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.
You have dug your heels into pretending the headline is misleading when it isn’t. Criticism of transphobia was censored, banned from being posted again based on the information we have so far. It is important that we be able to criticize unacceptable behavior.
I’m not pretending anything. The article does not substatiate the claim.
Criticism of transphobia was censored, banned from being posted again based on the information we have so far.
So then you should be able to easily answer my questions: When did they submit it for approval? What is the approval process? How long does it take? How do you know it won’t be approved?
It is important that we be able to criticize unacceptable behavior.
After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted.
What is the approval process? How long does it take?
I would also be curious to know these details, but they seem irrelevant, because ODP derailed them instead:
At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table.
How do you know it won’t be approved?
It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that their request for resubmission was met with only one alternative.
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.
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.
They specifically said they submitted it for proper approval. No where does it say that was denied…
You’re inferring that. Were you there? Do you know what was discussed? Based on their statement, the ODPC seems to disagree with you.
Or you could try actually defending your claim instead of hurling petty insults and attacking strawmen.
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.
What assumptions have I made…?
When did they submit it for approval? What is the approval process? How long does it take? How do you know it won’t be approved?
You could just admit you don’t actually know, but you seem to want to dig your heels in instead.
You have dug your heels into pretending the headline is misleading when it isn’t. Criticism of transphobia was censored, banned from being posted again based on the information we have so far. It is important that we be able to criticize unacceptable behavior.
Still waiting to hear what assumptions I made…
I’m not pretending anything. The article does not substatiate the claim.
So then you should be able to easily answer my questions: When did they submit it for approval? What is the approval process? How long does it take? How do you know it won’t be approved?
It certainly is.
I would also be curious to know these details, but they seem irrelevant, because ODP derailed them instead:
It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that their request for resubmission was met with only one alternative.
So you don’t know. Exactly.
Informing someone that they can set up a meeting is derailing now. Amazing.
And AGAIN you make these assumptions. How do you know it was “met with only one alternative”? Were you there? Can you share the discussion?
It’s wild how hard it is for you to just concede that you don’t know.