you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)

The quote I shared. I'll try with more emphasis:

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.

The meeting with Acton herself is offered and determined to be the best course of action. No mention of resubmitting the post, even though that is what they explicitly asked about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    So you're just inferring that they denied the repost, but it's not actually cited anywhere. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    What the fuck are you trying to defend?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Good journalism, I guess? Why are you fighting so hard to defend a deliberately misleading headline...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Because it's accurate, not misleading. They banned that criticism, they are taking an anti-trans stance.

    Trans rights are human rights. Are you a bot? I can't imagine why else you don't care about your own rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It is not accurate, and we already walked through why that's the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    They literally restricted a piece of valid criticism from being published.

    You want to pretend that's not the same as "banning"? I can't stop you from being wrong.

    But I can call you a shithead for supporting it. Shithead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    They literally asked for a post that was posted to their account without approval to be removed and go through the proper approval process.

    You want to pretend that's the same as "banning" criticism? I can't stop you from being wrong.

    But I can call you a shithead for supporting deceptive journalism. Shithead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    But they did not provide a method for reposting the criticism, they replaced it with a useless offer.

    You can call me a shithead. And I can say... "No, you."

    But we may be at the end of productivity when it comes to our conversation. I believe they banned/censored a piece of valid and potentially life-saving criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    But they did not provide a method for reposting the criticism

    They specifically said they submitted it for proper approval. No where does it say that was denied...

    they replaced it with a useless offer.

    You're inferring that. Were you there? Do you know what was discussed? Based on their statement, the ODPC seems to disagree with you.

    You can call me a shithead. And I can say… “No, you.”

    Or you could try actually defending your claim instead of hurling petty insults and attacking strawmen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Or you could try actually defending your claim instead

    I did. You're making more assumptions than I am.

    Where does it say they were allowed to repost their criticism? Nowhere? Interesting. Kinda like... Kinda like they banned it.

  • source
  • parent