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

[Metaphor]

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.

Thinking a bill introduced by a party member whose party controls 75% of the legislature (and, I assume, needs 51% of the total vote to pass) has a good chance of passing might be naive, but it's not hysterical.

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.

Of course it's nasty. It's nasty in exactly the same way you've always done it - in a way that conforms with the strange moderation rules on this website that allows, say, continual accusations of hysteria, but disallows saying 'you are a hysteric'.

A bill that was not current - it was a nothing burger when it was introduced and even a bigger nothing burger now.

I disagree that bills are 'nothing burgers'. A written bill signifies the political interest in a certain topic. It represents resources spent on writing and championing it.

EDIT: And, as I speculated, it 'died' not from lack of support in its original incarnation but was temporarily sidestepped to concentrate on COVID-19.

[KeepTalking]

You are not asking for further explanation: you simply want to repeat your lie so that people remember the lie.

Please reread my post. I deliberately worded it to remove that perception, by using the word "seems", and italicizing it. It is not a lie for me to say that it still seems to me that you have a larger interest in sex and gender politics in California than within your territory. Despite having learned a bit about your interest in the topic, it is going to take a bit more time for me to see if your continued posting matches that which you have stated.

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.

Oh, so you did catch my use of "seems" and even understood what I meant by it. Now it seems rather odd to me that you characterized my post as a lie.

<snipped entirely unnecessary dictionary definition>

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.

Once again, you seem to have understood my meaning, yet choose to act as if the term could not mean that by providing a dictionary definition, when you know I can find one that would show how my usage was also correct.

So, that's another thing I don't get about the way you post. Why all the pretense?

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?

Even after I had already addressed the topic?

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.

Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter, and I apologize that I came off that way. I do understand that there were a lot of posts directed at you, and that it would be easy in this case to confuse posting histories, especially given that we have seldom seen eye to eye on the topic. I might have preferred if you had reviewed our interaction in this thread a bit earlier to see that this did evolve in different manner, and I wasn't trying to be accusatory, but I am glad we are more or less on the same page now.

[Metaphor]

Please reread my post. I deliberately worded it to remove that perception, by using the word "seems", and italicizing it. It is not a lie for me to say that it still seems to me that you have a larger interest in sex and gender politics in California than within your territory.

And I am plainly telling you: your perception does not align with reality, if you truly believe I am obsessed.

Oh, so you did catch my use of "seems" and even understood what I meant by it. Now it seems rather odd to me that you characterized my post as a lie.

You expressed, rather more times than necessary, that I looked to be obsessed with a certain topic, even after I denied I was, and explained why I was not obsessed, and explained how either you came to misperceive the situation, or you were simply repeating a lie.

And here I mean to say there is a misperception whether or not you meant the 'softer' version of 'obsession', as I am not systematically more interested in US politics than Australian ones.

Once again, you seem to have understood my meaning, yet choose to act as if the term could not mean that by providing a dictionary definition, when you know I can find one that would show how my usage was also correct.

I provided the dictionary definitions in order to get you to understand how I initially understood your use of the word 'obsession' when you originally made the charge, and that my understanding was in fact the more aligned with the dictionary denotation than your--as I now understand it-- intended broader and gentler usage.

So, that's another thing I don't get about the way you post. Why all the pretense?

I haven't pretended anything in my posts in this topic.

I sometimes use screamingly obvious sarcasm in posts, but those uses are not intended to deceive. They are intended to express my frustration or make a rhetorical point. And sometimes people (claim to) miss the screamingly obvious sarcasm.

Even after I had already addressed the topic?

Yes: even after you had addressed the topic. In fact--and I accept that you did not intend this when you made your post--I have often had posts directed at me that start with vague agreement about what I have posted in the OP, immediately followed by an attack on my character and motives for posting it. And I interpret that as, well, an attack on my character and motives.

And even if they were accurate attacks on my character and motives (and I do not believe they are), they hardly seem relevant to the OP or to rational discourse in general.

Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter, and I apologize that I came off that way. I do understand that there were a lot of posts directed at you, and that it would be easy in this case to confuse posting histories, especially given that we have seldom seen eye to eye on the topic. I might have preferred if you had reviewed our interaction in this thread a bit earlier to see that this did evolve in different manner, and I wasn't trying to be accusatory, but I am glad we are more or less on the same page now.

In this particular case, I did not specifically confuse posting histories, though in other cases I have done that. I saw an instance of a specific kind of posting behaviour (agreement followed by questioning of motives) and I generalised it to be a negative instance of it from my experience of them.

[KeepTalking]

Even after I had already addressed the topic?

Yes: even after you had addressed the topic. In fact--and I accept that you did not intend this when you made your post--I have often had posts directed at me that start with vague agreement about what I have posted in the OP, immediately followed by an attack on my character and motives for posting it. And I interpret that as, well, an attack on my character and motives.

And even if they were accurate attacks on my character and motives (and I do not believe they are), they hardly seem relevant to the OP or to rational discourse in general.

Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter, and I apologize that I came off that way. I do understand that there were a lot of posts directed at you, and that it would be easy in this case to confuse posting histories, especially given that we have seldom seen eye to eye on the topic. I might have preferred if you had reviewed our interaction in this thread a bit earlier to see that this did evolve in different manner, and I wasn't trying to be accusatory, but I am glad we are more or less on the same page now.

In this particular case, I did not specifically confuse posting histories, though in other cases I have done that. I saw an instance of a specific kind of posting behaviour (agreement followed by questioning of motives) and I generalised it to be a negative instance of it from my experience of them.

I just want to correct the record once again, and here is the relevant part of the post that kicked this exchange off:

I do not agree with the OP in as far as it being likely to pass. I see no likelihood of it passing at all. I don't think it is all that uncommon, however, for State legislators to propose laws like this to appeal to their base. Living in a suburb of St. Louis, I see Missouri lawmakers proposing stupid legislation that is just red meat for their base all the time, and am well aware that there is no chance that the bill will get passed. Do you not get shit like that in Australian politics?

And here was the relevant part of your reply:

I do not believe, at the Australian federal level, that 'stunt' legislation with no real support is routinely introduced into parliament. At the state level, I honestly couldn't guess.

And the relevant portion of my subsequent response:

Why are you more interested in State level US politics than the state level politics in your own country? I am sure we can find some pretty stupid laws that actually got enacted at the state level in Australia. I mean I would do it right now, but Australian state politics just doesn't interest me.

I did not just wade in here and make some vague agreement so that I could accuse you of being obsessed with US politics. The above question arose out of a genuine befuddlement with an apparent lack of concern about this type of legislation happening in your own territory ("At the state level, I honestly couldn't guess.") while starting a topic about this happening in California.

I wouldn't concern myself with replying at this point if I were you, because I honestly no longer give a fuck. This is the way every discussion with you ends up, you think I would have fucking learned by now. But don't worry, I am sure I will forget soon enough how you conduct yourself in these discussions, and be back for more of your nonsense in another one of your totally not obsessive threads about gender politics in the US.

[Angra Mainyu]

I did not just wade in here and make some vague agreement so that I could accuse you of being obsessed with US politics. The above question arose out of a genuine befuddlement with an apparent lack of concern about this type of legislation happening in your own territory ("At the state level, I honestly couldn't guess.") while starting a topic about this happening in California.

That seems to be a misunderstanding of what Metaphor said:

If by "starting a topic about this happening in California" you mean starting a topic about 'stunt' legislation in California, Metaphor did not start a topic about that.
If by "starting a topic about this happening in California" you mean starting a topic about a bill that would require retailers to have gender-neutral sections, then Metaphor "I honestly couldn't guess" was not about this type of legislation (i.e., legislation of the same sort of a bill that would require retailers to have gender-neutral sections), but about 'stunt' legislation.

[laughing dog]

Thinking a bill introduced by a party member whose party controls 75% of the legislature (and, I assume, needs 51% of the total vote to pass) has a good chance of passing might be naive, but it's not hysterical.

In the abstract, I agree. In reality, it depends.

Of course it's nasty. It's nasty in exactly the same way you've always done it - in a way that conforms with the strange moderation rules on this website that allows, say, continual accusations of hysteria, but disallows saying 'you are a hysteric'.

Apparently you cannot distinguish between attacking ideas or content and attacking a person. In any case, it is no more nasty than your accusation or many of your sarcastic responses to many posters.

EDIT: And, as I speculated, it 'died' not from lack of support in its original incarnation but was temporarily sidestepped to concentrate on COVID-19.

That is what the sponsor says. I have my doubts, but time will tell.

[Metaphor]

I did not just wade in here and make some vague agreement so that I could accuse you of being obsessed with US politics. The above question arose out of a genuine befuddlement with an apparent lack of concern about this type of legislation happening in your own territory ("At the state level, I honestly couldn't guess.") while starting a topic about this happening in California.

I wouldn't concern myself with replying at this point if I were you, because I honestly no longer give a fuck. This is the way every discussion with you ends up, you think I would have fucking learned by now. But don't worry, I am sure I will forget soon enough how you conduct yourself in these discussions, and be back for more of your nonsense in another one of your totally not obsessive threads about gender politics in the US.

Wow. There's a lot wrong with your post, and I am going to reply, but the reply is not for your benefit, but for mine. To set the record straight, as it were. And your repeated attempts at getting the last word by telling me not to trouble myself with responding haven't gone unnoticed.

In the bolded words above, you've made a charge: that I have an 'apparent lack of concern' with sex and gender politics in my own territory. You have then quoted me saying I don't know how often stunt legislation gets passed at the state/territory level in Australia as if this supported your claim.

It doesn't support your claim. In fact, what you quoted supports a claim that directly contradicts your charge. What you quoted would support a claim that I am no more familiar with Californian state-level political stunts than I am with Australian state/territory level political stunts.

You simply have no good reason to believe I am 'obsessed' with US state-level sex and gender politics compared with Australian state/territory sex and gender politics, and when I explained to you why your perception was mistaken, you doubled down.

For the viewers at home--don't worry KeepTalking, I know you consider yourself above my responses you needn't read on--the Australian Capital Territory (where I live) does not have the same powers that actual Australian states (like New South Wales or Victoria) do with respect to legislation. In fact, the ACT didn't even have self-government until the 1980s. So it is doubtful to me that, as loony left as the ACT government actually is right now, they'd have the power to legislate how shops arrange their toys. But that isn't even the point: California introduced a bill, and that bill came across my radar, and the ACT government did not.

And I'm not fucking going to stop posting about stories that interest me even if KeepTalking is so concerned about my mental health and my curious case of being unable to stay in my lane.

[Metaphor]

I started this thread pointing out a Californian bill that was introduced last year and reintroduced this year.

The first few responses were the usual attacks on my character and interests without any engagement of the OP whatsoever.

KeepTalking came in, agreed the bill was silly, but then asked why I seemed obsessed with US sex and gender politics compared to Australian sex and gender politics.

I bristled at the use of the word 'obsessed', because it implies psychological dysfunction (indeed, is the basis of OCD). KeepTalking assured me he did not mean it to come across as it did, and I accepted that his intent and my perception did not align. I explained over a few posts why I misperceived his use of the word 'obsessed', and why I had a negative valence to his 'agree and ask questions' post - because I'd encountered far too many posts that took the same format that were meant to be attacks. But I accepted that his was not meant to do that.

But, KeepTalking had no good reason to think I am more interested in US sex and gender politics than the sex and gender politics of any other country, including my own. His 'evidence' was that I posted about a Californian bill and not an Australian one: as if the ACT had introduced a similar bill that I had overlooked. As if it is as easy to come across well-translated sex and gender related politics news articles from countries where English is not the main language, as if California isn't one of the most likely places in the world for the particular kind of sex and gender politics that I am interested in to have arisen, as if he had missed all of my posting history about events of similar idiocy in other countries.

[steve_bank]

This is the progressive flip side to Trump and conservatives, both equaly bad.

Protecing i9ndividual rights is govt responsibility. Ensuring all citzens regadless of subgroups cn go to the restaurant or store of choice is a valid use of govt power.

ingling out a subgroup for special service or attention in a busness is an abuse of power.

This is something we saw under Russian and Chinese communism. We see it today in Hong Kong where China is forcing a social and political conformity.

If I were a business owner I would fight this to the Supreme Court.

Why not require restaurants to have special areas for blacks and Latinos? no whites allowed lest it make anoter group uncomfortable.

It is not the role of govt to protect individual groups or individuals from being offended. Govt exists to ensure equal rights. There is no right to never be offended or uncomfortable.

Unfortunately on this conservatives are rights. Freedom of speech and action are under attack by a pollical correctness.

It is becoming a tyranny of the minority.

[KeepTalking]

I did not just wade in here and make some vague agreement so that I could accuse you of being obsessed with US politics. The above question arose out of a genuine befuddlement with an apparent lack of concern about this type of legislation happening in your own territory ("At the state level, I honestly couldn't guess.") while starting a topic about this happening in California.

That seems to be a misunderstanding of what Metaphor said:

No, I don't believe so.

If by "starting a topic about this happening in California" you mean starting a topic about 'stunt' legislation in California, Metaphor did not start a topic about that.
If by "starting a topic about this happening in California" you mean starting a topic about a bill that would require retailers to have gender-neutral sections, then Metaphor "I honestly couldn't guess" was not about this type of legislation (i.e., legislation of the same sort of a bill that would require retailers to have gender-neutral sections), but about 'stunt' legislation.

I know what the topic is about. i read the OP, and responded to it. The topic of it being nuisance legislation came up after the fact. I asked if that kind of shit happens in Australia, and that's the key to this whole mess. That was not some exceedingly clever trap I laid for Metaphor trying to get him to reveal that he has little interest in his state politics (my perceptions, sorry if it does not conform to Metaphor's reality). I expected an answer either saying that yes, this kind of shit happens in Australia, or no, I this kind of shit does not happen in Australia. I thought we might have a discussion, and possibly disagreement about that. I did not expect Metaphor to express no knowledge of politics on that level in Australia (my perception, and probably not entirely accurate, but who really gives a fuck, it's close enough for Friday night), and was taken aback by his response, which lead to my unfortunate question, which I now regret asking with all of my being.