The Democrat Utopia

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Ok, just didn’t know if P&R was the right place or not and make someone mad 

Someone will ask the mods to move the thread if it ends up in completely the wrong place, but the Lounge seems like to best place to me as long as you're not going to bring politics into it. Needs to stay in P&R if you want to discuss market effects due to politicians, parties, policies, etc.

[Archy1221]

Anyone know if this is true?  Been seeing it a few places

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Anyone know if this is true?  Been seeing it a few places

 

 

 

Good to see they're tackling the important stuff.

[knapplc]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Anyone know if this is true?  Been seeing it a few places

 

 

 

It's true.

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Anyone know if this is true?  Been seeing it a few places

 

 

It's not true. What happened is that Pelosi rewrote the House Rules document itself to remove gendered terms in favor of the word "person". It amounts to a find-and-replace on the House Rules document and has no ban or other effect.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9901710773

Quote

These posts are missing context. The House this month introduced a new version of its rules document, which was edited to incorporate gender-neutral language. The change affected the text of only that one document; it did not ban gender-specific language anywhere else.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I just don't see the benefits of making those kind of changes. They're harmless, words/pronouns we've attached to scientifically inarguable lines of lineage, and genders.

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

These posts are missing context.

 

This is going to be a theme over the next several years...

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I just don't see the benefits of making those kind of changes. They're harmless, words/pronouns we've attached to scientifically inarguable lines of lineage, and genders.

There isn't really any harm in changing them either. It's not like the House Rules document is something anyone other than a tiny, tiny few is going to read anyway. And it's just political posturing to pretend to have done something.

[B.B. Hemingway]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There isn't really any harm in changing them either. It's not like the House Rules document is something anyone other than a tiny, tiny few is going to read anyway. And it's just political posturing to pretend to have done something.

 

You're probably right. You could argue precedent, I guess.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

There isn't really any harm in changing them either. It's not like the House Rules document is something anyone other than a tiny, tiny few is going to read anyway. And it's just political posturing to pretend to have done something.

 

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I just don't see the benefits of making those kind of changes. They're harmless, words/pronouns we've attached to scientifically inarguable lines of lineage, and genders.

 

 

 

The words they list there weren't even in the house rules before, and I don't see where the Democrats listed them. It seems to me this list was made up but I may be missing part of the story. This is all I've seen: "honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral"

 

I believe what then happened is some easily offended twerp decided to list a bunch of familial relationships to mock this. The thing is this is the type of document where you would typically see man/men/he used just as a default. It's not ignoring anyone's gender; it's changing it to apply to all members of congress. I would say the Democrats are silly for pointing it out as a change, because I doubt anyone would have ever noticed or cared, but lying about it to make it sound like it's way more than it is is worse, which is I believe what has occurred.

It's annoying that people keep giving wings to stories like this. Why did someone come here and post it before looking into it themselves?

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

 

The words they list there weren't even in the house rules before, and I don't see where the Democrats listed them. It seems to me this list was made up but I may be missing part of the story. This is all I've seen: "honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral"

 

I believe what then happened is some easily offended twerp decided to list a bunch of familial relationships to mock this. The thing is this is the type of document where you would typically see man/men/he used just as a default. It's not ignoring anyone's gender; it's changing it to apply to all members of congress. I would say the Democrats are silly for pointing it out as a change, because I doubt anyone would have ever noticed or cared, but lying about it to make it sound like it's way more than it is is worse, which is I believe what has occurred.

It's annoying that people keep giving wings to stories like this. Why did someone come here and post it before looking into it themselves?

Because

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Because

 

 

 

Because why though? I mean, I could give you the benefit of the doubt, and think maybe you just like to discuss everything. But I just don't relate, and you post lots of things like this that are extremely misleading and if you spend a minute digging deeper you can see they're entirely out of context or just false.

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Because why though? I mean, I could give you the benefit of the doubt, and think maybe you just like to discuss everything. But I just don't relate, and you post lots of things like this that are extremely misleading and if you spend a minute digging deeper you can see they're entirely out of context or just false.

Because I did look a bit and couldn’t find my answer.  Believe it or not sometimes I don’t know where to look

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Because I did look a bit and couldn’t find my answer.  Believe it or not sometimes I don’t know where to look

 

 

You can just google 116 or 117 house rules.


And here's a paragraph it would affect, so I wasn't quite right in my reply:

 

Quote

(2) 

the term “family member” means an individual who is related to the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-law; 

 

 

 

So I imagine they would change this to:

 

Quote

(2) 

the term “family member” means an individual who is related to the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as parent, child, sibling, spouse, or parent-in-law; 

 

 

 

There was no need for them to call out that they were doing this (at least, I doubt they needed to mention it in their shiny brochure thing, but there may be some law that they have to show what changes they make to the document), but making a thing out of it is even sillier.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You can just google 116 or 117 house rules.


And here's a paragraph it would affect, so I wasn't quite right in my reply:

 

 

 

 

So I imagine they would change this to:

 

 

 

 

There was no need for them to call out that they were doing this (at least, I doubt they needed to mention it in their shiny brochure thing, but there may be some law that they have to show what changes they make to the document), but making a thing out of it is even sillier.

I didn’t make a thing out of it. I asked if it was true.  You are the one making ‘a thing out of it’.  Congrats on that