The insane social justice thread

[MCgrease08]

Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms - NYTimes.com

This nonsense had now officially gone off the rails. The Obama administration is going to now mandate that all schools across the country let anyone use any bathroom they want. Don't comply, lose federal funding.

I don't care what your feeling is on the transgender issue, forcing a one size fits all approach to every school in the nation is wrong. I don't care if it's forcing schools to have unisex bathrooms or forcing them all to use blue chalk.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[Plague421]

My point is that the whole diversity racket is inherently contradictory. The diversity racket divides people up by what they have in COMMON to make the argument that our DIFFERENCES are a source of strength. HUH? So differences between groups matter but differences between people? That's apparently irrelevant.

Exactly, I would like to add onto your point also.

I was watching a video of Ben Shapiro speaking at a college campus where he was explaining the different types of diversity.
According to Ben there are three different types of diversity:

• Diversity of ethnicity or skin color
• Diversity of fundamental values
• Diversity of viewpoints

Ben says that two of these types of diversity are not only bad, but are completely irrelevant, and seeking them is wildly destructive.

Diversity of ethnicity alone has no value, and has been scientifically proven to be irrelevant.
There is no advantage a group of ethnically diverse people would have over any other group of people, base on race/ethnicity alone. NONE...

Diversity of fundamental values, things like: Don't steal, don't rape, don't kill, causes conflict of great magnitude.
On the other hand, when a society shares many of the same fundamental values, members of that society are more trusting of one another and there is usually less crime.

The only type of diversity that is positive and worthwhile is "diversity of viewpoints."
Being able to discuss these differing viewpoints allows for things within the free market to evolve and become better.
This also allows for differing viewpoints to be known and acknowledged by all sides, so that a compromise may be reached regardless of fundamental values or ethnicity.

Here is a link to that lecture where multiple attempts were made by not only students, but the administration as well, to prevent Ben from speaking there.
Protesters were violent, Ben was met with aggression from faculty, the campus president tried to cancel the event last minute, and they even pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to stop this assembly from proceeding.
It's long, but it is a good watch and Ben Shapiro makes some really great points all throughout his lecture.

Ben Shapiro Explains Diversity - CSU-LA Don't Like It

 

[Plague421]

Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms - NYTimes.com

The Obama administration is going to now mandate that all schools across the country let anyone use any bathroom they want. Don't comply, lose federal funding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the very definition of what bullying is?
"Do this or I'm going to do something to hurt you!"

IANAL However it seems to me at the very least this is coercion by the federal government, which should give any and all schools legal grounds to fight back if federal funding were to be withheld.
Of course this is the federal gov. we are talking about here, they play by their own rules...

 

[HoughMade]

...IANAL However it seems to me at the very least this is coercion by the federal government, which should give any and all schools legal grounds to fight back if federal funding were to be withheld...

The feds can't force state and local governments to pass or enforce laws...pesky Constitution. However it is well established that it can withhold federal funds unless state and local gvts. comply with certain federal laws. Examples: there never was a federally mandated 55 mph speed limit. State, want federal highway funds, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. There was never a federal mandated drinking age of 21...same thing.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, those examples were both laws passed by Congress and signed into law. I am unfamiliar with a non-judicial decision and non-law providing the impetus to withhold funds. In other words, I have not heard of an executive branch....whim....that was used to withhold federal school funds. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I am not familiar with this being done unless it was pursuant to an actual law, not a policy decision.

If someone else knows of this happening, I would love to hear the context.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The feds can't force state and local governments to pass or enforce laws...pesky Constitution. However it is well established that it can withhold federal funds unless state and local gvts. comply with certain federal laws. Examples: there never was a federally mandated 55 mph speed limit. State, want federal highway funds, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. There was never a federal mandated drinking age of 21...same thing.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, those examples were both laws passed by Congress and signed into law. I am unfamiliar with a non-judicial decision and non-law providing the impetus to withhold funds. In other words, I have not heard of an executive branch....whim....that was used to withhold federal school funds. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I am not familiar with this being done unless it was pursuant to an actual law, not a policy decision.

If someone else knows of this happening, I would love to hear the context.

This is interesting. Who "cuts the checks"? Is that an executive branch job to actually "send" the money to the states? If so, I could imagine a pen or a cell phone being picked up and someone on the other end being told to tear up North Carolina's check for June.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The feds can't force state and local governments to pass or enforce laws...pesky Constitution. However it is well established that it can withhold federal funds unless state and local gvts. comply with certain federal laws. Examples: there never was a federally mandated 55 mph speed limit. State, want federal highway funds, lower the speed limit to 55 mph. There was never a federal mandated drinking age of 21...same thing.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, those examples were both laws passed by Congress and signed into law. I am unfamiliar with a non-judicial decision and non-law providing the impetus to withhold funds. In other words, I have not heard of an executive branch....whim....that was used to withhold federal school funds. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I am not familiar with this being done unless it was pursuant to an actual law, not a policy decision.

If someone else knows of this happening, I would love to hear the context.

I would like to know where in the Constitution the federal government is granted authority to extort us with our own money.

 

[actaeon277]

Maybe the States need to stop allowing money to be sent to the Feds. After all, they can collect the money to fix the roads themselves.
Remove the Damocles' sword.

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe the States need to stop allowing money to be sent to the Feds. After all, they can collect the money to fix the roads themselves.
Remove the Damocles' sword.

So you expect the feds will cut taxes if the states decide to take care of the roads themselves? Are you under the impression that the states collect money for the feds?

 

[actaeon277]

So you expect the feds will cut taxes if the states decide to take care of the roads themselves? Are you under the impression that the states collect money for the feds?

No. The state can pass a law making it illegal for a bank to transfer any money to the Internal Revenue Service, unless the Transferee is the State itself. Arrest the CEO of any bank that breaks the law.
The State collects the tax, and passes it to the Feds.
Instead of the Feds holding the State hostage, go the other way.

Is the Feds going to send police to every Podunk town?

 

[actaeon277]

After all, the Feds expanded their power on a whim. Why not the States?

 

[rob63]

No. The state can pass a law making it illegal for a bank to transfer any money to the Internal Revenue Service, unless the Transferee is the State itself. Arrest the CEO of any bank that breaks the law.
The State collects the tax, and passes it to the Feds.
Instead of the Feds holding the State hostage, go the other way.

Is the Feds going to send police to every Podunk town?

Not the police, the army. Historically, attempts to stop the collection of taxes have been viewed as an insurrection. I like your sentiment, but this may be considered settled policy at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. The state can pass a law making it illegal for a bank to transfer any money to the Internal Revenue Service, unless the Transferee is the State itself. Arrest the CEO of any bank that breaks the law.
The State collects the tax, and passes it to the Feds.
Instead of the Feds holding the State hostage, go the other way.

Is the Feds going to send police to every Podunk town?

That might work when it comes April 15th and owed taxes come due...but what about the rest of the year when people that work for out of state companies get their federal taxes withdrawn back at HQ before the check is ever sent/transmitted? Let's say Indiana adopts such a stance. It might work for all business and employment conducted solely inside the state. But if I work for a company that is based out of NY and it decides it's going to maintain the status quo, I'll likely have my federal and state taxes withdrawn by HQ, in NY.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That might work when it comes April 15th and owed taxes come due...but what about the rest of the year when people that work for out of state companies get their federal taxes withdrawn back at HQ before the check is ever sent/transmitted? Let's say Indiana adopts such a stance. It might work for all business and employment conducted solely inside the state. But if I work for a company that is based out of NY and it decides it's going to maintain the status quo, I'll likely have my federal and state taxes withdrawn by HQ, in NY.

If it works out, it could lead to a shift in which people are less willing to work for out of state corporations making an opening for new businesses to emerge completely within the state.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If it works out, it could lead to a shift in which people are less willing to work for out of state corporations making an opening for new businesses to emerge completely within the state.

I don't know the stats but it's also possible, the revenue from in-state businesses might be significant enough to forgo seeking to get the last penny from the taxes with held. Or...a person could minimize his with holding and then pay the extra to the state instead.

 

[actaeon277]

Withholding is still transferred by a bank.
And the whiskey rebellion was 1 place.
The feds can't go to EVERY town, EVERY bank, etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

......and the weirdness just keeps on coming....

Chicago Public Schools Now Forcing Students To Use Requested Transgender Pronouns Or Face Punishment | Daily Wire

 

[Lowe0]

If it works out, it could lead to a shift in which people are less willing to work for out of state corporations making an opening for new businesses to emerge completely within the state.

So, just as Indiana gets rolling as a tech hub thanks to low cost of living and a near-infinitely-portable product, you're going to torpedo that by making Hoosiers a legal landmine for national corporations? So much for the party of smart fiscal decisions.

 

[cobber]

Maybe the States need to stop allowing money to be sent to the Feds. After all, they can collect the money to fix the roads themselves.
Remove the Damocles' sword.

Congress could solve this if they had the gumption.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, just as Indiana gets rolling as a tech hub thanks to low cost of living and a near-infinitely-portable product, you're going to torpedo that by making Hoosiers a legal landmine for national corporations? So much for the party of smart fiscal decisions.

OK, so whoring for money is your final answer for the values you espouse?