• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So far in history, we have not seen a peaceful cure for an infestation of conservatism. But, if we work together, we might have one at hand. Conservatives are bigots and should be openly shunned, outcast and marginalized from daily life.

    Conservatism is not a protected class. It is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a conservative. It is immoral to employ or keep relationships with bigots. They should be openly treated as the bigots they are and excluded from polite society. And when they act tough and demand a fight, we should absolutely give it to them.

    There is no such thing as a “good conservative”.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Conservatism is not a protected class. It is perfectly legal to fire someone for being a conservative.

      In that vein would it be legal and Constitutional to pass laws against conservatism? We can for bigotry but that’s just one of their disgusting traits.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Define “against”. It would not be constitutional to legislate against someone for being a member of a political party, as that would be a violation of freedoms of speech and assembly.

      • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Even if it were legal and constitutional somehow I foresee some slight issues when it comes to enforcement and compliance.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      ACAB… Also our country has a built in electoral conservative bias. This makes it so much harder to get anything done that is liberal. If Trump gets reelected this year it will not be because the majority of our country supports him. It will be because the majority of the country wants it.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      7 months ago

      The article underlines the uselessness of the law very well:

      In its latest attack on transgender youth, lawmakers in Tennessee passed a bill to stop the nonexistent problem of adults kidnapping kids and taking them to other states for gender-affirming care.

      Emphasis, mine.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The problem is they’re going to say a minor can’t really consent to such procedures (like how a minor can’t consent to sex with creepy old men) and therefore it’s always kidnapping to get gender affirming care

        • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The bill, S.B. 2782, was passed by the Tennesee House of Representatives on Thursday and is on its way to the governor’s desk. It amends a 2023 gender-affirming care ban, adding civil penalties for any adults who aid an unemancipated minor get out-of-state gender-affirming care without their parents’ consent

          Still allowed with parents consent in this law.

          • subignition@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            They’re just banking on all the parents being transphobic enough that nobody can get help from family friends

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            For now. That’s what I’m saying they’re gonna get rid of.

            Probably by saying something like “we don’t see this as a valid medical treatment, it’s outlawed here. Kids can’t consent.”

            It’d be like jumping on a plane to rape kids. Sure, the raping kids is out of their jurisdiction. But they can make it “abduction” to get a kid on a plane for it.

            You’ll notice, they care more about outlawing and stopping gender affirming care than they do child rape.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              You’ll notice, they care more about outlawing and stopping gender affirming care than they do child rape.

              Well yeah, they only participate in one of those.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why do all the politicians who back stuff like this look like a thrice-divorced owner of a Cadillac with steer horns on the hood?

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Remember, in most states, the legislature is not a full time job… so probably because that’s their day job

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    Seems like this will become a legal bludgeon when one parent supports gender affirming care, but the other does not.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      one parent supports gender affirming care isn’t a hateful and/or ignorant bigot, but the other does not is.

      Fixed it for you.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That will be interesting. Not sure if that is spelled out specifically in the law, but it could go either way if it isn’t explicit