It’s like the opposite of carbon credits. If you plant a tree, you then need to drive or fly x miles to make up for it.
I’d support you but it would be irresponsible for me to show bias by taking a position either for or against this.
Given the BBC making equality a political position - I can no longer spend anything supporting their products.
My neutrality is my most prized possession and must be preserved at all costs.
(No, not my costs, silly.)
I was just about to respond with further snide jokes about people being biased in favour of getting to eat when they are hungry… but I decided that what I really want to say, affirmatively, and what I hope everyone starts saying, is that having values is a good thing. That’s really what this “neutrality” stuff is about; having no principles and no values. You should believe something is right, you should believe something is wrong.
You are supposed to have empathy, you are supposed to care about other people and their well being. People who don’t should be viewed with extreme suspicion, they should be guarded against, they should be prevented from having positions with significant power. And as for “who gets to decide”, it’s not about who gets to, it’s that we all have to, and if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.* And when we all abdicate that responsibility people who don’t care about others jump up and take power, and then we end up being ruled by them and they get to decide.
And of course the people I’m arguing against here agree with me. Neutrality was a faux position the whole time because they don’t want to think about their discomfort at bodies that don’t accord with their ideas about what bodies should be.
* Yes, I decided for some reason now was the time to quote Rush lyrics.
I considered adding a “/s” but decided it wasn’t necessary. Perhaps I was wrong.
Oh no, I got that you were joking, I was going to continue joking but decided to be serious instead.
For the record, I agree with everything you said in your reply.
OK, some disclaimers:
- Coming way late to this topic
- This is more like, “last year in transphobia” but it’s big and I’m surprised not to see it here yet
- It’s about to become newsish again
In February Seatlle Public Library welcomed a TERF group to its public spaces to give a presentation on “critical feminism”. Amid outcries from trans rights supporters, librarians who understand the tolerance paradox, and Seattle liberal media outlets, SPL fell back to a weak “free speech” defense but let the event go forward, and the library was quickly denounced as bibliotheca non grata by the critical librarianship community.
AND THEN, Library Journal – THE big trade journal in library land – gave SPL the “Library of the Year” award for 2020. In their original announcement they didn’t even allude to the above issue (though it did mention another anti-trans incident), and LJ was likewise roundly denounced by many librarians, including 1700 signatories of an open letter demanding that LJ rescind the award and give the award monies to trans rights organizations. Multiple past award winners of LJ awards – most notably the high-profile Movers and Shakers award-winners – have renounced their past awards in protest. LJ has had some feeble walkback but nothing substantive has happened, and boy is the critlib community PISSED.
Anyway, this is germane at the moment because LJ’s 2021 Movers and Shakers awards are currently in the nomination process. It’s not yet clear what’s going to happen when people start seeing they’ve won a tainted award, but part of me is definitely feeling a bit of <popcorn.gif> about this one. Both LJ and SPL have cut off a big part of their professional (and public, in SPL’s case) communities and I am here to see the wreckage.
My font-spotting skills tell me that’s the Daily Mail.
God damn, she’s pale. I’ve seen dead fish with more color…
At £76 grand a week she’s been there, what, 5 minutes?
Sure has all the charm of a dead cod.
Ugh, the transphobia is totally gross but so it the tabloid objectification. Nobody publishes beach photos of Dan Brown or John Grisham.
I mean, far be it from me to shame her on her looks rather than her horrible fucking personality and shitty inhumane behavior.
Still, I could not help but notice her pallid excuse for a complexion.
They dont generally do it to writers or politicians, but they do body shame male celebs too:
And yeah, that includes Jason Momoa in there, and there’s not even anything for him to be ashamed of.
