If DeSantis wins

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Imagine being such a chode that people are rooting for Disney's Lawyers. And this prick thought he could take on Trump. I guess he only *looks* smarter

Ol' pudding fingers Ron had his failure sealed since inception of his plan to imitate and replace trump while simultaneously having to keep praising him out of fear of losing his passionate voter base. He had no tactic for trump attacking him, so just looked either super weird or incredibly weak when still giving praise in every talk afterwards.

The visible overcompensation with weaponising new laws and political stunts to lionise the trumpian conspiracy base seems to have hit a soft limit, hopefully. You can't mess with the big money. Thing is, he probably could've gotten away with attacking/retorting back to trump, as there have been multiple Floridian callers on infowars complaining to Alex Jones about him attacking Ron on air while defending trump, cause in their eyes, at least Ron was able to enact specific laws targeting their paranoia beliefs, whereas trump bumbled and dragged feet and worst of all still takes credit for the devil's transmogrification 5G vaccine.

 

[Silvanus]

Those situations are imaginary. Nothing is ever beneficial in every conceivable respect. Any good Magic player could tell you "strictly better" is never 100% true, and that's in a designed, deterministic rules engine. Reality is way less defined than that.

Are you genuinely telling me that in those situations where being open means death and disownment, and where they cannot seek partners because doing so would put their life at risk, so they remain repressed for years on end -- you're genuinely saying that these people are still choosing to be gay.

And you're /so/ convinced of this-- even though you cannot point to any causative link-- that your certainty outweighs the testimony of everyone who has actually been through those situations themselves.

You have absolutely no reason other than personal prejudice and religious dogma to be pushing this dogshit.

 

[Bedinsis]

Those situations are imaginary. Nothing is ever beneficial in every conceivable respect. Any good Magic player could tell you "strictly better" is never 100% true, and that's in a designed, deterministic rules engine. Reality is way less defined than that.

That's a game. Those are literally designed to have interesting decisions.

 

[Chimpzy]

Imagine being such a chode that people are rooting for Disney's Lawyers. And this prick thought he could take on Trump. I guess he only *looks* smarter

 

[Trunkage]

So at first glance, Disney have a slam dunk case of 1st amendment, its pretty easy to prove since DeSantis literally said he was doing it as a form of retaliation. Problem is, if every person in the legal system just decide that they're okay with ignoring the constitution just because they disagree with Disney here, DeSantis could very well win here. And I doubt the 2nd amendment "protection against governement tyrany" people are going to do anything about it.

Yeah, that's not how the 1st Amendment has worked at all. There has been many, many, MANY instances where ignoring the constitution, including ignoring the 1st Amendment just to score political points is seen as a good thing. Because those in the legal system can just pretend that the constitution is written differently for each person, usually depending on how much money you have

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

A (copyright) lawyer delves deeply into Disney's DeSantis dispute.

​

tl;dr version (I understand; it's an hour and a half long): Disney has an exceptionally strong case, which is unsurprising as they have some of the best lawyers who aren't yet in Hell, and DeSantis has done a fantastic job of giving them legal ammunition.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you genuinely telling me that in those situations where being open means death and disownment, and where they cannot seek partners because doing so would put their life at risk, so they remain repressed for years on end -- you're genuinely saying that these people are still choosing to be gay.

Not only do I believe that is the case, I also think you may be listing the causes for some people. Have you seen the frequently illegal other sexual things people choose to do in our countries? Some people are actively attracted to the risk.

You don't even need to step outside of vanilla heteronormativity to get to Romeo and Juliet, yes people choose relationships that could mean death or disownment.

 

[CastletonSnob]

DeSantis is getting sued by Disney.

I believe that's what the kids today call, "fucking around and finding out".

 

[Silvanus]

Not only do I believe that is the case, I also think you may be listing the causes for some people. Have you seen the frequently illegal other sexual things people choose to do in our countries? Some people are actively attracted to the risk.

Oh my good god. You're genuinely making the argument that gay people in Saudi Arabia and Iran are gay because they're sexually attracted to danger.

That's one of the most stunningly offensive, utterly baseless, brainlessly bigoted things I've ever read on this forum, and thats saying a lot.

You should be fucking ashamed of this grotesque horseshit.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh my good god. You're genuinely making the argument that gay people in Saudi Arabia and Iran are gay because they're sexually attracted to danger.

That's one of the most stunningly offensive, utterly baseless, brainlessly bigoted things I've ever read on this forum, and thats saying a lot.

You should be fucking ashamed of this grotesque horseshit.

You're offended at the suggestions that people have agency over their feelings and varied responses to differing personal circumstances. If you ask me, "they're gay, they can't help it" is tremendously more insulting.

 

[Cheetodust]

If you ask me, "they're gay, they can't help it" is tremendously more insulting.

Yeh but nobody would ever ask you because you're a thick biggot.

 

[Silvanus]

You're offended at the suggestions that people have agency over their feelings and varied responses to differing personal circumstances. If you ask me, "they're gay, they can't help it" is tremendously more insulting.

I'm offended over the suggestion that people have control over their own sexuality and are choosing homosexuality because they're sexually excited by danger. Don't you dare try to twist that unto a broader point about "agency"-- it's a sick effort to ascribe culpability for prejudice onto the victim.

Saying someone "can't help" something only becomes insulting when it's not true, because it ends up denigrating the person's self control or intelligence. When the characteristic is genuinely out of their hands, it just becomes a statement of fact: Imagine arguing that its "tremendously insulting" to say ethnicity isn't a choice.

You still have absolutely zero basis for any of this other than a personal prejudice. You've got no actual causative decisions to point to, nothing with any demonstrative link (as there is for weight). And on that you're willing to ignore the testimony and lived experience of the entire community itself, and insist we're just sexually excited by danger or choosing expedience, even as we directly tell you we're not.

You're minimising and dismissing the pain and discrimination, or insisting we're ultimately responsible for it ourselves, because it helps you rationalise your prejudice.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm offended over the suggestion that people have control over their own sexuality and are choosing homosexuality because they're sexually excited by danger. Don't you dare try to twist that unto a broader point about "agency"-- it's a sick effort to ascribe culpability for prejudice onto the victim.

Saying someone "can't help" something only becomes insulting when it's not true, because it ends up denigrating the person's self control or intelligence. When the characteristic is genuinely out of their hands, it just becomes a statement of fact: Imagine arguing that its "tremendously insulting" to say ethnicity isn't a choice.

You still have absolutely zero basis for any of this other than a personal prejudice. You've got no actual causative decisions to point to, nothing with any demonstrative link (as there is for weight). And on that you're willing to ignore the testimony and lived experience of the entire community itself, and insist we're just sexually excited by danger or choosing expedience, even as we directly tell you we're not.

You're minimising and dismissing the pain and discrimination, or insisting we're ultimately responsible for it ourselves, because it helps you rationalise your prejudice.

You are responsible for yourselves, that's not a rationalization for prejudice. The idea that certain people have predetermined behaviors is prejudice. Do you understand that premise of your argument is that bigotry would be fine if people chose to be gay? Like, you want me to treat homosexuality as a monolith, because not doing so somehow rationalizes hatred. I don't think that's an actual viewpoint, I think you're just trying to yell me into submission, and you have to know that won't accomplish anything.

Ethnicity isn't a choice, but the heritage you came from happened before you were born and was passed to you by your parents before you existed to have agency. It's also not a behavior, and any behavior associated with an ethnicity is itself a choice, and any expectation of behavior based on ethnicity is a prejudice.

You have no causative anything. I'm giving examples of a myriad of ways people could rationally reach such an end point, and your position is still "nope, no agency whatsoever, determined by fate", and then criticize me as though you have a cause to point to. And like, it's such a weird thing to conclude in the first place, that something that's varied wildly by time, culture, and circumstance is genetically predetermined.

 

[Silvanus]

You are responsible for yourselves, that's not a rationalization for prejudice. The idea that certain people have predetermined behaviors is prejudice.

Orientation is not behaviour. Conflating orientation with action is a common reductionist tactic.

Do you understand that premise of your argument is that bigotry would be fine if people chose to be gay?

Illogical bullshit. That's neither a premise nor a logical conclusion.

"People don't choose to be born with dwarfism" --> "Oh, so you're saying prejudice would be fine if they did!?"

Like, you want me to treat homosexuality as a monolith, because not doing so somehow rationalizes hatred. I don't think that's an actual viewpoint, I think you're just trying to yell me into submission, and you have to know that won't accomplish anything.

How exactly does treating a characteristic as not a result of choice mean one must treat it as a "monolith"? Do you think black people are a monolith because they didn't choose their ethnicity?

And "yell you into submission"-- yeah, sorry, but my tone isn't going to be very amicable when you're being this incredibly denigrating to me. Insisting my lived experience is false; that it was my own choice to be assaulted; that I deserve to be discriminated against in work and employment. You treat me as if I'm less than human. I'm not going to soften my replies.

Ethnicity isn't a choice, but the heritage you came from happened before you were born and was passed to you by your parents before you existed to have agency.

So? Why does this invalidate the comparison? If you believe merely stating something isn't a choice is somehow insulting, then you can apply that rationale elsewhere and see how far it gets you. It's bankrupt logic.

You have no causative anything. I'm giving examples of a myriad of ways people could rationally reach such an end point, and your position is still "nope, no agency whatsoever, determined by fate", and then criticize me as though you have a cause to point to.

I have, as supportive evidence, the near-universal testimony and lived experience of the community in question, who're literally telling you they didn't choose.

Whereas you have nothing but the insistence of those-- like yourself-- who A) have no experience of it, and B) have obvious negative prejudice.

If you want the testimony of prejudicial fuckwads to outweigh the testimony of those who actually have experience, then you need evidence. And all you have is... moronic, denigrating speculation that we must be sexually excited by danger.

 

[gorfias]

Argh. Once again, government aint Burger King. You don't get it your way. Ron DeSantis just signed HB269

Governor signs bill that targets hate crimes into law following Anti-Semitic incidents’ in Florida

Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Thursday a bill that targets hate crimes following a series of recent anti-Semitic incidents' across Florida.

www.fox13news.com

And while they try to put a smiley face on it, but this can and will, if given the latitude to do so, empower government to criminally prosecute free speech even in a private setting.


The censers historically have never been the good guys.

 

[tippy2k2]

Fyuck Around and Fynd Out Ah-yhuck Ah-yhuck Ah-yhuck!!!

 

[Kwak]

The censers historically have never been the good guys.

Or the actual nazis you listen to .

 

[Trunkage]

Argh. Once again, government aint Burger King. You don't get it your way. Ron DeSantis just signed HB269

Governor signs bill that targets hate crimes into law following Anti-Semitic incidents’ in Florida

Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Thursday a bill that targets hate crimes following a series of recent anti-Semitic incidents' across Florida.

www.fox13news.com

And while they try to put a smiley face on it, but this can and will, if given the latitude to do so, empower government to criminally prosecute free speech even in a private setting.


The censers historically have never been the good guys.

Historically, Free Speechers aren't good guys.

 

[Trunkage]

You are responsible for yourselves, that's not a rationalization for prejudice. The idea that certain people have predetermined behaviors is prejudice. Do you understand that premise of your argument is that bigotry would be fine if people chose to be gay? Like, you want me to treat homosexuality as a monolith, because not doing so somehow rationalizes hatred. I don't think that's an actual viewpoint, I think you're just trying to yell me into submission, and you have to know that won't accomplish anything.

Ethnicity isn't a choice, but the heritage you came from happened before you were born and was passed to you by your parents before you existed to have agency. It's also not a behavior, and any behavior associated with an ethnicity is itself a choice, and any expectation of behavior based on ethnicity is a prejudice.

You have no causative anything. I'm giving examples of a myriad of ways people could rationally reach such an end point, and your position is still "nope, no agency whatsoever, determined by fate", and then criticize me as though you have a cause to point to. And like, it's such a weird thing to conclude in the first place, that something that's varied wildly by time, culture, and circumstance is genetically predetermined.

Interesting

So, being interested in the opposite sex is a choice

 

[gorfias]

Or the actual nazis you listen to .

Fake (or distorted or very old and obsolete) news: Styx is mostly libertarian. Small Government. You need a big government to be a nazi/fascist.

Historically, Free Speechers aren't good guys.

DeSade sounds like an a$$hole. Lenny Bruce, Hugh Heffner. Lot of people through history talked a good game about free speech but actually meant, just for themselves until they have enough power to censor others. For the most part your position is not one I've ever heard before.

Interesting

So, being interested in the opposite sex is a choice

Getting waaaay off topic (part of why I'm avoiding politics) but if sexuality is a spectrum, isn't that true in most cases? Historically, many cultures were just one giant South Park style mound of humping people. But if they didn't knock it off, no one would be producing food and they wouldn't survive.