What's new

Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

You also can't be a male or female impersonator in public.
I know you are not that dense. You can't be a male or female impersonator providing "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" a.k.a. a strip show. Girls can't do strip shows. Boys can't do strip show. Boys impersonating girls can't do strip shows and girls impersonating boys can't do strip shows. The law is about strip shows, and not doing them in public or in front of kids.
 
I know you are not that dense. You can't be a male or female impersonator providing "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" a.k.a. a strip show. Girls can't do strip shows. Boys can't do strip show. Boys impersonating girls can't do strip shows and girls impersonating boys can't do strip shows. The law is about strip shows, and not doing them in public or in front of kids.
Did you read the law? It specifically names male and female impersonators.
 
Did you read the law? It specifically names male and female impersonators.
If im doing a good job of impersonating a female then how would they know anyway?
 
Did you read the law? It specifically names male and female impersonators.
...as people who are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Topless dancers are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Go-Go dancers are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Exotic dancers are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Strippers are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Male impersonators are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Female impersonators are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.

Yes the law specifically includes male and female impersonators among those who are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult. The law also specifically mentions "a person" but that doesn't mean Tennessee is banning those who believe they are a person. Tennessee is prohibiting persons from providing entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult. They are just being inclusive about prohibiting entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
 
Last edited:
...as people who are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
Considering that you view any cartoon that has a penis as appealing to a prurient interest, you'll understand that I take this as a confirmation of my position, as opposed to a rebuttal.

Topless dancers are not allowed to provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, a.k.a. a strip show, on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.
Your read poorly. Not only Is there no reference to strip shows in the law, but the phrase "prurient interest" applies only to male and female impersonators, as the position of "or similar entertainers" makes clear.

topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers,

Since we live in a world where sexually repressed people refers to nude bicyclers as groomers, or think any cartoon depiction of a penis is pornography, we also live in a world where "prurient" is in the eye of the beholder and cross-dressers/trans people do not have the right of self-defense. You are thinking about how the law will be applied to people like you; I am think about how the law will be applied to people unlike me.

 


On some days, the universe does its thing.
 


On some days, the universe does its thing.
The police haven't been defunded so she is correct to expect that they will provide full service since she and everyone else is still paying for full service.

It's like if I lived in an HOA that charged for landscaping to include the front yards of all the properties. I might advocate for eliminating the landscaping services to lower the HOA fees. If I'm unsuccessful in doing that and HOA fees continue to pay for landscaping you better ****ing believe I'm expecting my front yard to be mowed regularly.

Note: I didn't read The Daily Mail or NY Post articles because both of those are trash that I don't support. I'm not suggesting the article is a lie, why I'm saying this is that if she was a total Karen about this I don't know, and it really doesn't change the basic facts.
 
I might advocate for eliminating the landscaping services to lower the HOA fees. If I'm unsuccessful in doing that and HOA fees continue to pay for landscaping you better ****ing believe I'm expecting my front yard to be mowed regularly.
An allegory with stronger parallels would be that you were successful at reducing the landscaping costs, things started to go wrong causing the landscaping service to be reinstated but not at a level adequate to undo the period of neglect, and one morning a heavy tree branch fell on your car.

The mayor of San Francisco did freeze hiring of police and reallocated $120 million from law enforcement to the African American community. The mayor did finally see the huge mistake she had made and a couple years later set about undoing her earlier actions, but the SFPD has still not been able to hire enough officers, the crime rate in San Francisco is still ridiculous, and the mayor lost her job because of it.

https://sanfranciscodsa.com/mayor-l...-defunding-of-san-franciscos-law-enforcement/

I don't have a problem with the Karen being upset over being a victim of crime after she herself had advocated for changes to the system that boosted the crime rate. I hope she gets her stuff back. I hope they put the thieves in jail for an extended period, but I and many others see the irony in the situation, or at a minimum it being a case of chickens coming home to roost.
 
An allegory with stronger parallels would be that you were successful at reducing the landscaping costs, things started to go wrong causing the landscaping service to be reinstated but not at a level adequate to undo the period of neglect, and one morning a heavy tree branch fell on your car.

The mayor of San Francisco did freeze hiring of police and reallocated $120 million from law enforcement to the African American community. The mayor did finally see the huge mistake she had made and a couple years later set about undoing her earlier actions, but the SFPD has still not been able to hire enough officers, the crime rate in San Francisco is still ridiculous, and the mayor lost her job because of it.

https://sanfranciscodsa.com/mayor-l...-defunding-of-san-franciscos-law-enforcement/

I don't have a problem with the Karen being upset over being a victim of crime after she herself had advocated for changes to the system that boosted the crime rate. I hope she gets her stuff back. I hope they put the thieves in jail for an extended period, but I and many others see the irony in the situation, or at a minimum it being a case of chickens coming home to roost.
No.

Police are still funded in SF.

The problem here is not about how many police officers are getting overtime pay. The problems in SF are multifaceted and deeper than "more cops = less crime".
 
The problem here is not about how many police officers are getting overtime pay. The problems in SF are multifaceted and deeper than "more cops = less crime".
More cops do equal less crime. San Francisco was a place where the budget for law enforcement was actually slashed. The funding has since been reinstated, but the force has not been staffed back to the levels of when the cuts were made.

“If you give us a billion dollars tomorrow, it doesn’t give us police officers the next day,” Walsh said.


San Francisco is having problems recruiting officers. The problem is the hostile environment created by people like the Karen who had all of her stuff stolen in the U-Haul.
 
Back
Top