in sex and gender politics and the OP certainly counts.

I am sure we can find some pretty stupid laws that actually got enacted at the state level in Australia. I mean I would do it right now, but Australian state politics just doesn't interest me.

Why do you comment on my interests? If you are not interested in Australian politics, I'm not trying to compel you to post about it.

Or are you suggesting it is somehow not appropriate for people outside California to discuss things inside California?

 

[TomC]

Or are you suggesting it is somehow not appropriate for people outside California to discuss things inside California?

You might consider your accuracy.
This is an OP about a dumb legislation proposal that had already died.

I've still not seen evidence that Cornell gave a vaccination exemption to someone simply for being BIPOC.

And I'm relatively new to TFT.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Or are you suggesting it is somehow not appropriate for people outside California to discuss things inside California?

You might consider your accuracy.
This is an OP about a dumb legislation proposal that had already died.

I've still not seen evidence that Cornell gave a vaccination exemption to someone simply for being BIPOC.

And I'm relatively new to TFT.
Tom

That was not the stated objection. It was 'why are you more interested in US state legislatures than Australian state legislatures'.

I'm not more interested and I explained why.

EDIT: I admit I was misled by the date of the story (March 2021) and when I read the text of the bill (which said February 2020), my head just went to 'oh, one month ago'.

But the only that turned on the bill being active or dead was its chances of passing. Hell, maybe it didn't die of its own 'dumbness' but was swept aside due to COVID attention.

 

[TomC]

Or are you suggesting it is somehow not appropriate for people outside California to discuss things inside California?

You might consider your accuracy.
This is an OP about a dumb legislation proposal that had already died.

I've still not seen evidence that Cornell gave a vaccination exemption to someone simply for being BIPOC.

And I'm relatively new to TFT.
Tom

That was not the stated objection. It was 'why are you more interested in US state legislatures than Australian state legislatures'.

I'm not more interested and I explained why.

I wasn't referring to anyone else. I quoted you, and gave an opinion about your posting style. It's heavy on the fake news, like this OP.
It's based on that highly effective form of lying, the partial truth. Tell just enough to get the results, while leaving out the important parts.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

Why are you more interested in State level US politics than the state level politics in your own country?

I'm not. I'm interested in sex and gender politics and the OP certainly counts.

OK, but it seems you are particularly interested in sex and gender politics when it come to the US. I don't see you posting about Australian, Chinese, or Brazilian sex and gender politics, so why the obsession with those politics from the US? Obviously you don't have to answer

I am sure we can find some pretty stupid laws that actually got enacted at the state level in Australia. I mean I would do it right now, but Australian state politics just doesn't interest me.

Why do you comment on my interests?

Why not? That is part of the give and take in human interaction and discourse. Of course you have no obligation to answer, or even acknowledge my questions and comments.

If you are not interested in Australian politics, I'm not trying to compel you to post about it.

My disinterest in Australian politics is perfectly natural, as I do not live in Australia. What would be peculiar, and worthy of discussing, would be if I were apparently obsessed with Australian politics. Not that I am not peculiar in any number of ways, but that is a bit off topic.

Or are you suggesting it is somehow not appropriate for people outside California to discuss things inside California?

Nope. More of a general curiosity as to why the politics of another country seem more interesting to you than those of your own state. For the record, I don't get Anglophiles here in the US either.

 

[Metaphor]

That was not the stated objection. It was 'why are you more interested in US state legislatures than Australian state legislatures'.

I'm not more interested and I explained why.

I wasn't referring to anyone else. I quoted you, and gave an opinion about your posting style. It's heavy on the fake news, like this OP.
It's based on that highly effective form of lying, the partial truth. Tell just enough to get the results, while leaving out the important parts.
Tom

I edited my response after you posted this but before I saw it. The gender politics in the OP don't turn on the bill being active but on its existence (though obviously the situation would be far more dire had the bill passed).

Whatever you regard as my 'posting style', this thread should not be about me. Yet every time I start a thread, about half the respondents offer no substantive engagement of the OP and simply post something nasty they imagine to be true of me. That isn't helpful even if they were right.

 

[J842P]

OK, but it seems you are particularly interested in sex and gender politics when it come to the US. I don't see you posting about Australian, Chinese, or Brazilian sex and gender politics, so why the obsession with those politics from the US? Obviously you don't have to answer

Quite frankly, your objection is obnoxious. But in any case, I'm fairly certain Metaphor has posted articles from Australia. So does that assuage your weird, selective objection to Metaphor posting about American topics?

 

[KeepTalking]

OK, but it seems you are particularly interested in sex and gender politics when it come to the US. I don't see you posting about Australian, Chinese, or Brazilian sex and gender politics, so why the obsession with those politics from the US? Obviously you don't have to answer

Quite frankly, your objection is obnoxious. But in any case, I'm fairly certain Metaphor has posted articles from Australia. So does that assuage your weird, selective objection to Metaphor posting about American topics?

Well, I guess you can mark that down as one of my peculiarities, then.

ETA: I also would not characterize my comment as an objection, as I wasn't actually objecting to anything, just asking questions.

 

[KeepTalking]

That was not the stated objection. It was 'why are you more interested in US state legislatures than Australian state legislatures'.

I'm not more interested and I explained why.

I wasn't referring to anyone else. I quoted you, and gave an opinion about your posting style. It's heavy on the fake news, like this OP.
It's based on that highly effective form of lying, the partial truth. Tell just enough to get the results, while leaving out the important parts.
Tom

I edited my response after you posted this but before I saw it. The gender politics in the OP don't turn on the bill being active but on its existence (though obviously the situation would be far more dire had the bill passed).

Whatever you regard as my 'posting style', this thread should not be about me. Yet every time I start a thread, about half the respondents offer no substantive engagement of the OP and simply post something nasty they imagine to be true of me. That isn't helpful even if they were right.

I posted that I was in agreement about the stupidity of the bill in question, but that I did not agree that the bill was destined to become law. So it should be apparent that I made substantive responses to the OP. I just thought it was an odd thing to be bringing up because I see nuisance legislations like this from both sides of the aisle all the time, so I commented on that as well. And yes, you often bring up threads that I find to be odd in the same manner, it's just that in most cases I do not agree with you at all, so I have less of a chance to discuss your peculiar obsession with US gender politics. Again, you don't have to answer or even acknowledge those comments and questions.

 

[TomC]

More of a general curiosity as to why the politics of another country seem more interesting to you than those of your own state. For the record, I don't get Anglophiles here in the US either.

In all fairness, I understand that part.

The USA is the dominant country on the planet. Even more importantly, we put our partisan squabbles right out there. China and Russia are also highly influential countries. But their governments don't allow the sort of media circus crap the USA does(encourages even).

We're like the Kardashians of the geopolitical elite.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The bill was introduced 13 months ago, went nowhere and "died at desk" back in November.

Looks like Metaphor and our other binary warriors got their very macho-male panties in a twist over absolutely nothing, as usual.


I guess the bigot-blogs notified their minions about this manufactured outrage based upon shoddy non-fact-checked journalism triggered by last week's outrage that conservatives could no longer tell which plastic potato they should have sex with.

I found the story newly reported yesterday (my link shows 3 March 2021). So I assumed it was about a recently introduced bill.

But, I've learned a couple of things. cbslocal San Francisco is apparently among the bigot-blogs manufacturing outrage, and ronburgundy has nothing substantive to say on the matter of state-compelled gender neutral shop floors except to mock conservatives.

I highly doubt you found the story on the local CBS web site. You probably found it spread around on a right wing blog spreading outrage inducing stories for snowflakes to get worked up about. Then you decided to spread your outrage here.

 

[Metaphor]

OK, but it seems you are particularly interested in sex and gender politics when it come to the US. I don't see you posting about Australian, Chinese, or Brazilian sex and gender politics, so why the obsession with those politics from the US? Obviously you don't have to answer

See: your 'OK' is disingenuous. You've just charged me with being 'obsessed' with US politics.

First, this forum is not about my preferences. Anybody who has seen my posting long enough knows I'm interested in sex and gender politics. But even if I were 'obsessed' with US politics, so what? Why bring that up?

I'm not 'obsessed' with it, no matter what your charge, by the way. But I'm certainly more exposed to news stories written in English (since I don't speak Mandarin or Cantonese or Portugese).

So there's a language bias in my content, sure. But there is also numerically a greater number of sex and gender-related 'events' in the US. Fifty stage legislatures and a federal one. The divide between states in the US is also more extreme than in Australia. Though Victoria is the California of Australia (not in terms of weather but certainly in terms of political climate).

I have already expended too much time 'defending' myself from this - I don't even know what to call it - admonishment for my interests?

Why not? That is part of the give and take in human interaction and discourse. Of course you have no obligation to answer, or even acknowledge my questions and comments.

I interpret your comment as a sidestepping and dismissal of the OP. "Stay in your (Australian) lane", so I do not feel it is conveying the 'give and take' you seem to think.

My disinterest in Australian politics is perfectly natural, as I do not live in Australia. What would be peculiar, and worthy of discussing, would be if I were apparently obsessed with Australian politics. Not that I am not peculiar in any number of ways, but that is a bit off topic.

Why would it be worthy of discussing? You are not beholden to anybody to explain your interests or lack of them.

Nope. More of a general curiosity as to why the politics of another country seem more interesting to you than those of your own state. For the record, I don't get Anglophiles here in the US either.

They are not more interesting to me, as I've already explained more than once. But if they were, I hardly feel the need to explain them, nor would it be relevant to the OP.

 

[Metaphor]

The bill was introduced 13 months ago, went nowhere and "died at desk" back in November.

Looks like Metaphor and our other binary warriors got their very macho-male panties in a twist over absolutely nothing, as usual.


I guess the bigot-blogs notified their minions about this manufactured outrage based upon shoddy non-fact-checked journalism triggered by last week's outrage that conservatives could no longer tell which plastic potato they should have sex with.

I found the story newly reported yesterday (my link shows 3 March 2021). So I assumed it was about a recently introduced bill.

But, I've learned a couple of things. cbslocal San Francisco is apparently among the bigot-blogs manufacturing outrage, and ronburgundy has nothing substantive to say on the matter of state-compelled gender neutral shop floors except to mock conservatives.

I highly doubt you found the story on the local CBS web site. You probably found it spread around on a right wing blog spreading outrage inducing stories for snowflakes to get worked up about. Then you decided to spread your outrage here.

ZiprHead, ban me if you can't brook dissent from your worldview. Perhaps it would be to my benefit to stop trying to engage with a community that is as close-minded and nasty as this one.

 

[ZiprHead]

I highly doubt you found the story on the local CBS web site. You probably found it spread around on a right wing blog spreading outrage inducing stories for snowflakes to get worked up about. Then you decided to spread your outrage here.

ZiprHead, ban me if you can't brook dissent from your worldview. Perhaps it would be to my benefit to stop trying to engage with a community that is as close-minded and nasty as this one.

Oh, but I'm sure we'd all miss you sunny disposition.

 

[TSwizzle]

I found the story newly reported yesterday (my link shows 3 March 2021). So I assumed it was about a recently introduced bill.

I was aware of it when it was first introduced;

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20793-California-bill-requires-gender-neutral-aisles

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I highly doubt you found the story on the local CBS web site. You probably found it spread around on a right wing blog spreading outrage inducing stories for snowflakes to get worked up about. Then you decided to spread your outrage here.

ZiprHead, ban me if you can't brook dissent from your worldview. Perhaps it would be to my benefit to stop trying to engage with a community that is as close-minded and nasty as this one.

So that is a yes then.

It isn't something to be ashamed over. Pulp media content exists and often a story gets recycled and if people aren't looking at dates, they can be misled into old news being new. Happens with left-wing pulp sites as well as right-wing pulp sites and news aggregators.

The important thing is that this didn't become law. It wasn't particularly a great idea, but there seems to be this snowflake reaction with right-wing wokeness. A fear that this uber left-wing woke world will engulf their life and they won't be able to celebrate Father's Day anymore... #over-reaction

 

[Metaphor]

I highly doubt you found the story on the local CBS web site. You probably found it spread around on a right wing blog spreading outrage inducing stories for snowflakes to get worked up about. Then you decided to spread your outrage here.

ZiprHead, ban me if you can't brook dissent from your worldview. Perhaps it would be to my benefit to stop trying to engage with a community that is as close-minded and nasty as this one.

Oh, but I'm sure we'd all miss you sunny disposition.

I can certainly tell you I possess one quality that appears to be widely unappreciated: I do not go into threads started by other people, only to mock and bully that person for posting on whatever topic they posted on, accuse them of some kind of 'ism', condescendingly just 'ask questions' why they're 'obsessed' with <insert imagined obsession>, put them on ignore and imagine what they've written in a particular post and respond to that imagined writing, fabulate on how they've spent their spare time, and then contribute nothing whatsoever to the discussion of the topic, or peripherally talk about only to reinforce my contempt for them.

But since it's all about me, again, can you tell me why 'outrage' is a remotely reasonable description of the tone of the OP? I think the bill described in the OP is governmental overreach motivated by the sex and gender politics of the far left, and I thought it was worth pointing it out. But heaven forfend you should be troubled by my 'outrage'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've got news for Evan Low: if a little boy is being bullied because he is wearing clothes designed and marketed for little girls, it's not because anybody saw him buy it from the 'girls' section.

Very telling that your first reaction wasn't to condemn the bullying.

He's pointing out that the proposed solution is like typical anti-bullying measures--utterly worthless.

All it's going to do is increase costs (slightly, but it will) for zero benefit other than idiots virtue-signaling.

 

[blastula]

This seems like it will pass, since the Ds have total legislative control in California. Have the California Democrats run out of things to do? Why should the government tell shops how they must organise their shop floor space?

What makes you think it will pass?

I looked up the composition of the California government - lower house (59/80 Dem), upper house (30/40 Dem), and governorship.

But I don't live in California and don't know how many 'stunt' bills are introduced in a typical year.

Ah, so you thought any bill proposed by any Democrat would pass. That's a strange or naive notion, tons of bills get proposed in the states and at the federal level every year that have no chance of passing. Some even get voted on and pass in one chamber when they still have no chance of passing in the other chamber. House Republicans voted to overturn Obamacare dozens of times with no hope of passing in the Senate.

This is why so many of these "so and so proposed such and such bill" stories are nothing but hysteria over nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, so you thought any bill proposed by any Democrat would pass.

Not any bill, no. But a bill introduced by a Democrat into a Democrat-controlled legislature seems to me must have a better than average chance.

This is why so many of these "so and so proposed such and such bill" stories are nothing but hysteria over nothing.

I don't recall feeling hysterical or expressing a hysterical tone.