All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[babyblob]

And for those who say that the GOP is not homophonic and and want equal rights for everyone there is this bit of news.



https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/...ion-rules.html

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, who’s running for the Democratic nomination for Governor had a great quote in the article

“This is nothing more than another awful, mean-spirited attack on Ohio kids and families, not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money, The politicians running our state are showing us exactly who they really are. Ohio deserves better.”

[Jack Dracula]

Incremental progress can be just as dangerous as stagnation though, and in some cases may even be worse because we lull ourselves into a false sense of security that we are doing SOMETHING even if new problems are emerging at a faster rate than we can solve the existing ones. And simply tacking on an endless sequence of patches and quick fixes can create an unintuitive mess of a system that isn't robust and has major structural weaknesses that can't simply be plugged. Sometimes you just need to hit a big reset button and accept that the short term pain that will cause will be balanced out by the long term benefits.

So, how does a nation “hit a big reset button”?
I really hate it when people frame an immensely complicated action in extremely simple terms. It implies they haven’t thought the issue through.

[Panfoot]

And for those who say that the GOP is not homophonic and and want equal rights for everyone there is this bit of news.



https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/...ion-rules.html

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, who’s running for the Democratic nomination for Governor had a great quote in the article

“This is nothing more than another awful, mean-spirited attack on Ohio kids and families, not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money, The politicians running our state are showing us exactly who they really are. Ohio deserves better.”

Anybody that says the GOP isn't homophobic/transphobic/just generally bigoted is either lying through their teeth or complete idiot.

[Jack Dracula]

And for those who say that the GOP is not homophonic and and want equal rights for everyone there is this bit of news.



https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/...ion-rules.html

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, who’s running for the Democratic nomination for Governor had a great quote in the article

“This is nothing more than another awful, mean-spirited attack on Ohio kids and families, not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money, The politicians running our state are showing us exactly who they really are. Ohio deserves better.”

Homophonic: Constantly noisy about homosexuals.
They are pretty homophonic.

[worstblogever]

Anybody that says the GOP isn't homophobic/transphobic/just generally bigoted is either lying through their teeth or complete idiot.

I have to respectfully disagree, very often it is both of those things.

[PwrdOn]

So, how does a nation “hit a big reset button”?
I really hate it when people frame an immensely complicated action in extremely simple terms. It implies they haven’t thought the issue through.

It just means that you reformulate a set of policies from the ground up, rather than trying to make changes within the context of the existing model. You ever work with a piece of computer code that just got so jumbled and messy that it was easier to rewrite it than to keep fixing all the bugs as they came along? It does not necessarily mean that you go around shooting everyone and watering the tree of liberty with their blood or whatever, as I'm sure that's where some people's minds go when you suggest any kind of radical policies.

[Mister Mets]

Being conservative, and especially being Republican, by definition means the only change you are comfortable with is change that takes you away from something unknown and back to something familiar.

If there was no GOP and politics was divided between two parties intent on moving forward in different ways, it's hard to see how that's not an evolutionary win.

This part is untrue. Many Republicans would be happy with reduced regulation.

And unfortunately there's the identity politics for white people crowd who thinks government spending should be changed to benefit people like them.

[babyblob]

I have to respectfully disagree, very often it is both of those things.

Of course it is. There are people who say they are not. Then they pull **** like this law suit. No real defending it or saying they are LTGB friendly.

[babyblob]

This part is untrue. Many Republicans would be happy with reduced regulation.

And unfortunately there's the identity politics for white people crowd who thinks government spending should be changed to benefit people like them.

yet they regulate if a business or school can have masks, or if a business can have a vaccine mandate, they regulate women's bodies with anti abortion laws, they try and pass regulations that roll back rights for LTGB community.

I guess they are fine with less regulations as long as regulations dont try and protect the safety and rights of people or god help environmental regulations. But they are all on board with regulations that discriminate, protect the rich, or try and block evidence of what part people played on the 6th.

[green_garnish]

This part is untrue. Many Republicans would be happy with reduced regulation.

And unfortunately there's the identity politics for white people crowd who thinks government spending should be changed to benefit people like them.

I'm confused. How is reduced regulation not going back to something familiar? That part is most definitely and obviously true.

And as stated above, few conservatives and fewer Republicans are comfortable with less social regulation, only less commercial regulation. God forbid a woman is able to make decisions about her own body, or two prior in love should be able to live together with the benefits of marriage when they have the same sex parts.

Whether talking social regulation or commercial regulation, what conservatives really want is a return to regulation they know and are familiar with because it's history

[PwrdOn]

This part is untrue. Many Republicans would be happy with reduced regulation.

And unfortunately there's the identity politics for white people crowd who thinks government spending should be changed to benefit people like them.

In the current business climate in this country, deregulation would only serve to entrench the power of the businesses that are already dominant in their industries, businesses that are primarily owned and operated by white people. There is no meaningful distinction between the "pro-business" GOP and the white nationalist crowd, the end goals they seek look exactly the same.

[Panfoot]

I have to respectfully disagree, very often it is both of those things.

Heh, can't argue with that!

[Mister Mets]

yet they regulate if a business or school can have masks, or if a business can have a vaccine mandate, they regulate women's bodies with anti abortion laws, they try and pass regulations that roll back rights for LTGB community.

I guess they are fine with less regulations as long as regulations dont try and protect the safety and rights of people or god help environmental regulations. But they are all on board with regulations that discriminate, protect the rich, or try and block evidence of what part people played on the 6th.

There are sections where policies have to deal with conflicting interests, so a party will have some kind of inconsistency no matter what it chooses. You can see it with Democrats having different language on bodily autonomy when it comes to vaccine or mask mandates than on abortion (the same here is true of Republicans, of course.) A potential response is that other lives are at stake with mandates, although that's also the argument with abortion.

What regulations would you say roll back rights for the LGBTQ+ community? The general policy arguments now seem to be about regulations to protect them rather than regulations that would hinder them.

Mandates are a bit of a jurisdictional issue and you'll find many progressives similarly inconsistent on who should have the power, based on whether it's a liberal enclave in a red state or a conservative section in a blue state. To be fair, some will be consistent and say it's about the underlying issue (equity, safety) although you can find similarly nuanced arguments all over.

And in case anyone asks about whataboutism, this is more about how common flaws in logic are human rather than limited to one party.

[babyblob]

There are sections where policies have to deal with conflicting interests, so a party will have some kind of inconsistency no matter what it chooses. You can see it with Democrats having different language on bodily autonomy when it comes to vaccine or mask mandates than on abortion (the same here is true of Republicans, of course.) A potential response is that other lives are at stake with mandates, although that's also the argument with abortion.

What regulations would you say roll back rights for the LGBTQ+ community? The general policy arguments now seem to be about regulations to protect them rather than regulations that would hinder them.

Mandates are a bit of a jurisdictional issue and you'll find many progressives similarly inconsistent on who should have the power, based on whether it's a liberal enclave in a red state or a conservative section in a blue state. To be fair, some will be consistent and say it's about the underlying issue (equity, safety) although you can find similarly nuanced arguments all over.

And in case anyone asks about whataboutism, this is more about how common flaws in logic are human rather than limited to one party.

Well there is the link about the law suit I posted above. A few posts ago. A group of states suing to stop the LTGB anti discrimination ruling that was made.

[green_garnish]

And in case anyone asks about whataboutism, this is more about how common flaws in logic are human rather than limited to one party.

This post certainly demonstrates flaws in logic. You're responding ultimately to a post about how to go forward vs insisting on going backward. You are suggesting that differing viewpoints on going forward is the same as going forward vs going backward.

I mean seriously.