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 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.
You tell me, you seem to have insider information that it was formally rejected, and isn’t still going through the approval process.
Then quote the part that says it was met with only one alternative. It should be so easy.
Or you could just concede that you actually don’t know.
I did, numerous times. Have a nice life, sea lion.
No you posted a quote and then inferred that it was the only alternative offered. As I pointed out, numerous times.
My life is great, the ability to critically think about things is awesome. Hope you learn it some day!
Do you still think they were being fair?
https://lemmy.today/post/57542998
Where did I say anyone was being fair?
I’m so curious, can you steel-man what I was arguing? I genuinely don’t think you have a clue.
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.
So I was right, you literally don’t have a clue what I was arguing.
That explains a lot.
Your words:
Criticism has been banned.
Interesting, I swear I just read a substack criticizing this…