Social credit in America - Politics invades personal finance

I’m bummed I’m late to this thread as I followed Bostock extremely closely and follow the transgender movement and legal cases and arguments surrounding it more than most people. While Gorsuch’s extreme textualism led the Supreme Court to extend Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act) protections against sex discrimination to transgender individuals in the workplace, it did not go any further. It did not, for instance, change anything about Title IX (of the Education Amendments of 1972), which is why the country is currently split on the question of biological males competing against females in women’s sports. It also didn’t overrule any 1st amendment jurisprudence relating to one’s rights of free speech and exercise of religion. And even though you may think the ruling does something similar to the forced speech laws in Canada that require the use of one’s preferred pronouns, it most surely does not.

The case linked to above had quite different circumstances from Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (the transgender case linked with Bostock). The student wasn’t an employee and the professor wasn’t an employer. Based on that alone, the Bostock decision didn’t apply and the EECO interpretation isn’t relevant.

But let’s say they there was an employer/employee relationship. Even your link to the EEOC website doesn’t require that employers are FORCED TO USE (or must force other employees to use) the preferred pronouns of transgender individuals. It only says “intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.” Since the accused volunteered to use the accuser’s name, and the accused never said he would intentionally continue using the accuser’s disfavored pronouns, the accused wouldn’t have run afoul of the EEOC interpretation you quoted. The accuser would also likely need some other contributing factors, especially when the accuser is actually the instigator trying to get the accused fired as in this case.

But before we have a “That bigot didn’t use my preferred pronouns and created a hostile work environment” case go the distance, we are likely to see a case that the posted article is about in front of the supreme court. A case with VERY similar circumstances is working its way through the courts right now with the school system unlikely to settle. https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/va-supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-west-point-teacher-fired-for-not-using-students-preferred-pronouns/

Like or dislike the Alliance Defending Freedom, their record speaks for itself. They take legit cases, make well reasoned legal arguments, and have won at all court levels, including 67 wins at the Supreme Court. You can bet that any case where they are defending someone, no matter if they lose at lower court levels, could be taken up by the Supreme Court and turn out in their favor.

I understand your viewpoint. It’s cautious, you’re in management, and you probably don’t agree with the conservatives on this board about how much the transgender movement is transforming our society for the worse, so of course you’re going to use people’s preferred pronouns and make sure your company’s ass-covering policy is followed. But if you think this is a settled subject simply because of the SCOTUS ruling of Bostock, you are very mistaken.

Sorry I was so late to the thread. I know @Shandril you said you don’t think debating this is worth your time anymore. But I did my best to outline legally why I stand where I do and I hope you don’t think this is just an unlawful anti-LGBT stance. There are a whole slew of legitimate reasons to be opposed to the extreme pronouncements of the transgender movement that aren’t rooted in bigotry with plenty of legal footing for those stances. I know a for profit employer can’t fire someone simply because they are transgender (even though that protection was unfathomable by the people that wrote the Civil Rights Act). But there are lots of other rights (besides the right to fire one’s employee) in conflict with the rights that the transgender movement is fighting for right now. I hope you agree that these conflicts are things that a society like ours should be able to discuss freely and openly.

5 Likes

Twitter’s board of directors should consider rejecting Elon Musk’s bid for the social media company because of the harm his ownership could have on users’ civil rights, said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League.

Yeah, it would really suck to have to actually defend your claims about such rights. It’s much better when you can just demand that “you must agree, or not say anything at all.”

3 Likes

the worst line from that article is this:

Musk, who’s been known to attack journalists and others critical of him and his company, has an unclear definition of free speech.

What is so unclear to this journalist about Musk’s definition: “A good sign as to whether there’s free speech is: Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? And if that is the case, then we have free speech.”

4 Likes

Musk seems about right on this

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1516483038242385928

3 Likes

Elon Musk is still interested in acquiring Twitter

“_______ is the Night,” Musk tweeted.

The tweet is an apparent reference to the novel “Tender is The Night” by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Conservatives accused journalist Taylor Lorenz of “harassment” and “doxxing” — revealing someone’s identity online with malicious intent — after her article revealing the identity of the woman behind the popular “Libs of TikTok” social media account was published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

See this video of Lorenz complaining about online harassment from a few weeks before she doxxed libsoftiktok

https://mobile.twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1516231092428488705?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1516231092428488705|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Ftwitter%2F1012735%2Fconservatives-complain-of-doxxing-after-expose-reveals-woman-behind-libs-of-tiktok

2 Likes

Free speech also means free speech for your opponents.

2 Likes

Hot Take: I love @libsoftiktok and think she does great work. But she was fooling herself if she thought she could remain anonymous after doing interviews. I figured anyone who cared knew who she was already. So yeah, @TaylorLorenz outed her by saying what her name is, what industry she worked in, and what cities she’s lived in, but why does it matter? We already knew Lorenz was full of crap before this article, so this doesn’t really show us anything about her. Also, nothing in that article meets the definition of harassment or doxxing and all this will do is increase libsoftiktok’s profile further. It’s great PR. After all that research, Lorenz couldn’t find anything more damning than the fact that she was outside the Capitol on Jan 6. I’m not crying for libsoftiktok because of this.

1 Like

You are wrong.
No not everyone knows who libsofTikTok is. I did not. Lorenz published her real estate license which contains her address and phone number on the Washington post, a large platform. Lorenz harassed LibsofTiktok’s family. She shows a video of Lorenz pounding on their door,

That is reprehensible behavior and I don’t agree with you that it’s harmless.

1 Like

Where? I don’t see that in the article.

A reporter knocking on the door of someone that has done TV interviews is not harassment. Why do you say it is?

See this article.

I do not agree that it is ethical to harass members of even a public personality’s family. Most reporters do also. As an example the unwritten rule not to involve politicians families in their reporting. Unless it’s a conservative of course.

1 Like

They link to a public website that compiles real estate license info. If you have a license for your job, you know these sites exist and how much info they list. If you search my name in a database of CPA licenses, you’ll find what town I live in, and from there you can find my address via property records. She wasn’t doxxed. She was sloppy in scrubbing her info off the internet. Plus, that address isn’t where she currently lives. It’s old info, which is probably why she didn’t care about scrubbing it. WaPo didn’t give out her real address (even though they know what it is).

I do agree that WaPo did a stealth edit and originally lied in response to people asking why they put out her info. And that is slimy AF. They should have just owned it and said they linked to a public page that anyone could have searched with the public info she put out there listing her profession and they shouldn’t have so they removed the link. I still don’t see where they harassed her family though. Knocking on someone’s door isn’t harassment.

However, this by Lorenz was journalistically despicable:

But we already knew Lorenz was a piece of garbage, so there is nothing really new here. It doesn’t help the Right to clutch their pearls over the naming of someone who has done TV interviews and the only dirt that could be found is that she went to a rally where other people broke the law.

2 Likes

I do not agree. We have to call out the left for their unethical behavior such as harassing her family. And pounding on someone’s door is beyond the pale. How would you like it if it happened to your family?

Here’s another take on the LoTT affair

In truth, Lorenz did LoTT a favor. The Twitter account was wildly popular but it didn’t have that mainstream exposure. Thanks to Lorenz, more people know about it than ever. More people will begin watching it and as trainwreck after trainwreck scrolls past their screen and they’re unable to look away, they’ll become more familiar with the left as it is today. Parents will see the myriad of teachers in public schools who proudly introduce sex and sexualization to their children and understand why legislators in places like Florida did what they did.

1 Like

Literally the same as the last 4 sentences in my original take from post #825

You are sorely mistaken if you think a journalist knocking on a door of an address they found for a person they are reporting on and want to talk to is not a legitimate way of gathering facts for a story. Knocking on the door is not beyond the pale. It is literally a completely normal thing to do. Certain professions do it every single day. Good reporters used to do it way MORE than crappy reporters do it today. There is nothing unethical about knocking on the door of a subject you are writing about if you can’t get that person to answer your messages.

Let’s put this another way. Is it okay for the cops to knock on the door of a house looking for someone with an arrest warrant if the cops found some connection between that person and that address? Is that harassment? There is no difference between what the cops are doing in that situation and what Lorenz did.

If a family member of mine had used my address for something but didn’t live with me, and then started a partisan website that blew up over the course of months with tens of millions of views, but tried to remain anonymous, I wouldn’t be pissed at the reporter, I’d be pissed at my family member for using my address.

That’s what happened with the angel Taylor in Louisville.

To the best of my knowledge, the door knockers (reporters, activists, whoever) were not knocking on the door of an address she gave, other than a previous address. They were doing what skip tracers and bill collectors do. They were knocking on probable relatives’ doors.

We strongly disagree. It was not her address. Taylor was harassing LoTT’s family. You’re way off base making an analogy to police. LoTT did nothing illegal.

edit, Doxxing is not innocent publicity. The left is unhinged and there are plenty of violent lunatics. LoTT is in hiding now.

Taylor herself became frightened and traumatized by messages sent to her threatening violence over an incident that occurred prior to her and the wapo doxxing LoTT

I posted that as an alternate point of view but I do not agree with it. Yes the Twitter account gets more publicity but it is dangerous to give personal information about the account holder with the Left’s unhinged behavior.

The same guys who told us a certain laptop was Russian disinformation are back to tell us that we need Big Tech monopolies in bed with the Feds to make sure they can tell us their truth and nothing else.

1 Like

Lorenz didn’t know LoTT’s exact address (because LoTT has kept it under wraps). That’s the whole point. Lorenz went to an address she had. Google your name and you’ll see that one of your family members’ addresses is probably listed under your name. I know that’s the case for me. I’ve never lived in Chicago or Knoxville, but my Mom’s previous addresses in those cities are listed under my name because my mom has lived there and obviously there has been some records overlap that the online database sites have picked up on.

If I were a newsworthy person (and LoTT is), and a reporter went to one of those addresses and knocked on the door asking for me or asking about me, THAT’S NOT HARASSMENT. It’s reporting. If, after my family said, “We’re not talking to you,” and the reporter kept knocking, waiting outside for my family to come back out, or something along those lines, then yes, we’d be looking at harrassment. But one trip to someone’s door isn’t harassment. Never has been. I honestly don’t know where you’re getting your definition of harassment.

Okay, forget the part about the arrest warrant. If someone was a witness to a crime and the police went looking for that person at an address associated with them because they don’t have their current address, and that associated address is a family member’s house, is that harrassment? Of course it isn’t. It’s good police work. And 30 years ago, what Lorenz did would have been considered good gumshoe reporting.

LoTT is the one that wanted to remain anonymous way longer than any reasonable person in her situation could. SHE WAS DOING INTERVIEWS. And she did a bad job of covering her tracks considering her real estate license page (if that address still matters - it sounds like it doesn’t). She isn’t in hiding any more than she already was considering she was trying to remain anonymous in the first place. If you try to remain anonymous, that means you live somewhere where people can’t find you. When they find you, you move. So she moved. Big deal.

Here’s the thing. Once you get to be of a certain size, you can’t remain anonymous. That’s the lesson here. If she had come out a couple days before the Lorenz piece on Tucker or any of the shows that would be glad to have her on to get ahead of this, she could have said who she was and that she was outside on Jan 6 and then all Lorenz’s work would have been worthless. That would have been the smart play here. This was already LoTT’s full time job. She didn’t have an employer that could fire her. Chris Rufo isn’t anonymous. James Lindsay isn’t anonymous. She made Lorenz’s piece into a story by making such a big deal out of not responding to her and trying not to let people know who or where she was. This is 2021. Deepthroat could never exist today. There is NO WAY to remain anonymous today when people want to find out who you are.

Like I said, she does yeoman’s work and we’re better off for it. But to get as big as she was and think she could just remain anonymous forever AND collect the paycheck (which she is now doing) is foolish.

No it’s not.

That’s a legitimate form of news gathering.