[flagged]
Does the US have anti-sodomy laws for him to enforce?
It is terrifying that the public want such laws in the first place, but that is the democratic right for them to choose, I guess.
The US is peculiar here in that, when laws are found to be unconstitutional, some states just kinda… keep them.
Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea.
> Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will.
But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?
The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :)
It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you?
> and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex
Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made.
> Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional.
Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made.
> You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds.
Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place?
You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
They don’t, generally. They did a long time ago, when those laws were enacted. Since then sentiments have changed, the laws have been found unconstitutional and are no longer enforced, but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them.
I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be pragmatic.
If it takes appreciable amount of time, money, and effort to no longer agree to something everyone already agrees that they no longer want to agree to, the people really need to step back and think about they they are making it so hard on themselves for no reason. Granted, we're talking about people who did agree to outlaw sodomy, so perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed. But, still, how did the tools end up so dull?
>I could, but why would I?
Hmm, I do not understand your position then. To me, if you are saying that anti-sodomy laws should be enforced on democratic grounds (which I think is what you are saying, even though you obviously don't agree with such laws yourself), then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
Perhaps you could clarify whether you actually do think that the US should start enforcing these laws.
>Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants
And technically the Supreme Court can rule any law unconstitutional...
You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there?
> then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.
It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth.
> I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue.
But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it.
If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.
Following the rabbit hole further, this is the manifesto that inspired the comment: https://www.article3project.org/
But that site claims US is winning. That's an unusual move in the playbook. Something doesn't add up.
And just because a rapist is elected president doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.
And you're not worried of the 2 trillion the future man of 'effective efficiency' [Effective altruism pun intended here as these are all of the same ilk) slashing any and all jobs that pose a threat to his fiefdoms with their pesky unions or workers rights? The guy litterly piloted the slash and burn everything in sight to cut costs and 'get lean' which every other lemming C-exec followed in tandem.
Honestly, this DoJ under Khan simply didn't go far enough to gut them and you guys were too busy gorging at the trough to unionize when you had momentum, so now you too will feel the wrath of these corpo-raiders who hallowed out midlle America to save a buck and a bonus now that 'AI can make you a rockstar programmer' and you will be expected to 10x every review or you're put on PIP.
It's hard to feel sorry for you, you did this to yourselves and didn't push back when you had the leverage.
It's funny, what I see is he will put tariff exemptions on his corps given just how much they rely on global supplies to make a Tesla and lots of stuff from SpaceX like optics are supplied by foreign companies. Because, hey if the crooks who voted for bailouts and golden parachutes did it, why can't he?
The best the 'Chief Scientist/CEO' can do is tell it's Taiwanese suppliers to go to Thailand [0],so as to not disrupt the flow of goods due to pesky things like invasion/annihilation from the CCP, which unless I'm mistaken will still be subject to those hefty tariffs they went on about throughout the campaign.
0: https://www.manufacturing.net/aerospace/news/22925817/spacex...
I mean, the US's courts are somewhat compromised from Trump's previous run, but probably not compromised enough to let _that_ fly.
He didn’t use fear to its full potential in the last admin. This is the part of the stand-up routine where disloyal Republican lawmakers need an extrajudicial firing squad. See, the fear is now and still directed inward until he can purify the party.
https://archive.org/details/project-2025-mandate-for-leaders...
It happened/happens in other countries too; people don't care (well, they think they don't) as long as the current 'experts', who they don't believe anymore since covid, are gone.
I think the extremity of the resentment over covid found in the US is actually a bit of an outlier; views on the response are often more mixed elsewhere.
Rule 1: If you see someone do something shitty to someone else, stick around and they'll do it to you to.
Rule 2: When people tell you they are a bastard believe them.
See Brexit for how that all pans out.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-and-musk-discuss...
This time, I’ll take him at his better-educated, clearer-thinking allies’ words, and prepare for the worst of what they publicly dream of while still hoping for better.
But I agree. That kind of talk is scary, polarizing, and unbecoming of leadership.
A full third of the US are just fine with him and his ilk. And another third of the US are perfectly willing to stand and watch while he puts people to the torch.
This stuff is how the Overton Window moves. It starts out as jokes and metaphors, and once people are used to hearing it, it starts to become real.