No worries, 12 hour shifts sound brutal.
>I know we both agree that its kind of a moot point in this case, but that kind of argument, even with employment and housing, works on the principal that most people are already inclined to deny service to a transexual
Well, it doesn't necessarily. In the case of employment and housing, I don't think it has to happen in all or even most cases to be an issue worth addressing in some fashion. 27% nationwide isn't a majority, but it's not a small number like 3%. I'm not sure where exactly
I would draw that line, though I think it varies depending on the severity of the issue, and how effective the law would be in resolving the issue. 33% of respondents had been verbally harassed in public by strangers for being trans, but depending on the nature of most of that harassment (threats of physical violence vs. someone just being an asshole), that's something I wouldn't address with laws even if it were way higher. Everyone, trans or otherwise, deals with assholes sometimes, but almost no one thinks someone should be punished by the law for being an asshole, because the harm caused by someone being an asshole to you is way less severe than the harm caused by being unable to find work, a place to live, put food on your table, etc.
The other thing to consider is, employment and housing discrimination tends to stack with other problems faced by the trans community. 30% of trans people in that survey were homeless at least once in their lives, with 12% having been in the previous year. Only 6% were denied entry at homeless shelters, but of the ones who weren't, 9% got in "stealth" and were later kicked out when they were discovered to be transgender, 14% were told they had to basically "stop being (outwardly) trans" (which is somewhere between telling someone with autism to "stop being autistic or we'll kick you out", and someone with severe depression "stop taking your Prozac or we'll kick you out"), more than half (52%) were physically, verbally, or sexually abused in the shelters.
20% had to participate in the "underground economy" at some point to make ends meet, 9% in the previous year. That number is 12% when only looking at sex work rather than underground work as a whole, but that creates a bunch of other problems for those 20% and 12%, of course. If you have a hard time finding work as a trans person already, you're more likely to have to prostitute yourself or resort to other criminalized work to make ends meet; but then you're going to have an even harder time finding legal work if anyone knows you've had to prostitute yourself, you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime, more likely to be shunned by friends and family, more likely to get arrested...you start out simply not being protected by the system and living in a shitty area where that matters, but end up getting fucked over by the system after doing what you had to do to deal with problems you wouldn't be having if you were protected.All
of these figures would shrink if we could shrink the 27% number for employment. Some of those 27% can live with family and friends and have their basic needs met, but a super unlucky 6% of the overall sample wouldn't have even had that option, because the people who are supposed to care the most
about them hate the idea that their son/daughter is trans so much that they apparently don't even give a damn if they starve to death in an alleyway.
>This might be the case in some isolated parts of the bible belt, but then maybe they need local laws to address the issue.
The problem with that is it's a catch-22. The places most in need of laws like these are the least likely to pass them on their own, and the places least in need of them are the most likely to pass them simply because most everyone's on the same page that discriminating against someone for [reason] is wrong. And if you're in
one of these mega shitty places, you also can't get out, because the same problems that make the places shitty for you also deny you the means to escape to a more accepting place.
>This is why things like this are ripe for abuse. Its like malpractice, I just had a talk about this with my friend I went to see, she is a radiation therapist and I was an EMT and we were laughing about all the times we got sued for saving someones life. My example was having to intibate someone after a car wreck because they couldnt breath on their own, i got sued for a 250k because they had a soar throat after.
Yikes. Maybe there's just no winning in some of these situations. Was that 250k lawsuit successful?
>I would fall into the "anti-gun" camp in this analogy because im more worried about the potential for abuse.
Well, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your logic there. The statistics I've shown indicated that even in cases where people do "need" it, most people end up not using it, which suggests that the likelihood of people using them maliciously is even more minute. And if they do try to, they oftentimes fail, as evidenced by the gay cake lawsuit (which I think is kind of a gray area as far as the law is concerned, because it deals with defining the exact boundary between 1A protections and antidiscrimination law; the gay couple was unambiguously denied their wedding cake because the owner doesn't support gay couples having weddings, and therefore doesn't want to symbolically support it by baking a wedding cake for them -- but it's also his right to not want to symbolically support that, and there's even disagreement on whether baking a wedding cake in and of itself as symbolic support, or if it shouldn't be because wedding cakes are standard enough they should be dispensed regardless of consumer identity. In the case of employment, there's far less gray: you either got fired because you were gay/trans, or you got fired for an unrelated reason).
It also seems a bit illogical to me that you're more concerned about the potential abuse of legal antidiscrimination protections than about the potential abuse of guns. A lawsuit in the wrong hands can cost a business lots of money, but isn't guaranteed to succeed. A gun in the wrong hands can kill someone, and probably will if they know how to use the gun and no one puts a stop to them. I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns, of course; I just don't follow your reasoning for why the abuse potential for antidiscrimination law is worse than the abuse potential for guns, and why the logic that justifies guns despite the abuse potential shouldn't extend to antidiscrimination protections.
>im just questioning weather or not its necessary in the first place.
Well, perhaps it's not. To me, it seems there are some legitimate problems worth solving, which is what the laws would aim to mitigate, but perhaps they aren't the best solution. But how would you address the problems these laws seek to resolve, while also minimizing the number of casualties of the long-haul battle, which we'll still keep fighting, whether or not we get help from the government in the form of civil rights protections. Nobody seriously thinks passing antidiscrimination laws will just solve all the underlying social problems overnight and we can rest on our laurels afterward. It's just because people are getting hurt by discrimination in the present
, and we want to help those people too, not just the ones in the future.
>I like ledge guarding, and i like taunts (which apparently you cant do online)
Yeah, I like both of those things too. But I can understand why they got rid of the former. Getting rid of the latter is dumb, if the custom taunt messages were the issue they could have just gotten rid of that without removing them altogether.
Yet another Luigi nerf!
But I don't think these negatives outweigh the positives.
>Honestly, i only ever used wave dashing as a spacing tactic anway, it always seemed more advantageous to me to dash into a move or just keep a combo going, but im a weird player... i mean... i main roy.
As a Luigi player in Melee, I used it as my primary mode of transportation, which isn't really viable anymore. But Luigi sucks now anyway, and it's still perfectly usable for spacing/positioning, which is its main benefit for most characters.
>I always liked break the targets though... so thats kind of a downer haha.
Yeah, same here. Although tbh, Break the Targets was kind of lame in the games after Melee anyway...as the roster got bigger, you couldn't really make individual Break the Targets stages that tailor to each and every character, so instead you got the generic difficulties, which get boring hella fast. I wonder if that's something people will mod in, the Switch modding scene is already fairly prosperous thanks to an unpatchable hardware exploit.
>So, I think both are arguments are being based on assuming the worst haha. The thing is, when you own a business or, even if you are just a keyed manager, you place for sure feels like your second home, so not being able to ask someone to leave by law is a scary thought.
Not necessarily assuming, just preventing. But it's a fair concern, and I can understand why you'd be worried about it without that worry coming from a place of wanting to be able to refuse someone specifically for being black, trans, gay, etc. It's a worry of being unable to refuse someone, and them assuming
it's because of who they are, or trying to paint it that way in court. That kind of thing, coupled with the issue being far less severe/life-threatening than refusing employment, and with the fact that businesses do, indeed, lose money when they refuse someone service for bullshit reasons, makes it not really the battle I want to fight.
That said, if the only option for a law to help the employment and housing issues also
contains refusal of service, then I'd advocate for amending it rather than blocking it altogether. And if there's no backing down on that issue, I would still hope the law passes, because to me, the important issues that it addresses outweigh the potential problems, which will likely be resolved by later case law as the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases seem to already be doing. Time will tell how the dust settles on that one, but if the dust doesn't settle, at some point down the line there will probably be proposed amendments to settle it once and for all. And if a lawsuit is found to be frivolous, there are already measures in place that allow a business to have financial damages covered for it, or even come out on top with a countersuit...which is a headache of course, but it's there to keep the power in balance if you need it.
>Like when they write a bill called the "save all the children act" that lets their friends company pour toxic waste into a river...
Or when they write a bill called the "First Amendment Defense Act", which only defends the specific right to act on a conviction that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman (even if it just means turning them away in a clothing store, without any symbolic speech coming into play), while leaving the Christian baker forced to bake a Satanic cake, the Jewish baker forced to bake a Nazi cake, even the transphobic baker forced to bake a trans pride cake...even the ones who claim they want to protect the rights you fear are in jeopardy aren't always doing it in good faith, and sometimes they're even more transparent about it.
At the very least, things like the Civil Rights Act and Equality Act are't saying "we want to protect people of color in particular from discrimination, we don't care about the white folks" or "we want to make it illegal to discriminate against gays and trans people, we don't care about the straights", In practice, the people who benefit the most from civil rights protections are the people of color and the LGBT people, but that's only because they're the ones at the greatest risk without these laws; the protections they propose apply to everyone
. The Equality Act would even keep in check and prevent the most-feared affirmative action policy -- diversity quotas -- because if you can demonstrate that the reason you weren't hired is because the company preferred a less-qualified trans man over you as a cis man, you can prove they were in violation the newly amended Civil Rights Act and discriminated against on the basis of your gender identity. Currently, if a company were to have an affirmative action quota for trans people and gay people and turn away straight and cis people, they wouldn't be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and you wouldn't have a tool against that policy. Because it''s not your sex, race, religion, or national origin being discriminated against -- it's your gender identity, something with no federal protection.
And somehow, that doesn't even get talked about by anybody, whether for or against antidiscrimination law. People against antidiscrimination law tend to also be against diversity quotas, perhaps even viewing the latter as a greater evil -- but the former is their single greatest weapon against the latter! And one would think that people for diversity quotas should be against antidiscrimination law for that same reason. But I think way fewer people are for diversity quotas than are for antidiscrimination law, because the former is clearly unsustainable and unfair, favoring one group over the other, while the latter, despite having its own abuse potential, applies far more evenly and provides protections against both individual and institutional abuses.
>This is why i argue the long haul method of people gaining acceptance by just being good people in their community, rather than making a big media issue over it, and getting government involved. Again, it worked for the Irish and the Italians, and where are the blacks? BET use to be a news station...
Well, as I said before, we're not gonna stop fighting the long haul method regardless of whether or not we get antidiscrimination law. I think the Civil Rights Act has definitely helped the black community in some ways, but nobody, even those who fought for it, claimed that it would fix everything overnight. Whether the things that have gotten worse were exacerbated by the Civil Rights Act, is something I really can't answer, because the socioeconomic problems faced by the black community are enormously complex. Politicians both left and right have surely made things worse, not all activism is a good thing, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "the Civil Rights Act hasn't solved everything and in some ways the situation has worsened over the years" being an argument that the Civil Rights Act was a net harm or even wasn't a net benefit. The black community has also been actively sabotaged by the government since then, with things like the CIA crack scandal. BLM activists (or rather, black activists in general who aren't even necessarily affiliated with BLM) even now have been targets of FBI COINTELPRO activities and surveillance
, and even arrested for speaking out against this
; regardless of how you might feel about the BLM movement as a whole, or the existence of a discrepancy between their stated goals and the actions of some activists, doesn't this raise some serious red flags and lend some credence to the idea that institutional oppression is alive and well, even if it's not as blatant as it was in the Jim Crow era? Tyranny shouldn't be fought with more tyranny, and I don't pretend to have all the answers on how it's most effectively and ethically fought, but it must
be fought somehow, and that's undermined just as much by fearmongers convincing us that those who fight against tyranny are fighting with their own tyranny, as it is by people who do
actually try to fight tyranny with tyranny. Deception and distortion are so prevalent that it's almost impossible to know who the "good guys" are at times, but we have to try and untangle the mess if we can ever hope to make our society better and prevent it from getting worse.
>but it also covers veterans and the elderly, which are a specific sub group
This is true. I wonder, though, how many people against gender identity (a category, not a subgroup) have no problem with these specific subgroups being protected, and would even be pissed if that were changed.
>Idk, i would call the bill of rights civil rights, and i dont see anything in the 1st amendment that says how much the fine will be for denying it to someone.
Should governments face some sort of consequence for violating the First Amendment? Who watches the watchmen?
Abolishing slavery was a constitutional amendment too. I don't know what the penalty is for owning a slave, but surely if someone tried to, someone
would put a stop to it, no?