Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:59:42 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <d7711jps1iuhs8virqs65pealjtft53or8@4ax.com>
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me> <atropos-2A7F38.11023029032024@news.giganews.com> <uu9d90$1363u$5@dont-email.me> <apmcndAF5Nsb5Y37nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <-E6dnQQZDcopDo37nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 00:59:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="11c08bdee267e05d20eda634a8015ec0";
	logging-data="1793920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18c5TzrX/ay5HMdsWAmnKnU1BcWuywmvT0="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1nQtVuhHmtYS5X9sv5Lb7FDUQcU=
Bytes: 4837

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 00:13:40 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:17:42 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 30, 2024 at 9:05:52 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>  On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>   In article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>>   On 3/28/24 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>   On 3/28/2024 2:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>   In article
>>>>>>>>   <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>   On 3/28/2024 12:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   On Mar 27, 2024 at 8:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com>
>>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>   Are you disputing laws against hate speech or how they're enforced?
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>   Both. Hate speech is protected speech per the Supreme Court and any laws
>>>>>>>>   to the contrary are unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>   National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
>>>>>>>>   (1977)
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>   One cold night, a homeless man builds and lights a bonfire that destroys
>>>>>>>   a family's manicured lawn. Elsewhere, a well-known redneck erects and
>>>>>>>   burns a wooden cross, destroying the lawn of a black family.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>   To your mind, are these infractions fully equivalent to each other?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>   Those are crimes, not speech. You didn't ask about hate crimes. You asked
>>>>>>   about hate speech.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>   So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.
>>>>   
>>>>   That's our Effa, always trying to get around the 1st Amendment because,
>>>>   like most leftists, he fundamentally hates the idea of not being able to
>>>>   control what people can and cannot say.
>>>>   
>>>>   (And no, you smooth-brained dimwit, a charge of incitement can't be
>>>>   sustained without a crowd present to, ya know, incite.)
>>>  
>>>  Your side is banning words, and banning books, and banning curriculum 
>>>  there, Sparky.
>> 
>> Who's banning words and policing the language?
>> 
>>
>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1776348840171347968/vid/avc1/482x270/7c-0yRyX-G2NI4o-.mp4?tag=14
>> 
>> CT State Senator Martha Marx (D) says only using the term "pregnant mother"
>> is
>> going down a "slippery slope" because then we also have to include "pregnant
>> father".
>> 
>> She proposes the government only use the term "pregnant person" because it's
>> most inclusive and covers "every person that will show up with a baby in
>> their
>> womb".
>
>According to New York City's Chief Medical Officer, you're only a mother if
>you're black or brown. If you're white, you're just a "birthing person":
>
>https://ibb.co/JxsjWsv
>

I don't see it as saying what you think as she starts off with an all
inclusive reference to birthing people. The term "birthing people"
sounds really awkward to me. The reference to the Black and PR mothers
could have used birthing people instead, though I would rather she
just drop the birthing people. 

Though it's a strange use in that last sentence as "birthing people"
makes me think of a pregnant woman giving birth, but her worry is
about babies that die in the first year of life. So the term "mothers"
should been used in all the cases she used "birthing people". 

"Birthing people" sounds like some term someone came up to avoid
offending someone. Maybe to differentiate from mothers of babies that
were adopted?