The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Crumpets]

After having an honest conversation with a psychologist/researcher on this issue, I want to issue a full apology for some of my comments. I strongly oppose any kind of housing or employment discrimination against anyone, though I do think the bathroom issue is a legitimate concern. I sincerely apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my comments, and I humbly ask for your forgiveness.

It's not a legitimate concern.  And, you should read this book.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/review/becoming-nicole-by-amy-ellis-nutt.html?ref=review

Listen, we don't need to understand what is in a transgender person's head.  Of course we don't because we're not transgender.  Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with feeling weird about transgender people.  Sometimes you feel weird when you see someone with a birth defect because it's out of the ordinary.  Some people feel weird around gay people because it's out of the ordinary.  Those feelings are OK, but they're not a guidepost for your treat people or make public policy.

You see, it's incumbent upon us to love each other, regardless of our differences.  It's incumbent upon us to look out for people who face discrimination.  We need to go the extra mile to help transgender people and understand their challenges, even if that initially makes us uncomfortable.  Transgender people face real challenges, the least we could do is treat them with kindness and create an accepting environment for them. 

All transgender people want is to be treated with dignity and fairness.  They just want to live their life, they're not on some sort of crusade to make people uncomfortable.  I would bet that they hate that people notice them as different.  They just want to be normal people like you and me who aren't treated as lepers and shunned.  I think everyone deserves that base level of respect and dignity.

[Crumpets]

With respect, I think there is something to the idea that younger people today have bought into the narrative that we're somehow living in a post-sexist, post-racial world. It's in the interests of pretty much every corporation in America to sell the picture of a pluralistic society so they can push their products into as many homes as possible. It's why you see these Coke commercials with as many different people as they can fit into the spot, and it's why you've seen companies move almost en masse towards supporting and recognizing the legitimacy of gay people.

The problem is, this sort of "feel-good pluralism" addresses some of the problems we see with respect to race, gender, and discrimination, but it also helps perpetuate the structures of discrimination that persist because it says, basically, that racism and sexism are over. We now have this population of people that's not willing to think critically about discrimination. It's almost like Franz Fanon's "internal colonization": The status quo seems fine and natural for a lot of women. I'm not saying their experiences are wrong or telling them how they should vote, but I don't think America has ever really had the conversations about gender that it should... and if it were to have these conversations, you'd see more people at least understanding why it actually is very significant to have a woman president.

In some ways, the baby boomers have had more conversations about race and feminism than the millennials. Rudimentary conversations to be sure, but there were fewer attempts to frame these issues as closed like there are today.

Anyway, that's my schpeel.

[Crumpets]

     I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

Actually, male violence and aggression pervades society. Criminal behavior is the tip of the iceberg, but there are a lot of lesser forms of violence that are perfectly commonplace and socially acceptable. I've come across an article on them just this morning. Drumpf's rhetoric is also the quintessential expression of male violence and desire for domination, with its emphasis on winner/loser dichotomies and its constant effort to humiliate opponents. It's a horribly archaic mentality that may or may not have had its uses in pre-human and early human evolution, but that modern civilized societies have the means to overcome.

Very closely connected to that, you have the fact that patriarchal norms of masculinity have a catastrophic impact on men's psychological well-being. Lessons like "boys don't cry" have bred generations of emotionally repressed/atrophied men who, as a result, only know to express their resentment through violence and aggression. They've stifled a vital part of men's identities. That's why men can and should be feminists too. Of course feminism must be first and foremost about women and their struggle to free themselves of oppression, but men have a lot to gain from destroying patriarchy too.

[Crumpets]

.

 What I never understand about American politics is the inability to understand the importance of foregrounding certain issues on the ground. Both parties tend to get weakened when they decide to run their campaigns with either big button issues like abortion and guns or issues that are abstract for a lot of people .

Let's take abortion. I've seen some people argue that Dems should abandon the issue. And yes, four years ago people with equal sincerity were arguing that the GOP should also abandon the issue. Both approaches would be suicidal. The pro life and pro choice groups are a large part of the dems activist base, and you need activists to be a campaigning party. But crucially - here's the crux - whenever a candidate seems to have abortion as 'tgeir big thing ... they lose. Let's be real: if you are a self identified activist for pro life or pro choice issues, you are not going to swing, and almost certain to turnout. Beyond these people, abortion as an issue is peripheral. They may define as whatever, but they have issues that are far less abstract and relevant to their lives:

- social security
- healthcare
- education
- cost of living
Etc.

None of the issues that Dems ran with (ok, maybe gun control) is necessary poison or cause for immediate concern. But  the Dems did an awful job at framing these issues. Police reform was an issue that Dems jumped the gun on, associating it with the activist movement BLM rather than integrating BLM's raw and real energy within the platform in a way that is relevant to all people (I.e. even though white people are also liable to get bonked by a uniformed thug, the dem messaging allowed it to be compartmentalised as "an issue for blacks" which robbed it of its potential).

So my conclusion is people are arguing that Democrats should or shouldn't be more liberal, or focus to much or not enough on identity politics are basically missing the point. Foreground the economy with bland themes on the ground. Jobs, health, jobs, education, infrastructure, economy.

[Crumpets]

I feel like this deserves a spot in here. A well-informed, post that I think I actually learned something from:

I work in finance.

My firm is already a fiduciary and many firms are moving this direction anyways. I should note that my understanding is that this is a one year delay - I could be wrong.

"Fiduciary" is a broad standard. I personally think the "suitability" standard that exists is way too vague, but from what I've heard (admittedly biased) many managers were panicking about some pretty stringent stuff coming down the pike, including stripping lawsuit protections and SRO arbitration

[Crumpets]

I believe OP is referring to church of the lukumi v. City of hileah. That case involved a local ordinance banning certain types of animal killings on the grounds that it was inhumane. It was passed soon after an event by the local santeria population at which several chickens were ritually sacrificed and their carcasses were later found discarded on the sidewalk. The ordinance exempted kosher and hallal food preparation  (undermining the argument that the inhumane treatment was the purpose of the law) but was still applied against the local santeria population. The supreme Court held that even though the ordinance was facially neutral, the surrounding circumstances and selective exemptions for some religions but not others demonstrated discriminatory intent. Discrimination against a specific religion triggers strict scrutiny which means the law is presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can overcome a very high threshold. I believe OPs argument is that banning immigration from countries with a very high population of one religious group is evidence of targeted discrimination in light of the fact that minority religious practioners may be exempt.

The tricky part about arguing this is that its foreign policy related. Zitolsky v kerry held that the president has a whole lot if discretion in how to conduct foreign policy and that some such decisions are political questions that cannot be decided by a court. The constitution does give the power to congress to regulate immigration. They have delegated some power to the president. If Trump frames the travel ban as related to the governments of the banned countries he might win. But presidential actions generally are still limited by the bill of rights. Its just a matter of when and where  you can sue. I haven't taken the time to see if this issue is carved out from the APA rules for when and how to sue over government acts.