Chelsea Manning To Run For U.S. Senate In Maryland

We'd have an accountable government, for one thing. I'm not talking about completely petty acts of vandalism, I'm talking about actively refusing to be complicit in unethical actions. If someone is asking you to help cover up something the public deserves to know, you have a duty to blow the whistle.

 

Careful what you wish for. There are a lot of different opinions about what "unethical actions" are and what "the public deserves to know".

 

I'm okay with that, given my extreme anti-authoritarianism

 

Are you sure you would enjoy total chaos?

 

Order vs Chaos is a bit of a false dichotomy in my opinion, but yes.

 

If I were to be representing a business or the state I would respect them as a matter of professionalism for which I would have been hired for. I don't exactly know what that refers to so I cannot say if I would call them that on a personal stance. However, I do not see any reason to be impolite or offensive. If that was their request and I could remember and I did not want to offend them I probably would. I am not the type of petty person who has to anger another by being rude. If that is who you are then so be it, but it would not be very nice to not simply comply in some verbal recognition of their status. Really how would it harm me to refer to them that way?

 

How far are you willing to go? Apacher/Apache for those who identify as Apache attack helicopters?

I'd have thought that the expectation that you'd actually conform to their delusions is just as rude as you refusing to do so.

Why should they care what you call them? If you identify as a dog or reptile or attack helicopter you've got to expect some laughs.

 

I don't see any reason why their ideas effect me. I also do not know anyone claiming to be an apache helicopter as you claim. Even if you want to argue absurdities I don't think there is any reason to be rude to those people as I am not in charge of their mental health or safety. However if a person were to truly feel they are an apache helicopter they might find that we have to watch them for their own safety so they don't go leaping off any buildings and harm themselves or others. There are boundaries to the behaviors allowed and breaking the law or harming others is not something society allows or should allow.

So before you go making some absurd claims about how things will be let us recognise society does step in at some point if the behavior is harmful.

 

If what behaviour is harmful?

I'm trying to demonstrate that offense is taken, not given. I cannot control your state of mind. Maybe you're offended that I do not use your pronouns, maybe I'm offended that you demand I use your pronouns. Anyone on any side can be offended.

I suggest you follow your conscience and do what's reasonable. Hence why I am so opposed to legislating pronoun use, it takes this ability away from the individual and gives it to unaccountable bureaucrats.

I would call a trans person he or her unless I think they're taking the piss. Transtrenders like Riley Dennis are a good example. It needs to be evaluated by the individual on a case by case basis. If conflict occurs, so be it, there's nothing wrong with being offended. Deal with it.

 

I am perfectly capable of saying when I am offended and I do not need you speaking for me. The same goes for your political opponents. Don't put words in their mouth when they clearly explain themselves. If you have an opinion that is great, but ask if you are confused and do not assume things that are not true. The trans community is not endorsing any trans apache helicopters. However, transgender is very real and occurs naturally in the world. It is not absurd or false, and it does not need your approval. If you want to disrespect someone by using the wrong pronoun that is your personal decision and people will react to you according to your impolite manner if you chose to insult them. No one is legislating pronouns. That is absurd and unfounded. People may ask you to regard their feelings, but as an American you are free to be rude and step on them as you see fit.

 

My policy has always been to call a trans man by he/him and vice versa. Anyone demanding I use zee/zir or they/them is offending me and I will not comply.

Damn right the trans community doesn't need my approval, though I will openly offer it to those who aren't being ridiculous. If the law does not recognise this and instead decides to legislate for pronoun use I will not comply. If fined I will not pay it. If jailed I will not eat.

I did not mean to say when you are or are not offended, just to point out that offense is in the eye of the beholder. You can be offended by anything. And I come from a country where it is straight up illegal to cause offence on religious, ethnic or sex grounds. You will be hauled before a reduced-burden extra judicial committee where you will be fined if found guilty of causing offense.

So my context may be different to yours. Perhaps you can understand why I take such an absolutist position on free speech issues when freedom of speech is not an explicit right in my country and there are laws which actively prosecute it.

If not then so be it, no harm no foul.

 

They very much need my approval. How else can they affirm a transgender status? Biology won't do it for them. They need to enforce a social construct. Whether by shaming (as you are doing) or criminalization.

California is legislating pronouns.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...eatens-jail-time-dissenters-transgender-dogma

I agree it is absurd, but not unfounded.

 

Actually they know what is going on without your input. Your opinion is not required nor does it change what they know. If you think it is shameful to be rude then feel free to use the wrong pronoun deliberately. That is being rude and hurtful to them. It is your choice to act in that manner, but at least own that is fine with you. Sometimes you might want to be rude. If that is a time you want to then you go right ahead. However as an employee or government representative you have responsibilities to your job and who you represent that they may not want you to be offensive and rude. On their dime you act professionally, and if you cannot then you are not capable of performing the job as required by them.

 

It's not being rude. It's being honest. Read my sig to understand my position.

 

I don't know what your anti-authoritarian perfect world would look like, but I'm sure you wouldn't like total chaos any more than I would. When we look at areas of the world that are in chaos it is nothing to envy. Violence rules, nothing works, no "rights" exist, there is no prosperity.
We all love freedom, but it has to be protected, and in a civilized society it has to have limits.

 

Mutual aid and cooperation are the oldest tools in the book to combat that, far older than rulership

 

Rulership is accepted because it made the small warlords go away -- but then the small warlords got replaced by lobbyists.

 

Can you give any examples where this is the case?

 

Manning stands for:
1.
2.
3.
???

 

He's running on identity: He's a transwoman, and as a bonus, he's a traitor.

Frankly, he sounds like the perfect Democratic candidate. I don't know why they aren't running him for the White House.

 

IOW, Manning does not stand for Change or Hope.
I wonder how much money the Manning campaign has raised so far?

 

So manning gives away classified information and is a traitor to this nation. He then wants the responsibility of being a LEADER of getting that type of information. Man, the left wing sure knows how to pick em

 

Manning could have been President Hillary Clinton's Secretary of Defense - if she had won.
A Seat in the US Senate probably looks like a well deserved consolation prize. In Maryland, running against an ancient DINO, anything could happen.

So, can Manning sing and dance at campaign functions? That might decide the race.

 

Once again, Manning can not be seated as a Senator because Manning is not eligible, ever again, for a security clearance.

 

politics appears not to be a good place for anyone with principle, she would do better working on the outside which unfortunately does not have much political influence unless they are rich.

she is a nice lady, wouldn't want to see her compromise her convictions for campaign donations.