janardhanodigma

[softpastelqueer]

Trumplican: *is an openly genocidal and openly white supremacist fascist*

White Liberals™️: *crickets*

Trumplican: *says something incredibly stupid*

White Liberals™️: HA HA THEY THINK WIND TURBINES STEAL WIND AND MAKE CANCER CAUSING NOISES AND THAT SOLAR ENERGY WILL ABSORB AND KILL THE SUN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY MEANS NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT AND-

[lercymoth]

As someone who is pro-choice, I think we need to have an important discussion. You can be pro-choice but also anti-eugenics, and I think a lot of people see abortion as a black and white subject where if you're against any form of abortion. I say this because I've had multiple other pro-choice people get mad at me for questioning this.

(Note: This person got banned for this post. Don't support this crap.)

In light of recent events, abortion posts have been popping up more. And that's a good thing! But that being said, there is something we need to address in our movement. I've noticed a lot of people are saying "Women should unconditionally have the right to choose what they do with their bodies.", and that's valid! The state shouldn't have control over people's bodies. But that being said, there's a specific way in which people are supporting that, and we need to talk about it. People have been using abortion to support eugenics, specifically, a lot of people are trying to say it isn't eugenics to abort a fetus solely because the mother sees their traits as undesirable (traits like skin color, genetic condition like autism, etc).

I have seen multiple pro-choice advocates state that since women should have access to an abortion unconditionally, it's okay if the sole purpose that someone gets an abortion is that they were already planning on having the child, but then out of nowhere get their child screened, discover that they might have undesirable genes (being black or autistic), and then decide to get the abortion for that reason.

Not only is this hateful, denying births to a protected minority group because they're part of said minority group is eugenics. This has been practiced by governments before as racial eugenics. It's no different if it's practiced by individuals. The point of it being bad isn't "the government is doing it", the point of it is that eugenics is bad.

I think we need to talk about this because as leftists, we lean towards pro-choice arguments because our goal is social justice. Pro-choice arguments generally talk about situations where the pregnancy was always unwanted, and that's good, but we need to talk about situations where it was wanted from the beginning and then changed because of hate.

Now before anyone says it: No, abortion is not eugenics. Pro-lifers, fuck off. Don't use this to support your beliefs.

Another thing I see a lot of pro-choicers say is that "It isn't eugenics because it isn't being forced by the government / It is not a coordinated attempt by the state to wipe out an entire group"

Eugenics is neither of those things. A coordinated attempt to wipe out a protected class is genocide. Eugenics is an ideology. Think of it like fascism. Just like fascism, it started in Europe. It spread about in the UK and got us posters like these, supporting the idea of not having 'mentally defective' children (it then changed to be about race too).

This did lead to genocidal policies in the United States, where the US forced sterilizations on disabled people and enacted similar policies, but it also had general hateful policies like the Immigration Act of 1924, which barred immigrants based on race. Eventually, Nazi Germany picked it up but even then, it wasn't used to justify killing entire groups until later. At first, it was just about denying births to protected classes because they were deemed flawed, such as preventing births of disabled people and ethnic minorities. (It should also be mentioned that eugenics used to be about superiority and aborting fetuses just because they're 'unfit', but in modern times that is not always the case)

Why am I mentioning this? Because it seems like a lot of people have flawed perceptions on what eugenics is, and that's really bad because it leads to people accidentally supporting eugenics by claiming what they're supporting isn't eugenics.

I have seen a lot of people say this isn't a form of eugenics because it's being done by an individual and not the state. Well, the thing about that is eugenics was advertised as an individual choice, as a self directed thing. This is not to mention eugenics is an ideology, and ideologies can be practiced by anyone.

Lastly, I want to state that this is not about the fetus. This is about eugenics being bad, and that we shouldn't normalize it in leftist circles. We can't say we're fighting for social justice when we're normalizing eugenics talk. This is about minority groups. We can be pro-choice and anti-eugenics at the same time. But I feel like for a lot of people, they refuse to see what has been practiced as eugenics on a state level as eugenics when it's practiced by an individual. And for others, they hold "Women have the right to choose no matter what" so strongly that they're willing to put minority groups in the line of fire just to get that point across.

This is not okay, no matter what. This is not okay. This only goes to make us look bad. I've seen so many pro-lifers using this against us and I am tired of it. Stop giving them ammunition.

[butterflyinthewell]

Don’t support Autism Speaks in April. They’re a bad, damaging charity.

Every April, the autistic community rises up in protest of Autism Speaks, the juggernaut autism charity known worldwide.

Autism Speaks refuses to listen to autistic voices, dehumanizes autistic people and centers caregivers and parents instead of #actuallyautistic people. Their negative, stigmatizing rhetoric still affects autistic people to this day. As an autistic person, I implore you to listen to the autistic community about Autism Speaks. Don’t fall for the blue. Please go #REDInstead. 

Here is a bunch of links that explain why Autism Speaks is a bad charity that should never be trusted until autistic voices are 100% listened to, centered and favored over neurotypicals.

* * * WARNING: Some links include abuse, violence, murder and ABA * * *

http://goldenheartedrose.tumblr.com/post/89338501188/autism-speaks-masterpost-new-updated-62014 (collection of links)

https://medium.com/@KirstenSchultz/a-roundup-of-posts-against- autism-speaks-5dbf7f8cfcc6 (collection of links)

https://kpagination.wordpress.com/autism-resources/autism- acceptance-month-resources/ (collection of links)

https://whyiboycottautismspeaks.wordpress.com/ (collection of blog posts)

What's wrong with Autism Speaks? Before you donate, please take a moment to look into this organization and what it’s awareness and fundraising is really doing for the people it claims to support.

Autism Speaks no longer seeking a cure, and this autistic person couldn't care less. Not only does it sound like a lot of nice words couched in nice language that don’t actually mean a thing, but it’s very parent focused (still) and doesn’t actually seem to help actual autistics.

Four years. Every time a parent whose clothing is covered by puzzle pieces or autism “awareness” slogans tells me I don’t count because I can speak, even while I’m stuttering and turning red and unable to continue and they think they’ve won the fight…my heart breaks.

Autism Speaks diminishes lived experience. Autism Speaks is not a representation of autistic voices, they are a sham, intended to steal money from scared parents.

Why I am against Autism Speaks. If you are FOR humanity, you will be AGAINST Autism Speaks.

Who is your awareness really for? Autism is not about you. We don't want your awareness. We don't want your damn silent selfies. If you really want to do something for autistic people, first stop posting your kid's business all over the internet. Then listen to us. Stop doing this mommy centered 'awareness' crap that stigmatizes us.

Be aware of this. Quackery awareness month, even, but of course no one will come out and call a spade an effing shovel because autistic people don't count in this society. That's right, it's a f*ing shovel.

I'm aware of your hate. Everywhere I look you remind me that you hate us. You want us gone. A word for the history books.

Is Autism Speaks a hate group? According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a hate group’s “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization”.

Light it up blue isn't autism awareness, it's advertising for Autism Speaks. But every time I start thinking Autism Speaks is starting down a good path they do something that reminds me: they are not my family’s autism organization. They don’t represent my values. They don’t represent my family.

Why Autism Speaks is dangerous. Autism Speaks, frankly, has the most ironic name of any nonprofit I’ve ever heard of, because they do everything EXCEPT let autistic people speak. Their entire campaign is founded around how awful it is to be a parent of an autistic child, without paying a single thought to how it feels to be an autistic child.

Be Aware! My kids do not need people to be aware of Autism, especially when what that actually means is “beware” of autism. My kids need people to accept them, just as they are, and recognise that they are valuable and valued human beings who do not need to be changed. My kids need people to be willing to support them when the environment is causing them problems. My kids need people to see the value in diversity and look at them as people with some thing to offer, not something to be tolerated.

Autism Speaks: Hate speech and eugenics. I’m pretty pro- choice, if you don’t want a baby, don’t have one, but I take a huge issue with encouraging the termination of intended pregnancies on the grounds that you’ll get someone with a neurotype you didn’t want. Wiping out a group of people by stopping them from being born is called genocide.

Autism Speaks fails the community. In one of its controversial videos, "I Am Autism," we hear autism promise to bankrupt you, destroy your marriage and friendships and eliminate all hope from your life. Autism Speaks turns autistic people into villains and parents of autistic people the heroes — or worse — the victims.

Autism Speaks does not deserve your support. Autism Speaks’ mission statement goes on to claim that they will “find the missing pieces of the puzzle,” showing that “they don’t really value autistic people as fully human people. We are puzzles and we are missing pieces of ourselves, and we must become neurotypical in order to be respected by this group.”

Why we hijacked the #AutismSpeaks10 hashtag. Here’s the thing about the “autism advocacy” organization known as Autism Speaks – it doesn’t advocate for people with autism. In fact, if it’s said to advocate for anyone, it would be for overwrought parents of autistic children. In fact, they’ve promoted a video sympathizing with a mother who says – with her autistic daughter in the room – that she considered driving herself and her daughter off the George Washington bridge because of the enormous burden of it all.

Do not light it up blue. Did you know that autistic people are here all year long? Their struggles and their triumphs don’t begin and end in the month of April. How are you being more aware and accepting of autistic people and their families all year?

An autistic speaks about Autism Speaks. So that is why I'm posting this blog entry today. It's to get the word out from the other side of the autism debate, the one that doesn't get all the media attention. It's in the hope that someone, anyone, who participated in the walk might start to have second thoughts about it. And most of all, it is with the hope that others like myself can get the support we need to live in a sometimes frustrating society, not a cure that is forced on us without our acceptance.

Real autism. Autism Speaks was created by Bob and Suzanne Wright in 2005 as an organization that advocates for Autism. Over the years Autism Speaks has created a severe amount of controversy around their practices and policies in regards to how they promote Autism to the general public.

"Imagine, if you will, that an organization existed by the name of "Womanhood Speaks," which, on the surface, appeared to be in support of women's rights. Now imagine that the governing body of this organization only included members of the male gender, with not one female represented in its ranks. Imagine that its actual aim was to create a registry of all females and force them to become more masculine, completely disregarding the fact that a majority of females were perfectly content with their womanhood and even found it to be advantageous. Imagine that members of its leadership appeared on popular TV programs talking about the epidemic of womanhood and how it needed to be eradicated. Doesn't sound too appealing, does it?"

-- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/5/19/336513/-

[Neurodiversity isn’t about pretending that autism, other developmental disabilities and psychiatric disabilities are all sunshine and rainbows. It’s about believing that we should be able to live our lives on our own terms and that our community should continue to exist, and doing whatever we can to make sure that happens. --Shain M. Neumeier, Esq.]

[maxwellyjordan]

Battles continue over lawyer speech codes, in both U.S. and Canada

As I noted last year, the American Bar Association in 2016 adopted as a recommendation its Model Rule 8.4 (g),

which makes it “professional misconduct” for an attorney to engage in “conduct,” including verbal “conduct,” that “the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” …

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has argued that the ABA rule’s scope “is broad and vague enough to potentially apply to a wide range of political speech, and thus violate the First Amendment.”

The rule would invite charges of professional misconduct against lawyers who express or circulate opinions, jokes, or graphics that they should have known would make a listener uncomfortable based on one or another protected class membership. It would apply in an extremely wide range of contexts “related to the practice of law”, as listed in these April comments:

Activities that seem to fall within the extremely broad scope of proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) include:

* presenting CLE courses; * participating in panel discussions that touch on controversial political, religious, and social viewpoints; * teaching law school classes as faculty, adjunct faculty, or guest lecturers; * writing law review articles, op-eds, blogposts, or tweets; * giving media interviews; * serving on the board of one’s religious congregation, K-12 school, or college; * providing pro bono legal advice to nonprofits; * serving at legal aid clinics; * lobbying on various legal issues; * testifying before a legislative body; * writing comment letters to government agencies; * sitting on the board of a fraternity or sorority; * volunteering for political parties; and * advocating through social justice organizations.

While some state codes of lawyer conduct already ban bias and harassment, these have generally been drafted much more narrowly. In Maine, for example, up to now the missteps have to have been committed “knowingly,” in the course of representing a client, and in a manner “prejudicial to the administration of justice” — all three important safeguards against overbreadth.

Model Rule 8.4 (g) has faced rough sledding around the states since it was proposed. According to these comments in October, “seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.”

As Vermont goes, so goes Maine: the Pine Tree State’s highest court has now adopted a version of the rule, although narrowed in several respects. In particular, the Maine version defines “the practice of law” in a less broad (though still quite broad) way that covers fewer purely social activities; it removes socioeconomic status and marital status from the list of protected classes; and it tries at least to define what sorts of speech it will deem to be bias or harassment. Its definition is still quite unclear in its contours, however, and far broader than the standard approved by the U.S. Supreme Court as to harassment law and speech liability in workplace and university settings.

Let’s hope other states don’t follow Maine’s example: even as narrowed, the rules curtail important rights.

In the mean time, however, there is heartening news from Ontario, Canada, where (as I reported last year) the Law Society had gone all in on rules that go much further than the ABA’s, requiring all lawyers on pain of discipline to draft and submit a personal Statement of Principles (SOP) avowing a dedication to principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion. The Society rejected a proposal “to create an exemption to the new mandatory Statement of Principles for persons who believe the requirement violates their freedom of conscience.”

But its membership revolted. Attorney Lisa Bildy and other SOP objectors led a campaign that, in a seeming miracle, elected 22 of its supporters to the 40 lawyer seats among the benchers (governors) at the Law Society. While the newly elected are not a majority because of the other seats on the body reserved for lay benchers and paralegals, the message was unmistakable (more on the campaign from Bruce Pardy, Murray Klippenstein, Teng Rong, and Dylan McGuinty). Now, in the face of a determined campaign of abuse directed at the incoming benchers (sidelight), the Law Society of Ontario’s governing Convocation will meet June 27 to begin considering whether to repeal, render optional, otherwise change, or retain the Statement of Principles requirements.

The June 27 Law Society meeting, and what follows, deserve a close watch by all of us concerned about the rise of speech codes and forced expression in the professions.

[cross-posted from Cato at Liberty; earlier]

Tags: bar associations, free speech, hostile environment, legal profession

from Law http://www.overlawyered.com/2019/06/battles-continue-over-lawyer-speech-codes-in-both-u-s-and-canada/ via http://www.rssmix.com/