The costs of trans visibility

I believe you, but you should know that saying

"Rachel Maddow is a centrist. She's a corporatist war hawk ffs."

Comes across as angry.

And when you feel you have to insult the person you're replying to in each post you come across as an a$$hole.

Which you probably don't in real life.
This forum, and the internet in general, would be much better if everyone remembered they're interacting with a real person, and one they know very little about, instead of assuming the other guy is a stereotype of the enemy.

Not that I don't believe generally what I'm saying, but I'm just playing around most of the time on 2p2. And I only post like an ******* in politics.

(I think I'm being an ******* in some OOT thread, but it's a politics subject and I view subscribed threads and can't see what forum I'm in, but it's a Trump thread I think and doesn't belong in OOT)

rob, how badly do you want to bang rachel maddow?

this is the middle-class version of 'sandy hook was fake' and you ought to have grown out of it by now

'The entities' are made up of humans with very boring and standard motivations, none of which involve the division of society over trans-rights, and who occasionally put their leg in the wrong trouser slot in the morning

I barely know what she looks like. I guess it depends on how good she is in bed.

Assuming you think Sandy Hook is the low class version, what's the upper class version?

Sometimes, yes, other times, i am not so sure.

What would be the very boring and standard motivation for Soros to fund with millions obscure district attorney races in favour of ultra-radical leftists who didn't prosecute theft up to 1000 $ of value, nor car stealing and stuff like that, in rich communities?

Some proof employers discriminate against non-binary job seekers

What's particularly interesting is that basically everyone responding to the tweet which was made to communicate these results, agrees and would discriminate as well against they/them pronouns in a job application, usually because it's a sign of potential troubles if you hire that person for obvious reasons.

https://twitter.com/JohnHolbein1/status/...

Nice to see so much sanity in the answers.

lol what? Have you been following American politics over the past two years or so?

Very dishonest cropping in your quote.

by Luciom P

Some proof employers discriminate against non-binary job seekers

What's particularly interesting is that basically everyone responding to the tweet which was made to communicate these results, agrees and would discriminate as well against they/them pronouns in a job application, usually because it's a sign of potential troubles if you hire that person for obvious reasons.

https://twitter.com/JohnHolbein1/status/...

Nice to

People discriminate against non-binary people and that is a good thing is quite the take.

And the reasons given make sense, as well as the counterexample of people writing MAGA in the resume, or being members of the proud boys, which would ingenerate the same effect.

Putting non binary pronouns in a job application is a political statement, that signals radicalism and activisms, things that are terrible for corporate culture in general.

Technically they aren't discriminating against non-binariness per se, rather against radical leftism

young rachel maddow

professional rachel reminding you that you're not man enough for her

rachel hangin with the boyz

Spoiler

Show

This is a direct quote from RM: "I'm a big lesbian who looks like a man. I'm not Anchor Babe and I'm never going to be"

The later pictures are who she is. Why do you have a problem with that?

Or, maybe, someone would just like to be referred to by their actual pronouns and not discriminated against by bigots who try to poorly justify discrimination of non-binary people.

The idea that a person has "his own pronouns" is a radical leftist idea, and a very divisive one, that's the point.

And if you signal political radicalism (especially a radicalism that is often accompanied by a deep hatred of the capitalist system) to an employer, he can and should take that into account.

Listing more stereotypes to justify discrimination isn't helping you. It is no different from an employer not hiring, say, black people because of stereotypes about radical political views they imagine black people having. That's just racism. What you are advocating for is bigotry pure and simple.

Discrimination when it's not about a protected class is not only legal but often reasonable, rational, appropriate. It's not about stereotypes, rather about statistical correlation.

You use those signals every time you make choices with incomplete information yourself as well, you don't go to a restaurant which signals to you elements which you know to be correlated to stuff you dislike in restaurants. You have behavioral red flags when choosing your partner. And so on.

Anything that signals radical leftism is a proper tool to select away radical leftists, which are very often more problematic than other people in many jobs.

Ya buddy, gender identity already is a "protected class" and it is illegal to engage in employment discrimination based on LGBT status in the US, in Canada, and many other places. And your bigoted calls for employment discrimination based on poor stereotypes of the political views of non-binary people are a great example of why gender identity SHOULD be a protected status.

there is no problem - think she's objectively a very attractive woman and... I think she's peak hotness holding up that striper (which is quite a large one btw and she took it on a lure too!)

not a fan of her holding by the gills, which severely increases mortality rate (mortality rate of catch and release for saltwater fish is alarmingly high - major reason why I keep most of what I catch because it'll often die anyway) - but if she's not catching and releasing then it's all fine

like seriously, up here in Maine you get about 10% of women trying to include photos with fish like that in order to pander to men and it's usually just some little baby fish etc - what rachel caught here is a legit trophy

100% would

Being a radical leftist isn't a protected class.

It's not about political views of non binary people, it's about pushing "your pronouns" when not asked, especially when they are uncommon.

Btw in the USA it's illegal to discriminate (for hiring) for gender identity in the actual opposite sex sense, not in the "non binary" sense.

Ie you cannot refuse to hire someone because he is a man who feels he is a woman or viceversa (you have to use other reasons), but it's not like any invention of any concept of gender identity has always to be accepted and non-discriminated against.

Because yes otherwise we are at the "attack helicopter identification" being protected by law which i don't think you want to be protected by law, nor that it is protected by law, do you?

again, your own bigotry biased you into thinking those were negative comments

I legit think she's beautiful

you truly are a bad person and what makes it even worse is you think you're the good guy going out there and attacking evil

in no way did it insult her or say anything negative about her yet you took it is a dig on her appearance

you're truly a repugnant individual that only sees what gets them riled up with false outrage because you want an excuse to be an @sshole dorothy

Lucio, I assure you that it's illegal to fire someone for being gay in America.

and i assure you being homosexual isn't a proxy of being a radical leftist.