Show us an example where the NYT questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
How's this? Do you understand when you give people a platform that calls for excluding treating trans-women as women, you're questioning their right to exist. Are you suggesting that a trans-woman should be compelled to use a men's bathroom? I'm beginning to wonder if you're gone past troll status into true **** status. I find it incomprehensible that you don't understand these basic truths. In conclusion, **** off.
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
Nice sentiment, but GLAAD isn't talking about those theories when it refers to "settled science".
Show us an example where the NYT questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
How's this? Do you understand when you give people a platform that calls for excluding treating trans-women as women, you're questioning their right to exist. Are you suggesting that a trans-woman should be compelled to use a men's bathroom? I'm beginning to wonder if you're gone past troll status into true **** status. I find it incomprehensible that you don't understand these basic truths. In conclusion, **** off.
I'll take that as an admission that your assertion that the NYT has questioned the right to exist of "a group of people" is a bogus claim.
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
Nice sentiment, but GLAAD isn't talking about those theories when it refers to "settled science".
Paul, you first posted the Wemple piece, about the open letter and the NY Times writers and contributors, on February 25, and it's now March 1 and you obviously still haven't read the actual letter that is the subject of Wemple's piece and the other discussions.
So you're not in a position to correct anyone on who said what and what was said.
Not sure what they're doing on Mastadon. Anybody know?
Whatever they like, as it's a network of private servers. You can start up an instance dedicated to praising Putin and Musk if you like, and no one can stop you.
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
Nice sentiment, but GLAAD isn't talking about those theories when it refers to "settled science".
You know that's beside the point, Paul.
In addition to reading the letter from the NY Times contributors for the first time, why don't you read the GLAAD letter you keep mentioning? Maybe you're relying too much on something you read talking about that document, instead of reading it for yourself. Then you could be more specific about what "GLAAD isn't [or is] talking about".
Do a Dave Schmidt experiment and when reading the thread replace "Paul" with "Dave" and you'll have no trouble understanding -- and I think agreeing -- with my posts.
huh? - now I think dave is going off on a lot of tangents.
The science that is allegedly "settled" (sic) refers to current "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare," especially the minimum age for which irreversible interventions are indicated for minors.
In addition to the fact that science is never "settled," what constitutes "best practices" for gender dysphoria is by no means "settled" in the medical field, as current shifts toward raising minimum ages and other changes in best-practices are trending in European countries.
To suggest that the NY Times, or anyone else, should refrain from discussing these developments or any other aspects of "gender-affirming treatment," is antithetical to scientific inquiry and determining best-practices. And thus contrary to the interests of children experiencing gender dysphoria.
And there's also the public's right and need to know.
But the over-the-top wokeness activists seek to shame well-meaning people into conformity by falsely alleging that the science is "settled" and shaming them into thinking that if they ask questions they are "anti-transgender",
Paul, your responses show that you didn't read the letter. There's no point in engaging with your "arguments", or entertaining your insults of the signatories, if you're going to refuse to inform yourself about the actual open letter.
My post above quotes directly from the GLAAD letter. So @nohero's allegation that I didn't read the letter is absurd on its face.
GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) involves "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare" that have been approved by many US medical organizations. But as I pointed out, those practices are being questioned and modified by European medical organizations, which in any rational context proves that the allegation that the science is "settled" is false, https://www.thefp.com/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-gender in addition to the fact that science is never "settled" by definition.
In case anyone doubts what I've said about GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) below are the relevant screenshots from the letter.
@nohero, if you need more information about "the letter" to engage, please don't hesitate to write.
Do a Dave Schmidt experiment and when reading the thread replace "Paul" with "Dave" and you'll have no trouble understanding -- and I think agreeing -- with my posts.
This is like Scott Adams telling everyone that he's oppressed because he's black.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I replied to this earlier on your point about GLAAD, but I should have also pointed out how interesting it is that you agreed with the NLRA point that I made -- because Dave agreed with it.
Are you suggesting there isn't enough time to rebut the Babylon Bee's tweets?
Edited to Add: And you need to be a little more forthcoming about what was meant by "evil" in the decision, and compare that with the Babylon Bee.
I’m suggesting that the mass media today are much faster, broader and almost infinitely more voluminous than Brandeis may have ever imagined — making the kind of deliberation he described harder — and that if you take him seriously you’ll seek out counterspeech to his own doctrine (if you haven’t already) to inform yourself about questions being raised about it in our digital era.
(In the excerpt I quoted from Whitney v. California, Brandeis used “evil” to describe “falsehood and fallacies.” I put “evil” in quotation marks in my comment to direct readers back to his use.)
GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) involves "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare" that have been approved by many US medical organizations. But as I pointed out, those practices are being questioned and modified by European medical organizations, which in any rational context proves that the allegation that the science is "settled" is false,
In case anyone doubts what I've said about GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) below are the relevant screenshots from the letter.
I don't think you've bothered to familiarize yourself with the details of what GLAAD is talking about (we already know you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the letter from NY Times contributors that Wemple was talking about). The article you're citing isn't about the GLAAD letter.
Before commenting on the GLAAD letter, and concluding that the article you cited is pertinent, you really should go back and familiarize yourself with what was said by the NY Times contributors, which is what started this.
@nohero, if you need more information about "the letter" to engage, please don't hesitate to write.
That's not "the letter" that you started the conversation with, when you told us to read the Wemple article. It's about a different letter.
Reality check: This is how I started the conversation. There are links to the GLAAD letter and the Wemple article (the underscored link) which itself references the GLAAD letter.
I'll take that as an admission that your assertion that the NYT has questioned the right to exist of "a group of people" is a bogus claim.
Take it how you will, but you're wrong. It's also clear that you haven't a clue as to what "gender-affirming" care is. Now, back to our regular programming and **** off.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I never said that GLAAD could censor the NY Times. I said that GLAAD is "advocating censorship".
What I said:
"The advocates are advocating censorship. They have the right to advocate that. And I have the right to criticize that. No conflation."
What the advocates (GLAAD) said:
"Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED."
The definition of "censor"
you're slicing the baloney pretty thin there.
either way, GLAADS has no power to suppress anything in the NYT. What they're doing doesn't even fit the dictionary definition. So your continued use of the word "censor" is absurd.
GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) involves "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare" that have been approved by many US medical organizations. But as I pointed out, those practices are being questioned and modified by European medical organizations, which in any rational context proves that the allegation that the science is "settled" is false,
In case anyone doubts what I've said about GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) below are the relevant screenshots from the letter.
I don't think you've bothered to familiarize yourself with the details of what GLAAD is talking about (we already know you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the letter from NY Times contributors that Wemple was talking about). The article you're citing isn't about the GLAAD letter.
Before commenting on the GLAAD letter, and concluding that the article you cited is pertinent, you really should go back and familiarize yourself with what was said by the NY Times contributors, which is what started this.
I've made an argument and backed it up with specifics. You can't rebut the argument, so in true @nohero style, you obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. And then you obfuscate some more.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I never said that GLAAD could censor the NY Times. I said that GLAAD is "advocating censorship".
What I said:
"The advocates are advocating censorship. They have the right to advocate that. And I have the right to criticize that. No conflation."
What the advocates (GLAAD) said:
"Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED."
The definition of "censor"
you're slicing the baloney pretty thin there.
either way, GLAADS has no power to suppress anything in the NYT. What they're doing doesn't even fit the dictionary definition. So your continued use of the word "censor" is absurd.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I replied to this earlier on your point about GLAAD, but I should have also pointed out how interesting it is that you agreed with the NLRA point that I made -- because Dave agreed with it.
I would have agreed with it if I understood it. I asked a few times about who the "woke" were in your comments, and who was being "censored." The only group I understood you to say was trying to censor anyone was GLAAD.
you need to make your points more clearly. The way daveschmidt does.
@nohero, if you need more information about "the letter" to engage, please don't hesitate to write.
That's not "the letter" that you started the conversation with, when you told us to read the Wemple article. It's about a different letter.
Reality check: This is how I started the conversation. There are links to the GLAAD letter and the Wemple article (the underscored link) which itself references the GLAAD letter.
Look, if you want to defend not even looking at the relevant information, to understand what the GLAAD letter is about, that's up to you. I prefer the "reality check" of looking at the readily-available material that provides a complete picture of the debate.
And, seriously, you're misunderstanding what the GLAAD letter is addressing and were mislead into relying on that author you keep citing.
I don't think you've bothered to familiarize yourself with the details of what GLAAD is talking about (we already know you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the letter from NY Times contributors that Wemple was talking about). The article you're citing isn't about the GLAAD letter.
Before commenting on the GLAAD letter, and concluding that the article you cited is pertinent, you really should go back and familiarize yourself with what was said by the NY Times contributors, which is what started this.
I've made an argument and backed it up with specifics. You can't rebut the argument, so in true @nohero style, you obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. And then you obfuscate some more.
"Obfuscate" is yet another word you're misusing. I'm "rebutting" your "argument" by pointing out a truth - you haven't even bothered to learn all the facts.
Reality check: This is how I started the conversation. There are links to the GLAAD letter and the Wemple article (the underscored link) which itself references the GLAAD letter.
Holy cow, maybe you don't even know that the Wemple article isn't about the GLAAD letter. It mentions the letter in a single parenthetical: "(GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections.)" But the article itself is about a different letter entirely, and which now it seems you're still unaware of.
I wonder if it would be "censorship" if a group of climate scientists wrote an open letter to a news organization and demanded they stop giving equal time to scientists who go against the settled science and oppose the scientific consensus on climate change and stop "just asking questions" about whether global warming is really occurring.
I wonder if it would be "censorship" if a group of climate scientists wrote an open letter to a news organization and demanded they stop giving equal time to scientists who go against the settled science and oppose the scientific consensus on climate change and stop "just asking questions" about whether global warming is really occurring.
For some reason, you are still stuck in an illogical exercise of conflating advocacy of censorship with censorship itself.
Reality check: This is how I started the conversation. There are links to the GLAAD letter and the Wemple article (the underscored link) which itself references the GLAAD letter.
Holy cow, maybe you don't even know that the Wemple article isn't about the GLAAD letter. It mentions the letter in a single parenthetical: "(GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections.)" But the article itself is about a different letter entirely, and which now it seems you're still unaware of.
@nohero doubling down obfuscating that he's unable to rebut my arguments about the GLAAD letter.
I don't think you've bothered to familiarize yourself with the details of what GLAAD is talking about (we already know you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the letter from NY Times contributors that Wemple was talking about). The article you're citing isn't about the GLAAD letter.
Before commenting on the GLAAD letter, and concluding that the article you cited is pertinent, you really should go back and familiarize yourself with what was said by the NY Times contributors, which is what started this.
I've made an argument and backed it up with specifics. You can't rebut the argument, so in true @nohero style, you obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. And then you obfuscate some more.
"Obfuscate" is yet another word you're misusing. I'm "rebutting" your "argument" by pointing out a truth - you haven't even bothered to learn all the facts.
The only thing that is truthful here is that you put "rebutting" in quotes.
@nohero doubling down obfuscating that he's unable to rebut my arguments about the GLAAD letter.
Beyond your objection that a “censorious” campaign by a communist advocacy group is over-the-top communism, what are your arguments about the GLAAD letter?
The science that is allegedly "settled" (sic) refers to current "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare," especially the minimum age for which irreversible interventions are indicated for minors.
In addition to the fact that science is never "settled," what constitutes "best practices" for gender dysphoria is by no means "settled" in the medical field, as current shifts toward raising minimum ages and other changes in best-practices are trending in European countries.
To suggest that the NY Times, or anyone else, should refrain from discussing these developments or any other aspects of "gender-affirming treatment," is antithetical to scientific inquiry and determining best-practices. And thus contrary to the interests of children experiencing gender dysphoria.
And there's also the public's right and need to know.
But the over-the-top wokeness activists seek to shame well-meaning people into conformity by falsely alleging that the science is "settled" and shaming them into thinking that if they ask questions they are "anti-transgender",
Paul, your responses show that you didn't read the letter. There's no point in engaging with your "arguments", or entertaining your insults of the signatories, if you're going to refuse to inform yourself about the actual open letter.
My post above quotes directly from the GLAAD letter. So @nohero's allegation that I didn't read the letter is absurd on its face.
GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) involves "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare" that have been approved by many US medical organizations. But as I pointed out, those practices are being questioned and modified by European medical organizations, which in any rational context proves that the allegation that the science is "settled" is false, https://www.thefp.com/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-gender in addition to the fact that science is never "settled" by definition.
In case anyone doubts what I've said about GLAAD's reference to "settled science" (sic) below are the relevant screenshots from the letter.
@nohero, if you need more information about "the letter" to engage, please don't hesitate to write.
How's this? Do you understand when you give people a platform that calls for excluding treating trans-women as women, you're questioning their right to exist. Are you suggesting that a trans-woman should be compelled to use a men's bathroom? I'm beginning to wonder if you're gone past troll status into true **** status. I find it incomprehensible that you don't understand these basic truths. In conclusion, **** off.