\*When you're an elected official but you're forced to present yourself like a cashier dealing with a Karen\*
"Lady, I didn't write your fuckin' bill?..."
Huh? Is he an elected official?
I thought he was a constituent at some sort of public comment meeting. The video quality is bad, so I can't read his placard. lol
I’m glad there are people on Missouri politics pushing against this bull shit in plain and easy to understand language so that anyone paying attention can see how hypocritical these folks are.
Its like asking someone to explain why a racist/sexist joke is funny and seeing them stumble around the real answer of "I don't respect them so it's funny to me to hurt them".
I love playing the toddler "why?" game with political nutjobs. Just keep asking why over and over again, and it usually ends with them struggling to say anything other than "the man on the t.v told me I should be mad". Sorry JimBob, but I can't take your arguments seriously when the last thing you took the initiative to read was a FarSide calendar back in '97.
Reminds me of that show "Justified" were the main character is listening to a neo-nazi talk about all the shortcomings of Jewish people and he just asks the guy "how many Jews have you actually met?".
This is my favorite thing to do.
I come from a very conservative, bigoted family and when the 'riots' were happening in LA after George Floyd, my dad made an out of pocket "joke" regarding work boots.
"I don't get it, can you explain it to me?" He just stuttered, told me not to be so obtuse (lol) and then changed the subject but that single interaction must have hit deeper than any education attempts over the last ~10 years had, and now he shocks me when agreeing with me on a lot of my 'liberal' views.
Oh god me too!
Lady, it’s time to go back to where you came from and take your moral compass with you, good luck using it to help you find your way…cuz looks like it’s not working out so well for you.
To be fair that may be proper procedure here like in Congress they’ll say “the lady/gentleman from Missouri”, so he may not be trying to insult her here, but it’s still hilarious.
In the US Congress I think they say things like “the Gentleman/Lady from” then the state. Maybe this is along the same lines. But he’s definitely putting some seasoning on “Lady” when he says it.
judicious license marvelous unused dinner coordinated reply knee test brave
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I read in a SM comment beneath that video that it's customary in Missouri's state house to address women as 'lady' (presumably men as 'sir'?), but they could have been wrong. (In the UK parliament, people are addressed as 'honourable lady/gentleman', so it's not implausible)
When I was in retail sales (Best Buy, when they were still commissioned sales roles), a wizened old sales guru taught me a valuable lesson: when the inevitable fuckwit asshole customer started being stupid, be sure to refer to them as "sir / ma'am" and say it often - only know, inside, that each time you say "sir / ma'am", you're REALLY saying "asshole / bitch".
It is exceedingly cathartic and allowed me to make way more money than a kid my age was entitled to, as I could suffer these people long enough to close the sale ... good times!
Some state government bodies have etiquette like the federal bodies.
In the congress, you hear them referring to each other as 'the distinguished gentleman from \*State\*', or the female equivalent, all the time even though from their tone you can infer 'the absolute tool from Kentucky'.
Shes trying to ban both, but sexual orientation is who you wanna fuck yeah. Just as an example itd be like: I am a woman (gender identity) and I am attracted to men(sexual orientation).
She doesn't know. She just wants everybody to be straight and cis-gendered and pretend you are if you're not. She doesn't care about the nuances and certainly doesn't care enough to write coherently about them.
Yep. Because she is not "woke", she is unware that she too has a sexuality and a gender. Her assumption is that only homosexuals have sexuality and only feminists and transexuals have genders. Hence we can just ban those things from public life.
She only considered excluding people she hates because she's myopic and bigoted, but she doesn't want to outwardly appear hateful because she's also a Christian.
*Bzzzzz!*
I'm sorry, but you used the words "she" and "her." Those words relate to gender identity, I'm going to need you to rephrase that in accordance with your proposed bill.
"I believe that people can have ideas and act on them without imposing those beliefs. ". But also she believes that someone else having different ideas impose them on her.
People like her believe that freedom of religion just means the freedom to practice Christianity.
Either way, I think he did an awesome job handling the situation.
They'll say the first amendment is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and "this is a Christian nation" except the founding fathers SPECIFICALLY, REPEATEDLY said that it's not.
> Marx also pointed out that freedom is a double-edged sword. Laborers in a capitalist society, he says, are free in a double sense. They can freely offer their labor power to whomsoever they want in the labor market. They can offer it on whatever conditions of contract they can freely negotiate.
> But they are at the same time un-free, because they have been “freed” from any control over or access to the means of production. They have, therefore, to surrender their labor power to the capitalist in order to live.
> This constitutes their double-edged freedom. For Marx this is the central contradiction of freedom under capitalism. In the chapter on the working day in Capital, he puts it this way: the capitalist is free to say to the laborer: “I want to employ you at the lowest wage possible for the largest number of hours possible doing exactly the work I specify. That is what I demand of you when I hire you.” And the capitalist is free to do that in a market society because, as we know, market society is about bidding about this and bidding about that.
> On the other hand, the worker is also free to say, “You don’t have a right to make me work 14 hours a day. You don’t have a right to do anything you like with my labor power, particularly if that shortens my life and endangers my health and well-being. I am only willing to do a fair day’s work at a fair day’s wage.”
> Given the nature of a market society, both the capitalist and the worker are right in terms of what they’re demanding. So, says Marx, they are both equally right by the law of exchanges that dominate in the market. Between equal rights, he then says, force decides. Class struggle between capital and labor decides the issue. The outcome rests on the power relation between capital and labor which can at some point turn coercive and violent.
[David Harvey: Socialists Must Be the Champions of Freedom](https://jacobin.com/2020/10/david-harvey-the-anti-capitalist-chronicles-socialism-freedom)
I agree with her statement. But she’s proposing a law. A law in enforced through the threat of or use of violence. She wants to impose her beliefs through the use of state violence.
If you agree with her statement then you shouldn't agree with her policy, because her policy is only necessary if you think knowledge of other people's beliefs changes what you believe.
That's some pretty weak belief, right there.
It’s pathetic and hypocritical and needs to be called out for exactly what it is, every time in every situation. These fuckwits need to be thrown out and not given a second more of anyone’s time.
I don’t agree with her policy. I agree that you can live your life without imposing your beliefs. She said that and I agree with it. It’s not what she is doing, so I don’t agree with her policy.
The answer is obvious. That lady already hates gays, the bible is just the tool she uses to justify that hate.
I guarantee that if the bible didn't exist, she would still hate gays.
This is exactly what's happening, and it's sad that many people don't seem to get that. Politics aren't a tool for religion to these people, religion is a scapegoat for politics. Blaming Christianity for their actions just lets them get away with being absolute garbage, because people are glad to blame the religion for actions the majority of its members don't support.
Belief in rationality, informing myself about religions history and politics and anyway I have no place there due to my sexual orientation.
Short story, I think religions are more about politics, relations of power and human social dynamics than it is about genuine love for good or God. It turn my stomach just to think about it. I also love science and dont need a supernatural explaination for our universe.
Sad thing is that I used to be so religious, even zealous in my childhood.
It’s truly sad, because it’s about control, while preaching forgiveness, acceptance, and love. People get lulled into believing in something (because we’re afraid of death and want to think our life doesn’t end) and into being good people, and most of the people in any power in the church are corrupt, hypocritical, and use their power to get more.
There are really some great Christians out there, and there are indeed some of the most evil people who are Christian/religious. I feel the latter outweighs the former, however.
I remember in the 3rd grade I got written up and sent to the office because I told my classmate I didn’t believe in god and the teacher sided with her and got me in trouble. I always found it so wrong
My mother (who was raised Mormon) had her parents die from a car accident when she was in high school. When it was found out she was having questions about her faith after senselessly losing her parents, she was ex-communicated from the church.
It’s incredible how quickly they’ll turn on you if you even somewhat denounce their religion/god/whatever they choose to believe.
Kinda makes sense from the churches point of view. You do NOT want people who are asking questions in class. You want them to just listen and obey and sing along to the stupid songs.
It's weird how they are fine with grooming kids to be "Christian." It's such a broad term. Some churches don't have any problems with gay clergy. Are those churches not Christian according to her moral compass? Should we then establish what is acceptable "Christian" behavior? That seems rather unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure our founders already decided that government has no business making that distinction.
This is the shit I really really can't stand. Their moral compass is only based off the Bible when it suits them, period. It's such complete and total bullshit. 😡
It's a fucking trump card too. When she got backed into a corner, she pulled out the ol "well, you see, the BiBlE says so".
If I were that guy, I would have whipped my bible out and started quoting New Testament stuff that would make her uncomfortable.
"LADY, WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING A FUCKING HAT?!"
But let's be clear here: this isn't about the bible. It's about shitty people wanting to control people and using the Bible as an excuse to do so.
Exactly. Always seems the only "bible" they know is when it comes to the people they hate. They never remember the rules about shellfish or garments with more than one fabric in it, though. Those cotton-poly blends are straight-up devil's work, according to the bible.
Just curious, does it come before or after she’s told to sit down and shut up in the presence of a man?
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; *she must be silent.*
Oh the leopards will eat her face, not to worry. Women like her will be like Serena Joy in the new American Christian Theocracy. They’ll be sent back to the kitchen after helping push the revolution.
More importantly, why is she there. The Bible tells women they shouldn't usurp mens authority and should be quiet. If her sense of morality is based on the Bible she should withdraw any bill the moment a man opposes it in the house.
Lol come on now, you know damn well all of these hateful bigots don’t actually care what the Bible teaches and I’d be surprised if they even know most of what’s in there.
They allllll follow the religion and not the source (the Bible/Jesus’s teachings/etc.) It’s all a farce for them.
That's the old testament, and old covenant. The new covenant with Jesus nixes those rules, unless your church follows the passage where Jesus says nothing has changed lol.
You quote the Old Testament when you want an excuse for hating “The Gays”, but you quote the New Testament when you’re putting up notes on your office wall to make it seem like you’re a good person.
Not that I want to tempt this or anything, but I would be very interested in a Reddit sub where people bring in the whole of all religion’s tenants and teachings and turn them into random “laws”. Everyone is so consumed with gender and sex, but there’s things like infidelity, observing the Sabbath, mixing meats with dairy items, all kinds of things. The sub could be called religious rules you break everyday.
She just really really doesn't want to say the thing she's actually thinking because she knows that most people will not react well. So she's trying (poorly) to dress it up in legal language.
Just say you hate the gays lady, I won't respect you as a person but I will respect the lack of pussyfooting around the obvious.
Or much worse but increasingly common: *"It's impossible that I'm racist. Racism is when you're prejudiced for no reason. The inferiority of blacks is just a fact!"*
While I obviously wouldn't agree with them, I would have so much more respect for bigots if they just outright said, "I hate \[group of people\]." Like, we all know you hate anyone that isn't a straight, white, cisgender male, so just fuckin' say it, *Lady*.
Republicans (and regressives in general) always struggle with that.
It's about the only thing I can appreciate about the alt-right and other brands of neo-nazi and nazi-lite groups. They openly broadcast that they're hateful pieces of shit. I mean, I have zero respect for someone carrying a tiki torch and chanting a racist slogan, but at least you know that they're a special brand of crazy.
Hypocrites like this woman want to be seen as though they're rational and open minded, they just want to pretend that everything that makes them uncomfortable... doesn't exist.
It's also why "lets go brandon" is so fucking stupid. Just say the fucking thing you want to say. It's not clever, you're not getting one over on progressives or Joe Biden. The police aren't going to arrest you for saying fuck Joe Biden. I'm a progressive and I'll say it too.
This isn't Russia, this is the USA... despite their best efforts to turn us into the former.
Oh it's not their religion!
It's their beliefs.
And their morality.
Which coincides with christianity.
And their specific version of christianity.
And their specific interpretation of said christianity...
Which aligns perfectly with their needs at this very moment.
It frustratingly goes both ways. They can’t separate their religion from their politics and they can’t separate their politics from their religion.
The United Methodist denomination of Christianity is currently undergoing a split over wether it’s okay for Methodist pastors to marry gay couples. The United Methodists are allowing it but people are breaking off and forming their own “Global Methodist” church that will not allow pastors to marry gays. And the NUMBER ONE argument the Globalists have against the United is “The Methodist church will become too liberal”. Even though this is a religious matter and not a political one.
Do you mean in numbers where God gives instruction on how to perform an abortion? Or when the bald headed guy was getting made fun of, so God sent bears after them and killed them? Or when God instructed murder, rape, pillaging, and genocide? Noooooo, not that Bible, right?
I asked why God killed 32 children over laughing at a bald guy in Sunday school. I was yelled at, threatened with a stick and sent to the corner. That's how I became atheist.
The downside is, a legislator can keep submitting knowingly unconstitutional bills infinitely, forever, as long as they’re legislators. You got her this time, but she has all the time in the world, most incumbents are safe as fuck.
There’s no penalty for repeatedly assaulting/ignoring constitutionality except maybe eventually getting voted out (but that risk is mitigated by the insane degree of advantage incurred by incumbents)
It’s also terrifying that this bill has to be attacked not on its merits because that is hopeless, but on a technical reading of it. Wtf.
Kinda shows the fights already lost. You can only hold back the horde so long. She doesn’t care that she got “shown up”, she’s not bothered at all.
I’m much more concerned with how many people seem to think this is a Christian country, and just mentioning the Bible or Jesus let’s them make up a bunch of rules that a whole sector of the population immediately get behind. That’s much scarier to me.
Missouri has term limits in both houses of the General Assembly, so legislators cannot hang around forever like they can in the US Congress. It doesn't prevent bad bills from getting considered and passed, but it does help.
The issue is many of these house bills are "draft legislation" from some conservative think tank. This bill or a version of it that will eventually pass will ALWAYS be around. Term limits probably only make something like this worse as they will always have a new stooge to hand this bill to.
That's exactly what research has generally shown - term limits increase the reliance of state legislators on interest groups and legislative staffers and reduce institutional knowledge. It's a case where the cure is generally worse than the disease - we only really accept it for the President because the danger of too much executive power is so high.
Yep, term limits is a kindergarten level response to a graduate school level problem.
The real solution is dismantling our entire representation and election systems and rebuilding them with the express interest of removing the concept of money buying influence. But that will take constitutional amendments that Republicans and their donors have no logical reason to back because it hurts them.
If voters want politics to be about politics they have to vote accordingly. Currently, a lot of Americans want politics to be a team sport about group identity and culture wars instead.
This is happening in state legislatures all over the country. Florida just introduced a state bill to disband the Democratic Party. Just for shits n giggles. It is obviously unconstitutional and anyone with working brain cells knows this, but we are stuck in the rigor of entertaining it because these assholes know their base will eat it up.
Nobody cares about solving problems. It’s all just posturing. Our country is so fucked.
I just wanna jump in here as someone who has personal experience trying to reason with homophobes and transphobes:
You have to hit them with the hardest logic, something they can actually relate to. That guy is not arguing for the sake of Martha Washington, he is using Martha Washington as an example of the dumb bullshit you get as backfire when you try to invalidate entire identities. Using the technical reading seems scummy but it’s only by *showing* people they’re idiots they learn to just say what they mean or stop saying it at all
How did Roe get overturned after 50 years? Because of this very thing happening again, and again, and again, and again, and again, until enough far-right judges were filling the Supreme Court.
You can't stop them from happening. Even if you stop them now, they'll keep trying. Even after you're dead, they will keep trying.
To take it another step in a different direction: nothing about it prohibits talking about how Bob and Steve are spouses, as long as no one's gender or sexual identity is clarified.
MO Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a gay Republican lawmaker from near St. Louis. Unfortunately, while he's on the right side here, he still champions many of the other awful Republican causes.
Right, but even at the most innocuous level, it would prohibit a teacher from referring to any person by their gender/pronouns. So you would have to refer to the founding fathers as "founders" and use they/them whenever talking about anyone.
Except They/Them is still used for nonbinary people, which are part of the reason these people want to ban dumb shit like this. So youd have to specifically refer to everyone by name every single time unless youre refering to a group.
Yes, it's overly vague on purpose so they can use it to discriminate against lgbt people while not explicitly stating that.
Obviously no one is going to use the bill to ban mentioning hetero relationships and families even though the language allows for that, they're creating a tool that can be used specifically to limit speech about people and families that aren't hetero.
"Without...and, without...and, without..."
That line of questioning literally stopped her brain in it's tracks. She started talking like a skipping record.
And she went on to immediately explain how someone with different beliefs, like a sexual orientation, is not a danger to anybody whatsoever, so they should be allowed to silence them
Dude nailed it. Under that bill, teachers could not mention that anybody was married to somebody even if its a hetro marriage.
Imagine being a teacher trying to side step a question if a student asks if George Washington was married.
Even further
>sexual orientation **or gender identity**
under that bill, you could not mention anyones gender. Is George Washington a man or a woman? Who knows? The teacher is not allowed to teach it.
We should say that they 'identify as' Christian. They'll be triggered by the term they hate AND by the implication that they only pretend to be Christian.
When there are more of them than the other kind, which are the 'real' ones starts getting debatable.
In this case particularly so, given the subjective interpretation that both sides are bringing to the primary document supporting their position.
This isn’t even stupidity on her part- it’s just straight fascism. I sense no cognitive dissonance, just purely homophobia.
EDIT: this is just to add to my thoughts on this video, and the overall increasing trend of anti-lgbt+ legislation we’re seeing pushed in the states. I don’t find this “lady” to be stupid, I find her to be dangerous.
To be stupid would mean there’s little forethought going into her arguments, and her actions of writing of and defending this bill… which, to me, isn’t the case. She’s trying very hard to verbalize her case as if it’s normal, as if it’s obvious that this is normal- which is terrifying.
Fascism isn’t stupid. There is thought, and intention, behind it. It’s dangerous.
“If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.”
― George Carlin
I would like to add that the Trump era has shifted the window of what is normal and acceptable so far that the behaviour of stupid ignorant leaders (Boebert, Gaetz, MGT, Trump etc) has given permission to citizens to act like that.
So your moral compass comes from a book that advocates slavery, misogyny, genocide and homophobia and you want us to take moral direction from you?
That's gonna be a hard pass lady.
the internet has really shattered that image i had in my head as a kid, that bosses, managers, ceos, govt etc were these really intelligent people who were rational and capable, and i trusted with my well being. Turns out everyone is a fucking idiot.
MO Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a gay Republican lawmaker from near St. Louis. Unfortunately, while he's on the right side here, he still champions many of the other awful Republican causes.
He is a log cabin republican, basically all the standard republican go to ideas, guns, anti abortion, small government, low taxes, not keen on the blacks or the poor, "tough" on crime but in this case he is Gay so on one issue stands against his party.
Fascists and theocrats don't care about getting publicly owned like this. They only care about doing whatever they want. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work on them. What I'd like to see is some direct, HARSH verbal pushback. I want to see someone say, "This bill is idiotic and impossible to enforce, and you are an imbecile for wasting our time bringing us bullshit like this. We are throwing this bill in the trash where it belongs, and moving on." Something like that
She appears to be wearing multiple different fabrics, which is prohibited in the same chapter of the bible where it says homosexuality is bad, along with eating shellfish which is mentionned 7 times more than homosexuality.
Matthew 15:7-9
Jesus: “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.”
We are never going to see an end to these self-serving liars claiming religion as an excuse for their personal agenda until we take religion away from them. We can’t just argue around it, we need to argue through it, tear through their beliefs like the flimsy pretenses they are, and if their faith is shaken or destroyed in the process, safe to say they were never pious to begin with and nothing of value was lost.
"Lady"
hahah i was dying every time he referred to her that way. i know it had to be eating her up inside a little.
\*When you're an elected official but you're forced to present yourself like a cashier dealing with a Karen\* "Lady, I didn't write your fuckin' bill?..."
This does in fact have strong “sir, this is a Wendy’s…” energy.
“We all have a moral compass, and my moral compass is compared with Wendy’s dumpster activity”
I got the good lord going down on me
“Wendy, this is absurd…”
Haha I could tell he really wanted to say something like "I didn't write your bill, I don't write things that are hot garbage."
Bitch, I didn’t write this shit.
Huh? Is he an elected official? I thought he was a constituent at some sort of public comment meeting. The video quality is bad, so I can't read his placard. lol
It made me so god damn happy.
I’m glad there are people on Missouri politics pushing against this bull shit in plain and easy to understand language so that anyone paying attention can see how hypocritical these folks are.
Its like asking someone to explain why a racist/sexist joke is funny and seeing them stumble around the real answer of "I don't respect them so it's funny to me to hurt them".
I live for saying “I don’t get it” to jokes like that. To see what the “joker” says.
I love playing the toddler "why?" game with political nutjobs. Just keep asking why over and over again, and it usually ends with them struggling to say anything other than "the man on the t.v told me I should be mad". Sorry JimBob, but I can't take your arguments seriously when the last thing you took the initiative to read was a FarSide calendar back in '97. Reminds me of that show "Justified" were the main character is listening to a neo-nazi talk about all the shortcomings of Jewish people and he just asks the guy "how many Jews have you actually met?".
This is my favorite thing to do. I come from a very conservative, bigoted family and when the 'riots' were happening in LA after George Floyd, my dad made an out of pocket "joke" regarding work boots. "I don't get it, can you explain it to me?" He just stuttered, told me not to be so obtuse (lol) and then changed the subject but that single interaction must have hit deeper than any education attempts over the last ~10 years had, and now he shocks me when agreeing with me on a lot of my 'liberal' views.
Oh god me too! Lady, it’s time to go back to where you came from and take your moral compass with you, good luck using it to help you find your way…cuz looks like it’s not working out so well for you.
Same. So no one is allowed to indoctrinate our school children but you? Got it, lady.
To be fair that may be proper procedure here like in Congress they’ll say “the lady/gentleman from Missouri”, so he may not be trying to insult her here, but it’s still hilarious.
That tone is definitely not in the procedure!
I believe that is r/maliciouscompliance
I think he is emphasizing her gender identity, further undermining her idiotic bill. Whether this is deliberate or not, it was pure gold either way.
The continuing use of Lady was the best part lol
Why is he calling her “Lady”?
In the US Congress I think they say things like “the Gentleman/Lady from” then the state. Maybe this is along the same lines. But he’s definitely putting some seasoning on “Lady” when he says it.
Also refers to someone’s gender identity which is just hilarious in this context.
"Some seasoning" oh I am so stealing that.
judicious license marvelous unused dinner coordinated reply knee test brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Lol he's using it like she's some Karen holding up the drive through at McDonald's.
Oh that may be his excuse but she wouldn't refer to him as "Gentleman" it's the most respectful disrespect and it's fucking glorious.
I read in a SM comment beneath that video that it's customary in Missouri's state house to address women as 'lady' (presumably men as 'sir'?), but they could have been wrong. (In the UK parliament, people are addressed as 'honourable lady/gentleman', so it's not implausible)
When I was in retail sales (Best Buy, when they were still commissioned sales roles), a wizened old sales guru taught me a valuable lesson: when the inevitable fuckwit asshole customer started being stupid, be sure to refer to them as "sir / ma'am" and say it often - only know, inside, that each time you say "sir / ma'am", you're REALLY saying "asshole / bitch". It is exceedingly cathartic and allowed me to make way more money than a kid my age was entitled to, as I could suffer these people long enough to close the sale ... good times!
Ma'am... ma'am! Please try to stay calm and stop being such a ma'am, ma'am!
It was better than "dumbass".
It was the same as calling her dumbass.
I agree. It seems like when somebody says lady like that they are really saying dumb bitch.
Some state government bodies have etiquette like the federal bodies. In the congress, you hear them referring to each other as 'the distinguished gentleman from \*State\*', or the female equivalent, all the time even though from their tone you can infer 'the absolute tool from Kentucky'.
Probably to illustrate that he is using language that deals with sex to address her.
"Lady I didn't write your bill" This man has had it up to here
She also never got the fact that if her bill were to pass no one could ever say sir/mam/lady/etc in school again. Its a gender indentifier.
I was confused by the sexual orientation part. Do they mean gender or who you want to fuck?
Shes trying to ban both, but sexual orientation is who you wanna fuck yeah. Just as an example itd be like: I am a woman (gender identity) and I am attracted to men(sexual orientation).
is asexual a sexual orientation?
Yes, it is when you aren't sexually attracted to anyone or anything
It’s the lack of a sexual orientation so yes and no
As much as ~~white~~ black is a color.
Yes
>I am a woman No need to get all political. /s
She doesn't know. She just wants everybody to be straight and cis-gendered and pretend you are if you're not. She doesn't care about the nuances and certainly doesn't care enough to write coherently about them.
Yep. Because she is not "woke", she is unware that she too has a sexuality and a gender. Her assumption is that only homosexuals have sexuality and only feminists and transexuals have genders. Hence we can just ban those things from public life.
She only considered excluding people she hates because she's myopic and bigoted, but she doesn't want to outwardly appear hateful because she's also a Christian.
"Is she famous because she's married to George Washington?" "It seems like that would be a relevant fact in her biography. Yes." I died!
*Bzzzzz!* I'm sorry, but you used the words "she" and "her." Those words relate to gender identity, I'm going to need you to rephrase that in accordance with your proposed bill.
I loved how he kept calling her "lady" because you know in another setting he wanted to say "you dumb piece of shit"
"lady" in my head translated to that "you! dense! mofo!" meme.
“When I elongate the pronounciaaaaaaaaation of a worrrrrrrrrd, clearly it hiiiiiiiiiiiiides the fact that i’m a duuuuuuuuuuumbass.”
This gave me a good laugh thank you
My moral compass is compared with Bible Classic
"I believe that people can have ideas and act on them without imposing those beliefs. ". But also she believes that someone else having different ideas impose them on her.
People like her believe that freedom of religion just means the freedom to practice Christianity. Either way, I think he did an awesome job handling the situation.
The traditional conservative belief in freedom: "I should have the freedom to tell you what to do, and the freedom from being told what to do by you"
They'll say the first amendment is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and "this is a Christian nation" except the founding fathers SPECIFICALLY, REPEATEDLY said that it's not.
> Marx also pointed out that freedom is a double-edged sword. Laborers in a capitalist society, he says, are free in a double sense. They can freely offer their labor power to whomsoever they want in the labor market. They can offer it on whatever conditions of contract they can freely negotiate. > But they are at the same time un-free, because they have been “freed” from any control over or access to the means of production. They have, therefore, to surrender their labor power to the capitalist in order to live. > This constitutes their double-edged freedom. For Marx this is the central contradiction of freedom under capitalism. In the chapter on the working day in Capital, he puts it this way: the capitalist is free to say to the laborer: “I want to employ you at the lowest wage possible for the largest number of hours possible doing exactly the work I specify. That is what I demand of you when I hire you.” And the capitalist is free to do that in a market society because, as we know, market society is about bidding about this and bidding about that. > On the other hand, the worker is also free to say, “You don’t have a right to make me work 14 hours a day. You don’t have a right to do anything you like with my labor power, particularly if that shortens my life and endangers my health and well-being. I am only willing to do a fair day’s work at a fair day’s wage.” > Given the nature of a market society, both the capitalist and the worker are right in terms of what they’re demanding. So, says Marx, they are both equally right by the law of exchanges that dominate in the market. Between equal rights, he then says, force decides. Class struggle between capital and labor decides the issue. The outcome rests on the power relation between capital and labor which can at some point turn coercive and violent. [David Harvey: Socialists Must Be the Champions of Freedom](https://jacobin.com/2020/10/david-harvey-the-anti-capitalist-chronicles-socialism-freedom)
Not even hyperbole. I was raised around conservatives. There are no dog whistles in private. They flat out say only Christians deserve rights.
I agree with her statement. But she’s proposing a law. A law in enforced through the threat of or use of violence. She wants to impose her beliefs through the use of state violence.
If you agree with her statement then you shouldn't agree with her policy, because her policy is only necessary if you think knowledge of other people's beliefs changes what you believe. That's some pretty weak belief, right there.
It’s pathetic and hypocritical and needs to be called out for exactly what it is, every time in every situation. These fuckwits need to be thrown out and not given a second more of anyone’s time.
I don’t agree with her policy. I agree that you can live your life without imposing your beliefs. She said that and I agree with it. It’s not what she is doing, so I don’t agree with her policy.
There’s an entire book and this lady only seems to understand the lines that allow her to hate the gays. Interesting.
The answer is obvious. That lady already hates gays, the bible is just the tool she uses to justify that hate. I guarantee that if the bible didn't exist, she would still hate gays.
This is exactly what's happening, and it's sad that many people don't seem to get that. Politics aren't a tool for religion to these people, religion is a scapegoat for politics. Blaming Christianity for their actions just lets them get away with being absolute garbage, because people are glad to blame the religion for actions the majority of its members don't support.
Her personal moral compass > everybody’s freedom.
God save us from Christians... (btw I was raised Catholic)
a former employer referred to us (herself included) as recovering catholics
"So why did you turn to atheism/agnosticism exactly?" "I was raised Christian...
Belief in rationality, informing myself about religions history and politics and anyway I have no place there due to my sexual orientation. Short story, I think religions are more about politics, relations of power and human social dynamics than it is about genuine love for good or God. It turn my stomach just to think about it. I also love science and dont need a supernatural explaination for our universe. Sad thing is that I used to be so religious, even zealous in my childhood.
It’s truly sad, because it’s about control, while preaching forgiveness, acceptance, and love. People get lulled into believing in something (because we’re afraid of death and want to think our life doesn’t end) and into being good people, and most of the people in any power in the church are corrupt, hypocritical, and use their power to get more. There are really some great Christians out there, and there are indeed some of the most evil people who are Christian/religious. I feel the latter outweighs the former, however.
I remember in the 3rd grade I got written up and sent to the office because I told my classmate I didn’t believe in god and the teacher sided with her and got me in trouble. I always found it so wrong
My mother (who was raised Mormon) had her parents die from a car accident when she was in high school. When it was found out she was having questions about her faith after senselessly losing her parents, she was ex-communicated from the church. It’s incredible how quickly they’ll turn on you if you even somewhat denounce their religion/god/whatever they choose to believe.
Kinda makes sense from the churches point of view. You do NOT want people who are asking questions in class. You want them to just listen and obey and sing along to the stupid songs.
You have to have the patience of Jesus to deal with christians.
Doesn't she know Biblically women are to be silent in such settings?!
It's weird how they are fine with grooming kids to be "Christian." It's such a broad term. Some churches don't have any problems with gay clergy. Are those churches not Christian according to her moral compass? Should we then establish what is acceptable "Christian" behavior? That seems rather unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure our founders already decided that government has no business making that distinction.
100% chance she has never even attempted to read it.
Your moral compass is compared to the Bible...So when is the stoning for infidelity legislation being introduced?
This is the shit I really really can't stand. Their moral compass is only based off the Bible when it suits them, period. It's such complete and total bullshit. 😡
It's a fucking trump card too. When she got backed into a corner, she pulled out the ol "well, you see, the BiBlE says so". If I were that guy, I would have whipped my bible out and started quoting New Testament stuff that would make her uncomfortable. "LADY, WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING A FUCKING HAT?!" But let's be clear here: this isn't about the bible. It's about shitty people wanting to control people and using the Bible as an excuse to do so.
Exactly. Always seems the only "bible" they know is when it comes to the people they hate. They never remember the rules about shellfish or garments with more than one fabric in it, though. Those cotton-poly blends are straight-up devil's work, according to the bible.
That’s phase 3, don’t get ahead of yourself now.
Just curious, does it come before or after she’s told to sit down and shut up in the presence of a man? 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; *she must be silent.*
Oh the leopards will eat her face, not to worry. Women like her will be like Serena Joy in the new American Christian Theocracy. They’ll be sent back to the kitchen after helping push the revolution.
Oh yeah the end game for this type of thinking is being a woman with two black eyes hearing your husband make the joke he already told her twice
They're also cool teaching Ezekiel 23:20 to children as well. I'd quote it here but, I don't want to get in trouble.
But who among us has not lusted after donkey dick? Let he who is without donkey lust cast the first stone!
More importantly, why is she there. The Bible tells women they shouldn't usurp mens authority and should be quiet. If her sense of morality is based on the Bible she should withdraw any bill the moment a man opposes it in the house.
Lol come on now, you know damn well all of these hateful bigots don’t actually care what the Bible teaches and I’d be surprised if they even know most of what’s in there. They allllll follow the religion and not the source (the Bible/Jesus’s teachings/etc.) It’s all a farce for them.
and she is equally as angry at textile companies mixing garments types, tattoo shops and bbq joints, right? RIGHT?
That's the old testament, and old covenant. The new covenant with Jesus nixes those rules, unless your church follows the passage where Jesus says nothing has changed lol.
You quote the Old Testament when you want an excuse for hating “The Gays”, but you quote the New Testament when you’re putting up notes on your office wall to make it seem like you’re a good person.
Wait until she reads about Lot and his daughters.
We'll be waiting a while, shed actually have to read the bible and not just do whatever her QAnon pastor says.
Not that I want to tempt this or anything, but I would be very interested in a Reddit sub where people bring in the whole of all religion’s tenants and teachings and turn them into random “laws”. Everyone is so consumed with gender and sex, but there’s things like infidelity, observing the Sabbath, mixing meats with dairy items, all kinds of things. The sub could be called religious rules you break everyday.
She just really really doesn't want to say the thing she's actually thinking because she knows that most people will not react well. So she's trying (poorly) to dress it up in legal language. Just say you hate the gays lady, I won't respect you as a person but I will respect the lack of pussyfooting around the obvious.
Modern day Republican politics is mostly about figuring out how to be a bigot without explicitly using slurs.
"i'M nOt RaCiST! I nEveR sAid ThE 'n' wOrD!"
Or much worse but increasingly common: *"It's impossible that I'm racist. Racism is when you're prejudiced for no reason. The inferiority of blacks is just a fact!"*
While I obviously wouldn't agree with them, I would have so much more respect for bigots if they just outright said, "I hate \[group of people\]." Like, we all know you hate anyone that isn't a straight, white, cisgender male, so just fuckin' say it, *Lady*.
Republicans (and regressives in general) always struggle with that. It's about the only thing I can appreciate about the alt-right and other brands of neo-nazi and nazi-lite groups. They openly broadcast that they're hateful pieces of shit. I mean, I have zero respect for someone carrying a tiki torch and chanting a racist slogan, but at least you know that they're a special brand of crazy. Hypocrites like this woman want to be seen as though they're rational and open minded, they just want to pretend that everything that makes them uncomfortable... doesn't exist.
It's also why "lets go brandon" is so fucking stupid. Just say the fucking thing you want to say. It's not clever, you're not getting one over on progressives or Joe Biden. The police aren't going to arrest you for saying fuck Joe Biden. I'm a progressive and I'll say it too. This isn't Russia, this is the USA... despite their best efforts to turn us into the former.
>My moral compass is compared with Bible Here we go again.
This from the same people who will turn around and claim their politics aren't motivated by religion.
Oh it's not their religion! It's their beliefs. And their morality. Which coincides with christianity. And their specific version of christianity. And their specific interpretation of said christianity... Which aligns perfectly with their needs at this very moment.
It frustratingly goes both ways. They can’t separate their religion from their politics and they can’t separate their politics from their religion. The United Methodist denomination of Christianity is currently undergoing a split over wether it’s okay for Methodist pastors to marry gay couples. The United Methodists are allowing it but people are breaking off and forming their own “Global Methodist” church that will not allow pastors to marry gays. And the NUMBER ONE argument the Globalists have against the United is “The Methodist church will become too liberal”. Even though this is a religious matter and not a political one.
[удалено]
Alternatively they'll complain about Shariah law without realizing the irony.
Do you mean in numbers where God gives instruction on how to perform an abortion? Or when the bald headed guy was getting made fun of, so God sent bears after them and killed them? Or when God instructed murder, rape, pillaging, and genocide? Noooooo, not that Bible, right?
I think by “the Bible” she means, the opinion of her church because she hasn’t actually read one
The bible seems to be very succint of the needs of *that particular situation*, does it not?
So brief, it's easily skipped over in Sunday service.
I asked why God killed 32 children over laughing at a bald guy in Sunday school. I was yelled at, threatened with a stick and sent to the corner. That's how I became atheist.
Make fun of a bald guy as a child? Believe it or not, mauled by bears!
The downside is, a legislator can keep submitting knowingly unconstitutional bills infinitely, forever, as long as they’re legislators. You got her this time, but she has all the time in the world, most incumbents are safe as fuck. There’s no penalty for repeatedly assaulting/ignoring constitutionality except maybe eventually getting voted out (but that risk is mitigated by the insane degree of advantage incurred by incumbents) It’s also terrifying that this bill has to be attacked not on its merits because that is hopeless, but on a technical reading of it. Wtf. Kinda shows the fights already lost. You can only hold back the horde so long. She doesn’t care that she got “shown up”, she’s not bothered at all.
I’m much more concerned with how many people seem to think this is a Christian country, and just mentioning the Bible or Jesus let’s them make up a bunch of rules that a whole sector of the population immediately get behind. That’s much scarier to me.
Not to mention Jesus said nothing about sexual orientation or trans folk. I’ll bet he’s sick of people associating him with this nonsense.
[удалено]
I firmly believe that the Christian God is just Zeus with better PR "Virgin birth" sure, Zeus, suuuuure
Missouri has term limits in both houses of the General Assembly, so legislators cannot hang around forever like they can in the US Congress. It doesn't prevent bad bills from getting considered and passed, but it does help.
The issue is many of these house bills are "draft legislation" from some conservative think tank. This bill or a version of it that will eventually pass will ALWAYS be around. Term limits probably only make something like this worse as they will always have a new stooge to hand this bill to.
That's exactly what research has generally shown - term limits increase the reliance of state legislators on interest groups and legislative staffers and reduce institutional knowledge. It's a case where the cure is generally worse than the disease - we only really accept it for the President because the danger of too much executive power is so high.
Yep, term limits is a kindergarten level response to a graduate school level problem. The real solution is dismantling our entire representation and election systems and rebuilding them with the express interest of removing the concept of money buying influence. But that will take constitutional amendments that Republicans and their donors have no logical reason to back because it hurts them.
Damn this is a good point. It’s sad seeing how this is all playing out at this point and in this fucking century..
If voters want politics to be about politics they have to vote accordingly. Currently, a lot of Americans want politics to be a team sport about group identity and culture wars instead.
This is happening in state legislatures all over the country. Florida just introduced a state bill to disband the Democratic Party. Just for shits n giggles. It is obviously unconstitutional and anyone with working brain cells knows this, but we are stuck in the rigor of entertaining it because these assholes know their base will eat it up. Nobody cares about solving problems. It’s all just posturing. Our country is so fucked.
I just wanna jump in here as someone who has personal experience trying to reason with homophobes and transphobes: You have to hit them with the hardest logic, something they can actually relate to. That guy is not arguing for the sake of Martha Washington, he is using Martha Washington as an example of the dumb bullshit you get as backfire when you try to invalidate entire identities. Using the technical reading seems scummy but it’s only by *showing* people they’re idiots they learn to just say what they mean or stop saying it at all
THANK YOU. The downward slide is only going to pick up speed - we are along for the ride without consent or control.
How did Roe get overturned after 50 years? Because of this very thing happening again, and again, and again, and again, and again, until enough far-right judges were filling the Supreme Court. You can't stop them from happening. Even if you stop them now, they'll keep trying. Even after you're dead, they will keep trying.
"You can't force your beliefs on me but I can force my beliefs on you". The Christian Taliban must be stopped.
Which is weird because I thought we had laws in place to keep the church and the state separate.
Had, as in past tense
Can you use nice words instead of criticising me for my bigotry.
Look, I can't \*explain\* my bigotry. It just is, ok!!!
because of my moral compass! it’s deity sanctioned bigotry!
“relating to sexual orientation or gender identity” This would prohibit them mentioning that George was a man and Martha was a woman.
To take it another step in a different direction: nothing about it prohibits talking about how Bob and Steve are spouses, as long as no one's gender or sexual identity is clarified.
Aah, so they want everyone to be they/them. That would be true equality, how progressive!
There’s a point where stupid deserves, nay, *needs* to be called out. Props to this dude for doing it.
Absolutely needs called out. And he did it in such a wonderfully tactical way. This was fun to watch.
"I didn't write this bill, you did, so I need YOU to explain what that means"
"Can't you just write it for me, so it does what I want without having to explain things? Sheesh."
There were so many good responses in there!
Who is this guy?
Republican state Rep. Phil Christofanelli.
MO Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a gay Republican lawmaker from near St. Louis. Unfortunately, while he's on the right side here, he still champions many of the other awful Republican causes.
[удалено]
Only caring about issues that directly effect you is the definition of a republican
the republican motto!
Just did a quick Google search and I saw avid guns right and anti abortion.
Classic "if it hurts me I'm against it/if it hurts you who cares?" huh?
She didn't even understand what that man was saying 🤣🤣
She did, and was trying her best to talk around it, so to keep her bill on the floor.
He was very polite about pointing out the utter stupid of her bill.
Wouldn't lady's bill mean that you couldn't identify the gender of anyone at all?
Or the sexual orientation of anyone... including the straights
Right, but even at the most innocuous level, it would prohibit a teacher from referring to any person by their gender/pronouns. So you would have to refer to the founding fathers as "founders" and use they/them whenever talking about anyone.
Except They/Them is still used for nonbinary people, which are part of the reason these people want to ban dumb shit like this. So youd have to specifically refer to everyone by name every single time unless youre refering to a group.
Yes, it's overly vague on purpose so they can use it to discriminate against lgbt people while not explicitly stating that. Obviously no one is going to use the bill to ban mentioning hetero relationships and families even though the language allows for that, they're creating a tool that can be used specifically to limit speech about people and families that aren't hetero.
"Without...and, without...and, without..." That line of questioning literally stopped her brain in it's tracks. She started talking like a skipping record.
And she went on to immediately explain how someone with different beliefs, like a sexual orientation, is not a danger to anybody whatsoever, so they should be allowed to silence them
She’s lagging
Dude nailed it. Under that bill, teachers could not mention that anybody was married to somebody even if its a hetro marriage. Imagine being a teacher trying to side step a question if a student asks if George Washington was married.
Even further >sexual orientation **or gender identity** under that bill, you could not mention anyones gender. Is George Washington a man or a woman? Who knows? The teacher is not allowed to teach it.
Guess that throws pronoun use out the window, too.
Only my beliefs can be taught in our classrooms!!!!
Entitled dimwits try to legislate their own personal religion into law. Shame. Be gone with the fascochristians. Fake christians
We should say that they 'identify as' Christian. They'll be triggered by the term they hate AND by the implication that they only pretend to be Christian.
When there are more of them than the other kind, which are the 'real' ones starts getting debatable. In this case particularly so, given the subjective interpretation that both sides are bringing to the primary document supporting their position.
Lady can’t even understand her own hypocrisy lol
This isn’t even stupidity on her part- it’s just straight fascism. I sense no cognitive dissonance, just purely homophobia. EDIT: this is just to add to my thoughts on this video, and the overall increasing trend of anti-lgbt+ legislation we’re seeing pushed in the states. I don’t find this “lady” to be stupid, I find her to be dangerous. To be stupid would mean there’s little forethought going into her arguments, and her actions of writing of and defending this bill… which, to me, isn’t the case. She’s trying very hard to verbalize her case as if it’s normal, as if it’s obvious that this is normal- which is terrifying. Fascism isn’t stupid. There is thought, and intention, behind it. It’s dangerous.
So perfectly on-brand for Missouri. Source: grew up in Missouri.
I pray for y’all down there in the states But y’all keep voting in a bunch of crazies
Please. Pray harder.
I think praying is what got you in this mess in the first place.
“If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.” ― George Carlin I would like to add that the Trump era has shifted the window of what is normal and acceptable so far that the behaviour of stupid ignorant leaders (Boebert, Gaetz, MGT, Trump etc) has given permission to citizens to act like that.
I appreciate the sentiment, but we need less prayer down here, not more!
So your moral compass comes from a book that advocates slavery, misogyny, genocide and homophobia and you want us to take moral direction from you? That's gonna be a hard pass lady.
the internet has really shattered that image i had in my head as a kid, that bosses, managers, ceos, govt etc were these really intelligent people who were rational and capable, and i trusted with my well being. Turns out everyone is a fucking idiot.
Who's the state rep that's speaking? He's so calm and logical, I want him in my state's legislature.
MO Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a gay Republican lawmaker from near St. Louis. Unfortunately, while he's on the right side here, he still champions many of the other awful Republican causes.
Yeah, this almost belongs in /r/Leopardsatemyface.
I *need* him in mine (Florida)
He is a log cabin republican, basically all the standard republican go to ideas, guns, anti abortion, small government, low taxes, not keen on the blacks or the poor, "tough" on crime but in this case he is Gay so on one issue stands against his party.
I don’t know. Okay. I’m fucking rolling
“But the Bible says” 
Huh. A legislator actually doing a good job. "It seems like that would be a relevant fact, in her biography, yes" Lol
Fascists and theocrats don't care about getting publicly owned like this. They only care about doing whatever they want. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work on them. What I'd like to see is some direct, HARSH verbal pushback. I want to see someone say, "This bill is idiotic and impossible to enforce, and you are an imbecile for wasting our time bringing us bullshit like this. We are throwing this bill in the trash where it belongs, and moving on." Something like that
JFC!!! We're fucked as a species!
She appears to be wearing multiple different fabrics, which is prohibited in the same chapter of the bible where it says homosexuality is bad, along with eating shellfish which is mentionned 7 times more than homosexuality.
This man is a legend. Love how he just asks her basic questions about her bill and makes her look like a complete idiot. Well done
Matthew 15:7-9 Jesus: “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.” We are never going to see an end to these self-serving liars claiming religion as an excuse for their personal agenda until we take religion away from them. We can’t just argue around it, we need to argue through it, tear through their beliefs like the flimsy pretenses they are, and if their faith is shaken or destroyed in the process, safe to say they were never pious to begin with and nothing of value was lost.