Pelosi, Who Pushed Through 'Non-Gendered Language' Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

Yes you did;

You said she had violated some rules by using gendered language. That is simply not true. There are no rules about members of Congress using gendered language.

Did you know it was not true when you posted it?

Will you now acknowledge that it is not true?

 

Why the hell is Trump responsible for what Giuliani says?

All 74 million of them?

 

You can say you're a mother and father perfectly well.
But it's not gender neutral to assume there are only fathers and mothers.

Yeah well, rather a PC guy than have a president who does it with prostitutes behind his porn nude models back, being exceptionally rude with unhinged remarks with slew racism imbedded to the joy of the far racist right wing. No cities were burned down. Some shops were vandalized. But that's not in the same ballpark by a longshot of ransacking the Capitol in a violent attempt to stop democracy at it's core. And there is something to be said about to defund the police. It's predominantly white, and we all saw that they let them selves be beat up by white fascists knocking 60 of them in the hospital and 1 casualty... and in return they shot 1 bullet. That's a far cry how they show absolutely no restraint when the same predominantly white police force deals with black people.

So you can whine about omg it's all so woke. But the institutionalized racism is simply undeniable there.
Bit weird to support the idea that institutionalized racism should remain so for the sake to "not be so PC".

 

I never referred to it as a BAN. I saw that certain gendered language was replaced with non-gendered alternatives and myself and many others saw it as kind of like a guideline by which people would be expected to try and follow as best as possible, but nothing enforceable, otherwise Pelosi herself would have gotten into trouble. However, I acknowledge that as it turns out, it just replaced some gendered language in a rule, which is JUST AS ridiculous if it had been a ban on using gendered language. I think that the conservative take on it was more that if that gendered language is so terribly evil, then why did Pelosi herself use it. We also know that Democrats in some states have passed certain speech codes banning gendered language.

 

I think this might have been in the WSJ - an American woman spoke of Trump, she said she was in no doubt
what Trump might do to her if he had half a chance. But she was going to vote for him because she saw her
city burning and cries to "defund the police." I would rather have a libidinous porn loving President than someone
who "felt the pain" of those burning cities.
Anyhow, I am Australian and we all think what happens in America to be rather strange. Politics isn't a big deal
here - though this insidious creeping woke creep to many of us. It's Orwellian in the true sense of the world with
big brother, thought police and desecration of monuments - right out of 1984.

 

OK, but that's splitting hairs. You did say that she violated rules by using gendered language. That is still a lie you've failed to acknowledge.

Your ignorance (or dishonesty) on that might be a reason but not an excuse, especially as you've now been corrected.

Which nobody said so is moot.

Could it be because the idea she thinks any and all use of gendered language to be evil is a simply wrong? If she really believed what you accused her of, she wouldn't use that language so why can't you accept that the very fact she did suggests your perception could be wrong?

And regardless, why can't you simple acknowledge that the accusation that she violated any rules remains a lie?

 

Yeah, I can think of a few OTHER words to refer to her....

 

Strange that we should ban "gendered language." Are people ashamed of people being men and women,
boys and girls? It was said of the early Soviets that they engaged in a 'war against nature" (Mao too BTW)
and here we are - warring against nature.

 

Why was it necessary to REPLACE the existing gendered language?

Oh, so there weren't many shops which were totally burned down? You're desperately downplaying those riots!

Yes, they're different. One lasted much longer, was way more destructive and deadly, and one was more of a direct attack on democracy, but which was destined to fail miserably. Both were insurrection. Neither is WORSE, but you're desperately arguing that the Capitol riots are worse.

Define "defund."

You mean the same police force? As in the DC Police?

Institutional racism is a myth. There's no evidence for it. There's more evidence that there is institutional racism against white people, given that there is an anti-white racist government policy on the books right now - it's called affirmative action.

 

Some are so think skinned they won't accept being called a man or a woman.

 

You fail to see the context of the two situations. In law we are supposed to be equal before it and to not have sex or gender be a factor in application of the law. Thus the word of the law should not have any specific gender references. That is a completely different situation from how one refers to themselves. I can call myself a man while still insuring there is no law that applies.to a man only and not to a woman or non-binary.

 

What, as in rape her?

Who is that "someone?"

Yeah, I often think about how we are so incredibly united in Australia compared to the US! At least both sides of politics here can, generally speaking, agree that Australia is a great country. However, in the US, one side believes that the US is evil and is rooted in racism! Biden actually said that the US has never lived up to its ideals. So logically, he must hate his country! I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't like our country if we had never lived up to our ideals

 

You know of course there are people who want to emulate the bad of America by
politicizing aboriginals. There's a never ending, conga line of demands by the
aborigine industry, and its often aborigines themselves who are slightly bemused
by it all.

 

I assumed that the reporting of it being a "rule" that she violated was overplayed for dramatic effect. After all, we all know that the media like to sensationalise stories. I knew full well that it wasn't a rule that she violated, because I didn't read that she got into any trouble.

Not an excuse for what?

If the gendered language in that rule was acceptable, then why do you suppose it was replaced?

I think that conservatives like myself know that all of this woke nonsense is not exactly of much interest to the likes of Pelosi, who I think we can safely say is a moderate in her heart of hearts. And so, if it was the case that this move in the House was a guideline for members of the House to use non-gendered language in their speech, and then the leader of the party behind the guideline, proceeds to violate that guideline, it would have meant that she doesn't care about it and was only pretending to care. So it was more of a dig on Pelosi, that she is in charge of a party ever moving to her left, and she is struggling to keep up.

Why couldn't I "acknowledge?" You may have missed this from my last reply - you certainly didn't quote it in your reply:

"However, I acknowledge that as it turns out, it just replaced some gendered language in a rule, which is JUST AS ridiculous if it had been a ban on using gendered language."

 

So why wasn't it an issue even 20 years ago?

 

I'm not talking about what was in the article, I'm talking about your own commentary in the OP. You overplayed it much more than the article (which was much more subtle about it).

Wilfully misrepresenting the facts.

You didn't ask about it being "acceptable", you asked about it being "evil". My impression is that the change was just about a relatively minor improvement to make it more inclusive. It wouldn't have been the end of the world if it hadn't happened but it isn't the end of the world that it has. It could have been technically possible for the previous wording to cause a complication, given that (like it or not) there are people who identify as, or could even be legally recognised as, asexual and thus could fall through the gaps (be that against them or in their favour).

It wasn't, in any way what so ever. That was the lie invented when the change was made and it was clearly and unconditionally dismissed. The lie is just being raise from the dead now (for the purpose of a purely partisan attack) but it remains just as false.

That is not was I was asking you to acknowledge. In your OP, you stated that Pelosi violated rules. That is simply not true. Nobody likes getting caught in a lie but that would make admitting it all the more worthy.

 

This is what folks in China do. As you have. Tell me. Trump is out, today is the first day of the Biden experiment. Whatever will you spend your time complaining about now?

 

When you wonder that, than you lack the ability to understand casual modern norms and values.

 

I didn't say that every Trump supporter is a nazi. Than again, I've not seen any GOP marches saying that what them nazi's did wasn't in their name, like those kind Muslims did after a terror attack. And trial by combat was said by Donald's lawyer, who was on the same stage of Donald. That makes Donald complicit in any bodies book. Donald still hasn't dissociate from it one bit. Go cry me a river.

The level of violence by right wingers was far more extreme. They are the biggest terrorist in the US.
All data from the FBI shows that for decades on end. The world saw what right wing America is capable off on the 6th.

Can you quote me on that I said that Donald said that?

Jig is up on people like you. The entire world saw what right wing America is like.

 

Pelosi, Who Pushed Through 'Non-Gendered Language' Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

I tried to find this in my list of things that matter and came up empty.

 

Yes, gendered language certainly is a thing which doesn't matter, so NO WONDER you came up empty!

 

Who cares what 1 person thinks and says. No cities were burned down.
I'm not interested in fascists lies. You're free to prove me wrong.
But you'll end up only being able to prove some stores got burned.

And the way you rather have a president who rallied and ignited his fascists fans to attack the Capitol to put an end to democracy... says a lot about you.
And it's fine you support that. But your opinion is irrelevant. What you support did not succeed, and never will.

Defund the police is a heck of a lot about spending some % of the funds that the police in the US gets (and they get a HECK of a lot to be militarized like that) to combat injustices like equal opportunities in school, the absolute lack of psychiatric care and crime prevention projects. With such policies you would need less police so you can defund it.

Those monuments you speak are there glorify the people who were behind the account of 270 occasions of genocide.
Seems you're not capable to comprehend it.

 

Specify please.

 

Are you still talking about Charlottesville? Or have you moved the goalposts?

Correct.

Yes, and the world saw what LEFT wing America is capable off on May 26, 2020, continuing on until today!

Yes, and the entire world saw what LEFT wing America is like. Can you agree that both the far left and the far right are bad?

 

Everything that you described in your post about the law not having gender specific language. Was that a problem 20 years ago?