5 ms·

SF is now boycotting most of the United States (2022)

33 points by ultrasaurus 4y ago

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I mean obviously it must be ban travel for government officials on government business or something like that, but since this isn't clarified exactly what it means it makes the article seem like misinformation and untrustworthy.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  The article seems pretty clear that it's travel to and contracts with businesses headquartered in those states. It links to an authoritative source [1] which seems to confirm what the article is saying. [1] https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/12X_Covered_State_List_Updated_2022-03-04.pdf https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/12X_Covered_S...
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    to quote: an ordinance making San Francisco the first city to ban travel to states with repressive anti-LGBT laws OR contract with businesses headquartered there. I don't know, I always see people on HN complaining about poorly written articles and stuff so I figured I could do it as well. At any rate it would require unfamiliarity with the U.S to think that a city could ban travel for citizens to other parts, but it is not clear exactly how travel is banned thus one has to read between the lines and assume - must be travel for government agencies - going off of this particular line "the travel element makes some intuitive sense; you do not want to send city employees, who may be LGBT, to places where their rights or their significant others’ rights can be impinged upon. " Not hard to do for someone that knows anything about the country or has a high degree of proficiency in English, but on the other hand this being the internet there might be people who don't know or have that proficiency and would thereby draw the wrong conclusion. To round off, in the vernacular, sheesh.
- joenot443 4y ago
  It's clarified very directly in beginning of the article, actually. > A March 4 memorandum from City Administrator Carmen Chu reveals that San Francisco will not enter into contracts with businesses headquartered in most of the United States — 28 states in all Calling a headline misinformation because you didn't read the article is not a good look, I'm afraid.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    Wow, TIL that ability to contract is synonymous with travel.
    - CodeWriter23 4y ago
      And totally missed that an OR in English doesn't imply a boolean operation. In this context it means both activities are prohibited.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        and totally observed that I never said they weren't both prohibited, so not sure what the latest smart HN person to correct me is on about.
jmclnx 4y ago
I do not know how legal this is (Interstate Commerce), but glad to see this happening. I tend to think this is OK since the Federal does the same with Highway Funds.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
CodeWriter23 4y ago
Just here to point out Florida's so-called "Don't say gay law" is also a "Don't say straight law". Penalties are the same for educators who discuss any kind of sexuality with children through 3rd grade.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Wait a second, next you'll tell me that so-called "gay rights" laws are also "straight rights" laws. Penalties are the same for anyone who discriminates based on sexual preference.
- soganess 4y ago
  Well, since you asked, sure I'll bite. Sexuality is not "part of the equation" when saying you are married. Except when it comes to saying you are gay and married. IANAL, but it is almost like the law was written to disproportionately harm one group and not the other. But that would mean it is a "don't say gay" law after all. You can read the law as equally affects everyone, but that is simply false. Even if you really wanted to "well actually" the situation, I'd love for you to find a Florida da/judge/jury/whatever that would prosecute a straight, young, newly-married kindergarten teacher for have a picture of their family on their desk. In short, it is de jure anti-gay with a thin veneer of deniability. And even if you were willing to play along with that veneer it is still de facto anti-gay.
  - yeetawayhn 4y ago
    >Sexuality is not "part of the equation" when saying you are married. Unless you say you are straight married.
    - soganess 4y ago
      When would you say that to a kid? Honestly. Odds are incredibly high the kid lives in a straight household. If you just say you are married, the child will understand that your family unit is like their family unit. Without some kind of prompting, how many kids have ever asked a teacher if they are straight? It is assumed. Assuming a gay Florida teacher was even willing to risk their job by placing a picture of their partner on their desk. Saying they are married in that situation would likely invite questions. And that is okay, kids should be able to ask questions! The default is transparent and socially accepted. All other configurations are visible, divergent, and sexualized.
throwaway22032 4y ago
I find articles like this almost impossible to interpret because there's very little definition. It's not only acronym soup; the acronyms themselves are so general that there's not much going on. In the UK the media often states like "Politician makes anti-X comment". The comment itself isn't published. So you end up just having to take on faith what actually occurred; you're not given the ability to judge whether the comment was hateful and dangerous, whether it was an off-colour joke that went a bit far, or whether it was totally innocuous but the journalists felt that they could spin a story out of it. Anti-LGBT could mean literally anything in this context. If they're boycotting states with the death penalty for being gay, that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools. It's unfathomable to me that 17(?) states are doing anything even remotely close to the former, so what gives?
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  > that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools. Why? I personally take persecuting kids very seriously. I also take violationg the constitution seriously.

33 points by ultrasaurus 4y ago

I mean obviously it must be ban travel for government officials on government business or something like that, but since this isn't clarified exactly what it means it makes the article seem like misinformation and untrustworthy.

advisedwang 4y ago
The article seems pretty clear that it's travel to and contracts with businesses headquartered in those states. It links to an authoritative source [1] which seems to confirm what the article is saying. [1] https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/12X_Covered_State_List_Updated_2022-03-04.pdf https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/12X_Covered_S...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  to quote: an ordinance making San Francisco the first city to ban travel to states with repressive anti-LGBT laws OR contract with businesses headquartered there. I don't know, I always see people on HN complaining about poorly written articles and stuff so I figured I could do it as well. At any rate it would require unfamiliarity with the U.S to think that a city could ban travel for citizens to other parts, but it is not clear exactly how travel is banned thus one has to read between the lines and assume - must be travel for government agencies - going off of this particular line "the travel element makes some intuitive sense; you do not want to send city employees, who may be LGBT, to places where their rights or their significant others’ rights can be impinged upon. " Not hard to do for someone that knows anything about the country or has a high degree of proficiency in English, but on the other hand this being the internet there might be people who don't know or have that proficiency and would thereby draw the wrong conclusion. To round off, in the vernacular, sheesh.
joenot443 4y ago
It's clarified very directly in beginning of the article, actually. > A March 4 memorandum from City Administrator Carmen Chu reveals that San Francisco will not enter into contracts with businesses headquartered in most of the United States — 28 states in all Calling a headline misinformation because you didn't read the article is not a good look, I'm afraid.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  Wow, TIL that ability to contract is synonymous with travel.
  - CodeWriter23 4y ago
    And totally missed that an OR in English doesn't imply a boolean operation. In this context it means both activities are prohibited.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      and totally observed that I never said they weren't both prohibited, so not sure what the latest smart HN person to correct me is on about.

jmclnx 4y ago

I do not know how legal this is (Interstate Commerce), but glad to see this happening. I tend to think this is OK since the Federal does the same with Highway Funds.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

CodeWriter23 4y ago

Just here to point out Florida's so-called "Don't say gay law" is also a "Don't say straight law". Penalties are the same for educators who discuss any kind of sexuality with children through 3rd grade.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Wait a second, next you'll tell me that so-called "gay rights" laws are also "straight rights" laws. Penalties are the same for anyone who discriminates based on sexual preference.
soganess 4y ago
Well, since you asked, sure I'll bite. Sexuality is not "part of the equation" when saying you are married. Except when it comes to saying you are gay and married. IANAL, but it is almost like the law was written to disproportionately harm one group and not the other. But that would mean it is a "don't say gay" law after all. You can read the law as equally affects everyone, but that is simply false. Even if you really wanted to "well actually" the situation, I'd love for you to find a Florida da/judge/jury/whatever that would prosecute a straight, young, newly-married kindergarten teacher for have a picture of their family on their desk. In short, it is de jure anti-gay with a thin veneer of deniability. And even if you were willing to play along with that veneer it is still de facto anti-gay.
- yeetawayhn 4y ago
  >Sexuality is not "part of the equation" when saying you are married. Unless you say you are straight married.
  - soganess 4y ago
    When would you say that to a kid? Honestly. Odds are incredibly high the kid lives in a straight household. If you just say you are married, the child will understand that your family unit is like their family unit. Without some kind of prompting, how many kids have ever asked a teacher if they are straight? It is assumed. Assuming a gay Florida teacher was even willing to risk their job by placing a picture of their partner on their desk. Saying they are married in that situation would likely invite questions. And that is okay, kids should be able to ask questions! The default is transparent and socially accepted. All other configurations are visible, divergent, and sexualized.

throwaway22032 4y ago

I find articles like this almost impossible to interpret because there's very little definition. It's not only acronym soup; the acronyms themselves are so general that there's not much going on. In the UK the media often states like "Politician makes anti-X comment". The comment itself isn't published. So you end up just having to take on faith what actually occurred; you're not given the ability to judge whether the comment was hateful and dangerous, whether it was an off-colour joke that went a bit far, or whether it was totally innocuous but the journalists felt that they could spin a story out of it. Anti-LGBT could mean literally anything in this context. If they're boycotting states with the death penalty for being gay, that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools. It's unfathomable to me that 17(?) states are doing anything even remotely close to the former, so what gives?

iudqnolq 4y ago
> that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools. Why? I personally take persecuting kids very seriously. I also take violationg the constitution seriously.