SnoopSqueak

Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.

If you can disprove the contents of the article you chose to criticize, please do.

I know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid.

Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?

I do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.

They asked about submitting the post for approval

…which was ignored. Instead:

they were offered a meeting with Acton.

…which turned out to be a lie.

Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up.

It was banned.

No. Remember? They tried that:

After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted. At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table. After thorough discussion, caucus leadership determined this offer aligned with our goal to bring our message directly to her.

They got tricked into attending a meeting without Acton. And some of them weren’t allowed into the meeting.

That isn’t the question. The question is “why can’t the original posters resubmit through the proper channels”? Because it was banned.

The page where it could do the most good. Why is that not enough for you? It is still a ban.

They posted to Facebook. The post was taken down, allegedly because they did not go through proper channels to post it. Their requests to return the post to Facebook were met with invitations to a shitty zoom call they couldn’t enter with a person who did not attend.

that specific criticism isn’t banned because we just read that criticism in a substack

It remains forbidden from being posted on their Facebook page.

I appreciate you trying to hold headline authors accountable, but I don’t see how this headline is inaccurate.

Ohio Dem Party Has Banned Criticism Of Gov. Candidate Amy Acton Calling Trans Girls “Boys”

I think it is future-proof, too. Even if the post is restored, the fact remains that it was once banned.

Dumb fuck, it’s not all-or-nothing. Specific criticism that could make a positive difference is being censored. I’m sorry you fucked up, but please stop pretending otherwise. It was an easy mistake, but a harmful one. We should not downplay what is happening here, criticism was banned.

Your words:

But sure, let’s frame it as banning all criticism.

Criticism has been banned.

I can’t steel-man something that is blatantly false. You repeatedly insisted that they were not banning criticism. You pretended that by offering a direct meeting instead of allowing the criticism to be reposted, they were not banning any criticism.

Now what happened? She didn’t show up to the meeting and the trans people she should have apologized to were prevented from even attending.

Acton and her team are still pretending they have done nothing wrong, are still actively shielding themselves from consequences of their bad decisions.

Criticism has been banned again.

Do you still think they were being fair?

https://lemmy.today/post/57542998

Inside sources who have gone public now say the “listening session” was a debacle. Acton did not show up, her campaign manager barred Arienne Childrey—Vice Chair of the party’s Pride Caucus, a transgender candidate for the Ohio House, and Ohio’s first openly trans city council member—from even entering the Zoom call. When another advocate demanded to know why Childrey was barred, she was ejected. The Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Kim McCarthy, was locked in the waiting room during the entire “listening session.” And in the end, the campaign ultimately refused to apologize for calling trans girls “boys,” refused to retract Acton’s support for a transgender sports ban, and ended the meeting with no plans for what come next.

i am saying my belief is that they others are free to believe but not free to do whatever they want.

I don’t see the difference. They believe they are obligated to do those things, so they do those things.

There are laws for the things we can do and not do. We have the right (in the free world) to think what we want

Nobody can stop anybody from thinking their thoughts. My point is we should oppose false beliefs before they turn into harmful actions.

Please note that i am making a clear distinction between the freedom inside oneself (opinions, thoughts, beliefs) and acting on them.

What is the difference? They believe that’s how they should act, so that’s how they act.

If i believe my neighbour is an asshole, i am not and should not suddenly allowed to insult him.

Constructive criticism can change behaviors for the better, if everyone is listening to reason. Your neighbor shouldn’t be an asshole, that hurts everybody.

Unfortunately, yes. I agree on the problem.

Thank you. It is why I am a “militant” antitheist. I think that compromising with delusion gets innocent people killed needlessly.

But they believe they should do those things. Beliefs drive our actions. We should correct them every chance we get.

You: “Believe what you want.” Them: “OK, I believe my god wants to me to preach to you.” You: “Stop that.” Them: “No, my god demands it.”

Now what?

And if they believe their (utterly unproven) god wants them to restrict healthcare? Wants them to avoid vaccines? Commit genocide, take slaves, fly planes into buildings?

Innocent people are dying for the selfish beliefs of others.

Christians have this weird and totally unearned persecution complex (2026 suggests it has all been projection all along)

100%. We start with what we can sense. God cannot be sensed. So why assume he exists at all? They’re telling us lies and getting pissy when we try to defend the truth our lives depend on.

Christians persecute others. Others must defend themselves or die. The public narrative is backwards, some beliefs should be dismantled instead of protected.

You start with “everyone’s entitled to their beliefs,” they harm you per their beliefs, and then you want to draw a line? Too late, you already gave them the blank check.

Christianity deserves pushback, not respect. It is a death cult. They don’t respect you, they think you belong to their god. They will be happy when you die, pretending you are rewarded in heaven or punished in hell. There is no such thing as a christ, we are not born with sin, we do not require divine salvation (which comes at the price of complete subjugation).

Can we stop letting them kill us? People should be held accountable for their choices, including the choice to accept and repeat baseless claims. As a species, we need to mature out of superstition before it kills us.

Not too spicy, but they at least acknowledge it.

On 27 July, WMF declined to voluntarily recognize the US union. WMF stated that the union would need to pursue a formal NLRB election procedure. 404 Media viewed the WMF’s 27 July statement as using “very carefully-worded language common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_and_unions

Nah, just take one when you get the job. Then never again. For luck. 😉

I have lived in the bible belt all my life, still trying to escape. People are proud of their beliefs even though they aren’t true. “Everyone is entitled to their beliefs” is the common sentiment, but it’s wrong. Everyone is morally obligated to align their beliefs with reality as closely as they can.

That’s where science comes in. It is not an authority, not a religion, not a system. It is a process we use to acquire and refine knowledge. Given the physical limitations of our senses and minds, it is the best we can do.

People need to learn before we all die of stupid.

I was late on my first day for the same reason. 🙃 But I soon realized my mistake and worked with them for a couple of years before moving on to something else.