#obviously not all the legislators

[lunapwrites]

I think that the hospitals in Texas are unfairly nice given how little of a fuck its legislators give about healthcare.

[mildcicada]

[thesoftboiledegg]

I'm worried about my trans/non-binary friends 😔

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[boreal-sea]

This thread is incredibly important to read.

It is also extremely difficult to read. I don't know if I need to point this out, but the document itself is obviously full of bigotry so please take care of yourself if you choose to read it. Antisemitic phrases like "cultural marxism" and "global elites" appear before the document even really gets rolling, and are mixed in with transphobia, racism, and more.

If you want a taste of how this document starts in the first main section about "The Family", here is a taste:

"This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists."

It is all bad. ALL of this document is bad, and dangerous, and threatens the lives and the safety of everyone living in this country.

[communistkenobi]

re: this post but also slightly off topic, this is also why the SOGIESC (sexual orientation, gender identity & expression, and sexual characteristics) framework developed in the Global South as a legal framework to deal with sexual minority rights, stands in some ways in direct opposition to the LGBTQ+ framework of the West, which asserts that rights for minority groups flow from identity/inclusion within the minority group, forcing the obvious question of how the law determines identity (this is part of how transmedicalism emerges as an answer to the question “who is really transgender?” and also likely informs community fights over who ‘really counts’ as lgbtq). the framework of SOGIESC gets around this problem by resolving it entirely, instead insisting that because everyone has a gender identity and sexual orientation, everyone has a right to their given gender identity and sexual orientation, and any obstacle to realising these rights must be challenged and dismantled. empirically this bears out as well, given that global south countries, especially in Latin America, have some of the most progressive legislation on trans rights worldwide, with Argentina being the first country in the world to allow for legal gender transition without requiring medical documentation or proof of medical transition. We can see how different theories of state and legal power between LGBTQ+ vs SOGIESC emerge: a series of legal concessions granted to a narrowly-defined minority by a hegemonic, cis-heterosexual majority (LGBTQ+), versus the universal vision of sexual minorities whose rights are the rights of all people (SOGIESC).

and like obviously this is not a solution without problems (the +ESC was only added ten years after the original conception of SOGI, for example, an obvious oversight that was corrected - we may never escape the acronym wars), and as a framework that is fundamentally legal in both scope and design there is the obvious question of how law fits into a truly just socialist society (a historical and ongoing debate within various socialist states that I know much less about; I’m also thinking about the ‘mission drift’ and mangling that ‘intersectionality’ has dealt with over the years, also a concept that comes out of legal scholarship). but as an international legal standard it seems like an obvious critical response to the various problems of the LGBTQ+ framework, especially re: how the law determines who “actually counts” as gay trans queer etc

[lotusofhope]

the quote is out of context, I don't think anyone who is worried about being bullied by trans people and jews disagrees with your assessment. The fact of the matter is, bullying boycotts don't really work. All it has done is make my feed unusuable and get people agitated over something that is unfortunately always going to do well.

No serious twitch streamer is going to care about their 10 trans viewers being big mad they streamed the bad game. Idk how to tell you that Harry Potter as an IP will survive it's ghastly owner and, apparently, blatant antisemitism.

The quote is regarding a plan to utilize the hype in counter protest. Right now the game is setting records on twitch and likely will make record sales. Boycott or not, it's going to be popular.

But streamers could utilize that popularity if some of the biggest streamers used their platform to boost trans and Jewish issues. Imagine if someone tuned into the top HP stream and learned about some of the horrific legislation passed or about to be passed against trans people. And maybe they would see trans people as more than "those SJWs who cancelled Rowling for being a feminist"

But these streamers couldn't get an idea off the ground so now the only (and TOP) streams of HP game are just normal gamer stuff, business as usual.

I'm glad everyone got out their frustration about the game. The antisemitism was much more of an issue for me than JK Rowling, because her royalties are relatively small in comparison to her current net worth, and because the hateful views of antisemitism are directly spread through gameplay while they pay lipservice to trans people.

It's just frustrating. Is this game a black mark for trans and Jewish people? Yeah. It is. But it also feels counterproductive to be "leftism is when no fun" and act surprised when people who, shocker, don't listen to trans and Jewish people, play it anyways and become even further convinced that trans and Jewish issues are a fringe movement around taking away fun.

If someone talks about HP directly to me, yeah, I'll be uncomfortable. And if they eat Chick-fil-A in front of me it can be awkward. But to act like radical change comes from preaching to the working class to ... Enjoy life less because of a connection to an oppression they don't share? It's a losing game.

I mean come on. Chick-fil-A isn't going anywhere anytime soon and that was a slam dunk dollars to funding anti-gay legislation that was unpopular. You really think you're taking down the titan that is HP? For fucking trans people ? You really overestimate the average person's caring for trans issues that are currently wedge issues.

I've enjoyed some of the attacks on the game, especially the more well thought out ones that show how blatantly antisemetic it is. I don't think it was wasted effort per se. But there just are better more productive avenues for change.

That's just my 2 cents.

good <3

[satanfemme]

this legislative session, 12 anti-trans bills were introduced in virginia. 3 were intended to ban trans healthcare, 4 were forced-outing bills, and 5 would have banned trans people from sports. these are the same kinds of bills we've been watching pop up country-wide. but as of this morning (2/16/23) all 12 were defeated. it's obviously the bare minimum to ask for from a government, but it should still be celebrated. so many of us in virginia have been holding our breaths for weeks, and the relief we felt today was notable.

things feel grim right now, but there are still people out here fighting tooth and nail to keep our family safe, and we are loved, so there's your good news for the day

[sunflowermp4]

some lady very obviously didn't read the plaque and made a passive aggressive comment about me taking a piece of candy and i think that about sums up the experience of pride month

[inkskinned]

it is totally okay to be hurt and tired and fed up with the american schooling system but i need you to understand that we need to be better about loudly and routinely defending public education.

yes, many teachers suck, many schools utterly suck. i also got bullied and was absolutely not given the right support for my needs. i am not defending public education because it was kind to me. i am defending it because it needs to exist.

right-wing republicans do not want an educated population. they want kids to be homeschooled or in private school. there is a huge religious undertone to this.

the most common argument is that despite high costs, the "result" is not "good" enough. they point to failing schools as proof that public education is just never going to work out. there will be arguments made here that you actually agree with: that teachers can be bullies, that we taught online for 2 years and still charged the same amount of tuition, that we have no recourse for students to actually have agency or a voice, and that schools are now unsafe for kids due to risk of illness and gun violence.

these are all placing the blame in a fraudulent way, one intended to get your parents to homeschool you. the less kids in a school, the less federally-awarded funding for that school, the less any school succeeds. they will not mention the fact it is their legislation that takes away important funding opportunities, that teachers are living at or below the poverty line, that buildings are not kept up to code, that administration is overpaid and forces specific curriculums, that corporations like (my personal enemy) Pearson Education control certain classroom goals because teachers can't afford other options. they pretend to be ignorant of the gun violence and say "oh just get a gun" - but these are the same people who will be sending their child to a private school with a bulletproof backpack. they don't care if your kid dies, though. they "don't believe" in covid, but they did get their kid vaccinated, because of course they did.

it is a closed loop. conservative parents hear the fearmongering and remove children from the system. frequently these parents are also deeply religious. the kids are raised without access to other media & learn to parrot their parents. you have now created a new generation of conservatives. additionally, one of the parents/caregivers must stay home and homeschool the children, usually for free. i will give you 1 guess which parent tends to stay home to homeschool the children. these parents are encouraged to have many, many children. those children are most likely not getting access to safe sex ed.

we might laugh at fox news suggesting teachers are forcing children to use kitty litter but: first of all, there is kitty litter in the classroom. it's part of an emergency kit in case children are locked in due to a shooter. so that's fucking dystopian, and the fact they've completely reimagined the scenario to somehow make the teachers look bad when it's instead a fucking huge symbol of our failure as a country to protect our children.... it feels a little intentional.

secondly: don't just dismiss the situation. because, yeah, obviously, no teacher is encouraging kids to be a catboy. but the actual undertone that fox news is trying to sew is an outright distrust of teachers and of public education. they rely on the dehumanization of trans people as a common touchstone to hide the fact they're pushing two agendas at once. (which is ironic. because the thing they accuse teachers of. is pushing. an agenda.)

whenever someone tells you they want you to read less, you should be suspicious of that. when someone tries to separate you and your education, you should be suspicious of that. i don't even like incel rhetoric nor would i want my kids exposed to it - but i would not take away my child's (age-appropriate) access to the internet. i would just provide more educational materials, not less. the difference here is that i believe we can resolve ignorance with knowledge; whereas conservatives believe that ignorance is bliss.

they misappropriate funding and demonize teachers. they pull the same trick each time - the same thing we are seeing with anti-trans rhetoric. they do not want you to have access to safe sex ed, so they act horrified, claim sex ed teaches you how to thrust deep, claim that we have no idea what "age-appropriate" means. since the mid-nineties, the united states has spent at least 2 billion dollars on abstinence-only education, even though to quote the above link: "a preponderance of studies has found no effect of abstinence education at reducing adolescent pregnancy". conservatives want you to think less of any person struggling with addiction so they can continue their racist "war on drugs", so they spend up to $750 million dollars a year on the DARE program which has absolutely no effect. acting like teachers "must" be "grooming" children is just the same thing - so they can demand that funding either goes to their causes or the funding doesn't "exist" ("i'm not paying for our kids to learn that thing!")

and they want you to feel uncaring about this. they are aware that you will hate some parts of your school experience. pretty much everyone does. they want to lean into the parts that you hate so that you don't put up a fight about it when they take it away for not being "good enough."

i know i maybe sound like a conspiracy theorist. but truly. truly. it is beneficial for conservatives to reduce your faith in the american public schooling system.

one of the explicitly stated campaign promises of the conservative party: to axe the Department of Education in 2024.

i know we are all tired and burnt out and there is so much else wrong with their entire platform. but maybe just - pay attention to this one.

[super-ultra-mega-deluxe]

The actual consideration of what fascism is is rather something of general import. A number of folks here have deferred to Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, and while I wouldn't discourage it, it is a text from the perspective of semiotics; that is to say, from the perspective of what signifies fascism, not what it is per se. Hence also why Eco emphasizes that none of the fourteen ways he describes are strictly necessary or sufficient for fascism, just that fascism as it has emerges coalesces around such signifiers. The aesthetics and rhetoric of fascists is rather succinctly summed up in Ur-Fascism, but what fascism is in a more direct, structural sense is a somewhat different consideration.

The governing structure of fascist Italy, as an example, retained many of the facets of the liberal democratic system from which it emerged, with a legislature, a judiciary, and an executive. Mussolini was legally the prime minister- though he adopted the title of Duce, literally "leader"- and was appointed by a legislative council- though a new one created by the fascist party called the Grand Council of Fascism that by and large excluded the previous legislature- and the prime minister could legally be dismissed by the head of state, the king, after a sustained vote of no confidence similar to the UK's formulation. Fascist Italy also redoubled- rather than invented- Italian colonial policy, promoting the settlement of Italians into Libya and other African colonial projects and the genocide of local populations. The domestic economic policy of fascist Italy was also much more explicitly in the interests of private business: in 1939, the whole of Italy was explicitly proposed to be legally divided into 22 corporations which appointed members to parliament; labour organization outside of the appointed corporate structures and striking as a practice were banned. The interests of fascist Italy's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois, and their economic policy is often referred to as specifically corporatist.

Nazi Germany was similar in structure, though while the German parliament- called the Reichstag- was maintained, a series of laws were passed which enabled the Chancellor- Hitler, who was appointed such by President Hindenburg- and the cabinet to implement laws without parliamentary or presidential approval. The Hitler cabinet is generally considered to have been the defacto ruling body of Nazi Germany, though members of the Reichstag obviously still convened and drafted laws and ran elections and generally supported Nazi rule and the judiciary remained a distinct body. The Nazis also wanted to redouble their colonial policy in specifically Africa- a theatre in which they were snubbed compared to other European powers- but were by and large unable to secure resources there for continued expansion due to the British opposing them in protecting its own colonial projects. A rather infamous and demonstrative guiding principle of Nazi economic policy, Lebensraum- literally "living space"- sought specifically to appropriate land and other productive capital to give to Germans that they might be made petite bourgeois and small artisans; de-proletarianized and bourgeoisified, at the same time that the people such capital is expropriated from were made slaves to fuel further expansion or killed outright. This was imposed both within and, once the resources of social underclasses at home ran dry, without. The interests too of Germany's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois.

What all of this is to say is primarily that fascism as a governmental system is a legal permutation of liberal democracy, rather than a strict departure from it. The overriding interests of fascist states are also commensurately the interests of the bourgeoisie of those nations. It's an entirely logical progression of liberalism, to be frank, and a rather stark example of why liberal states should be opposed. The most violent fascist policy at home is often simply what liberal states have as their explicit foreign policy, for instance. As for whether this or the other politician in a liberal democracy is a fascist, I'd ask first and foremost that it be known that the Nazi policy of expansion was based first on the US policy of expansion; the cart isn't pulling the horse, as it were.

[txttletale]

it is kind of disconcerting when self-proclaimed "leftists" adopt a fully liberal position on sex work where everyone is having the just-so fictional mutually beneficial transaction central to capitalist mythmaking. idk a lot of radfem propaganda is basically positioning themselves as the last bastion of real structural critique and i think you are just doing their work for them when your argument for why sex work should be legal is "well it's consensual because the sex worker is just choosing to have sex in exchange for money which is a win-win for everyone :)".

your defense of e.g. legal protections and destigmatization for sex workers (& your corollary critiques of legislation targeting them) needs to come from a position of demystification and desensationalizing sex-as-innately-different-to-all-other-forms-of-activity and treating them as what they are, which is workers who are being exploited and are in need of protections and safe working conditions. this is not incompatible & in fact should be perfectly compatible with recognizing simple marxist truths like that consenting to have sex when the alternative is starvation is inherently coercive--in the exact same way that all other wage labour is coercive.

acting like it is incompatible is literally just buying into the reactionary SWERF worldview that accepting that fact should lead you to support oppressive legislation and the intervention of the bourgeois state in ways that demonstrably impoverish, endanger, and immiserate sex workers & it is dismaying when people who self-identify with "the left" (whatever that means but thats a different conversation) cannot formulate a (vital & necessary!) defense of sex workers and their interests and safety without falling back on obviously untrue liberal truisms.

[szhmidty]

There's this thing that lawmakers do that really blackpills me on ever having long-term effective legal systems.

Like, ok, look at this case here. The gist is this: a woman kills her ex-boyfriend and then flees to canada to avoid arrest. Shortly after arriving in Canada, she announces that she's pregnant with her ex's child. She and her lawyers fight the attempts of the US to extradite her back to stand trial. The victims parents go to canada to fight her on custody. The courts find there is sufficient evidence to arrest her locally and award custody to the grandparents. But she's granted bail, on the theory that she's not really a risk to the public (true, in all likely hood). Being on bail, she gets custody back. She drowns herself in the ocean, taking her 13 month old son with her.

This is obviously a horrific scenario, and bill C-464 was introduced to rectify this: it adds language to broaden the reasons for denial of bail. To be fair, the actual language is fairly anodyne, essentially saying "don't grant bail if they're a threat to children." Like fine, whatever.

But the fact of the matter is, she probably should have been granted bail. She wasn't a threat to the public, the only person she was a threat to was her son, and that was easily rectified by not granting her custody. The problem with the legal system here isn't bail, it's the court's obsession with "keeping families intact." She has been credibly charged with murdering her son's father, she should absolutely lose custody while that plays out in court.

But all of that is secondary to the actual problem of criminal charges taking years to prosecute. Bail is absolutely a necessity to safeguard and cushion abuses of the legal system because otherwise false accusations and false arrests ruin lives. This is an area where it would protect victims to simply enforce basic rights of the accused to a speedy trial. That would dramatically reduce the damage of false accusations, and would reduce the window of opportunity bail gives to those who are guilty and who do pose a threat to others.

A bunch of things went wrong in this case, but this woman being not being locked up for years while the accusations against her moved glacially through the legal system wasn't one of them. Bill C-464 that was passed in response to this case does little to make anyone's lives better: the courts are still forced to trade off against "is this guy a risk to the public?" vs "hey, what if this guy is innocent and we lock him up for 3 years for no reason, that'd be bad, right?", the bill just weights one side of the debate when any effective legislation would focus on reducing the need for that debate.

It's just. It's maddening. The right thing to do, the actual effective thing that would do the most good, would be to protect the rights of the accused---you could kill two birds with one stone. But the only angle that ever gets any play is "should we be even harsher or not?"

[margaretthatchersdead]

Reasons to end the monarchy: Charles Edition

Well it's the coronation so you know what it's time for.

The entire concept of a monarchy is actively undemocratic. The head of state should not be someone who is only in that position because they were born into a certain family.

Having a monarchy upholds classism as a specific family of great wealth and power are viewed as superior to others.

They stand for a history of racism and imperialism. This country has done some truly terrible things in its history and the monarchy are a symbol of that. In order to attempt to begin to undo the harm that we have done, we need to remove this symbol of oppression.

The royal family have previously lobbied the government to hide their own personal wealth. Despite this, we are obviously aware that they have a large amount of wealth.

Prince Charles has himself lobbied the government on a number of occasions. His 'black spider memos' show that he has repeatedly pressured ministers on a wide range of topics from the Iraq war to badger culling to alternative therapies. He has used his power to lobby the government on subjects that would affect him.

The monarch does not occupy a ceremonial role as is frequently claimed. Ministers and civil servants have to consult the monarch. Civil servants have to get the consent of the royals on pieces of legislation, which can cause delays on implementation.

Even if the monarch did occupy a purely ceremonial role, as a literal billionaire he wields a ridiculously high amount of power over people.

Windsor Castle brings in less money than Windsor Legoland does. The many castles that are owned by the royal family could be used to create spaces for the public to enjoy or to be used as a shelter for the homeless. The Louvre in Paris used to be house of the French monarchy and gets over twenty times the tourists. Edinburgh castle hasn't had the monarchy live in it for centuries and yet still brings in tourism.

Prince Andrew is widely known to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein; yet he has not had to face any repercussions for his actions despite blatantly lying when being asked about his actions. The royal family have defended him and prevented him from facing the consequences of his actions.

They cost around £334 million per year. This money could be used to help the poor, given to the NHS, to repair and build infrastructure, to support small businesses that are struggling, pretty much anything.

The royal household publishes a much lower figure about the cost of the royal family, so they are actively trying to cover up their cost.

Charles has had access to confidential Cabinet papers, undermining our democracy.

He has publicly championed alternative medicine and has repeatedly promoted it. He sent at least seven letters to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, that then shortly relaxed the rules governing the labeling of herbal products, ones he as part of Charles's Duchy Originals produces.

He lobbied the health secretary regarding greater provision of alternative treatments on the NHS.

In 2018, 46% of Britons wanted him to abdicate immediately after Elizabeth died. He’s barely wanted by the country even with the sheer amount of pro-monarchy propaganda going around. Charles specifically is very unpopular.

In order to speak to him, broadcasters had to sign a 15-page contract, which includes Clarence house attending the rough and fine cut edits of films and if unhappy can remove that contribution, as well as stipulating that all questions directed at him must be pre-approved and vetted by his representative.

His personal wealth is £1.8 billion. He inherited a large amount of this from Elizabeth, with it being exempt from inheritance tax. Having an immunity from this tax when others don’t is ridiculous.

The Duchy of Cornwall was named in the Paradise papers.

The coronation is going to cost £100 million during a cost of living crisis.

People have been banned from protesting Charles with official warning letters were sent to anti-monarchists.

Protestors who block roads, airports and railways could face an entire year behind bars. Locking yourself to others, objects or buildings could go to prison for six months and face an unlimited fine. Police are allowed to head off disruption by stopping and searching protestors that they suspect.

The public were encouraged to swear allegiance to the new King when he gets sworn in, this is a deeply disturbing suggestion.

He's a billionaire who's going to use the public's money to celebrate himself.

The monarch has sweeping immunity from many laws

He owns business parks and small rented cottages, six of the ten top residential homes, 285,000 acres of mineral rich land. He’s ridiculously rich in a country where so many people are facing extreme poverty.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

average United States contains 1000s of pet tigers in backyards" factoid actualy [sic] just statistical error. average person has 0 tigers on property. Activist Georg, who lives the U.S. Capitol & makes up over 10,000 each day, has purposefully been spreading disinformation adn [sic] should not have been counted

I have a big mad today, folks. It's a really frustrating one, because years worth of work has been validated... but the reason for that fucking sucks.

For almost a decade, I've been trying to fact-check the claim that there "are 10,000 to 20,000 pet tigers/big cats in backyards in the United States." I talked to zoo, sanctuary, and private cat people; I looked at legislation, regulation, attack/death/escape incident rates; I read everything I could get my hands on. None of it made sense. None of it lined up. I couldn't find data supporting anything like the population of pet cats being alleged to exist. Some of you might remember the series I published on those findings from 2018 or so under the hashtag #CrouchingTigerHiddenData. I've continued to work on it in the six years since, including publishing a peer reviewed study that counted all the non-pet big cats in the US (because even though they're regulated, apparently nobody bothered to keep track of those either).

I spent years of my life obsessing over that statistic because it was being used to push for new federal legislation that, while well intentioned, contained language that would, and has, created real problems for ethical facilities that have big cats. I wrote a comprehensive - 35 page! - analysis of the issues with the then-current version of the Big Cat Public Safety Act in 2020. When the bill was first introduced to Congress in 2013, a lot of groups promoted it by fear mongering: there's so many pet tigers! they could be hidden around every corner! they could escape and attack you! they could come out of nowhere and eat your children!! Tiger King exposed the masses to the idea of "thousands of abused backyard big cats": as a result the messaging around the bill shifted to being welfare-focused, and the law passed in 2022.

The Big Cat Public Safety Act created a registry, and anyone who owned a private cat and wanted to keep it had to join. If they did, they could keep the animal until it passed, as long as they followed certain strictures (no getting more, no public contact, etc). Don’t register and get caught? Cat is seized and major punishment for you. Registering is therefore highly incentivized. That registry closed in June of 2023, and you can now get that registration data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Guess how many pet big cats were registered in the whole country?

97.

Not tens of thousands. Not thousands. Not even triple digits. 97.

And that isn't even the right number! Ten USDA licensed facilities registered erroneously. That accounts for 55 of 97 animals. Which leaves us with 42 pet big cats, of all species, in the entire country.

Now, I know that not everyone may have registered. There's probably someone living deep in the woods somewhere with their illegal pet cougar, and there's been at least one random person in Texas arrested for trying to sell a cub since the law passed. But - and here's the big thing - even if there are ten times as many hidden cats than people who registered them - that's nowhere near ten thousand animals. Obviously, I had some questions.

Guess what? Turns out, this is because it was never real. That huge number never had data behind it, wasn't likely to be accurate, and the advocacy groups using that statistic to fearmonger and drive their agenda knew it... and didn't see a problem with that.

Allow me to introduce you to an article published last week.

This article is good. (Full disclose, I'm quoted in it). It's comprehensive and fairly written, and they did their due diligence reporting and fact-checking the piece. They talked to a lot of people on all sides of the story.

But thing that really gets me?

Multiple representatives from major advocacy organizations who worked on the Big Cat Publix Safety Act told the reporter that they knew the statistics they were quoting weren't real. And that they don't care. The end justifies the means, the good guys won over the bad guys, that's just how lobbying works after all. They're so blase about it, it makes my stomach hurt. Let me pull some excerpts from the quotes.

"Whatever the true number, nearly everyone in the debate acknowledges a disparity between the actual census and the figures cited by lawmakers. “The 20,000 number is not real,” said Bill Nimmo, founder of Tigers in America. (...) For his part, Nimmo at Tigers in America sees the exaggerated figure as part of the political process. Prior to the passage of the bill, he said, businesses that exhibited and bred big cats juiced the numbers, too. (...) “I’m not justifying the hyperbolic 20,000,” Nimmo said. “In the world of comparing hyperbole, the good guys won this one.”

"Michelle Sinnott, director and counsel for captive animal law enforcement at the PETA Foundation, emphasized that the law accomplished what it was set out to do. (...) Specific numbers are not what really matter, she said: “Whether there’s one big cat in a private home or whether there’s 10,000 big cats in a private home, the underlying problem of industry is still there.”"

I have no problem with a law ending the private ownership of big cats, and with ending cub petting practices. What I do have a problem with is that these organizations purposefully spread disinformation for years in order to push for it. By their own admission, they repeatedly and intentionally promoted false statistics within Congress. For a decade.

No wonder it never made sense. No wonder no matter where I looked, I couldn't figure out how any of these groups got those numbers, why there was never any data to back any of the claims up, why everything I learned seemed to actively contradict it. It was never real. These people decided the truth didn't matter. They knew they had no proof, couldn't verify their shocking numbers... and they decided that was fine, if it achieved the end they wanted.

So members of the public - probably like you, reading this - and legislators who care about big cats and want to see legislation exist to protect them? They got played, got fed false information through a TV show designed to tug at heartstrings, and it got a law through Congress that's causing real problems for ethical captive big cat management. The 20,000 pet cat number was too sexy - too much of a crisis - for anyone to want to look past it and check that the language of the law wouldn't mess things up up for good zoos and sanctuaries. Whoops! At least the "bad guys" lost, right? (The problems are covered somewhat in the article linked, and I'll go into more details in a future post. You can also read my analysis from 2020, linked up top.)

Now, I know. Something something something facts don't matter this much in our post-truth era, stop caring so much, that's just how politics work, etc. I’m sorry, but no. Absolutely not.

Laws that will impact the welfare of living animals must be crafted carefully, thoughtfully, and precisely in order to ensure they achieve their goals without accidental negative impacts. We have a duty of care to ensure that. And in this case, the law also impacts reservoir populations for critically endangered species! We can't get those back if we mess them up. So maybe, just maybe, if legislators hadn't been so focused on all those alleged pet cats, the bill could have been written narrowly and precisely.

But the minutiae of regulatory impacts aren't sexy, and tiger abuse and TV shows about terrible people are. We all got misled, and now we're here, and the animals in good facilities are already paying for it.

I don't have a conclusion. I'm just mad. The public deserves to know the truth about animal legislation they're voting for, and I hope we all call on our legislators in the future to be far more critical of the data they get fed.

[senlinyu]

Marriage of Expedience

Rated: T

Summary: Regardless of what anyone says, Hermione Granger wouldn't get married just to obtain a proxy vote in the Wizengamot. After all, she's a war heroine and an honest and hard-working Ministry worker. People and papers shouldn't be allowed to go around insinuating that she'd exploit the sanctity of wizarding matrimony and the entire legal system simply for the sake of passing a few revolutionary pieces of legislation.

Obviously, she eloped with former Death Eater Draco Malfoy because of her... hidden domestic side.