Lawyers and judges like to pretend we have something called the “rule of law.”
The entire debate over “cancel culture” revolves around what it is or isn’t reasonable to be offended about. For corporations and non-profits, this is a legal question. But although being too aggressive in rooting out “racism” will never cost you $137 million, being not anti-racist enough might.
Corporations therefore aren’t required to be inoffensive to minorities or women, but to the versions of women and minorities that exist in the heads of educated liberals.
The validity of these statements is rivaled only by the cringe-worthiness. “Lawfare” as a technique for acquisition of unbridled power is a root cause of the destruction of our erstwhile society, the rule of law and indeed a Constitutional union. It is a massive betrayal of the promise which was America. As it is designed to be immune to normal civic conflict resolution, it cannot be resisted either by voting, legislation or court decision. The only remaining defense is obvious, but stating it brings serious penalties formerly reserved for violent antisocial acts. Cf. violent words and acts to further “social justice” or “anti-racism” - these bring accolades and are licensed by the state/corporate (fascist) apparatus. Checkmate.
Idk, I don’t think we’re even pretending to have rule of law anymore. It started with the B.Hussein admin, exploring whether they could prosecute WH counsel for writing memos about the legality of interrogation techniques.
WHA’?!?! Prosecution, for doing legal,research? But that was mild: now, ethics complaints are being used against attorneys who have represented a client with whose positions the left disagrees, like Giuliani—while Klinesmith , who lied to a court under oath,is back practicing law.
Welcome Hyp. Note we are automatically under the new pronoun regime: “This is the first time Hypatia has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!” So, welcome to freedom from the rule of law writ small: a grammar free structure. Another example of forced compliance in order to do anything you want to do.
We is most grateful to be invited!
Well, Discourse does not ask or otherwise know the gender of the user, so use of the indeterminate “them” (which is sanctioned by my 1994 edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, published before the recent madness) is a reasonable compromise. If it said the more awkward “him or her”, that might offend a spam bot who just joined the forum. Also, if the user has a tapeworm, “them” is the correct pronoun.
Like you, John, I tend to be way ahead or way behind the times. In this case, I guess my grammar is behind, since ‘them’ seems to me more awkward than ‘him or her.’ No comment on the current bot-enforced madness. As to tapeworms, progressive/proglottid - what’s the difference? Both immerse themselves in fecal matter, suck the nourishment out of everything valuable and amplify themselves (and the votes they somehow manage to materialize) sufficient to ensure their survival.