General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Estil | 1,291]

3 minutes ago, Link said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I cannot BELIEVE you of all people posted this and then say the things you say. Could you miss the point any harder?

Why?  How?  In fact one of my least favorite phrases/sentences/attitudes by far is "not my problem".  Because someday it can in fact become your problem...and then what?

Edited June 13, 2020 by Estil

[Link | 2,878]

1 hour ago, Estil said:

I feel like with the "how do you feel if I say" you were just pretending to be nuts and this is typical "static" that you often see in YT comments and whatnot.

actually an excellent song, from one of my favorite bands, speaking (in vulgar, transgressive manner) against censorship and hate and racism and oppression— here is the video — I think you will not like the style but can you deny the message? After all he does say, fuck Tipper Gore (democrat and censor) as well as other career politicians . No (metaphorical) static, but some literal static is intentional in the production

 

1 hour ago, Estil said:

Never heard of Howard Zinn

Look him up. Peoples’ History of The United States. Quite enlightening, if you are willing. 

1 hour ago, Estil said:

And we had the federal vs state thing since the first ever political parties (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans), but now all of a sudden "states rights" must now count as a "presumption of racist" taboo? 

Yes. States’ rights is an enormous dog whistle to racism. It started with rights to keep slaves. Some people will claim this was purely economic, and so it may have been, but whether or not race was a consideration, it was very abusive to the human workers, who were overwhelmingly black. It now continues to be a dog whistle to keep down poor people, who are disproportionately black as I’ve previously described today, with reasons. Step outside your square and see others. Recognizing race is not racism. 

 

1 hour ago, Estil said:

I just don't like the general idea of "hate crimes" in the sense that it sends the wrong message that for example, if you're gonna commit police brutality, you better make very sure it's NOT a "person of color", or you'll really get it good!!

I can only read this as fear that police brutality might affect white people, because police just want to brutalize anyone, and they will apply that desire to white people if there are rules against unfairly beating POC, and therefore there shouldn’t be such rules, and.......... ? ???? ?? ?????

 

1 hour ago, Estil said:

Why?  How?  In fact one of my least favorite phrases/sentences/attitudes by far is "not my problem".  Because someday it can in fact become your problem...and then what?

It supports communists and socialists. And, as I mentioned before, you don’t understand why Black Lives Matter is a movement yet it is literally the same mode. “They came for the black people, and I didnt speak up because I was not black.” “They” are coming for black people. Replace one word in that poem and It’s relevant to the situation at hand. Speak up for black people. Their lives matter. Nobody is coming for you or me (yet / rn) but they are coming for black people. Speak up. 

[Strange | 1,727]

I’d say the witch hunt for “Antifa” and the president calling anyone not on his side “Antifa” is much closer to McCarthyism than calling someone a racist.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,918]

11 hours ago, Estil said:

I think you're pretty much right; I guess it is kinda human nature to sometimes feel like you must get in the last word.

 

16 hours ago, Magus said:

You guys should just agree to disagree at this point. You've all talked yourselves in circles multiple times. I am all for debating, but at this point i think it is clear nothing is to be gained by either side at this point. Butting heads for 30 pages, repeating the same points, and resorting to passive agressive jabs just seems like wasted energy.  

As a veteran of decades of political message board bickering, the end result is always the same.  Entrench, entrench, entrench.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Now here's the real question.  Who can admit to themselves that they do this?

[Californication | 1,491]

Howard Zinn is great. If you get through "A People's History," you start to look at the grade school history lessons and realize how much of that shit is white watched to help maintain the status quo.

I personally enjoy all the bits about unions and the battles they fought.

[Estil | 1,291]

2 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

As a veteran of decades of political message board bickering, the end result is always the same.  Entrench, entrench, entrench.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Now here's the real question.  Who can admit to themselves that they do this?

*raises hand*  I mean if we're being completely honest here...  BTW that YANSS place actually looks pretty good; I do in fact like to sometimes challenge conventional wisdom and look for different ways at viewing things that maybe most people didn't realize.  A lot better than the ol' "everyone by now has heard the same standard arguments"  As for YANSS' take on the Flat Earthers I still can't buy that they really believe the Earth is flat...these guys are clearly just trolls trying to arouse people and get attention.

And Link and Californication (I take it you're a Red Hot Chili Peppers fan? ) can't really expect someone like me to agree very much with such a hardcore lifelong socialist like Mr. Zinn do ya?  I guess this is why all the more reason I like those encyclopedia yearbooks so much is because it isn't just one guy, it's a whole staff of people (no really the contributes section easily takes up 4-5 or so pages) that is the "for real" idea of diversity.  Yeah we've heard about the whole liberal bias in news thing since Bernard Goldberg's Bias book (you can read his books for free at archive.org if you wanna check them out) in 2002 but I have to figure in terms of historical books, these yearbooks I have to figure I pretty much can't go wrong.

And now I got @Link thinking I'm an ol' fuddy duddy pearl clutching smelling salts prude  

Edited June 13, 2020 by Estil

[Estil | 1,291]

So now we have another shooting making the headlines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks

This actually has a key similarity to the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident where both suspects started out unarmed, but both clearly tried to grab the officer's weapon (and is virtually certain they would've used it against the officer(s) if given even a small fraction of a chance)...only in this case the suspect was in fact successful at grabbing it:

Around 10:30 p.m. on the night of June 12, 2020, Atlanta Police Department officers responded to a complaint about a man who was sleeping in a car that had been blocking a Wendy's fast-food drive-through lane in the southside of Atlanta, Georgia. The officers encountered and administered a field sobriety test to Rayshard Brooks, a 27-year-old black man.^[7][8]

After he failed the sobriety test, Brooks resisted arrest, struggling and wrestling on the ground with two police officers.^{[1][2][3][8][7]} In a video of the incident, during the ensuing struggle an officer tells Brooks to "stop fighting" and "hands off the taser."^[8][1]

According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), witnesses reported and video showed Brooks wrestling away an officer's Taser and running away as the officers chased him, before -- after running the length of about six cars -- turning as he ran and aiming the Taser at an officer.^[9][10][11] At that point the officer who Brooks aimed the Taser at fires his gun.^[7][12][13]

Brooks later died while in surgery.^[1][2][3] One police officer was wounded and treated for an injury.^[8][10]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naturally the BLM people, including the Atlanta mayor (who immediately called for the officer to be fired) are showing flagrant reckless disregard for any kind of due process and once again the officer (just like Darren Wilson) in the court of BLM is automatically presumed racist.  Given the totality of the above circumstances, I don't see what else the officer could've done...and yes a taser may be intended as a non-lethal force tool, but it can in fact kill someone especially if used carelessly and improperly.  So the suspect was in fact threatening an officer (and who knows who else if he had managed to get away) with a potentially deadly weapon.

Remember how in the #metoo movement they expected us (at least at first) to "just" believe all women no matter what?  And how that backfired big time?  The same thing will happen to the BLM movement if they continue to "just" believe all black shooting victims no matter what.

I most definitely am giving the officer the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Estil

[Californication | 1,491]

9 hours ago, Estil said:

*raises hand*  I mean if we're being completely honest here...  BTW that YANSS place actually looks pretty good; I do in fact like to sometimes challenge conventional wisdom and look for different ways at viewing things that maybe most people didn't realize.  A lot better than the ol' "everyone by now has heard the same standard arguments"  As for YANSS' take on the Flat Earthers I still can't buy that they really believe the Earth is flat...these guys are clearly just trolls trying to arouse people and get attention.

And Link and Californication (I take it you're a Red Hot Chili Peppers fan? ) can't really expect someone like me to agree very much with such a hardcore lifelong socialist like Mr. Zinn do ya?  I guess this is why all the more reason I like those encyclopedia yearbooks so much is because it isn't just one guy, it's a whole staff of people (no really the contributes section easily takes up 4-5 or so pages) that is the "for real" idea of diversity.  Yeah we've heard about the whole liberal bias in news thing since Bernard Goldberg's Bias book (you can read his books for free at archive.org if you wanna check them out) in 2002 but I have to figure in terms of historical books, these yearbooks I have to figure I pretty much can't go wrong.

And now I got @Link thinking I'm an ol' fuddy duddy pearl clutching smelling salts prude  

See, that's your problem right there, you use identity politics to make an instantaneous judgement about someone despite having never read any of their work. That doesn't sound like a historian to me.

Howard Zinn was a man that joined World War ll to fight fascists and protect America. He began questioning the American structure of society after his platoon/squadron (not sure of military term.) was ordered to drop napalm bombs on civilians and soon to be former enemies. The act didn't have any military benefit so later in life he thought about it. Maybe he questioned whether he was a good person. Let's say he decided he was mostly good, if he was a good person, why did he take part in a military order that burned thousands of people alive that did not have a strategic benefit. And I am sure he worked his way back to analyzing a system that would cause the murder of so many people without a purpose.

You have a degree in history. "A Peoples History of the United States," is not an opinion piece, it has a 20 page bibliography refrencing many, many, many source documents. The book has sold two million copy's and is taught in University's across the country. 

Do you know how silly you sound?

[Estil | 1,291]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

See, that's your problem right there, you use identity politics to make an instantaneous judgement about someone despite having never read any of their work. That doesn't sound like a historian to me.

Howard Zinn was a man that joined World War ll to fight fascists and protect America. He began questioning the American structure of society after his platoon/squadron (not sure of military term.) was ordered to drop napalm bombs on civilians and soon to be former enemies. The act didn't have any military benefit so later in life he thought about it. Maybe he questioned whether he was a good person. Let's say he decided he was mostly good, if he was a good person, why did he take part in a military order that burned thousands of people alive that did not have a strategic benefit. And I am sure he worked his way back to analyzing a system that would cause the murder of so many people without a purpose.

You have a degree in history. "A Peoples History of the United States," is not an opinion piece, it has a 20 page bibliography refrencing many, many, many source documents. The book has sold two million copy's and is taught in University's across the country. 

Do you know how silly you sound?

You mean like how people here use identity politics to make an instantaneous judgement about someone or some organization despite not really giving it a fair shake?  Like when I brought up the Campus Reform organization and how I hear the term "right wing bs" thrown around indiscriminately?  Think I'm exaggerating?  Tell ya what, I want you and the other anti-Trumpers here to give me an example of a book by a politically conservative author that you/they went into with an open mind and found some of their key points that you/they actually agree with.  Fair is fair right?  If you'd like I'll even make a list of viewpoints on issues that I personally believe in that are traditionally seen as the liberal side (the death penalty and gay rights (which is most definitely NOT a popular viewpoint where I'm from!) immediately comes to mind, as well as how not too long ago it was the liberals who were all about safeguarding the First Amendment and decrying censorship).

And the dude is a socialist...he said so himself and he's in the socialism section of Wikipedia.  And I never said anything along the lines of what kind of person he was on a personal level -- I certainly find nothing wrong with someone being a socialist or believing in whatever else they wish provided it's not hurting anyone/anything or flagrantly encouraging others to do so.  I know you and the others here may personally hate conservatives and especially Trump supporters...but I could never be like that.  I would never hate someone just because their political views are different from my own.  And yes that includes most political public figures.  I'm sure behind the scenes he and most others like him are/were perfectly swell guys...that doesn't mean I necessarily have to agree with them.

As for the upteen page bibliography, that's true for most any books of its kind, of all different political stripes.  As for "being taught in universities across the country", the Communist Manifesto is one of the most go-to "being taught in universities" kinds of works of all time as well.  Again, it doesn't mean I necessarily must agree with it.

The only ones who are "silly" are the ones here who constantly selectively read my posts and assume things about me because of "identity politics" and especially @Link who now has me as some kind of killjoy prude (I was simply trying to use Coach Carter that "n" is a word we as a society could most definitely do without; I don't mean having it against the law, I mean not using it in the sense that it sends the wrong message that it's "cool" or "edgy" or "keeping it real" or something).   Listen, you and some of the others may have already long ago decided I'm no different or better than the radical right wing and/or the hardcore Trump fanboys...FINE.  But if there's one thing above all else I don't want to be mislabeled as is a fuddy duddy ol' pearl clutching prude.  I mean for Pete's sake I got all the South Park, Beavis & Butt-Head, and AVGN episodes on my computer!  And I was a big fan of the first two before a lot of people here and in the video gaming community in general were in Pampers!  

Edited June 14, 2020 by Estil

[Link | 2,878]

10 hours ago, Estil said:

give me an example of a book by a politically conservative author that you/they went into with an open mind and found some of their key points that you/they actually agree with.

To be fair, I have not read many books by politicians at all. But I have said that this country might be better off if John McCain won 2008. Although you might not like my reasoning behind that. And on the topic of conservative reading, if I must reiterate again, I do keep up with conservative-bent news, as well as right opinion (e.g. freedom of speech must be free of consequence) 

10 hours ago, Estil said:

not too long ago it was the liberals who were all about safeguarding the First Amendment and decrying censorship).

Callback to my last sentence above, if you think this has changed, we understand things in very different ways.

10 hours ago, Estil said:

I know you and the others here may personally hate conservatives and especially Trump supporters...but I could never be like that.  I would never hate someone just because their political views are different from my own. 

Nah. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Sure, I’ll hate Donny-boy himself, as a viciously vile creep who has fomented hatred and division and been extremely destructive to our discourse as a nation to serve his own ends of power and wealth, but I don’t hate you personally. I’m pretty sure that he is a pedophile and you are not. But if you think he’s a perfectly swell guy... yeah, I don’t know how to respond to that politely. Sorry. 

10 hours ago, Estil said:

As for the upteen page bibliography, that's true for most any books of its kind, of all different political stripes. 

What are you on about? You brought it up as why you don’t like the book, but now it’s normal, and what? 

10 hours ago, Estil said:

And the dude is a socialist...he said so himself and he's in the socialism section of Wikipedia.  And I never said anything along the lines of what kind of person he was on a personal level -- I certainly find nothing wrong with someone being a socialist or believing in whatever else they wish provided it's not hurting anyone/anything or flagrantly encouraging others to do so.

... what is your point? If you are not against socialism then why do you keep bringing it up when disputing other peoples’ opinions? 

10 hours ago, Estil said:

The only ones who are "silly" are the ones here who constantly selectively read my posts and assume things about me because of "identity politics"

I read you thoroughly before engaging

10 hours ago, Estil said:

killjoy fuddy duddy ol' pearl clutching prude

Do you like the song or not? Do you enjoy the style? 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Link

[Link | 2,878]

And get out of here with this “identity politics” business, by the way. Red herring. 

[Californication | 1,491]

Estil, this is who you get some of your news from right?

 

[avatar! | 1,936]

This is absolutely appalling! I know the police have a difficult and dangerous job, but that is never an excuse. Of course, this is just the latest case. So many cases of people just protesting peacefully, or as in this case doing nothing, and getting intentionally hurt by police. What are the police doing about this particular person who will loose his eye due to excessive force... They are having an "internal investigation". Where is the accountability??? 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/investigations-alleged-officer-misconduct-man-permanently-injured-curfew/story?id=71235157

Edited June 14, 2020 by avatar!

[CodysGameRoom | 2,013]

Discrediting "The People's History of the United States" because Zinn is a socialist is ignorant.

Did you know the book is online to read for free?

https://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

Just read the first chapter. If you aren't hooked, then you aren't a "historian".

[fcgamer | 5,005]

5 hours ago, avatar! said:

This is absolutely appalling! I know the police have a difficult and dangerous job, but that is never an excuse. Of course, this is just the latest case. So many cases of people just protesting peacefully, or as in this case doing nothing, and getting intentionally hurt by police. What are the police doing about this particular person who will loose his eye due to excessive force... They are having an "internal investigation". Where is the accountability??? 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/investigations-alleged-officer-misconduct-man-permanently-injured-curfew/story?id=71235157

Accountability should go both ways though. The guy broke the curfew, right? Not following the rules often has its consequences, so yeah I agree, there's a bit about accountability that needs to be learned.

[Tulpa | 3,703]

Breaking curfew deserves permanent eye damage?

[Tulpa | 3,703]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-monty-python-joke-seattle-protests-a9565506.html

Fox News’ coverage of the Seattle protests has taken another hit after the news organisation quoted a Reddit Monty Python joke as real for its viewers.

Martha MacCallum, host of Fox News’ The Story, was covering Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) for her viewers, which included claims from the cable news channel that there were leadership problems within the organisation.

To illustrate this point, Fox News shared a screenshot of a Reddit post entitled “I didn’t vote for Raz”. Raz Simone, a rapper, is the alleged unofficial leader of CHAZ.

"I thought we had an anonymous collective,” Ms MacCallum said, reading the Reddit post. “An anarcho-syndicalist commune at the least, we should take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.”

What Fox News failed to realise was that this post was a joke that played off a popular scene from the 1975 comedy Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 

[avatar! | 1,936]

46 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Accountability should go both ways though. The guy broke the curfew, right? Not following the rules often has its consequences, so yeah I agree, there's a bit about accountability that needs to be learned.

The police can give him a citation for violating curfew. However, shooting him (rubber bullets or not) is ONLY if he poses a risk of severe bodily harm to someone. If that was the case, the police would have definitely said so, but they did not. Clearly he posed no such risk, and some POS just basically felt like shooting him. This police officer(s) responsible should lose their badge and be arrested for grave bodily harm. The guy could have died! There is absolutely no way to justify this, and we should not resort to victim blaming here. 

[fcgamer | 5,005]

30 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Breaking curfew deserves permanent eye damage?

Never once did I say that, please go back and check. All I said was that accountability goes both ways. This guy felt he was above the law and willingly chose to break curfew. Now he lost an eye, which is directly related to the fact that he chose to break the law.

Is losing an eye in response to breaking curfew a bit much? Perhaps. However, it doesn't change the fact that if this guy followed the rules, he'd still have his eye. Period. So yeah, accountability. Then again these days, no one wants to acknowledge their part in the situation.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

On 6/12/2020 at 8:46 PM, NESfiend said:

To pretend that the vast majority of protesters are not black is ignoring reality and trying to hide behind the technicality that there are some white people too.

I got curious and looked it up -- white protesters are the majority in quite a few places.

Blacks certainly have higher per-capita representation in the protests, but you should look up the demographics if you think "the vast majority" are black.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

13 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Never once did I say that, please go back and check. All I said was that accountability goes both ways. This guy felt he was above the law and willingly chose to break curfew. Now he lost an eye, which is directly related to the fact that he chose to break the law.

Is losing an eye in response to breaking curfew a bit much? Perhaps. However, it doesn't change the fact that if this guy followed the rules, he'd still have his eye. Period. So yeah, accountability. Then again these days, no one wants to acknowledge their part in the situation.

What the fuck?

Perhaps?

An act of civil disobedience (breaking curfew) does NOT warrant violence in response. Period. Full-stop.

Or are you also buying into Trump's bullshit about that elderly protester that was shoved to the ground and hit hard enough to bleed from his ear?

Edited June 15, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[CodysGameRoom | 2,013]

15 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Accountability should go both ways though. The guy broke the curfew, right? Not following the rules often has its consequences, so yeah I agree, there's a bit about accountability that needs to be learned.

What a shitty take. Dude doesn't deserve to go blind in one eye because he stayed out late. Punishment doesn't fit the crime here.

 

13 hours ago, fcgamer said:

This guy felt he was above the law and willingly chose to break curfew. Now he lost an eye, which is directly related to the fact that he chose to break the law.

Is losing an eye in response to breaking curfew a bit much? Perhaps. However, it doesn't change the fact that if this guy followed the rules, he'd still have his eye. Period. So yeah, accountability. Then again these days, no one wants to acknowledge their part in the situation.

Wow, doubling down on possibly the worst take I've ever seen on this board?

Have some fucking compassion, jesus christ. 

[Tulpa | 3,703]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html?fbclid=IwAR02K1Yr8hCNK_e_IfccqTEBVYkVyMRX9wbjECGRofZ8pzy3G0fzoEUf89Y

 

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.

The LGBTQ community is made of up of approximately 1 million workers who identify as transgender and 7.1 million lesbian, gay and bisexual workers, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.

Twenty-two states, plus the District of Columbia have statutes protecting workers based on sexual orientation, according to the Williams Institute. Twenty-one states plus DC have statutes protecting workers from discrimination based on gender identity.

[spacepup | 2,482]

27 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html?fbclid=IwAR02K1Yr8hCNK_e_IfccqTEBVYkVyMRX9wbjECGRofZ8pzy3G0fzoEUf89Y

 

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.

The LGBTQ community is made of up of approximately 1 million workers who identify as transgender and 7.1 million lesbian, gay and bisexual workers, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.

Twenty-two states, plus the District of Columbia have statutes protecting workers based on sexual orientation, according to the Williams Institute. Twenty-one states plus DC have statutes protecting workers from discrimination based on gender identity.

This is a really big deal.  This is something that many advocates have been pushing for, for a very long time.  And the fact that it occurred with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, gives me a lot of confidence in the legality and strength of the decision.  This is excellent news for millions of people who can be legally discriminated against in employment for nothing other than their orientation.

[fcgamer | 5,005]

36 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html?fbclid=IwAR02K1Yr8hCNK_e_IfccqTEBVYkVyMRX9wbjECGRofZ8pzy3G0fzoEUf89Y

 

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.

The LGBTQ community is made of up of approximately 1 million workers who identify as transgender and 7.1 million lesbian, gay and bisexual workers, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.

Twenty-two states, plus the District of Columbia have statutes protecting workers based on sexual orientation, according to the Williams Institute. Twenty-one states plus DC have statutes protecting workers from discrimination based on gender identity.

Awesome! That's great news.