The State of Louisiana Will Be Blocked From Breeding Zone

[BergenGuy]

On 12/16/2022 at 2:11 PM, tighthole64 said:

They have already been targeting drag shows! If a parent chooses to bring a younger child, that's THEIR choice!

Republicans are all about parental choice only when it suits their agenda.

[Sfmike64]

I live in Louisiana and so am subject to the issues that the moderators have introduced to comply with LA's new silly laws. 

A VPN does solve this problem (is it OK to talk about this here, moderators? If not, please delete this and let me know) so I thought I would share the experiments I've been doing. I use Windscribe VPN and was having connection issues when I used one of the US based connection points. When I switched to one in the UK or Canada the problems disappeared. This is what I would suggest so that you may still continue to access BZ. I'm currently using the Windscribe access point in Montreal.

Your mileage may vary of course, but this is what worked for me.  It's probably possible to set up a trigger so that when you access BZ the VPN connects automatically but that's probably overkill for most people.

[PigBoyDallas]

wow. this is some bullshit. I came up hearing about how much better America was than Mexico and why our family fled here. And I don't understand why Americans aren't standing up to this and saying "NO". This is my country now too and I don't understand. Why are we rolling over and letting this shit become the norm?

[Sfmike64]

On 1/3/2023 at 5:13 PM, PigBoyDallas said:

wow. this is some bullshit. I came up hearing about how much better America was than Mexico and why our family fled here. And I don't understand why Americans aren't standing up to this and saying "NO". This is my country now too and I don't understand. Why are we rolling over and letting this shit become the norm?

Um. We are? I live in Louisiana, dude. This state is run by right wing Republicans who publicly HATE PORNOGRAPHY! But in secret they all watch tons of porn, have mistresses, hire sex workers and use drugs.  All while railing against those things in public. And our state isn't remotely as bad as some others (cough cough, looking at you Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas).

Hypocrisy is everywhere.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. My VPN accidentally quit in the middle of posting this so I got bit by it myself and had to reconnect (SHHH, don't tell anyone it thinks I'm in Canadia!)

Edited January 5, 2023 by Sfmike64

[TaKinGDeePanal]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:25 PM, BergenGuy said:

Republicans are all about parental choice only when it suits their agenda.

and only when they don’t have to pay

[Close2MyBro]

On 12/31/2022 at 5:25 PM, BergenGuy said:

Republicans are all about parental choice only when it suits their agenda.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first attempt at regulating internet porn - signed by none other than Bill Clinton. If you're going to blame someone, go back far enough to find out who the true culprit really is.

[BootmanLA]

On 1/4/2023 at 11:35 PM, Close2MyBro said:

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first attempt at regulating internet porn - signed by none other than Bill Clinton. If you're going to blame someone, go back far enough to find out who the true culprit really is.

Sigh. Clinton didn't propose it, and only acquiesced in it because he knew there weren't enough votes to sustain his veto in Congress, particularly in an election year when the Republicans were making "ehrmahgawd the porn" an election issue. Had Clinton vetoed the bill and somehow the minority of Democrats in Congress managed to keep Congress from overriding it, the result would have been more Democratic losses in the House (instead, we gained a few seats), and it's possible (although unlikely) that Clinton himself might have lost key states. If some of the states that have since gone red - Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Iowa, Florida, etc. - had flipped earlier instead of under Bush the Inferior, Clinton might well have lost the election.

If you're going to blame someone, maybe don't just point at a president from a party you clearly don't like and assume he must have supported the legislation. That's the sign of a really simplistic, uneducated approach to politics.

[hntnhole]

Interesting replies .... if these replies are true, then why are they true?

I would posit that the basis for much of the current unrest is attempting to maintain the depravity of White Privilege.  This applies not merely in the South, but across the entire Nation.  In non-Confederate (i.e. Union) states, there is hardly any question that Caucasians, despite being in the Northern states, benefitted from the obliquely received "better-than" status.  Worse, it was simply accepted as the natural state of humanity.  I wonder how many times I heard, growing up in the North, things like "they (meaning non-Caucasians) stay in their places, we stay in ours.  As if that was some kind of equality or Justice.  

The point is, repression of "the other" is so deeply ingrained, it's soaked into the very dirt beneath our feet.  The wheels of Justice can - under the wrong circumstances, turn backwards too, not just forward.

[bihairy]

This country is taking a GIANT leap backwards.  I feel like we are living in the 50's again with a minority of people shoving their narrow minded beliefs down our throats.  Not just BZ but women's rights, gay rights etc.  We need to vote and make sure those that share our ideas/freedoms are in charge.

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

Because he knew he didn't have the votes in Congress to override a veto. So, he caved instead.  Fortunately for him, no language relating to a blue dress was included in the legislation .....

[ErosWired]

On 2/3/2023 at 6:17 PM, hntnhole said:

The point is, repression of "the other" is so deeply ingrained, it's soaked into the very dirt beneath our feet. 

That isn’t a Caucasian thing, though - it’s a human thing. Around the world, over an over again, we see it, anywhere there are minority populations. The Rohingyas in Myanmar, the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Uighurs in China, the Kurds in Turkey, the Jews practically everywhere, the Palestinians in Israel - the list goes on - all suffering deprivation and injustice up to and including genocide, because the population in power considers them “other”. In many of these places none of the people on either side are Caucasian. In America, in lots of places that Caucasians colonized, non-Caucasians have suffered from being the “other”, but it’s not because those in power were white; it’s because those in power were human.

Homo sapiens are a nasty piece of work.

[Sfmike64]

19 hours ago, ErosWired said:

In America, in lots of places that Caucasians colonized, non-Caucasians have suffered from being the “other”, but it’s not because those in power were white; it’s because those in power were human.

 

Sorry, but no. In the US the reason was because they were not white. Our entire country is built on the backs of enslaved black (and murdered indigenous) people. That's where our wealth came from and it's the reason white supremacy is so hard to eradicate. 

[Close2MyBro]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:34 PM, BootmanLA said:

If you're going to blame someone, maybe don't just point at a president from a party you clearly don't like and assume he must have supported the legislation. That's the sign of a really simplistic, uneducated approach to politics.

It's OK, you can keep making excuses for your party. He signed it because he wanted to sign it. If he really believed it was the wrong thing to do, he should have vetoed it and let the congress override it. The truth is that Democrats have been at the forefront of censorship (remember Tipper Gore and her campaign to censor music?). The truth is that Republicans have had the joy of riding the coattails of the democrats who have led these censorship attacks.

And thank you again for attempting to subtlety insult me. I can always count on you to show your true character to all of us.

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, Sfmike64 said:

Sorry, but no. In the US the reason was because they were not white. Our entire country is built on the backs of enslaved black (and murdered indigenous) people. That's where our wealth came from and it's the reason white supremacy is so hard to eradicate. 

You misunderstand me. Yes, in the US, the injustice has been perpetrated because white people have been the majority in power, and thus the ones to react in such a way toward those who are “other” because their skin color, national origin, religion, you name it, was not that of the dominant white culture. But my point is that it’s not something about having white skin or Western European ancestry that has caused them to behave this way, it’s because they’re human, and that’s the way humans in power treat those who aren’t. That’s why we see such treatment repeated in different ways across the globe not just by whites, but by empowered majorities in lots of places, including places where there are no Caucasians. If it were limited to Caucasians, then these other places would be free of it - they’re not. Therefore the behavior must be inherent in human nature.

[hntnhole]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:44 PM, ErosWired said:

it’s a human thing.

Of course it is.  Our universal experience with the propensity to hate is rooted in one particular happenstance, here in the US.  To our collective shame, we find it soooo much easier to hate "the other", wherever in the world the opportunity arises, than to try to rise above that instinct. 

Perhaps it's rooted in the instinct to survive, in that since there's only x amount of whatever (food, shelter, water, land) and one group has the ability to dominate another group, we always manage to sink to that baseness.  Whoever inserted the "go forth and multiply" phrase into the ancient texts, was certainly one of negatively-minded.