Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 172

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

  1. Top | #71
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,739
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,682
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    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 This is not the first time you have jumped the gun with an OP with either false or outdated information.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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    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.

  2. Top | #72
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,421
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,710
    Rep Power
    43
    Just the other day I was looking for slip in half boots, something vaguely like these: https://www.proidee.at/?P=200335800&...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.

  3. Top | #73
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Midwestern USA
    Posts
    1,231
    Rep Power
    3
    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

  4. Top | #74
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,421
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,710
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by TomC View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #75
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    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/artic...a-15996704.php

  6. Top | #76
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,739
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,682
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by horhangi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    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/artic...a-15996704.php
    Thank you for the update. I do apologize for calling this bill a nothing-burger since it is apparently "in play".

  7. Top | #77
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,184
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,241
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by horhangi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    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/artic...a-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.

  8. Top | #78
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,421
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,710
    Rep Power
    43
    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.

  9. Top | #79
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,608
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,519
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    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.

  10. Top | #80
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    6,932
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    17,906
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionaries
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •