This is what you get when you elect 80 year old boomers
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
23 points (67.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7177 readers
1134 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Its not an age thing, it's a class thing
It's an age thing, old people have always been like this
Plenty of young people are like this too, my point is that transphobia is manufactured by capitalists to divide the proletariat and that's what they're doing right now.
Yup. Here in Finland the under 25's most popular party in the recent parliamentary election was the extremist right wing one, followed by the "fiscal" conservatives (ie. they'd be OK with the extremists setting up concentration camps for leftists and foreigners as long as the camp was operated by a private corporation that didn't have to pay taxes). Granted that we're a pretty conservative country to begin with, but statistically gen X / millennial folks are more liberal than younger people here, and it just keeps getting worse every time there's an election.
I appreciate the support, I dont understand why what I said was controversial here
People seem to find it comforting to believe that everyone under 30 is this close to seizing the means of production and declaring a socialist utopia, and they would have done it too if it wasn't for those darn Olds and their stupid conservatism, which is totally something young people just don't do
We're not in Finland, this is America, it's an entirely different country. You're talking about your own country and it's different with different people.
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center
Apparently ~35% of the "youth vote" went to the Republicans in '22, but you can keep pretending only old people vote for conservatives in the US if it makes you feel better
We're talking about 80 year olds, not any of those younger people. Old people are the problem, they should retire, not enter politics
Why should young, inexperienced people run the country? I admit that the US Govt. Is a tad too old, especially the current president. But, that doesn’t mean we need a bunch of Berkeley students running things either. No thanks.
Look, I know, I was once a kid/young adult too and didn’t listen to my parents or senior people very often, went against the grain, etc. but you eventually realize that maybe they DO know more than you did when you were in your 20s or whatever.
Por que no los dos?
The bill isn't anti-lgbt, but it does give way too much power to the attorney general to decide what's harmful for children. That should be covered in the law, if at all.
But the worst part is that it strongly encourages companies to perform age verification, and given how often security breaches happen, that's just not something I'm comfortable with.
If parents want to protect their kids, they should do it themselves. There are Internet filters on the market (which I'm convinced don't work because kids will find a way around them), and the best option is to just... be a part of kids' lives and teach them how to be safe on the Internet. If you don't trust your kids on the Internet, don't give them smartphones or access to a computer.
The bill isn’t anti-lgbt, but it does give way too much power to the attorney general to decide what’s harmful for children. That should be covered in the law, if at all.
In effect it will be, which is the only thing that matters.
No, the law itself isn't anti-lgbt, it just enables anti-lgbt people to abuse it.
The opposition shouldn't be that it's anti-lgbt, but that is anti-privacy.
If it lets people use it to target the lgbtq+ community, and it is obvious that it will be, it is anti-lgbtq+. Things exist within the context they exist in.
That's not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.
While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn't the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn't count, it's still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.
That’s not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.
Or they could just not pass the bill and not risk the hammer coming down on the lgbtq+ community.
This will directly hurt the queer community, it is obvious. That's why all the prominent queer folks, like the lawyer I linked, are saying as such. What expertise do you have over activists and civil rights lawyers within the queer community who are calling it an anti-queer bill?
While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn’t the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn’t count, it’s still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.
It is also an anti-privacy bill. Things can be multiple things.
The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.
The privacy part is a guarantee since there will be audits and fines associated with not being able to prove compliance.
If you attack the potential for anti-lgbt misuse, you might get a specific exclusion in the bill, and you're still left with a bad bill. If it attack the privacy issue, there's no way any part of the bill could be amended to satisfy privacy issues, so you just end up killing the bill.
The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.
Potential? Like, they might not do it? Are you serious? They're going to do it. And it isn't an abuse of the bill, it is using the bill as it is intended.
I shall again ask for your expertise over the queer folks ringing the alarm over this.
Yes, the attorney general might not. There will certainly be lobbyists, such as Heritage Foundation, so it's a bit up in the air.
I'm not saying LGBT folks shouldn't be worried. They should. I'm just trying to say that the issue isn't specifically with LGBT issues, the root of the issue is deeper than that. If we fight from an LGBT perspective, we may or may not get an exclusion, but we'll still get the privacy violation. If we fight from a privacy perspective, we could get both.
By all means, voice LGBT concerns, but also voice privacy concerns.