3 ms·
The rules used to prohibit deliberate misgendering, which any reasonable person would regard as cruelty to a marginalized group. The right (such as the Babylon
by howinteresting 4y ago
The rules used to prohibit deliberate misgendering, which any reasonable person would regard as cruelty to a marginalized group. The right (such as the Babylon Bee) disproportionately engages in this action, so it used to get banned more for this.
This is also why anti-trans actions by right-wing state governments in the US have been consistently shut down by the courts (e.g. [1]). There is no evidence to support their actions -- they're driven by sheer animosity.
Nothing "nonsense" about this.
The way the right plays the refs is by claiming that the fact that the right gets banned disproportionately ipso facto means that the rules are biased. That's what's "nonsense" here.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-et-al-v-lawrence-et-al-opinion-granting-plaintiffs-motion?redirect=legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-v-lawrence-decision https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-et...
> Although at least one key supporter of the Act in the
General Assembly justified its requirements in relation to supposed risks of sexual assault and
rape, there is (1) no evidence, in either the legislative record or the record of this case, that there
is any significant problem of individuals’ abusing trans-inclusive restroom policies for that
purpose and (2) no reason to think that, if such a problem existed, the mandated signs would
address it.
- lazyeye 4y agoAgain, nonsense. You could make these kind of claims along any lines, for example, christians are the target of discrimination for their beliefs etc. You just choose the ones that align with left-wing ideology and everything else is "hate" and deserving of censorship.
- howinteresting 4y agoNoticing a startling lack of evidence in your posts here. You're in good company with those right-wing state governments over there.
- lazyeye 4y agoWhy do (extremely) simple concepts like this need a 3rd party to support them? The kind of "evidence" that is normally presented is typically provided by 3rd-rate activist researchers, attracted to dogma, and who simply come to whatever conclusion perpetuates that dogma.
- howinteresting 4y agoSo you still don't have any evidence for your claims then? I've made claims here and presented clear evidence. You called it "nonsense" with no substantiation other than vague gestures toward Christians (which Christians?) being targeted (how?) for their beliefs (which beliefs?) I understand that you're trying to drag me down to the meta level so you can beat me with experience, but I'm not willing to take the bait here, sorry.
- lazyeye 4y agoNeither of us has provided meaningful evidence. We are already on the same level. I havent dragged you anywhere. You've just pulled up a bit of dross from a highly partisan organisation and are claiming that this is proof of something. It would be like me quoting fox news as proof.
- howinteresting 4y agoA judgment made by a federal court in the United States is "a bit of dross", apparently. I checked your post history. It's pretty clear you are deep in an alternate reality. I hope you can find your way out of it some day.
- lazyeye 4y agoLol