Biden helps avert railway strike.

[SilentPony]

Are you okay with JK Rowing being doxxed and getting death threats?

What about someone who says/thinks that eleven or twelve year olds are too young to begin transitioning to a different gender?

Or someone thinking that a male who claims to be transgender, but is physically male (still has a penis and testicles), and had not begun transitioning should not be sent to a woman’s prison or the woman’s wing/floor/suite of a mental hospital?

What's with the transgender view of the world? There's a lot more to the world than just that.

But in order, yes Im okay with JK being doxxed, no Im not okay with death threats.

11 and 12 year olds can't transition, that's a Fox news talking point 100% made up: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...ve gender,special consents for these services.
You have to be 18 years or older or 16-17 with parental consent. Its a made up issue, designed to get people like you to ask people like me what I consider okay. And to that I say stop with the bullshit, its a made up issue. Worrying about 11 year olds getting sexual reassignment surgery is like worrying about the Nevada electoral count being stolen by...11 year olds. Trust me, they're not part of the process.

As for a prisoner, its a case by case basis. You can be transgender at the start of your journey without any care or medical treatment. Everyone starts somewhere. In those cases I trust the justice department and legal authorities to discover what's right. If this man is faking, and I dunno, rapes a female inmate, he gets transferred and charged with rape. But we don't have precog, we can't start treating people on crimes they might commit because three albinos in a hot-tub had a nightmare.

 

[twistedmic]

What's with the transgender view of the world? There's a lot more to the world than just that.

But in order, yes Im okay with JK being doxxed, no Im not okay with death threats.

11 and 12 year olds can't transition, that's a Fox news talking point 100% made up: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-mar-monte/patient-resources/gender-affirming-care#:~:text=In order to receive gender,special consents for these services.
You have to be 18 years or older or 16-17 with parental consent. Its a made up issue, designed to get people like you to ask people like me what I consider okay. And to that I say stop with the bullshit, its a made up issue. Worrying about 11 year olds getting sexual reassignment surgery is like worrying about the Nevada electoral count being stolen by...11 year olds. Trust me, they're not part of the process.

As for a prisoner, its a case by case basis. You can be transgender at the start of your journey without any care or medical treatment. Everyone starts somewhere. In those cases I trust the justice department and legal authorities to discover what's right. If this man is faking, and I dunno, rapes a female inmate, he gets transferred and charged with rape. But we don't have precog, we can't start treating people on crimes they might commit because three albinos in a hot-tub had a nightmare.

I was wrong on the minimum age for transitioning, even hormone replacement/puberty blocker drugs, I'll admit that fully.

I’m not too sure what I feel on the prisoner issue, other than I think that there would be some kind of medical record to show whether or not a prisoner had started hormone replacement therapy that could be used to cross check transgender claims.

As for JK Rowling, you are perfectly fine with the doxxing but not the direct consequences of the doxxing? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?

What good can possibly come from publicly revealing where someone lives when they have already been receiving online hate and vitriol?

Is Rowling being doxxed different than if the author/artist of Gender Queer, This One Summer or any other pro-LGBT book was doxxed by some Right-winger?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

As for JK Rowling, you are perfectly fine with the doxxing but not the direct consequences of the doxxing? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?

What good can possibly come from publicly revealing where someone lives when they have already been receiving online hate and vitriol?

Is Rowling being doxxed different than if the author/artist of Gender Queer, This One Summer or any other pro-LGBT book was doxxed by some Right-winger?

Well, JK Rowling lives in an historic Scottish castle that's listed by the tourism board and thus cannot be doxed in any way that matters, so there's that.

 

[Elijin]

Are you okay with JK Rowing being doxxed and getting death threats?

What about someone who says/thinks that eleven or twelve year olds are too young to begin transitioning to a different gender?

Or someone thinking that a male who claims to be transgender, but is physically male (still has a penis and testicles), and had not begun transitioning should not be sent to a woman’s prison or the woman’s wing/floor/suite of a mental hospital?

You keep trying to create these gotcha what ifs when the position taken is that the form of doxxing you're talking about is not okay.

Under the answer given all of these would be fine because all of them would be "Show the information to someone who can hold them accountable and see how they feel about it."

You keep going on trying to worm out the wrong moment, when silentpony has explicitly stated the tye of doxxing you're against (secure personal information, death threats, violence, etc) is wrong.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I like how in reality, when the government overrides the union, you recognize the government at odds with the workers, but as soon as we transition into your fantasy world where the government nationalizes the railways, you just operate under the assumption that the workers will get whatever they ask for.

It's a reasonable assumption in the counterfactual condition that Biden is a pro-labor president denoted by "IF Biden was a pro-labor president..."

Are you really this bad at reading and/or logic?

Legislation that prevents a strike has only one method that is morally defensible at its disposal: forcing employers to accept the demands of employees-- those that actually do the work. Biden has chosen a method that is indefensible, a method that lies somewhere between mass layoffs and slavery.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Roll-call here to see who voted which way on the railway vote: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490

AOC and Ilhan Omar voted Yea. Uhrm, what's the rationale there?

Some bullshit about having to vote yes in order to get other people to vote yes for the half-measure, probably, though they I'm sure they'd prefer that no one talked about their votes at all.

or they're high on the same crap Mayo Pete is on:

 

[tstorm823]

It's a reasonable assumption in the counterfactual condition that Biden is a pro-labor president denoted by "IF Biden was a pro-labor president..."

You're going to need a thousand more ifs to carry the conclusion that nationalized rail would meet all demands of the workers.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're going to need a thousand more ifs to carry the conclusion that nationalized rail would meet all demands of the workers.

No.

If Biden was really a "pro-labor president", then the way he would square the demands of workers with the unacceptability of a strike is by demanding Congress legislate that railway companies capitulate to every worker demand on pain of nationalization if the railway companies don't comply.

 

[Silvanus]

The “all or nothing” mindset can be a dangerous double edged sword that can easily backfire.

Say the rail workers did strike because they thought seven sick days wasn’t enough, and because they went on strike the US economy tanks and sends the country into a massively depression. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people can’t get necessary medication, foodstuffs, clothing etc and get sick, starve or die as a result.

National depressions and mass starvation are not caused by people being unable to travel by rail for a short while.

Strikes go ahead every week across the globe without the entire countries imploding.

The vast majority of the country is likely to blame the rail workers for not compromising.

Blame is easily deflected, yes; but the right-wing press will always blame the workers solely for striking. That happens in every strike, ever.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Say the rail workers did strike because they thought seven sick days wasn’t enough, and because they went on strike the US economy tanks and sends the country into a massively depression. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people can’t get necessary medication, foodstuffs, clothing etc and get sick, starve or die as a result.

The responsibility for that would be on the railway companies who failed to satisfy the demands of their workforce.

 

[Silvanus]

The responsibility for that would be on the railway companies who failed to satisfy the demands of their workforce.

Yeah, this is something that seems to be constantly forgotten.

It is the franchise-- the company-- that has been entrusted to provide the service to the people/country. It is their responsibility and their contractual obligation.

The company's workers are not under any such obligation to the country at large. They are employees of the company. It is with that company they have a voluntary, reciprocal relationship. So if they're dissatisfied with that relationship it's their right to withhold involvement-- because it's voluntary and involves no wider obligations to other people.

The workers don't owe you travel. The company does. Its solely their obligation, so any failure to provide it is theirs.

---

Now, you actually could blame the workers if the system was under the ownership of the workers... I'd be happy to make that trade?

 

[Cheetodust]

Just a reminder that around the time Irish bankers went on strike for literally months without any effect on the economy, New York garbage men went on strike and a state of emergency was declared after a weekend. Pay your essential workers enough to have a decent standard of living or watch your society fall apart. Straight forward enough.

 

[Elijin]

@Silvanus you know this is about commercial / freight, not passenger rail, right? A nationwide strike wouldnt be a mild inconvenience to commuters, it would be food rotting in warehouses while the economy had a little fit as it struggled to compensate.

 

[Cheetodust]

@Silvanus you know this is about commercial / freight, not passenger rail, right? A nationwide strike wouldnt be a mild inconvenience to commuters, it would be food rotting in warehouses while the economy had a little fit as it struggled to compensate.

Yeah, so hopefully the companies do the right thing and give the workers what they deserve. It would be really gross to let that happen just to prevent billons in profit become slightly lower.

 

[tippy2k2]

@Silvanus you know this is about commercial / freight, not passenger rail, right? A nationwide strike wouldnt be a mild inconvenience to commuters, it would be food rotting in warehouses while the economy had a little fit as it struggled to compensate.

Sounds like those workers are super important then. Maybe giving them some sick time and coverage so they're not on call 24/7 in exchange for the rail companies to only make a ton of millions instead of a fuck ton of millions is a good idea.

EDIT: I'll take your post below at your word for it. Your post made it sound like you were for the strike busting actions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm, because the rail workers are vital to the US, they cannot be allowed to exercise their power to strike to get decent working conditions.

Something looks just a little bit off there.

 

[Elijin]

I am not saying any of those things. I merely pointed out that several posts were made coming at this problem as if it were passenger trains, which it is not.

The US workers protection acts are hot garbage. If the goverment bans striking, they should do coordinated mass quitting, consequences be damned.

 

[Silvanus]

@Silvanus you know this is about commercial / freight, not passenger rail, right? A nationwide strike wouldnt be a mild inconvenience to commuters, it would be food rotting in warehouses while the economy had a little fit as it struggled to compensate.

I didn't know that, no. Serves me right for not doing enough research.

Still, the point broadly stands.

 

[twistedmic]

Under the answer given all of these would be fine because all of them would be "Show the information to someone who can hold them accountable and see how they feel about it."

You keep going on trying to worm out the wrong moment, when silentpony has explicitly stated the tye of doxxing you're against (secure personal information, death threats, violence, etc) is wrong.

JK Rowling, allegedly, had her home address publicly revealed because people didn’t like her opinions. Would you consider one’s home address personal information?

Following her home address being publicly revealed she received death threats, some (I believe) at delivered to her home address.

Publicly revealing a person’s address, real name, workplace and even their city can directly lead to them receiving death threats or worse.

What happens when this person who can “hold them accountable” decides the best way is to harm the doxxed individual? Is the doxxing that gave them the information they needed to enact violence still okay?

What if the reason someone is doxxed is because they posted that it was their opinion that not every single cop is looking to kill as many black and brown people as possible. Or that they think most times a black person is shot by the cops race was not the deciding factor on the shooting?

SilentPony’s example was an extreme, featuring someone actively calling for the death of others with the information being sent to a singular person. Not all doxxing incidents are going to be over such extreme matters, nor is the doxxing going to be as tightly focused.

 

[Elijin]

JK Rowling, allegedly, had her home address publicly revealed because people didn’t like her opinions. Would you consider one’s home address personal information?

Following her home address being publicly revealed she received death threats, some (I believe) at delivered to her home address.

Publicly revealing a person’s address, real name, workplace and even their city can directly lead to them receiving death threats or worse.

What happens when this person who can “hold them accountable” decides the best way is to harm the doxxed individual? Is the doxxing that gave them the information they needed to enact violence still okay?

What if the reason someone is doxxed is because they posted that it was their opinion that not every single cop is looking to kill as many black and brown people as possible. Or that they think most times a black person is shot by the cops race was not the deciding factor on the shooting?

SilentPony’s example was an extreme, featuring someone actively calling for the death of others with the information being sent to a singular person. Not all doxxing incidents are going to be over such extreme matters, nor is the doxxing going to be as tightly focused.

No one is endorsing doxxing here. Go JAQ off somewhere else. The right is in this bubble where it believes it should be free of the consequences of things they say online. That is separate from doxxing.

It also did not go without notice that you already were corrected on the JK home address issue, so you threw allegedly in front of it so you could keep using the terf as your champion.