Categories Society
(A thread for whoever feels like reading)
Neighborhood gents, what\u2019s something you\u2019ve learned about feminism (or gained a better understanding of) that you think other men should know?
— feminist next door (@emrazz) February 19, 2021
Note - the quoted is a friendly/good faith replier. https://t.co/048kuxxX6q
I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.
To me, very easy things to get behind.
And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.
Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.
Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta
All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.
To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:
Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women
District 1: @SupervisorAlejo
District 2: @PhillipsForSupe
District 3: @SupervisorLopez
District 4: @WendyRootAskew
District 5: @MaryLAdams https://t.co/PbrHnXPTGY

Thanks to the Grupo Flor team for showing me their Salinas facility this week. Glad to hear more about their cannabis retail operations. pic.twitter.com/3xSiObpUSS
— Rep. Jimmy Panetta (@RepJimmyPanetta) January 29, 2021
Here again is a summary of the Christian Abolitionists’ arguments against enslavers’ appeals to the Scripture: Thread
Slavery is not a sin. It is never outlawed by the Bible. Manstealing is but not slavery.
— micah (@laborersarefew) February 20, 2021
Murdering babies and sodomy are sins according the the Bible. YOU don't get to make up things as you go Dolly, neither do I or Malachi.
The equal opportunities section in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female (including trans female)
Male (including trans male)
Non-binary
Other.
1/12

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/12

Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that. 'Other' is not a valid option.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/12

'trans female', 'trans male' and 'Non-binary' are also not valid options are not used or defined in the Act.
4/12
You then ask "Is your gender the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?"
'Gender' at birth is a meaningless concept and 'gender' is not 'assigned' at birth: sex is observed and recorded and is immutable.
5/12
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
Can you game out where it would go it theoretically Trump did enact some EO demanding the impounding of voting machines? As that\u2019s clearly the game. Like he signs it, then what? Do marshals listen or refuse? Do states sue and get an emergency injunction and that\u2019s the end?
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 21, 2020
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.