The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[alhoon]

I kinda did miss that detail.
If, and that's an if, the Trump administration obstructed the FBI from properly vetting Kavanaugh - not that I think "in college he was a jackass when drinking" would have affected his chances more than Ford allegations would - then Trump's administration is at fault and it is an important issue.

However, the democrats didn't focus on "the executive branch intervened to make things harder for the FBI vetting a SC nominee = meddling in the judicial branch" but on how horrible Kavanaugh was. They were quick to publicly condemn and proclaim K guilty... only for the accusations to collapse a day later.

[PointOfViewGun]

I kinda did miss that detail.
If, and that's an if, the Trump administration obstructed the FBI from properly vetting Kavanaugh - not that I think "in college he was a jackass when drinking" would have affected his chances more than Ford allegations would - then Trump's administration is at fault and it is an important issue.

However, the democrats didn't focus on "the executive branch intervened to make things harder for the FBI vetting a SC nominee = meddling in the judicial branch" but on how horrible Kavanaugh was. They were quick to publicly condemn and proclaim K guilty... only for the accusations to collapse a day later.

Please do not confuse your knowledge status on a matter with what people did or didn't do. Trump administration's castration of the FBI investigation was one of the major issues.

[alhoon]

Yes, but that's not what the assault of the nutwings was about. They went "OMG, Kavanaugh is so horrible!!!!1111" and then the accusations collapsed. And there was no apology to Kavanaugh over the false and fabricated accusations against him by the various democrats from ground-troops to the candidates.

NYT said "woopsy!".
Democrats didn't. Because the movers and shakers of the democrats are petty people that don't give a crap about what actually happened.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, but that's not what the assault of the nutwings was about. They went "OMG, Kavanaugh is so horrible!!!!1111" and then the accusations collapsed. And there was no apology to Kavanaugh over the false and fabricated accusations against him by the various democrats from ground-troops to the candidates.

NYT said "woopsy!".
Democrats didn't. Because the movers and shakers of the democrats are petty people that don't give a crap about what actually happened.

Sigh... What a lovely bunch of deflection statements that doesn't do much with reality.

[alhoon]

If you say so...

[Love Mountain]

I mean it is Alhoon. None of your points are really relevant to the point you are trying to make. When “Fake News” screws up, they generally admit it. There is also a difference between opinion pages and News sections, which are often two separate teams in the publishing house. If Conservatives don’t like liberal news due to bias, they’re not doing themselves any favors by reading the opposition side only. News tend to cover their bases fairly well, and complaints about framing, word choice, or selective coverage can be fixed by simply being more discerning readers. It’s not as if liberal news is blatant propaganda.

The same could be said of politics as well. Hypocrisy will always exist, but Democrats are not as complicit in violation of political norms and basic civility than Republicans.

[alhoon]

I mean it is Alhoon. None of your points are really relevant to the point you are trying to make. When “Fake News” screws up, they generally admit it. There is also a difference between opinion pages and News sections, which are often two separate teams in the publishing house.

The point I am trying to make is that some democrat troglodytes from all strata of the Democrat party tried to score easy points by passing judgement on Kavanaugh and landed on their faces when the accusations completely collapsed. And then, they didn't apologize nor, like NYT, said "Wooopsie! We rushed to judge it won't happen again."

If Conservatives don’t like liberal news due to bias, they’re not doing themselves any favors by reading the opposition side only. News tend to cover their bases fairly well, and complaints about framing, word choice, or selective coverage can be fixed by simply being more discerning readers. It’s not as if liberal news is blatant propaganda.

I didn't accuse the news, NYT made a mistake and quickly corrected it. I say so in my post.
I was (and am) annoyed about the "who would scream the loudest first?!?!?!?!!?" crowd that didn't bother to correct their mistake like NYT did ... because they are a bunch of troglodytes.

The same could be said of politics as well. Hypocrisy will always exist, but Democrats are not as complicit in violation of political norms and basic civility than Republicans.

And?
Two wrongs don't make a right. That Republican Troglodytes exist too and they may be more slimy than the democrat ones doesn't change the fact that a chorus of hair pulling progressives were foaming at the mouth and screaming till their necks were raw in faux outrage in order to get easy votes about ... something that may have never happened.
And they didn't apologize or even admit their mistake.
Because they are troglodytes.

[Love Mountain]

The point I am trying to make is that some democrat troglodytes from all strata of the Democrat party tried to score easy points by passing judgement on Kavanaugh and landed on their faces when the accusations completely collapsed. And then, they didn't apologize nor, like NYT, said "Wooopsie! We rushed to judge it won't happen again."

They didn’t collapse lol. The inquiries were completely stonewalled. That’s not Democrats landing on their face. That’s republicans smashing their faces in.

I didn't accuse the news, NYT made a mistake and quickly corrected it. I say so in my post.
I was (and am) annoyed about the "who would scream the loudest first?!?!?!?!!?" crowd that didn't bother to correct their mistake like NYT did ... because they are a bunch of troglodytes.

That would imply there was a mistake. We still have no closure on anything about Kavanaugh.

And?
Two wrongs don't make a right. That Republican Troglodytes exist too and they may be more slimy than the democrat ones doesn't change the fact that a chorus of hair pulling progressives were foaming at the mouth and screaming till their necks were raw in faux outrage in order to get easy votes about ... something that may have never happened.
And they didn't apologize or even admit their mistake.
Because they are troglodytes.

Uh huh except it does. Look at history of anything. The winner determines what is “right”. The moral dimension is simply another space where ideologies battle. Taking the high road is good only when it actually works. Otherwise, you just look like a ing moron. If credibility and reputation were so effective, most corporations would be out of business. Luckily for them, both voters and consumers are easily duped.

[PointOfViewGun]

The point I am trying to make is that some democrat troglodytes from all strata of the Democrat party tried to score easy points by passing judgement on Kavanaugh and landed on their faces when the accusations completely collapsed. And then, they didn't apologize nor, like NYT, said "Wooopsie! We rushed to judge it won't happen again."

That wasn't really your initial position. You're practically doing the exact same thing you're accusing "some" Democrats of doing.

[alhoon]

That wasn't really your initial position. You're practically doing the exact same thing you're accusing "some" Democrats of doing.

No, it was my initial position.

So... New York Times made a "wooopsie!" in the latest round of allegations against Kavanaugh.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/m...ugh/index.html <=== CNN which is anti-GOP.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ugh-story.html

In short, remember aaaall those renewed screams about how horrible Kavanaugh was and all?
Apparently, the "victim" of his attack didn't recall the incident.

Now, I should expect Beto O Rourke and the troglodyte bootlickers in his team to apologize for jumping the gun and saying things like these: https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/stat...11095416639488
but I don't hold my breath. After all, Progressives don't care for the truth*. Kavanaugh is "of the other side" so whether he did what he was accused of or not, doesn't matter to them.

*(Not that Conservatives do, but this is rant on progressives).

Not to mention, that I don't accuse "some" democrats for changing their narrative once the whole thing was revealed.
I accuse them for not changing their narrative and apologizing for their mistake and their rush to accuse someone-on-the-other-side after the whole thing was revealed.

They didn’t collapse lol. The inquiries were completely stonewalled. That’s not Democrats landing on their face. That’s republicans smashing their faces in.

Even CNN admits the troglodytes rushed to condemn. And apologies but someone saying "35 years ago, I saw him doing that while drunk in college!" when the woman in the eye of the storm says "I remember nothing" in my opinion means there is no ground for the accusations.
Innocent until proven Guilty + "Yeah, right, as we will trust the memory of a random guy 35 years later".

That would imply there was a mistake.

As I said, even CNN admits it was a mistake.
And the authors of the Kavanaugh book that the democrat troglodytes turned to their flag also said it was a mistake to condemn.

And so... what happened after even CNN and the authors admitted the rush to condemn was a mistake? Nothing. No apology, no admission of error or wrongdoing.

Keep in mind, that the troglodytes didn't get your stance of "Perhaps this event indeed happened", they were screaming "OMG! Impeaaach!!!" without considering that this may have never happened. They moved to condemn based on an op-ed that was quickly recalled and corrected in their haste to one-up one another in attacking the "evil ones of the other side".

Uh huh except it does. Look at history of anything. The winner determines what is “right”. The moral dimension is simply another space where ideologies battle. Taking the high road is good only when it actually works. Otherwise, you just look like a ing moron. If credibility and reputation were so effective, most corporations would be out of business. Luckily for them, both voters and consumers are easily duped.

We're not talking about what is effective, we are talking about what is right.
The most effective way for the USA to deal with Afghanistan in 2001 would be to gas areas the Taliban hold-outs and Al Qaeda were expected to be hiding killing 200000 innocent civilians and 10000 enemies while leaving infrastructure mostly intact.
Also since Al-Qaeda fired first and the Taliban shielded them, it wouldn't be a "problem" according to "two wrongs make a right" to kill countless civilians.

The above example is simply to demonstrate how flawed and horrible the "two wrongs make a right" is.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, it was my initial position.

Not really though. It's evident from the language you use. As your initial assertion turned out to be false you tried to limit the scope to create a defensible position. Democrats in general became some Democrats, Democrats not making a fuss about investigation limitations got ignored and deflected by you. You're basically trying to perform a fallacious deduction. You have your conclusion set and you're trying to wiggle out a scope and details to create a false narrative to keep the conclusion alive.

[Love Mountain]

Even CNN admits the troglodytes rushed to condemn. And apologies but someone saying "35 years ago, I saw him doing that while drunk in college!" when the woman in the eye of the storm says "I remember nothing" in my opinion means there is no ground for the accusations.
Innocent until proven Guilty + "Yeah, right, as we will trust the memory of a random guy 35 years later".

The opinion page article? I'm sorry alhoon, but I don't consider that to be the opinion of CNN. Perhaps the opinion of some, or even many, liberals like yourself. Moreover, Kavanaugh wasn't on trial. He wasn't charged with a crime. He was being questioned on whether he was fit to serve on the highest judicial authority in the country. I'm perfectly fine with having higher standards for that position than "being innocent".

As I said, even CNN admits it was a mistake.
And the authors of the Kavanaugh book that the democrat troglodytes turned to their flag also said it was a mistake to condemn.

And so... what happened after even CNN and the authors admitted the rush to condemn was a mistake? Nothing. No apology, no admission of error or wrongdoing.

Keep in mind, that the troglodytes didn't get your stance of "Perhaps this event indeed happened", they were screaming "OMG! Impeaaach!!!" without considering that this may have never happened. They moved to condemn based on an op-ed that was quickly recalled and corrected in their haste to one-up one another in attacking the "evil ones of the other side".

Considering the circumstances of Kavanaugh's very spot on SCOTUS, I don't see these screams as premature. If anything, they are long overdue and the only reason we tolerate such nonsense in this day and age, is because this day and age is full of similar nonsense to a point where we don't even know where to start clearing it out. Not that we can, with the American Taliban sitting in all three branches.

We're not talking about what is effective, we are talking about what is right.
The most effective way for the USA to deal with Afghanistan in 2001 would be to gas areas the Taliban hold-outs and Al Qaeda were expected to be hiding killing 200000 innocent civilians and 10000 enemies while leaving infrastructure mostly intact.
Also since Al-Qaeda fired first and the Taliban shielded them, it wouldn't be a "problem" according to "two wrongs make a right" to kill countless civilians.

The above example is simply to demonstrate how flawed and horrible the "two wrongs make a right" is.

The most effective way for USA to deal with Afghanistan would be to do what we did in Serbia. I.E. the "we did the right thing and we have the biggest guns so stfu" sort of deal. And look at where it's brought us, 20 years later it's still "controversial" rather than being an Iraq.

[alhoon]

Not really though. It's evident from the language you use. As your initial assertion turned out to be false you tried to limit the scope to create a defensible position. Democrats in general became some Democrats, Democrats not making a fuss about investigation limitations got ignored and deflected by you. You're basically trying to perform a fallacious deduction. You have your conclusion set and you're trying to wiggle out a scope and details to create a false narrative to keep the conclusion alive.

No, your conclusions about my position were simply wrong. Which is often the case as demonstrated in this thread. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. My wording is clear in the quote I used above (which doesn't mention "democrats in general" or even the word democrat) and you made a clearly false assumption about my position, a demonstrably false assumption as my quote of my initial position clearly shows. When I am wrong I admit it as I have done in other cases.

The opinion page article? I'm sorry alhoon, but I don't consider that to be the opinion of CNN. Perhaps the opinion of some, or even many, liberals like yourself. Moreover, Kavanaugh wasn't on trial. He wasn't charged with a crime. He was being questioned on whether he was fit to serve on the highest judicial authority in the country. I'm perfectly fine with having higher standards for that position than "being innocent".

I don't necessarily disagree with that, this is a viable and realistic position.
But I am not a liberal (in the American politics sense, or even in the classic sense). I am a conservative that dislikes Trump and has some economic-liberal views. A moderate rightwing.

However... that's not what the troglodytes did. Accusations against Kavanaugh by the "jump on the newest anti-Trump train before the others!!!!1111" group were completely premature and based on what was a mistake by NYT.
Despite Kavanaugh having been in drunken parties in college (which admittedly doesn't paint him in the best light), Kavanaugh had very good relations with female progressive lawyers to the point that the author of the article compares him with her boss: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Now, the accusations of Ford were serious accusations. The accuser was there and described things that certainly don't praise the judgment of a judge. But Ford's story had it's holes. I don't believe she was completely lying or something, but I think she has forgot some things and perhaps in her fear, has "embellished" some things. Again, not lying out of purpose.
In the end, what I think happened with Ford was that a drunk Kavanaugh danced with her a bit too aggressively and made unwanted advances and Ford was scared and scared a lot... but that was not Kavanaugh's intention. A lot can be said on whether "not my intention and I was too drunk to realize my advances were completely unwelcome, improper and worse of all, they were scaring Ford". Based on that alone, I am not sure Kavanaugh was a good candidate. But people change and I would have to go through what he did in the next 30 years.


HOWEVER: That was not the case with the latest round of accusations. The "victim" was not victimized. We have the case of someone thinking he saw something during a drunken party and even the authors of the book say that jumping to accusations over what someone said he thinks he saw happening 35 years ago was a mistake.

The most effective way for USA to deal with Afghanistan would be to do what we did in Serbia. I.E. the "we did the right thing and we have the biggest guns so stfu" sort of deal. And look at where it's brought us, 20 years later it's still "controversial" rather than being an Iraq.

What USA did to Serbia (in the 2nd round) was damn wrong. And it wouldn't have worked in Afghanistan because Afghanistan is not Serbia.

So, "Two wrongs make a right" eh? Let me think: How about Trump's administration immigrant concentration camps for children? If two wrongs make a right, then since the immigrants entered USA illegally, the Trump administration is within their "Two wrongs=right" to imprison children separate from their parents in bad conditions or hold the parents for long without trial.
I am completely against that and I consider it a severe violation of human rights. But "two wrongs make a right" advocates find it fine.

And now, this:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/2389375001/

A moronic progressive professor pushes for "Guilt-trip course for white students" class in all universities: "a mandatory course on black history and white privilege "
Why the hell would an engineer need to go through that? And it would be less transparent if it wasn't about "Race and ethnicity" but about the divide between poor and rich. Sure, much of that divide is along ethnic and racial lines and much of it is because of racism. But while there is a smaller percentage of destitute white people and the median income for white people is higher... the children of Robert L. Johnson or Janice B. Howroyd have little to be worried about. Yes it was harder for those black entrepreneurs to get started and reach where they did. But their children are as privileged as the children of white millionaires.
On the other hand, the children of a white single teen-mother alcoholic may get a minor benefit for not being black but they will have a real hard time in life despite of it.

[Love Mountain]

I don't necessarily disagree with that, this is a viable and realistic position.
But I am not a liberal (in the American politics sense, or even in the classic sense). I am a conservative that dislikes Trump and has some economic-liberal views. A moderate rightwing.

Yeah okay. I'm also a moderate right-winger who dislikes Trump. Watch the rest of the Forum laugh at me.

However... that's not what the troglodytes did. Accusations against Kavanaugh by the "jump on the newest anti-Trump train before the others!!!!1111" group were completely premature and based on what was a mistake by NYT.
Despite Kavanaugh having been in drunken parties in college (which admittedly doesn't paint him in the best light), Kavanaugh had very good relations with female progressive lawyers to the point that the author of the article compares him with her boss: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Now, the accusations of Ford were serious accusations. The accuser was there and described things that certainly don't praise the judgment of a judge. But Ford's story had it's holes. I don't believe she was completely lying or something, but I think she has forgot some things and perhaps in her fear, has "embellished" some things. Again, not lying out of purpose.
In the end, what I think happened with Ford was that a drunk Kavanaugh danced with her a bit too aggressively and made unwanted advances and Ford was scared and scared a lot... but that was not Kavanaugh's intention. A lot can be said on whether "not my intention and I was too drunk to realize my advances were completely unwelcome, improper and worse of all, they were scaring Ford". Based on that alone, I am not sure Kavanaugh was a good candidate. But people change and I would have to go through what he did in the next 30 years.


HOWEVER: That was not the case with the latest round of accusations. The "victim" was not victimized. We have the case of someone thinking he saw something during a drunken party and even the authors of the book say that jumping to accusations over what someone said he thinks he saw happening 35 years ago was a mistake.

Firstly, if Kavanaugh "changed", he wouldn't have acted the way he did at the hearing. That said, embarrassment and anger is understandable, but that disqualifies you from office as far as I'm concerned. Being on SCOTUS requires maturity and self-control, not somebody who's still stuck in a mindset of a high-schooler.

Secondly, I don't really see what the big deal is. A redaction was made, but it's not as if this brought on a new angle. This is a development of an on-going story. As far as I'm concerned, jumping onto any new bit and piece of information that condemns Kavanaugh is more than warranted. We can't even have an investigation of the SCOTUS without it being overtly political. All involved parties should welcome the idea, especially if they are innocent.

What USA did to Serbia (in the 2nd round) was damn wrong. And it wouldn't have worked in Afghanistan because Afghanistan is not Serbia.

So, "Two wrongs make a right" eh? Let me think: How about Trump's administration immigrant concentration camps for children? If two wrongs make a right, then since the immigrants entered USA illegally, the Trump administration is within their "Two wrongs=right" to imprison children separate from their parents in bad conditions or hold the parents for long without trial.
I am completely against that and I consider it a severe violation of human rights. But "two wrongs make a right" advocates find it fine.

That would imply that illegal immigration is wrong, whereas I see it about as wrong as prostitution. To underline the actual point, the only people who cry about the bombing of Yugoslavia, are the people who were bombed. The rest of the world has moved on. I very much doubt that Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be forgotten the same way. I'm not making a value judgement here, I'm saying that people will understand national interest much better than liberal hypocrisy.

And now, this:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/2389375001/

A moronic progressive professor pushes for "Guilt-trip course for white students" class in all universities: "a mandatory course on black history and white privilege "
Why the hell would an engineer need to go through that? And it would be less transparent if it wasn't about "Race and ethnicity" but about the divide between poor and rich. Sure, much of that divide is along ethnic and racial lines and much of it is because of racism. But while there is a smaller percentage of destitute white people and the median income for white people is higher... the children of Robert L. Johnson or Janice B. Howroyd have little to be worried about. Yes it was harder for those black entrepreneurs to get started and reach where they did. But their children are as privileged as the children of white millionaires.
On the other hand, the children of a white single teen-mother alcoholic may get a minor benefit for not being black but they will have a real hard time in life despite of it.

You don't think its important for Americans to learn about racism and slavery? It's one thing to say, "While important, it shouldn't be mandatory", and another to be offended by the idea in general. No, it shouldn't be "transparent". That's insulting to everyone involved, and specifically the history of African Americans in this country. If you're worried about the future engineers studying in our campuses, then you should be equally offended by any focus on "non-essential" courses. Almost every college curriculum requires a mixture of a bunch of courses that are "useless" no matter what degree you are pursuing. That's the bigger issue if you want to pursue that angle.

I'm really disheartened by all the fear of discussing racism. You don't make it go away by sweeping it under the rug. You can't have a conversation about art and drama without people talking about how "sick" they are of feminism, racism, or whatnot in film. I'd love to see all the "centrists" and conservatives reactions if George Orwell was published today instead of the last century. Their heads would probably explode from the outrage of political writing and commentary.

[alhoon]

You don't think its important for Americans to learn about racism and slavery? It's one thing to say, "While important, it shouldn't be mandatory", and another to be offended by the idea in general. No, it shouldn't be "transparent". That's insulting to everyone involved, and specifically the history of African Americans in this country. If you're worried about the future engineers studying in our campuses, then you should be equally offended by any focus on "non-essential" courses. Almost every college curriculum requires a mixture of a bunch of courses that are "useless" no matter what degree you are pursuing. That's the bigger issue if you want to pursue that angle.

I'm really disheartened by all the fear of discussing racism. You don't make it go away by sweeping it under the rug. You can't have a conversation about art and drama without people talking about how "sick" they are of feminism, racism, or whatnot in film. I'd love to see all the "centrists" and conservatives reactions if George Orwell was published today instead of the last century. Their heads would probably explode from the outrage of political writing and commentary.

Well, I am not against Americans learning about racism and slavery in history in middle school or high school. I am against guilt-trip courses that are mandatory.
But you make an interesting point. OF COURSE I am against the BS classes! I mean, as an engineer studying in non-progressive Greece I was forced (no choice, forced) to take crap like "industrial sociology" (or something, not sure of the title in English - a course where a commie professor was talking about the evils of industrialism industrial society and how it dehumanizes and some crap. ) and "Philosophy of Science" and another one crap-course that I don't remember.
I went to the professors and asked "Why the feck do I have to go through that?" and I got some crap about complete education or some other BS. When I asked "and why do we only do the commie books?" more or less they answered me "these books are not commie books" (well, they were right, but they seemed as such) and "the professor is a member of the Communist Party of Greece and he picks the books for his course and we can do nothing about it"

Frankly, half of the venom you see me spilling against leftwings, communists and progressives is because of these torture-courses where I had to read BS that I completely disagreed with, that were complete rubbish, that were trying to give me wrong information and an erroneous way of thinking that would make my work as an engineer and a scientist harder.

I started discussions in the general assembly of the students about this crap but the general assembly was dominated by anarchists and far leftwings. Out of 400 students, barely 80 were going to the general assembly, and from those 80, 30 or so were far leftwings and the rest were people that saw the course as easy grade and told me to shove it. Democracy, I know, so the general assembly didn't do crap.
The professors also didn't do crap. I was told more or less that I will understand the value of these lessons later. Well, I didn't. I find them as useless now as I did back then.


Anyway, at least Racism is important to a lot of people in USA. It is over-talked and white privilege is minor but at least it's important to a lot of people.
But stuff like "Industrial Sociology"? "Philosophy of science"?
Come on! If someone wants to read those, he can get them from the nearest BS (<=== Bernie Sanders) store.

[sumskilz]

Frankly, half of the venom you see me spilling against leftwings, communists and progressives is because of these torture-courses where I had to read BS that I completely disagreed with, that were complete rubbish, that were trying to give me wrong information and an erroneous way of thinking that would make my work as an engineer and a scientist harder...

Anyway, at least Racism is important to a lot of people in USA. It is over-talked and white privilege is minor but at least it's important to a lot of people.
But stuff like "Industrial Sociology"? "Philosophy of science"?
Come on! If someone wants to read those, he can get them from the nearest BS (<=== Bernie Sanders) store.

The mainstream in industrial sociology is Marxist, but there isn't anything particularly left wing about philosophy of science, conceptually anyway. You no doubt subscribe to a number of positions that came out of the philosophy of science, such as falsifiability, but I imagine you were just exposed to the antipositivist aspects that are trendy:

[alhoon]

I admitted there was not much leftwing stuff in Philosophy of Science aside of the crap from our communist professor. It was though very, very boring and completely useless.

[conon394]

I admitted there was not much leftwing stuff in Philosophy of Science aside of the crap from our communist professor. It was though very, very boring and completely useless.

Doubt that you how many engineers or programmers or whatever India and China call them I have worked with that came out mills where all they did is get their nominal degree. I suppose they did not waste time. But they never wasted time learning to write a paper, lead a team or do anything in a not permissive plug in the round peg to the round hole kinda world - you know the real one. OMG I got figure out how to write a paper the die hard communist wants to see, guess I will learn how to research and BS and write a friking paper. A well researched study or paper is still well researched paper in Women's' studies or Biophysics or Archeology.

[alhoon]

https://www.businessinsider.sg/virgi...nouns-2019-10/

In short: Teacher loses his job over idiotic school policies about using transgender pronouns.
Sure, sure, the teacher violated school policy ... that should have never been there. Trying to enforce that gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder is a bad, bad policy. I am not talking about which bathrooms transsexuals should use, I am talking about policies demanding people to use "Assumed" pronouns instead of the real ones. Yes, I said "real" ones. A person that insists he or she is brought from the 17th century is considered delusional. A person that insists he or she is a different sex than what biology says is also delusional IMO. When a person born white was insisting she felt black, progressives lost their poop and she couldn't find a job etc. When a person born as a woman insists she is a man, the school district demands that teachers refer to her as she pleases.
In a way, empowering a person's delusions.

Bad, bad policy.
Should the teacher had followed that stupid policy? Weeeeell... that's a different issue. You can't really pick and choose which policies you adhere to but when it comes down to downright harmful ones, perhaps he acted correctly. I would let the courts decide on that.

[alhoon]

And here's one more rant. Well, not exactly my rant, but a rant on progressives anyway, that I mostly agree with:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...culture-comedy
In short, the director of the 3 hangover movies that made the new Joker movie said people can't do real comedy anymore because of the snowflakes. So, he stopped making comedies.
Because progressives are killing them, with the squeaky wheel progressives that while they are a tiny minority, they are active on tweeter so they get exposure and lazy journalists report on what the 2%-3% of the Western world that uses Tweeter often talks about.