S.22.2-100: N.I.D.D.A.H. Act

[Mr. Reactionary]

This protects the right of religious store owners to avoid ritual impurity. Any limitation is temporary and this does not permit permanent bans.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I hope you know that you're a bunch of losers, right?

K. Thx. Bye.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What is the point of this? Do you have jobs or obligations?

Who are you?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Mod Cap On: Gonna have to change the names and the acronyms. Its too similar to a different N word.

What are you talking about? Its Hebrew.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah

Not sure if you are serious or not, but Im gonna take it as serious.

Frankly, it is antisemitic to prohibit even being able to name a traditional jewish concept that has been practiced for millenia. Like I want to know what the bloody hell is the matter with this. Mod fascism censored the posting of the literal word for word text of an actual law in Tennessee (without any commentary) and now you are telling me a Hebrew word for a Jewish ritual mandated by THE BIBLE is against the TOS, because it maybe, possibly sounds like ... what? Do you even know how this word is pronounced? How in the hell does Badger get to say the actual N word but now yall are gonna censor the phucking Bible because oh me someone maybe pronounced it wrong in their head and thinks it sounds similar to a slur. Thats lunacy and thats ad hoc. If someone reported this it is clearly a bad-faith report and should be dismissed. This literally breaks no rules. Show me the TOS this breaks.

[Mr. Reactionary]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

Im curious if the adjective "bigger" is now banned forum wide for being only 1 letter off and therefore sounding much more like the no-no word claimed. After all, "bigger" shares 5 out of 6 letters with the banned word. The word in this bill shares 2 out of 6. Again I dont know how a mod can claim an actual word that 1. Is in a foreign language, 2. Predates the slur, 3. Is not pronounced the same as the slur, 4. Is not being used as a slur or a stand in therefore, 5. Shares only about 1/3 of the same letters as the slur, and 6. Is in the Bible, is obviously something posters should presume violates the TOS. An enforceable TOS has to be clear and consistent so that posters can conform their discussion to the rules. There is no way to conform to such an arbitrary standard as "when I mispronounce word A in my head it maybe, sort of sounds like word J despite being a different word, in a different language, that is 67% different in spelling, therefore word A is infractable." Like how is this anything but a scheme to chill speech and target specific posters for bs ideological reasons?

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

I just want to make it clear that this literally does not violate the terms of service and that as you said it is illiberal to report the text of the bill, especially when it doesnt violate the terms of service. You can disagree with the policy but reporting the text simply because you disagree is an abuse of the system. Especially if the report was against a neutral floor officer who merely posted the text of a bill from the introduction thread pursuant to official duties, as though the floor officer can predict when a bill that is within the TOS will offend some rando.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

There is no orthodox policy in Israel that allows businesses to keep women out one week a month. Even the most extreme Orthodox fanatics who spit at and threaten women whose skirt doesn't reach their shoes don't demand or want this.
This is a cynical use of a Jewish concept to virtue signal your social conservativism in an American context. As far as I'm concerned, it's a smear of Judaism. Find other ways from Christianity to make women third class citizens in an internet game, if you like.

You dont get to gatekeep the Bible. The Torah is part of the Christian Bible too and its frankly insulting and bigoted for you to claim to be some universal spokesman for Judaism when there are multiple competing interpretations of Torah. Its ridiculous that you think you get to come into a thread in a game you arent playing and whine that "omg I disagree with your interpretation of part of the Torah so im literally reporting you all for being antisemitic reeeeee." Its abusive to the reporting system and its clearly not a TOS violation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.

Exactly. There is no criminal enforcement mechanism to enforce against menstruating women. This instead prevents the few Orthodox who opt to do this from being sued or being themselves prosecuted for "discrimination". We have a very expansive bill of rights that requires accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs whenever possible and weve been passing a lot of bills like this.

 I mean, I dont think communion is literally Jesus's flesh but we passed a liability shield for that. I dont support hijabs or turbans or keep kosher but we required accommodations for those in jail, employment, and colleges. I dont support muslims refusing non-halal organ donations from non-muslims but we accomodated that. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to waxing the genitals of someone of the opposite sex. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to using certain pronouns. We provided an accomodation to Muslims who find seeing eye dogs sinful. We set accommodating building code and farming rules to protect the orthodox. We permit the Amish and Indians to opt out of photo IDs if they religiously object to being photographed. We have a pending bill on indigent burials and autopsies to respect religious considerations. We have another pending bill to accommodate jewish and Muslim bereavement rules. Our anti witchcraft laws exempt bona fide religious practice. Like this is literally par for the course weve been taking.

Again, pass or fail this bill isnt really important to me. But I strongly denounce any claim that this is somehow "antisemetic" just because someone has a different interpretation of Torah. And it is bullying to abusively report this debate, whether you think this policy is bad or good. Nothing in it violates the TOS. Yet I ended up with 2 new reported posts last night and Fhtagn 1 all from this thread. Because in the Who's Online you can see when a particular poster is reporting a post, so we know who did it. The real solution is to debate better or pass a federal amendment like is already in the works. Not report posts that you merely disagree with to try and get posters in trouble for no legitimate cause.

If this had been voted down, it would be a dead issue. But now that someone is falsely crying TOS violations as the Senate debates an amendment literally encouraging this bad-faith strategy to endrun debates they cant win, its no longer about the policy in the bill and rather about letting bullies win by silencing free debate.