shopify analytics tool

Language

Just to point out the obvious, previously language changed without being mandated or legally sanctioned or morally correct. It worked because people used it and decided that it worked.
— NeoWayland
Comments

On the Equality Act

The Nature of Sex

If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
     — Andrew Sullivan
Comments

Tuesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Thursday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Vote for the label

Vermont governor's race: Christine Hallquist, Phil Scott win primaries

Vermont Democrats made history Tuesday by nominating Christine Hallquist as the first transgender individual to be a major party candidate for governor.
     — April McCullum

That's the first paragraph.

According to the article the transgender label is more important than the candidates qualifications. The label is more important that the candidate's character. The label is more important than anything you might consider.

This is the inevitable result of identify politics. The label must transcend all other reasons.

Sadly, this is the result of party politics too.

Politics is about controlling other people. You must not be allowed to make up your own mind. You might do it wrong.

Comments

NeoNote — Control

So some religions should get protection and others should not? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that if we start making those distinctions we've just sacrificed religious freedom.


There are times I want to discriminate.

There are people I do not want to have anything to do with. Yes, sometimes those people are Christian fundamentalists. But sometimes those people call for imprisoning climate deniers. Sometimes those people call for the redistribution of wealth. Sometimes those people call for the suppression of ideas they are "triggered" by. Sometimes those people want others removed from history because of things the others have been accused of.

So tell me, why should any of those people get their way?

We draw the line for a reason. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will be happy. But it comes down to parity. If I don't think someone has legitimate power to tell me how to think, what to say, or how to act, then I have no legitimate power to tell them how to think, what to say, or how to act. Which means that public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws are so much bunk.

Otherwise we're just raising one victimhood over another. Last week it was women, this week it is transgenders we're "protecting." Can't have equal rights because Black Lives Matter. If your faith offends, you aren't allowed. At that point, at this point, the only "solution" is to control the law so that you can control what is "allowed." Never mind that just sets up a future where you will lose control. You must be free, but the Other is not allowed.


Everyone should have freedom to discriminate.

The moment that the law declares this group of people off limits is the moment when you invite the law to be abused.

Look at the bill that sparked the original article. It's a "fix" of another law, which was a fix of a previous law, and so on.

The solution to government is always more government. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

The only practical solution is making sure the law gives no advantage. "Protecting" one group over others is just going to perpetuate the injustice.



As far as the rest, I don't blame labels. There's no vice or virtue in the label. "Christian" includes Roy Moore and MLK. It's not every Christian and we should stop declaring that Christianity is a threat to our chosen way of life. Like it or not, American religious pluralism made American paganism possible.

As far as scapegoats go, well, you (among others) are blaming Christians because they are Christians and not because of what the individual has done.

My point all along this thread is that the law should not benefit or harm any religion. There are some very vocal Christians who want the law to shield Christianity. There are some very vocal people who want the law to contain Christianity. Both groups are wrong.



Actually yes.

Starting with a big one. I'll repeat it for you.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

Freedom of religion is exactly that. Neither help nor hinder. You can't fix bad law by making more law. You can only repeal it. Politics is about control. Freedom is about choice.


Ah, but that isn't what people like Bill Nye, Lawrence Torcello, Mark Hertsgaard, and Brad Johnson said. They all said that the mere act of climate change denial should be a crime.

Behold the new heresy. You are not allowed to dissent.

And yes, that is every bit as authoritarian as anything any Christian fanatic demanded.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments

Supersized Wednesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Thursday roundup

Thoughts before election day

Read More...
Comments

Monday roundup

Molina Healthcare Exits Obamacare Exchanges in Two States, Experiences $230 Million Loss

Remember, the exchanges were never meant to last. And this is another mess that Obama chose to have his successor fix.


Coast Guard Chief Will Disregard Trump’s Ban on Transgenders in Military

He can't, not legally. If the code changes and Trump gives the order, it's a court martial offense.


FBI monitored social media on Election Day for 'fake news' about Hillary Clinton: Report

So who gave the order? And did this really happen?


Venezuela says crushes anti-government attack on military base



BOM scandal: “smart cards” filter out coldest temperatures. Full audit needed ASAP!

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology apparently gooses the numbers before they become Official™.


Immigration Brings Out the Social Engineers

“If we Americans value freedom, we will dismiss the social engineers, open the borders, and liberate ourselves.”


Republican Shadow Campaign for 2020 Takes Shape as Trump Doubts Grow

I don't think it will happen, but you can practically feel the NY Times drool


Dunkirk: A contrary view about a movie everyone else loves

Something I never considered but well worth thinking about.


U.S. job growth surges in July

I'm not sure the growth is stable, but yes, the numbers did surge. And yes, Obama would have killed for those numbers.


1.8 million California acres were set aside for frogs.

Environmentalism is a crusade, ecology is a science studying interconnections and tradeoffs.

Comments

Friday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Thursday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

NeoNotes — Pre-victimhood

The man has not even been sworn in yet. Nobody knows what he's going to do. Some this this same stuff was going around about both Bush the Elder and Bush League, it didn't happen.

Personally I'm a little tired of being lectured about which Tragic Victim Group I'm supposed to genuflect before to show my compassion this week. The second someone escalates their victimhood over all others because of a label is the second I lose interest. Might-be-victims are even less interesting.

You have rights because you are human. Not because you are gay or transgender. Not because you are pagan or Navajo. And not because you are a man or a woman. Because you are human.

I won't defend rights because of labels. I won't fight for privilege that comes at the expense of others. I won't acknowledge group rights. I won't accept responsibility for things I didn't do or say.

I won't feed the victimhood anymore. But I WILL take a stand for human rights. Talk to me when someone has been denied their human rights and we'll see what we can do then. If that's not enough, I can't help you.

Until then, it hasn't happened and I'm not going to worry about it. class="ghoster">

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments
2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005