I disagree. It is important for such hateful laws to be discussed so that people can be aware of them and work towards their repeal.

True, but in here? :P

Except that only one portion (albeit an important one) of the law is being discussed; the nuking of anti-discrimination ordinances and minimum wage are all taking a backseat to trans bashing and crying 'SJW' the likes of which even *that* thread hasn't seen in a while.

That's the only part DT cares about.

Dare I ask what "DT" stands for?

At first I thought the 'D' stood for 'Danger' but then I realized......'Danger' is your middle name.

Thank goodness. I thought that my Google-fu had failed me; either that or it had succeeded, in which case I would have been very confused about what deepthroating had to do with it.

That may be true for some people, but not all. There's a lot of idiocy, immaturity, and ignorance among "Leftists", and "Progressives", too (like people who support gay rights but are transphobic, as pointed out earlier). But does that invalidate the concept of social justice? I don't think so. Does that invalidate the idea that people should be free from harassment, mistreatment or discrimination based on their sexuality, gender identity, ethnicity or religion? I don't think so either.

A lot of people (not targeting you) seem to take serious offense at the notion that a group who's been subjected to social, political or economic inequality should get the same rights, freedoms and privileges as everyone else. That never fails to baffle me.

As for the term "SJW", it's been slung about so much that it pretty much now means "person I disagree with".

My problem is what people consider harassment and mistreatment. Often times disagreeing with someone is enough to garner disproportionate amounts of hate. Someone posting a picture or joke to their facebook page should not be taken as a terrorist threat, or singled out as a bigoted racist and doxxed with death threats. This is far worse than the original "infraction." Basically, reactions are getting so vehement that having an opinion on either side of the line is just simply not allowed. In the case of Pillars of Eternity, making a reference to a character not even in the game as a cowardly crossdresser offended people disproportionately to the point that people who had no dog in the fight took up arms on both sides until the "offending piece" was removed. That's not fair and equal treatment, that's asking to be placed on a pedestal above everyone else, as everyone is the butt of a joke at some time or another.

That's just bullying people to get what you want, the behaviour many social justice banner carriers claim they want to get rid of. "Bullying is not ok unless it's helping us out." That's where a lot of the problem comes from, at least for me.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to paint everyone with a broad brush there. Just trying to explain why it's not necessarily fair to equate not being on board with social justice with not wanting equality.

Some people, sure, but other times the actual offense comes from the way some people treat people unequally in the pursuit of that goal. Straying from the topic at hand to give some insight into why some have the reaction they do to such things, take claims like "black people can't be racist," which is just one of many real things many of us have actually seen. I can obviously only speak for myself, but I have a problem with a lot of so-called social justice because it strays from actually treating people as equals, instead opting to give preferential treatment to certain groups that check the "traditionally oppressed" role in some people's minds. It's patronizing to those people, unequal to everyone else, and the fact that some people believe that creating further inequality could somehow magically lead to equality for everyone is something I find equally baffling. More to the point, that kind of thing has nothing to do with actual rights. In fact, I can't recall a single time I've seen something under the social justice banner actually tackle rights or anything important like that. Instead, it always seems to be people going after imagined slights and bringing up the topic for sanctimonious rambling and personal funding.

Those kinds of experiences create a sour taste that carries over when something like this topic comes up, and since I (and one would think most of the people in this thread) lack the expertise to really explore what a bill like this fully means, it's hard not to fall back on those previous experiences and wince at the very mention of social justice. Personally, I'm all for equality for everyone. That just hasn't had any overlap with social justice in my experience.

No argument here. I liked when it first came around as a way of describing people who leeched off of good causes, but overuse and misuse have dulled it to the point where it's just a cringe-y insult.

Another effect of the bill:
http://wncn.com/2016/04/01/nc-woman-suing-for-age-discrimination-gets-caught-up-in-hb2-bill-fallout/

Funny thing I noticed after reading the Durham County Attorney's letter on the matter; there is no criminal penalty in the bill. It's a law meant to prohibit something under threat of... nothing. The incompetence is staggering.