[stronglikedan]

> but federally about to go to hell

If that were going to happen, then it would have already happened. It hasn't, and it won't. It's not healthy to worry about things you have been conditioned to believe by people that don't have your best interests at heart but will say anything to get your vote.

[hooverd]

It's happening. Look at Florida or Texas. It's the model that the people soon to be in power want to emulate. They're quite outspoken about it.

[mvdtnz]

Then why didn't they do it 4-8 years ago?

[Tanoc]

The administration was in disarray and had no clear goals aside from self-enrichment. They had no real architects, merely speakers and figureheads. While it's likely that ineptitude and wheel spinning is going to occur this time as well, this round's a bit different. Despite being fools they've surrounded themselves with somewhat competent people, unlike before when they just grabbed whoever spent the most money at hotels and press events.

Even more dangerous is they have shown signs of boredom and disinterest in certain areas which would likely allow the unimpeded progression of oppression by those in the administration most motivated to do so. In 2017 there was also a less united front within the federal government as many ideas were considered fringe, but politics in the U.S. has been shoved very far to the right in the intervening years and the Republican party as a majority has embraced being extremists instead of the extremists being a tiny but loud faction.

This is due to the two party system creating a fitness system which necessitates that factions either overtake a party or leave it as otherwise they get no votes, and older party members dying out and leaving seats open to the newer extremists who get an outsized amount of power because the party as a whole needs to vote collectively for a majority decision and just a handful of people can halt that entirely.

EDIT: Moved "unimpeded" so that it clarified who I was talking about.

[ttyprintk]

With the Louisiana decision, protections are noticeably, gradually being demolished.

[mvdtnz]

That doesn't answer my question.

[ttyprintk]

There are at least two ways to answer a question about laws criminalizing deviance instead of criminalizing problems:

- it’s politically advantageous to never explicitly legislate which rights are taken away. This keeps the issue alive among your base. You never want to effectively enforce that.

- You make an in-group based on obedience to the spirit of a law; a spirit that’s risky to spell out in writing because you know it’s on the wrong side of history.

So, the status quo benefits one party; and is the best that the other party could hope to negotiate.