Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. This is the democrat leadership I am talking about. Imagine how much further along California would be if we weren't #50 (dead last) in the best states to do business in the US:

The 2020 Best & Worst States For Business

The pandemic cratered economic development for now, but it hasn’t changed CEOs’ opinions about three important things: Texas remains the best place in America to do business, in their eyes; having a capable workforce is still their top concern, despite now-record unemployment; and states’ “blue” political leanings concern them—except when they don’t.

Welcome to Chief Executive’s annual “Best & Worst States for Business” survey, Covid edition. Once again, for the 16th year out of the 16 years we have conducted our poll, Texas ranks No. 1. Despite the shutdown of much of its oil industry by the coronavirus recession, the state retains extremely business-friendly characteristics and policies. The rest of the top 10 states also remained essentially unchanged from the 2019 rankings. Similarly, the bottom 10 in the rankings were relatively frozen, with California once again in last place. (See the full list.)

Fundamentally, this comes down to what's good for business and what's good for the people often differ.

A state that allows business to externalize costs more is better for business but worse for the people.

 

[bilby]

The law doesn't apply to clothing retailers, only large department stores, and only certain items like toys and toothbrushes that have no logical need to be gendered at all.

Tell me again.
Who, exactly, needs to protected from gender specific children's toothbrushes and toys?

By law!

Seriously, that still sounds very stupid to me.
Tom

Purchasers who were previously being pressured into paying an unjustifiable premium for essentially identical products, just because they happened to be buying a toothbrush for their daughter rather than one for their son.

Protecting consumers against unreasonable price premiums is a useful function of government. A functioning free market requires informed consumers; Engineering ignorance amongst consumers, by selling similar products in such a way as to make it unlikely that purchasers will know that they are being overcharged, shouldn’t be permitted.

That retailers had discovered that gendering of products allowed them to enact that scam is not particularly relevant; It just happened to be the psychological hook that was readily to hand.

Protecting consumers against misleading business practices is a good thing; But you are letting a bunch of manipulative con-artists persuade you that protecting you in this way from their nefarious schemes is somehow an attack on society, decency, tradition, and the American Way.

Do you really want to defend retailers’ rights to fleece their customers? Are you ready so gullible that you will support underhanded and crooked dealing, in defence of some nebulous tradition of gender segregation?

 

[TomC]

Purchasers who were previously being pressured into paying an unjustifiable premium for essentially identical products, just because they happened to be buying a toothbrush for their daughter rather than one for their son.

Sorry pumpkin.

As best I recall, only Californians were deemed incompetent to buy children's gear without the state telling them which aisle was correct.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was entirely a California thing.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Purchasers who were previously being pressured into paying an unjustifiable premium for essentially identical products, just because they happened to be buying a toothbrush for their daughter rather than one for their son.

Sorry pumpkin.

As best I recall, only Californians were deemed incompetent to buy children's gear without the state telling them which aisle was correct.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was entirely a California thing.
Tom

I am baffled by this argument. Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to? No one is telling you what aisle to shop in. You can still shop in whatever aisle you want on your next visit to California. There's just a one more option than there used to be.

I go to stores often, and have never felt "incompetent" to decide which aisle I want to buy things from, just because there are aisles that don't apply to me.

 

[TomC]

Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to?

Nope.

But I'm not Californian. I don't need the government to require such things to decide what products I prefer to buy.
Tom

ETA ~With a bit of luck I'll be gone before Indiana needs three aisles for toothbrushes
Boys
Girls
Californians ~

 

[bilby]

Purchasers who were previously being pressured into paying an unjustifiable premium for essentially identical products, just because they happened to be buying a toothbrush for their daughter rather than one for their son.

Sorry pumpkin.

Go stick your condescension up your arse, pumpkin.

As best I recall, only Californians were deemed incompetent to buy children's gear without the state telling them which aisle was correct.

Well my entire argument is that your assumptions here are utterly wrong, so I am disinterested in what you “recall”.

The state told retailers to stop misleading customers. That’s only a commentary on customer competence in your fevered imagination.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was entirely a California thing.
Tom

How would that have the slightest bearing on anything I said?

I said nothing whatsoever about jurisdictional boundaries.

 

[TomC]

Go stick your condescension up your arse, pumpkin.

I hereby totally, completely, and abjectly apologize for saying "Sorry pumpkin".

It was out of line. Maybe an IIDB TOU violation.

I'm very very sorry.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to?

Nope.

But I'm not Californian. I don't need the government to require such things to decide what products I prefer to buy.
Tom

Neither do we...

How would this law force anyone to buy anything they weren't already planning to? More options = more freedom to choose, not less.

 

[TomC]

Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to?

Nope.

But I'm not Californian. I don't need the government to require such things to decide what products I prefer to buy.
Tom

Neither do we...

How would this law force anyone to buy anything they weren't already planning to? More options = more freedom to choose, not less.

How does this Californian law create more options? More freedom to choose?

Maybe the difficulty you and I are having is that we Hoosiers aren't so mind numbingly stupid that we'll pay extra to buy a child's toothbrush from a particular aisle at a store.

Californians seem to need the government to point out how to be a competent shopper.

Maybe it's something else. Feel free to explain. Why did Californians pass a law requiring retailers to direct shoppers in a way that Hoosier shoppers took for granted?
Tom

 

[bilby]

"I am not so stupid as to fall for a scam" - Every victim of a scam ever.

 

[Politesse]

Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to?

Nope.

But I'm not Californian. I don't need the government to require such things to decide what products I prefer to buy.
Tom

Neither do we...

How would this law force anyone to buy anything they weren't already planning to? More options = more freedom to choose, not less.

How does this Californian law create more options? More freedom to choose?

Maybe the difficulty you and I are having is that we Hoosiers aren't so mind numbingly stupid that we'll pay extra to buy a child's toothbrush from a particular aisle at a store.

Californians seem to need the government to point out how to be a competent shopper.

Maybe it's something else. Feel free to explain. Why did Californians pass a law requiring retailers to direct shoppers in a way that Hoosier shoppers took for granted?
Tom

You're off the deep end on this one. You seem convinced, with no evidence, that shoppers are being "directed" or "required" to buy something they don't want to, and are just pounding that point ad nauseum even though it makes no logical sense in the slightest. I definitely do not find it credible to suppose that Walmart and Target stock their toothbrush and toy aisles wildly differently in California vs Indiana respectively. But in California, they are required to provide gender neutral options for certain products which have no natural connection to sex. Enforcement was non-controversial and immediate. The population accrued a very slight benefit at no particular cost, and the world moved on. But conservative dolts want to make it out like it was some sort of assault on someone's rights, even if they can't rationally explain whose or how. Shoppers have lost no rights or freedoms. They can still buy blue or pink toothbrushes if that's what they desire. But if they'd rather not buy gendered products for their kids, they now have the guaranteed option to do so. Win-win.

 

[TomC]

You seem convinced, with no evidence, that shoppers are being "directed" or "required" to buy something they don't want to,

No
That was you.

I was the mind numbingly stupid one who didn't see why Californian shoppers needed this law.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

You seem convinced, with no evidence, that shoppers are being "directed" or "required" to buy something they don't want to,

No
That was you.

I was the mind numbingly stupid one who didn't see why Californian shoppers needed this law.
Tom

Because the large retailers were pursuing ridiculous policies of strictly gender-divided kids' products that didn't need to be gender-divided, which both puts unneeded pressure on gender-nonconforming kids and/or their tolerant parents to surround them with backwards social propaganda every time they brush their fucking teeth? Or if that isn't a sufficient enough reason (though I don't see why it shouldn't be) than because its been known for years that unnecessary gendering of products is a means for unscrupulous corporations to place a secret tax on femininity. Yes, if you don't want to pay extra for girl toys, you can go and buy your daughter a truck from the boy section instead. But there's a social cost to public gender non-conformity, and retailers know it. When gender neutral options are on offer, most people naturally prefer them. But if people can be obliged to choose between a "girl version" and a "boy version", then they feel considerable social pressure to go with the flow and get the one that matches their child's assigned gender. So they can charge 15 cents extra for the exact same product in different packaging, basically by exploiting backwards social ideals rather than producing a better or more valuable product in any way. Our state simply decided that buying a toy or a toothbrush shouldn't be a forced-choice scenario. It's fine if people want gendered toys, they just shouldn't be stuck in a scenario where all toys are gendered toys.

In any case, civil order has not broken down over this. It hasn't even hit a bump. I doubt most Californians know this law even happened, if they don't follow politics-as-entertainment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am baffled by this argument. Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to? No one is telling you what aisle to shop in. You can still shop in whatever aisle you want on your next visit to California. There's just a one more option than there used to be.

I go to stores often, and have never felt "incompetent" to decide which aisle I want to buy things from, just because there are aisles that don't apply to me.

And there are products that are typically gendered yet traditionally sold in a combined form.

Never have I seen male shoes sold in a separate department than female shoes. They might be in the next aisle over because shoes are arranged by size and US shoe sizes are different between male and female--mixing them would not be a good idea. Likewise, I can't recall ever seeing recreational goods separated even when they come in male and female versions (and you often can't tell them apart by looking, it's a matter of fit.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How does this Californian law create more options? More freedom to choose?

Maybe the difficulty you and I are having is that we Hoosiers aren't so mind numbingly stupid that we'll pay extra to buy a child's toothbrush from a particular aisle at a store.

Californians seem to need the government to point out how to be a competent shopper.

Maybe it's something else. Feel free to explain. Why did Californians pass a law requiring retailers to direct shoppers in a way that Hoosier shoppers took for granted?
Tom

The issue with the separated goods is hiding the lower priced goods away from the customers they think will pay the higher price. Stores always like to do that and apparently California put a stop to one form of doing so.

 

[TSwizzle]

Starbucks closing stores in LA because it’s too dangerous to operate, Walgreens can’t do anything to stop looters ransacking their stores of merchandise but woe betide Target if their teeth brushes are misgendered

 

[Swammerdami]

What's my political party?

Even more useless, then.

I've been registered since 1980 as "independent". So, I don't know how to respond to the statement that my "political party is useless".

It's bad enough when obvious right-wingers pretend they didn't vote for Trump — they voted for the Libertarian nutjob or wrote in Steve Bannon or something.

But claiming dispensation because you "registered as independent" is just silly. Are you independent because the GOP is too right-wing? Or not right-wing enough?

Who did you vote for, by the way?

 

[Politesse]

I am baffled by this argument. Are you claiming to be so mind-numbingly stupid that if someone adds a gender neutral aisle to the store, you now feel compelled to buy things from that aisle even if you don't want to? No one is telling you what aisle to shop in. You can still shop in whatever aisle you want on your next visit to California. There's just a one more option than there used to be.

I go to stores often, and have never felt "incompetent" to decide which aisle I want to buy things from, just because there are aisles that don't apply to me.

And there are products that are typically gendered yet traditionally sold in a combined form.

Never have I seen male shoes sold in a separate department than female shoes. They might be in the next aisle over because shoes are arranged by size and US shoe sizes are different between male and female--mixing them would not be a good idea. Likewise, I can't recall ever seeing recreational goods separated even when they come in male and female versions (and you often can't tell them apart by looking, it's a matter of fit.)

The law in question doesn't apply to shoes, and also doesn't have anything to do with "mixing" products.

 

[Politesse]

Starbucks closing stores in LA because it’s too dangerous to operate, Walgreens can’t do anything to stop looters ransacking their stores of merchandise but woe betide Target if their teeth brushes are misgendered

No one has accused a toothbrush of being "misgendered". Toothbrushes do not have a gender, and considering them gendered objects in the first place is dumb as hell. The Starbucks closures just so happened to close locations whose workers were making movements to unionize, complete coincidence I'm sure. Shoplifting is a real problem in the state, but as we have established dozens of times in this thread alone, not one particular to California. Nor have you yet to suggest any clear and meaningful plan of action to combat shoplifting or drug use.

 

[TSwizzle]

What navel gazing claptrap. Unless it’s confusing the looters that ransack Walgreens of course.