Matthew

Honestly I respect the straightforward admitting he is calling for violence and then trying to defend his reason for doing so versus the cowards on the right who would spend hours trying to debate some random semantics and claim this is a free speech issue.

I looked into the first case mentioned in the video, some bloke named Wayne O'Rourke. He was literally encouraging people to go to the streets and burn down mosques. Inciting people to violence is not protected free speech anywhere.

Violated a court order, dress it up however you like he is not accused of violating any law against misgendering people. He was not accused of a hate crime. Its not an example of the things you say are happening. You're comparing transphobic people to slaves? That's fascinating. Lets see, both are about a powerless minority being mistreated by bigots. You're not on the side of this comparison that you think you are. Yes, I completely agree this is wrong if literally all they did is state that opinion. Slippery slope fallacy. You and others are choosing to elevate this fringe movement as the object of your constant political attacks. It will ultimately result in these gender identity concepts being more quickly normalized and accepted by society. Its not a cycle like that. As soon as conservatives normalize transgender dialogue, it will just be part of the culture. The cycle is that the same process keeps happening for hundreds of years for different ideas and groups seeking normalization and acceptance.

Jailed for contempt of court for violating multiple parts of a court order that was issued for a legit safety reason. Devil's in the details. There are counties with no free speech where your private unpopular statements can land you in prison. Lady in Russia this week was sentenced to over a decade in prison for donating $50 to a Ukraine charity. If you're claiming the situation is similarly oppressive in western democracies for those who misgender trans people, Im still waiting for a real example of this, or any case where someone is prosecuted for their anti lgbt opinions. Sure it does. As you've said, its the transgender people who will face the intense hatred and discrimination. Hardly the first time some group has been treated like shit. You know how the story will actually end, many years from now.

You wouldn't be able to actually get an absentee ballot mailed to you though unless you were a registered voter, and you wouldn't be able register in any state unless you're an adult US citizen.

Maybe you disagree with the rationale they used, but the public court document i linked shows there was a lot more going on in that case regarding concerns about the safety of a suicidal kid. Im with you as far as zero tolerance for people being prosecuted for having an unpopular opinion or disliked speech, so long as they aren't posing a harm to others or inciting violence. But so far the one example you've given is not entirely a free speech case. Like the rioters throwing bricks at police and such? Any example of someone just minding their own business and arrested for expressing their opinion? One thing at a time is fine. Generalized laundery lists of alleged woes is a recipe for sloppy thinking. I agree that would be wrong. From what I've observed gay and trans stuff in general often triggers right wing people to claim their rights are somehow being violated even when its clearly not in a given situation. Like people said that all the time about gay marriage back when that was the big controversy. As if the act of getting gay married itself takes away straight peoples rights. That doesn't mean I think you're 100% wrong. But Im jusr extra skeptical having heard so many BS examples of this over the the years.

Interesting, but not a completely accurate summary of the case. The story is about a teenager attempting suicide and wanting to transition. The doctors and mom all believed their was strong reason to urgently go through with the transition to save the kids life. Dad disagreed and tried to use the British Columbia courts as a way to stall the process. So a number of orders were issued by the court to prevent dad from aggravating the kids mental health or further stalling the treatment. He presumably was jailed due to being held in contempt of court for violating several of those orders. Here is the BC Court's brief of the findings and court orders. In other words, this isn't a case where some dad called his trans kid a girl and the government took him to court for violating the C-16 amendment.

That would indeed be a serious breach of free speech. How many people in Canada have been fined or jailed for misgendering someone?

This is a good point. I think this is 99% of what the transgender people want from their community. I think a lot of this is a off the rails and unreasonable I do agree that LGBT interest groups assert undue power and engage in corrupt practices these days. For example they have recently faced increased criticism from the left for how they accept money and dole out their blessings to corporations and such. But what actual RIGHTS are you claiming are being threatened by these interest groups? 1. Women's hard fought ability to have their own sports? I can accept this. Since the sports are sex-based, I see no problem with rules on what biological sex one has to be to participate. 2. Penises in their face in the shower? I dont think this is a real issue. There is very wide agreement in schools about making appropriate accommodations for transgender students when changing. 3. As far as tampons, people with a uterus need one from time to time. There is very wide republican and democrat support for making this kind of thing available for kids who need them in school. Hard to learn if you're leaking blood. Not a controversial thing nor taking anyone's rights. 4. I've never heard of anyone being forced to "celebrate" gay or transgender stuff and worst case scenario you're in art class or English class and your being exposed to a book with a gay character or something else you object to, a student or parent can easily explain and ask for an alternate assignment.

Midwest guy tells basic midwest dad joke. 😱

I don't think this is the real issue though. Trump has a casual, from the gut approach to politics that is light on facts and policy specifics. His first presidency was marked by an extremely inept lack of preparedness in terms of the logistics in achieving anything. This project 2025 business isn't about trump specifically, its about republicans being more prepared to actually get stuff done this time. In a sense, its a fairly subversive attempt by heritage foundation conservatives to bypass trump and organize their own takeover of the bureaucracy and federal policymaking.

It is possible to be injured by a vaccine, but the chances for this are low and overall they are very safe and effective and save countless lives. Medical professionals are not ignorant of the risks involved. But anti-vaxxers fabricate and/or misunderstand the risks, which likely causes responsible people to be cautious about how much they actively publicize to the lay public about the small number of vaccine injuries and negative health effects that do occur.

Ah glad you finally acknowledge it doesn't. And yes it was written to make the policy inclusive for transgender students and flexible for leaving it up to schools how they want to do it. But despite this, Minnesota Republicans still supported this law. Its popular and common sense and very bipartisan. Tampon Tim is a lovely nickname that highlights something good he did for students and I think you'll see how it backfires as he capitalizes on it in good humor.

The thing you quoted literally did not specify anything about boys or boys bathrooms.

I wish we could have a nationwide referrendum to rename the United States. It would be wild.

When the newspaper owned by the country's largest retail billionare doesn't like your anti-price-gouging idea, you know you're on the right track.

You've said enough vaugeries for me to extrapolate your opinion, which I do appreciate. But apparently you don't represent the view of most Republicans in this issue, so chasing every one of your tedious rabbit trails serves no further purpose. Also you lack the normal human reciprocity that makes a friendly debate with people of opposing views interesting.

You have certainly said things at every step of the way as usual. But you've not been open about your desire to ban IVF as it actually exists, instead of the non-existent version where they don't destroy fertilized cells.

No exceptions was an overstatement. Ive edited to "very few." But the point stands that it is a far more extreme law than even the Republican voters of Alabama want. It's dangerous for women's health too, because if your preganancy takes a bad turn that has a high chance of killing you or harming you, doctors can be more inclined to wait until your start to get seriously ill rather than risking life in prison for murder.

Both the continental name and the country name are failures of creativity.

The only fact i was interested in was whether the law stated that boys bathrooms must dispense these items. It does not, as I've said all along.

I get it. My generalization earlier about conservatives in this thread was inaccurate. I started this thread due to curiosity about these divergent views I was noticing and I genuinely wondered what republican-minded people thought about the issue. The impression that is forming is that the really hardcore anti-abortion folks are sometimes less than straightforward about their opinion on this subject. Alabama shows why this matters. Most Republicans in Alabama believe in abortion exceptions for rape/incest/health of mother and that IVF is good. Yet Alabama now has the most extreme trifecta of anti-abortion policies that allows for [edit: very few] exceptions and declaring cells in a lab to be persons. It maybe shows how much more influence the religious extremists have in the party. I wish. For some reason he prefers obfuscation instead of stating his anti-IVF position clearly.

I mean that's a good question. Their proximity might just be creating a perception of them being directly connected. The common denominator is that the alabama consitution was amended in 2018 to outlaw abortion.The abortion law of 2019 followed from that, and identifed terminating a fetus at any stage of development as a felony in the same class as murder. Then the recent 2024 alabama supreme court explicity applied the same anti-abortion language of the new amendment to IVF. Also taking the empryos are children logic and applying it to the states existing wrongful death of a minor statute. Yeah, what's unclear is whether you would save the tray of frozen cells or the ten year old.

Ok thank you. So in fact the law does not require tampon dispeners in boys bathrooms then.

You clearly have common sense on this issue and have made it clear that you do not consider a fertilized cell to be the same as an actual child. User disagrees and (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that a fertilized cell is a living human being and that such fertilized cells should not be legally destroyed through any medical procedure. I have yet to see any rationale for how destroying non-viable, abnormal, and uneeded embryos is a not a standard part of all IVF procedures everywhere.