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

[Elixir]

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

Agreed. Au contraire, you sound rather monotonous.

 

[blastula]

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.

Yes, you already said you know California is majority dem, so that was understood. Your notion is still naive even so.

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.

I don't recall saying you did.

I can sense a Metaphor rabbit hole opening up, so I'm out.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Agreed. Au contraire, you sound rather monotonous.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, you already said you know California is majority dem, so that was understood. Your notion is still naive even so.

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.

I don't recall saying you did.

I can sense a Metaphor rabbit hole opening up, so I'm out.

You said the stories were 'hysteria over nothing'.

Neither my OP, nor the link reporting the bill, were 'hysterical'.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And yet in your OP you wrote "This seems like it will pass, " Yeah, so another hysterical OP about nothing,

 

[Metaphor]

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.

And yet in your OP you wrote "This seems like it will pass, " Yeah, so another hysterical OP about nothing,

Yes, I wrote in my OP that I thought it would pass, based on my understanding of the composition of the legislature in California.

No, neither the OP tone, nor the link to the article, were 'hysterical', but thank you for your relentless, unprovoked nastiness.

No, the OP is not about 'nothing'. It is about a bill that was introduced in California.

 

[KeepTalking]

See: your 'OK' is disingenuous.

My OK was just an acknowledgement of what you said, not sure how that can be disingenuous. I can acknowledge your statement as generally representing what you mean, while asking further questions about how things look from my perspective, can't I?

You've just charged me with being 'obsessed' with US politics.

If you are going to take umbrage at it, you might want to get the quote right, I questioned your "obsession with those politics from the US", in reference to sex and gender politics. BTW, that is an indication that my OK was not disingenuous, and I took you at face value regarding your interest in sex and gender 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 didn't just bring it up out of thin air, it evolved as part of our discussion. If you recall (and you should, all the posts are there), my initial question was whether this shit (frivolous legislation) occurs in Australia. Your response indicated that you had no idea, and I found that very interesting as it indicates a larger interest in politics from US as opposed to the politics in your own country. I realize it is off topic, and as a result I have repeatedly said you do not have to answer. If the mods would like to split off my apparently obnoxious off-topic questions, they may do so.

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).

Fair enough. You do seem to be rather upset that I used the word "obsessed". I apologize if you feel that is too strong of a word to describe your pursuit of this topic, it may occupy a relatively small portion of your time in your larger life, but from my perspective on this board, it seems to be your sole pursuit.

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?

I am not admonishing your interests, nor am I asking you to defend yourself. I am actually quite surprised you have taken the time to explain yourself so thoroughly, given the antagonism you seem to think I possess regarding our discussion. I can see how there would be more news regarding this kind of thing from the US, especially if you typically consume, or are exposed to, right wing news sources. The US is certainly more populous, and has more States than Australia, but I can't imagine that there is so little going on in the sex and gender politics in Australia that you can't find any relevant examples. I would still likely disagree with your take on them, but at least I would understand your concern a bit more.

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.

It wasn't intended that way, I can assure you. The only evidence I can offer in that regard is my initial post that directly commented on the OP, both noting my agreements and disagreements. The disagreement turned out to be well founded, and of course it is less fun to argue about things with which we agree. So it seems you chose to follow the path from the one comment I made that was off topic, and here we are. I have certainly taken some of what you have given, but if you feel you have only given, and there is nothing to take away, then so be 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.

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

Do I need to be obligated to make an explanation for that explanation to be worthy of discussion? I don't think so. I discuss my interests with people quite often, and don't see the harm. I discuss things I am not interested in quite a bit less frequently.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Mandated gender-neutral public restrooms would make sense.

Too often one is closed for maintenance or disrepair, and the open one is restricted to only the other gender.

We should start a revolution over this, and threaten to storm the Capitol building if this is not corrected.

 

[Metaphor]

My OK was just an acknowledgement of what you said, not sure how that can be disingenuous.

I've never understood 'OK' to mean 'I hear what you are saying but disagree', unless the 'OK' was ironic.

I can acknowledge your statement as generally representing what you mean, while asking further questions about how things look from my perspective, can't I?

I don't know what that means, but I am willing to answer good faith questions.

If you are going to take umbrage at it, you might want to get the quote right, I questioned your "obsession with those politics from the US", in reference to sex and gender politics. BTW, that is an indication that my OK was not disingenuous, and I took you at face value regarding your interest in sex and gender politics.

Your entire post is meant to mock and demean me. To say I have an 'obsession' is a way to indict me. I have explained why US politics figures in my interests and I won't explain again.

I didn't just bring it up out of thin air, it evolved as part of our discussion. If you recall (and you should, all the posts are there), my initial question was whether this shit (frivolous legislation) occurs in Australia. Your response indicated that you had no idea,

No, my response did not indicate that. I said I doubted it at the federal level, but did not know at the state level.

and I found that very interesting as it indicates a larger interest in politics from US as opposed to the politics in your own country. I realize it is off topic, and as a result I have repeatedly said you do not have to answer. If the mods would like to split off my apparently obnoxious off-topic questions, they may do so.

It's more than just off topic. It's wrong.

Fair enough. You do seem to be rather upset that I used the word "obsessed". I apologize if you feel that is too strong of a word to describe your pursuit of this topic, it may occupy a relatively small portion of your time in your larger life, but from my perspective on this board, it seems to be your sole pursuit.

Neither US politics, nor sex and gender politics, occupy my life to an extent that the word 'obsessed' is a fair description. I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back.

I am not admonishing your interests, nor am I asking you to defend yourself. I am actually quite surprised you have taken the time to explain yourself so thoroughly, given the antagonism you seem to think I possess regarding our discussion.

No. You are not asking me to defend myself. You are merely making charges against me, which I can either let stand or stand against.

I can see how there would be more news regarding this kind of thing from the US, especially if you typically consume, or are exposed to, right wing news sources. They US is certainly more populous, and has more States than Australia, but I can't imagine that there is so little going on in the sex and gender politics in Australia that you can't find any relevant examples. I would still likely disagree with your take on them, but at least I would understand your concern a bit more.

Okay. Well, I'm going to be more direct then. I don't give a fuck about your lack of 'concern' when it's based on your vacuous, mindless, geopolitical discrimination.

It wasn't intended that way, I can assure you. The only evidence I can offer in that regard is my initial post that directly commented on the OP, both noting my agreements and disagreements. The disagreement turned out to be well founded, and of course it is less fun to argue about things with which we agree. So it seems you chose to follow the path from the one comment I made that was off topic, and here we are. I have certainly taken some of what you have given, but if you feel you have only given, and there is nothing to take away, then so be it.

I can assure you that I will continue to post and comment on topics that interest me, no matter the geographical origin of the story, and that is something that I hope you will find the fortitude to deal with.

Do I need to be obligated to make an explanation for that explanation to be worthy of discussion? I don't think so. I discuss my interests with people quite often, and don't see the harm. I discuss things I am not interested in quite a bit less frequently.

You're not obligated to comment on anything. I merely expressed my distaste for your condescending comments about my 'obsessive' interests.

 

[KeepTalking]

I've never understood 'OK' to mean 'I hear what you are saying but disagree', unless the 'OK' was ironic.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK

OK (spelling variations include okay, O.K., and ok) is an English word (originally American English) denoting approval, acceptance, agreement, assent, acknowledgment, or a sign of indifference.

I don't know what that means, but I am willing to answer good faith questions.

It means that it is possible for someone to acknowledge that a person is conveying their intended meaning, while continuing to ask questions about what they mean. Often those questions will arise due to a difference in perspective.

If you are going to take umbrage at it, you might want to get the quote right, I questioned your "obsession with those politics from the US", in reference to sex and gender politics. BTW, that is an indication that my OK was not disingenuous, and I took you at face value regarding your interest in sex and gender politics.

Your entire post is meant to mock and demean me.

You may have taken it that way, but it was not the way it was intended. I did not enter into this thread with a post that intentionally mocked or demeaned you, I agreed with the thrust of your argument, while disagreeing with your predicted outcome (a disagreement that turned out to be correct), and then asked if the same kind of shit happened in Australia. I feel like I have been entirely misunderstood since that point, and I now wonder why you even deign to respond to me if you think I am being that antagonistic about the subject.

To say I have an 'obsession' is a way to indict me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am occasionally obsessed with politics, but my ADD keeps it from being too much of a burden, as I become obsessed with a wide variety of things.

I have explained why US politics figures in my interests and I won't explain again.

I'm not asking you to explain it again, I feel rather more informed about this particular interest of yours. I still won't say I fully understand why sex and transgender politics in California seems more interesting to you than sex and transgender politics in the Australian Capital Territory, but I am not asking for any further explanation.

I didn't just bring it up out of thin air, it evolved as part of our discussion. If you recall (and you should, all the posts are there), my initial question was whether this shit (frivolous legislation) occurs in Australia. Your response indicated that you had no idea,

No, my response did not indicate that. I said I doubted it at the federal level, but did not know at the state level.

I apologize for mischaracterizing your response as being in regard to Australian politics in general, rather than specifically Australian state politics.

and I found that very interesting as it indicates a larger interest in politics from US as opposed to the politics in your own country. I realize it is off topic, and as a result I have repeatedly said you do not have to answer. If the mods would like to split off my apparently obnoxious off-topic questions, they may do so.

It's more than just off topic. It's wrong.

I see I must refrain from generalizing for the sake of brevity in the future. I appear to also have failed to communicate adequately that it was my perception of your posting that I was referring to above, and was not intended to reflect the ensuing explanation you provided.

Fair enough. You do seem to be rather upset that I used the word "obsessed". I apologize if you feel that is too strong of a word to describe your pursuit of this topic, it may occupy a relatively small portion of your time in your larger life, but from my perspective on this board, it seems to be your sole pursuit.

Neither US politics, nor sex and gender politics, occupy my life to an extent that the word 'obsessed' is a fair description. I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back.

Ok, I acknowledge that your statement reflects your perception of how I used the word 'obsessed'. I did not intend to convey that an obsession must preclude walking, talking, shopping, sneezing, and having ambitions of becoming a fireman. I walk, talk, shop, sneeze, and have ambitions all while still managing to become obsessed with a fair number of things.

I am not admonishing your interests, nor am I asking you to defend yourself. I am actually quite surprised you have taken the time to explain yourself so thoroughly, given the antagonism you seem to think I possess regarding our discussion.

No. You are not asking me to defend myself. You are merely making charges against me, which I can either let stand or stand against.

I don't feel I made charges against you, either. At least not any more than I made charges against Anglophiles in the US. Not understanding why someone is interested in something is not the same as thinking they are doing something wrong by holding that interest.

I can see how there would be more news regarding this kind of thing from the US, especially if you typically consume, or are exposed to, right wing news sources. They US is certainly more populous, and has more States than Australia, but I can't imagine that there is so little going on in the sex and gender politics in Australia that you can't find any relevant examples. I would still likely disagree with your take on them, but at least I would understand your concern a bit more.

Okay. Well, I'm going to be more direct then. I don't give a fuck about your lack of 'concern' when it's based on your vacuous, mindless, geopolitical discrimination.

Thanks for being direct. You are wrong about the geopolitical discrimination part, though.

I will also note that you seem perfectly capable of using 'OK' as an acknowledgement without agreement, so I'm not sure why we had a dustup over my similar usage earlier.

It wasn't intended that way, I can assure you. The only evidence I can offer in that regard is my initial post that directly commented on the OP, both noting my agreements and disagreements. The disagreement turned out to be well founded, and of course it is less fun to argue about things with which we agree. So it seems you chose to follow the path from the one comment I made that was off topic, and here we are. I have certainly taken some of what you have given, but if you feel you have only given, and there is nothing to take away, then so be it.

I can assure you that I will continue to post and comment on topics that interest me, no matter the geographical origin of the story, and that is something that I hope you will find the fortitude to deal with.

That's great, I look forward to either ignoring or responding to those topics depending upon my interest in them. I doubt we will agree on much, but maybe one of us will learn something.

Do I need to be obligated to make an explanation for that explanation to be worthy of discussion? I don't think so. I discuss my interests with people quite often, and don't see the harm. I discuss things I am not interested in quite a bit less frequently.

You're not obligated to comment on anything. I merely expressed my distaste for your condescending comments about my 'obsessive' interests.

No, you actually said the following:

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

That would indicate that for an interest to be worthy of discussion, one must be beholden to explain that interest for some reason. Personally, I feel that things which interest people are often worthy of discussion simply because they are interesting things to discuss. I don't feel beholden to explain my interest in comic books, but I am more than willing to discuss that interest at length, just ask my friends and coworkers.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And yet in your OP you wrote "This seems like it will pass, " Yeah, so another hysterical OP about nothing,

Yes, I wrote in my OP that I thought it would pass, based on my understanding of the composition of the legislature in California.

Your "understanding" was either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

No, neither the OP tone, nor the link to the article, were 'hysterical', but thank you for your relentless, unprovoked nastiness.

Accepting an internet article on faith when it conforms with one's fears is understandable and is your MO. This is not the first time you have jumped the gun with an OP with either false or outdated information. Your thought it would pass based on party affiliation was a hysterical reaction, even without the knowledge that the bill was not even introduced in this session.

Your relentless and ridiculous charge of nastiness is ironic since it could be viewed as a passive aggressive form of nastiness and because of the frequency of vitriol and unwarranted sarcasm in your OPs towards people with whom you disagree. If I had told you to fuck off or directed a comment directly towards you instead of one of your ideas or arguments, you'd have a point. But pointing out an OP is emotional fear-mongering/whining is not nastiness.

No, the OP is not about 'nothing'. It is about a bill that was introduced in California.

A bill that was not current - it was a nothing burger when it was introduced and even a bigger nothing burger now.

 

[Jokodo]

Just the other day I was looking for slip in half boots, something vaguely like these: https://www.proidee.at/?P=200335800...WKsG1YzBT7We3W52_QJ7dCgqe7wDj8_oaAin_EALw_wcB

They have models much like this with minor differences in the men's and women's, often barely noticeable. Which means I lost ten minutes looking on two different floors. Had they sorted their shoes by type rather than target gender would have saved me time and improved my quality of life.

This just as a side note to those claiming that this bill is solely ideological with zero real life benefit. I do not herewith that it's a net positive and will ignore responses trying to corner me into defending doing so.

 

[TomC]

I do not herewith that it's a net positive and will ignore responses trying to corner me into defending doing so.

So, your shoe shopping experience is more important to you than a customer trying to find appropriate gifts and back to school clothes.
But you don't want to defend that attitude.

Got it.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

I do not herewith that it's a net positive and will ignore responses trying to corner me into defending doing so.

So, your shoe shopping experience is more important to you than a customer trying to find appropriate gifts and back to school clothes.
But you don't want to defend that attitude.

Got it.
Tom

A customer trying to find appropriate gifts and back to school clothes is often, I dare say typically, interested in a bunch of things. The target gender may be on the list, but so are size, functions, colours. If you want imply that making target gender the top level category by which first to sort everything will increase average and aggregate comfort, I'd like to see an explicit argument why this should be so. Sorting by other parameters will make searching a hoodie or pair of pants of the right size, in a color the child likes faster, not slower. I know a lot of parents, myself included, who won't particularly care whether a designer intended a piece of clothing for small girls or small boys (at least as long as it doesn't cry it out), when it's otherwise in a style they or the child like. I have yet to meet someone who goes into a store not caring about whether it's for 5 or 12 year olds or whether it's a t-shirt or a hoodie, or even what color it is, as long as it's for girls.

 

[horhangi]

A bill that was not current - it was a nothing burger when it was introduced and even a bigger nothing burger now.

Snipping the rest. The bill is current . It was introduced in 2020, but work on the bill stopped due to covid19. It was reintroduced again this year

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/arti...thing-sections-stores-California-15996704.php

 

[laughing dog]

A bill that was not current - it was a nothing burger when it was introduced and even a bigger nothing burger now.

Snipping the rest. The bill is current . It was introduced in 2020, but work on the bill stopped due to covid19. It was reintroduced again this year

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/arti...thing-sections-stores-California-15996704.php

Thank you for the update. I do apologize for calling this bill a nothing-burger since it is apparently "in play".

 

[KeepTalking]

A bill that was not current - it was a nothing burger when it was introduced and even a bigger nothing burger now.

Snipping the rest. The bill is current . It was introduced in 2020, but work on the bill stopped due to covid19. It was reintroduced again this year

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/arti...thing-sections-stores-California-15996704.php

Thank you for the update. I do apologize for calling this bill a nothing-burger since it is apparently "in play".

It's still a nothing burger, just a normal nothing burger, and not the supersized one.

 

[Jokodo]

In other words: Which of the following scenarios do you find more likely?

1. A shopper comes in the store.
   Shopper: "I'm looking for a game that's easy to explain yet allows clever tricks, for an eight year old."
   Store keeper: "For a boy or a girl?"
2. A shopper comes into the store.
   Shopper: "I'm looking for a gift for a girl."
   Store keeper: "I would like to recommend this new game which is easy to explain yet allows clever tricks, if it's for an eight year old."

In my experience, the first kind of scenario is much more prevalent, which indicates that stores are sorting by gender in excess of what costumers demand, thus decreasing overall consumer satisfaction, with people ending up with products less to their liking than they could have because they only looked in the boys' on floor 3 and never went into the girls' on floor two, or because they had to run up and down the stairs to look for the same kind of product in two places. In its essence, that appears to be what the bill wants to address. So, while I will not enter the discussion of whether, in general or in this particular case, demanding such in law is an appropriate way to achieve it, I will claim that people's needs would overall be served better if stores shifted to voluntary doing what this bill suggests.

 

[Jarhyn]

In other words: Which of the following scenarios do you find more likely?

1. A shopper comes in the store.
   Shopper: "I'm looking for a game that's easy to explain yet allows clever tricks, for an eight year old."
   Store keeper: "For a boy or a girl?"
2. A shopper comes into the store.
   Shopper: "I'm looking for a gift for a girl."
   Store keeper: "I would like to recommend this new game which is easy to explain yet allows clever tricks, if it's for an eight year old."

In my experience, the first kind of scenario is much more prevalent, which indicates that stores are sorting by gender in excess of what costumers demand, thus decreasing overall consumer satisfaction, with people ending up with products less to their liking than they could have because they only looked in the boys' on floor 3 and never went into the girls' on floor two, or because they had to run up and down the stairs to look for the same kind of product in two places. In its essence, that appears to be what the bill wants to address. So, while I will not enter the discussion of whether, in general or in this particular case, demanding such in law is an appropriate way to achieve it, I will claim that people's needs would overall be served better if stores shifted to voluntary doing what this bill suggests.

The problem is that were that the case, there could be no pink tax, and the quality differential between "boys" and "girls" would become publicly apparent.

My husband has a lot of clothes from before he fully self-actualized, and continues to occasionally buy clothes marketed towards women because sometimes, there are more fun options there. I could tell which "gender" any given shirt in my house was marketed to blindfolded: every "girl" shirt is roughly a third the fabric weight, and wears out in a span of 6 months to 2 years. Compare that to some shirts I've had for longer than 20 years, and I still feel confident to wear.

The problem is that stores make their money primarily selling shitty (but admittedly fun) clothes that will wear out in a year or two for prices WAY higher than you find in the "boys" section.

Hell, I bet I could walk into a Walmart today (were I to decide to subject myself to the inside of a Walmart) and walk to the women's and I bet I could find a pair of socks, the SAME socks mind, for a 50-100% markup across the store compared to the men's.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not asking you to explain it again, I feel rather more informed about this particular interest of yours. I still won't say I fully understand why sex and transgender politics in California seems more interesting to you than sex and transgender politics in the Australian Capital Territory, but I am not asking for any further explanation.

You are not asking for further explanation: you simply want to repeat your lie so that people remember the lie.

I am not more interested in sex and gender politics in California than I am in sex and gender politics in the ACT, and if it seems that way to you it's because you have failed to read or understand what I've already said on the matter.

Ok, I acknowledge that your statement reflects your perception of how I used the word 'obsessed'. I did not intend to convey that an obsession must preclude walking, talking, shopping, sneezing, and having ambitions of becoming a fireman. I walk, talk, shop, sneeze, and have ambitions all while still managing to become obsessed with a fair number of things.

obsession noun


ob·​ses·​sion | \ äb-ˈse-shən , əb- \
Definition of obsession
1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling

or

obsession
[əbˈsɛʃ(ə)n]
NOUN


an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.

Neither Californian politics, nor US politics in general, nor even sex and gender politics, continually preoccupy my mind, and the thoughts do not feel intrusive or unreasonable.

While you might have intended to mean a broader, gentler connotation of 'obsessed', your questioning of my motives still seems odd. It seems something designed to sidestep the actual topic, like if medical school admissions are being discussed and I am asked why I'm so interested, am I applying for medical school?

I will also note that you seem perfectly capable of using 'OK' as an acknowledgement without agreement, so I'm not sure why we had a dustup over my similar usage earlier.

It wasn't used as a sign of acknowledgment without agreement by me, but more closely as a 'sign of indifference'. But okay. I accept okay can mean acknowledgment without agreement.

That's great, I look forward to either ignoring or responding to those topics depending upon my interest in them. I doubt we will agree on much, but maybe one of us will learn something.

I suspect that if people on this board actually read my comments without prejudice clouding their mind, they would probably agree more often. Or rather, they would less often attribute to me positions I have not claimed and do not believe.

That would indicate that for an interest to be worthy of discussion, one must be beholden to explain that interest for some reason. Personally, I feel that things which interest people are often worthy of discussion simply because they are interesting things to discuss. I don't feel beholden to explain my interest in comic books, but I am more than willing to discuss that interest at length, just ask my friends and coworkers.

I will try to convey it more clearly, then.

You asked me why I was so obsessed with US politics in a thread that wasn't about US politics in some general sense, but sex and gender politics. Your statement was very loaded and I will explain what it felt like to me:

• Good god, "obsessed", KeepTalking wants to exaggerate my interest in the topic to make that interest appear psychologically dysfunctional
• "Stay in your lane" - this has nothing to do with you so shut the fuck up

And in a thread where the first few responses were not any kind of comment on the topic at all, but attacks on my imagined character - you can go back and see for yourself - then you might understand my level of suspicion at your so obsessed comment.