Indiana Senate Bill 167: Holy crap, what a mess.

[tstorm823]

Dont make it about women/African Americans/trans/minority being in my game/movie/book

I'm not doing that. You are.

Tstorm is using a very different definition of race, racism, CRT than what the rest of us are using

Because you're arguing against strawmen.

tldr: Tstorm is angry that legal votes were cast by legal voters. Making it easier and safer to vote in densely populated areas during a global pandemic is "bad," but tailoring election laws to hinder racial minorities from voting is "good."

The votes were not cast legally. I'm not blaming the people, I don't want to throw their votes out, but the people who ran the election in that county violated the law in a half dozen ways, and that isn't ok.

So, a literal semantic argument

Yes. Semantics are important.

I especially love how he blames people living in Philadelphia as the dastardly reason that Pennsylvania is purple instead of red.

It's not blaming them, it's not a problem, it's just the truth. The rest of PA without Philly is pretty deep red overall, but Philly keeps us purple. I bring this up not because I think that people there are the problem. I bring this up because the Democrats scrambled up the voting procedures in such a way as to make it easier to vote in Philadelphia than everywhere else, which benefits them politically. It's in the Democratic Party's interest to have as many votes as possible from Philadelphia and as few from everywhere else, and then their covid rules seemed to do that with "surgical precision".

How about in California, where Republicans put out ballot drop boxes, making voting easier, so California sent them a cease and desist? Were the Democrats in the case not using legal action to make voting harder? Why won't any of you just admit to the reality that political parties manipulate voting patterns? Which is neither specifically Republicans nor racism.

 

[Silvanus]

I agree, and that's a different question entirely. Somebody asking for evidence is looking for a convincing argument. Someone demanding proof is making excuses to not even consider an argument.

K. Can I have some evidence then?

 

[Schadrach]

Guess what the Anti-SJWs were blaming it on. Because it sure ain't the story. Putting an Indian into your story does automatically make it bad

I haven't seen or followed Eternals at all (though I'm in the process of getting caught up on the phase 4 stuff I've missed on Disney+, including all the miniseries - finished Wandavision 2 days ago), but given the shape these things generally take let me guess: They 1) took an existing character(s) who 2) were canonically white (with a weirdly high probability of it being specifically the redhead, if there is a canonically redheaded character in the cast) and 3) recast them as another race in the name of diversity? That's generally how that happens when evil "far right anti-SJW" folks get angry about it. As opposed to recasting a canonically nonwhite character as white, which tends to get the other side angry.

tldr: Tstorm is angry that legal votes were cast by legal voters. Making it easier and safer to vote in densely populated areas during a global pandemic is "bad," but tailoring election laws to hinder racial minorities from voting is "good."

That is an interesting take on it. As opposed to "Tstorm is mad because one city that is conveniently the most blue part of the state simply ignored state election laws and talked their way around it in ways that definitely wouldn't fly otherwise to create early voting that isn't early voting [because PA doesn't do early voting] but technically deemed mail-in voting despite not being mailed anywhere by spontaneously deciding you can request mail-in ballots in person at the county elections office, fill them out on the spot and turn them in to the county elections office, then opening a bunch of satellite offices [that all now count as the county elections office in an unprecedented fashion] all in Philly [which also aren't technically polling places and thus aren't required to have the same level of transparency] causing the bluest part of the state to follow different and more advantageous election rules than everywhere else." Like, if something like this went down in the reddest part of a state that then went unexpectedly red, I feel like you'd see it as a problem.

It's basically that same series of events every time: school puts in effort to provide materials about diversity and race relations, people have concerns about the material (sometimes justified, sometimes not), school temporarily stops promoting the books, internet reports that as "banning books".

I've mentioned before where I'm from, right? Because the worst version of this is part of our local history. It played out mostly like you said - schools wanted to adopt some more "multicultural" textbooks, parents complained, the new books were delayed and eventually reviewed and voted in. That process took over a year, involved the largest protests to ever occur in the county, about a fifth of students being pulled from school, several shootings and a couple of bombings and the eventual approval of the books also resulted in a network of very white private Christian schools being created. The vote to finally approve the books took place a few months after the Reverend that was basically leading the protests was convicted of charges relating to the bombings and sentenced to prison for a few years.

 

[Silvanus]

given the shape these things generally take let me guess: They 1) took an existing character(s) who 2) were canonically white (with a weirdly high probability of it being specifically the redhead, if there is a canonically redheaded character in the cast) and 3) recast them as another race in the name of diversity? That's generally how that happens when evil "far right anti-SJW" folks get angry about it.

If we're talking about Kingo, then he isn't white. I mean, none of the Eternals are human anyway. But in the comics he spent the last several thousand years in Japan.

That is an interesting take on it. As opposed to "Tstorm is mad because one city that is conveniently the most blue part of the state simply ignored state election laws and talked their way around it in ways that definitely wouldn't fly otherwise to create early voting that isn't early voting [because PA doesn't do early voting]

This isn't true. PA does do early voting. It's specifically listed on their gov website as an option.

It's also worth noting that Act 77, which introduced universal early-voting in PA, was a pre-pandemic deal... which was passed with complete Republican support. They only started whining about the act they had helped to pass after Trump decided to make it a political football, and congressmen fell in line.

but technically deemed mail-in voting despite not being mailed anywhere by spontaneously deciding you can request mail-in ballots in person at the county elections office, fill them out on the spot and turn them in to the county elections office, then opening a bunch of satellite offices [that all now count as the county elections office in an unprecedented fashion] all in Philly [which also aren't technically polling places and thus aren't required to have the same level of transparency] causing the bluest part of the state to follow different and more advantageous election rules than everywhere else." Like, if something like this went down in the reddest part of a state that then went unexpectedly red, I feel like you'd see it as a problem.

They weren't all in Philadelphia. 6 counties introduced them, all of which were high-population counties (which makes obvious sense).

Nothing like what you described went down in PA to begin with, because you've taken huge factual liberties.

 

[tstorm823]

K. Can I have some evidence then?

For what?

This isn't true. PA does do early voting. It's specifically listed on their gov website as an option.

It's also worth noting that Act 77, which introduced universal early-voting in PA, was a pre-pandemic deal... which was passed with complete Republican support. They only started whining about the act they had helped to pass after Trump decided to make it a political football, and congressmen fell in line.

Read your source: Step 1: complete a mail-in or absentee ballot application. Pennsylvania, by that pre-pandemic bipartisan legislation, has early mail-in voting to be submitted explicitly at the county elections office. We do not (yet) have early in-person voting.

They weren't all in Philadelphia. 6 counties introduced them, all of which were high-population counties (which makes obvious sense).

Nothing like what you described went down in PA to begin with, because you've taken huge factual liberties.

5 of those counties are essentially Philadelphia. Philadelphia county obviously, and then Bucks, Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery are the Philly suburbs. I did forget about Pittsburgh though, you got me there.

 

[Silvanus]

For what?

The supposedly significant amount of illegal/invalid votes cast.

Read your source: Step 1: complete a mail-in or absentee ballot application. Pennsylvania, by that pre-pandemic bipartisan legislation, has early mail-in voting to be submitted explicitly at the county elections office. We do not (yet) have early in-person voting.

Literally in the title of the page: "Voting early in person by mail-in or absentee ballot".

The first paragraph:

If you are a registered Pennsylvania voter, you can use the early, in-person voting option.

 

[tstorm823]

The supposedly significant amount of illegal/invalid votes cast.

Which? What are you talking about? Are you demanding from me evidence of random nonsense I didn't say?

Literally in the title of the page: "Voting early in person by mail-in or absentee ballot".

You're just playing the same stupid game the Democrats did. "They allow people to drop off their envelopes at the County Elections office... sounds like we can open a series of voting sites in blue areas where anyone can walk in and vote in person, cause that's really the same thing."

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Which? What are you talking about? Are you demanding from me evidence of random nonsense I didn't say?

You're just playing the same stupid game the Democrats did. "They allow people to drop off their envelopes at the County Elections office... sounds like we can open a series of voting sites in blue areas where anyone can walk in and vote in person, cause that's really the same thing."

That sounds like early in-person voting that was signed into law by Republicans over a year prior.

 

[Silvanus]

Which? What are you talking about? Are you demanding from me evidence of random nonsense I didn't say?

No; you've already said you don't believe fraudulent votes were cast in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome.

What I'm suggesting is you just adjust TheMysteriousGX's statement (to which you originally objected) to the following;

"Unless you can provide evidence that those votes came from people who didn't have a right to vote, that's a garbage argument that proves the GOP can only win by denying people legal votes".

You're just playing the same stupid game the Democrats did. "They allow people to drop off their envelopes at the County Elections office... sounds like we can open a series of voting sites in blue areas where anyone can walk in and vote in person, cause that's really the same thing."

I'm not playing any game. I'm pointing out that it's literally categorically true that they have early in-person voting.

They do. It says so right there on the gov. website. In those exact words. Someone said they don't, and they were mistaken.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's not blaming them, it's not a problem, it's just the truth. The rest of PA without Philly is pretty deep red overall, but Philly keeps us purple.

Nah, it's that Pennsylvania is deep blue, but the outlying low density areas keep it purple

How about in California, where Republicans put out ballot drop boxes, making voting easier, so California sent them a cease and desist? Were the Democrats in the case not using legal action to make voting harder? Why won't any of you just admit to the reality that political parties manipulate voting patterns? Which is neither specifically Republicans nor racism.

On Monday, California's secretary of state and attorney general sent a cease-and-desist order to the California GOP and several county party offices, ordering they remove unauthorized boxes to collect ballots, some of which were labeled "official."
...
But while the California Republican Party agreed not to place unauthorized ballot drop boxes outdoors, leave drop boxes unattended or present them as official, the party said it will continue to accept ballots delivered by voters to local party offices and secure them in boxes attended by staff or volunteers.

Damn that pesky context! You mean it was just the unauthorized, unsupervised, deceptively labeled boxes that caught ire? But that's nothing like the example you're comparing it to, so why bring it up?

Why do you habitually bring up evidence that torpedoes your own argument? DI'd you honestly believe that nobody would click on and read the link you provided?

Looping back to a previous talking point: this shit is why I can't take conservatives seriously. Your own words and deeds said in defense of yourselves. Hell, the state even backed off after they got the GOP to go, "yeah, fine, we won't leave these massive boxes full of votes completely unsupervised. For a group of people who pretend to care about the integrity of the vote, this shit is clownshoes

 

[Avnger]

Nah, it's that Pennsylvania is deep blue, but the outlying low density areas keep it purple

Tstorm is a very big fan of the idea that land votes. He doesn't care that only ~21% of pennsylvania's population doesn't live in an urban area. Rural voters matter more per capita because they live more spread out

 

[tstorm823]

Damn that pesky context! You mean it was just the unauthorized, unsupervised, deceptively labeled boxes that caught ire? But that's nothing like the example you're comparing it to, so why bring it up?

You don't think that's comparable to the unauthorized voting locations kicking out campaign representatives?

Why do you habitually bring up evidence that torpedoes your own argument? DI'd you honestly believe that nobody would click on and read the link you provided?

This may just be a difference between you and I, but I try to make good arguments. And good evidence for a good argument requires a source that the intended audience will actually care about. I could go find biased right-wing sources that say exactly what I want them to, but that would be a waste of time. I'm not trying to pretend to dunk on people so that only the users that already agree can all laugh and like the post and have a good circle jerk. That's stupid and boring. I'm trying to make good arguments cause it's way better, and to that end, I deliberately use only sources that are either the primary source or from non-conservative reporting. Cause posting Daily Wire links here would be really, really pointless.

Looping back to a previous talking point: this shit is why I can't take conservatives seriously. Your own words and deeds said in defense of yourselves. Hell, the state even backed off after they got the GOP to go, "yeah, fine, we won't leave these massive boxes full of votes completely unsupervised. For a group of people who pretend to care about the integrity of the vote, this shit is clownshoes

That's not the reason you don't take conservatives seriously. That's rationalizing your pre-existing beliefs. Like, I understand and appreciate the suggestion that big, unsupervised dropboxes are probably unreasonable. But if you flip the parties, and Florida passes a law requiring someone to supervise drop boxes for votes, what happens? "Florida Democrats condemned the Senate measure as yet another example of historic efforts to restrict voting by African Americans." And I guarantee you're going to find some way to rationalize why Republicans are wrong in both instances.

 

[Trunkage]

I haven't seen or followed Eternals at all (though I'm in the process of getting caught up on the phase 4 stuff I've missed on Disney+, including all the miniseries - finished Wandavision 2 days ago), but given the shape these things generally take let me guess: They 1) took an existing character(s) who 2) were canonically white (with a weirdly high probability of it being specifically the redhead, if there is a canonically redheaded character in the cast) and 3) recast them as another race in the name of diversity? That's generally how that happens when evil "far right anti-SJW" folks get angry about it. As opposed to recasting a canonically nonwhite character as white, which tends to get the other side angry.

Could you tell me.. with that all white cast of Eternals... was the initial comics run on them successful. Or seen as complete shit

Because here is what you are pretending - the Eternals was going to work WITH the same old white dudes we saw in the comic books. Not the diverse cast.

The problem with your logic is that you didn't BOTHER to assess whether having a white male in there was based on meritocracy. You just assumed that white males would be better. Plus... your suggestion of keeping white males is NOT based on any merit

If you know anything about the Eternals, you know the problem was the story. BLAMING IT ON RECASTS IS NONSENSE

But thanks for proving my point. Putting the blame on diversity is the goal rather than looking at the problems of the movie

Lastly, why are you so worried about not offending the "far right anti-SJW folks"? They've going to spout out their nonsense and they're going to make up talking points

(As a side note, in my country we have two political parties that I want to talk about. Labour (left-wing) and Liberals (right). The former made a gender quota back in the 90s I think. The Liberals, ever true to being liberal, pretended that this quota was now not picking people based on merit. Unfairly picking crappy women over men. You know the spiel. Funnily enough, Labour is now close to parity with the gender roles in the government. Liberals have a less than 20%. Because the Liberals had a bias towards men. I.e. crappy MEN were getting the advantage, getting jobs over move skilled women. All the quota was doing was attempting to rectify this. Same with Affirmative Action. Crappy men were getting job based solely on them being men. Affirmative Action is trying to rectify it. Even with the myriad problem of Affirmative Action, its still doing that somewhat. If you want to get rid of it, your going to have to replace it with something because the bias is that strong.

When you complain about diversity, first think - would this movie/book/show be better served by a man being in the role. If it doesn't, then perhaps you've made up nonsense)

 

[tstorm823]

If you know anything about the Eternals, you know the problem was the story. BLAMING IT ON RECASTS IS NONSENSE

I don't know what happened to you lately, you weren't always like this. If you read the post you're responding to, he said he hadn't seen the Eternals. There's a worrying disconnect between what you respond to and how you respond to it that's worsening over time.

 

[Silvanus]

You don't think that's comparable to the unauthorized voting locations kicking out campaign representatives?

Didn't happen, and they weren't unauthorised.

I don't know what happened to you lately, you weren't always like this. If you read the post you're responding to, he said he hadn't seen the Eternals. There's a worrying disconnect between what you respond to and how you respond to it that's worsening over time.

And if you read the post they're responding to, you'd see that Shadrach was happy to mouth off about what he assumed were the issues regardless of whether he'd seen it.

 

[tstorm823]

And if you read the post they're responding to, you'd see that Shadrach was happy to mouth off about what he assumed were the issues regardless of whether he'd seen it.

That's fine, but a response should be grounded in that. There's like 80 steps between "I'm guessing people didn't like that they changed a white character to a different race" and "you just assumed it would be better with white males." The latter is not a response to the former, and Trunkage's responses to me lately have followed a similar pattern of massive disconnects between what I'm saying and the response I get. Not even the normal "that's not what I said" with reasonable misunderstandings, like I can say people aren't banning books about MLK and get a response that I just want to get rid of black authors... and from someone who has traditionally been very cool headed on here, it's sufficient to worry about someone's state of mind to have such a jarring flip in personality.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You don't think that's comparable to the unauthorized voting locations kicking out campaign representatives?

Gonna have to provide some context there.

This may just be a difference between you and I, but I try to make good arguments. And good evidence for a good argument requires a source that the intended audience will actually care about. I could go find biased right-wing sources that say exactly what I want them to, but that would be a waste of time. I'm not trying to pretend to dunk on people so that only the users that already agree can all laugh and like the post and have a good circle jerk. That's stupid and boring. I'm trying to make good arguments cause it's way better, and to that end, I deliberately use only sources that are either the primary source or from non-conservative reporting. Cause posting Daily Wire links here would be really, really pointless.

Welp, you failed badly then. Mind taking a crack at the actual facts or just gonna whine about sourcing?

That's not the reason you don't take conservatives seriously. That's rationalizing your pre-existing beliefs. Like, I understand and appreciate the suggestion that big, unsupervised dropboxes are probably unreasonable. But if you flip the parties, and Florida passes a law requiring someone to supervise drop boxes for votes, what happens? "Florida Democrats condemned the Senate measure as yet another example of historic efforts to restrict voting by African Americans." And I guarantee you're going to find some way to rationalize why Republicans are wrong in both instances.

Those are authorized and official mail drop boxes, right? Not some GOP lockbox they decided to set up on their own that the GOP has the keys to and could tamper with anytime?

Because shockingly it's not actually hard to find significant differences between the two situations, as much as you'd prefer to conflate them. For somebody who like semantic arguments, I'm surprised you couldn't see the difference

 

[Trunkage]

I don't know what happened to you lately, you weren't always like this. If you read the post you're responding to, he said he hadn't seen the Eternals. There's a worrying disconnect between what you respond to and how you respond to it that's worsening over time.

I don't mean the movie, I meant the comics here. The comic came out in 76 and is well known but hardly read comic series. Because its well known to be bad. You just have to be partially aware of the Eternals to know that they are seen as bad..

Hence me saying: IF you know anything about the Eternals, you know the problem was the story.

Can I emphasise the if any more. It's really important. I'm not suggesting anything other than someone who has read (or as you thought saw) it. Or even, as I said, just be aware of Eternals and their reputation

Anyway, if you don't know the story, your probably going to get dragged down into gender politics of the Anti-SJW. They're just abusing people lack of knowledge of obscure comics. So, for example, I don't know that much about The Eternal after this first comic series, so I have to be conscious of people abusing my lack of knowledge for their own personal gains (its that bad and I have never wanted to see anything else. I know the series was finished and I dont think they were picked up again for a very long time.)

 

[tstorm823]

Because shockingly it's not actually hard to find significant differences between the two situations, as much as you'd prefer to conflate them. For somebody who like semantic arguments, I'm surprised you couldn't see the difference

Do you think that watching drop boxes in Florida is an act of voter suppression against the black community?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you think that watching drop boxes in Florida is an act of voter suppression against the black community?

It took about 25 seconds to open the article and find out the bill included a lot more than that, including shortening the opening times for the drop boxes, and requiring forms of ID to vote which low-income black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have.