768
Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
768 points (100.0% liked)
News
36270 readers
2558 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even better - Conservatives: show me your personal medical records, I need to know if you are doing something I want to be illegal.
Also conservatives: what do you mean you want to check my mental health background before I can purchase a gun? Outrageous.
The whole LGBT stuff is such bullshit since it should 100% easily fall under first amendment expression it is retarded that they have not been trounced are every turn.
Do better, please.
I knew that would be the one thing someone would comment on. I am not referring to someone with cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, ADHD, or any other affect that would cause the slowing of mental capacity. I am referring to politisication of something that has a clear constitutional argument to be made. Also, I was using it as a double entandre, one as to call the lawmakers and judges who support this bullshit mentally deficient, but also to say that the whole thing impedes progress, which is the very definition of the verb 'retard'.
If I had been using it derogatorily towards someone of actual diminished capacity, I would need to do better. These are supposedly competent elected and appointed officials. As long as they actively retard the growth of my country, I will freely and happily call them retarded.
Fair enough, I appreciate the well articulated response and agree with your usage, but you said it right here:
That's the unfortunate state of things due to years of people using the word derogatorily. I applaud you trying to bring it back to proper usage, just be prepared that you will continue to get responses like mine and I doubt they'll all be as considered as this was.
Thank you for your response anf kind acceptance.
It is actually a word that I have been endlessly frustrated with the changes socially to its use. When actually discussing mental deficiencies in a medical sense, the phrase "mentally retarded" is a rare apt terminology. It is "the state if being inhibited from further mental or cognitive progress", which fits the definition of the verb "retard" perfectly. I understand that socially it was widely used abusively and historically it has a dubious past medically at best, but linguistically it is perfect. I guess that is what frustrates me, because so few things in this world have such a linguistic, well, not perfection, but something to that effect. I guess my failure in words goes to rhetorically illustrate my point.
Welcome. I wasn't trying to stir the pot, just lookin' out for a fellow linguaphile.
This attitude doesn't really remove derogatory language, because idiots who want to be offensive just jump to stupid, new words, or else they turn words that we could previously use just fine into slurs.
/gestures the "ok" hand sign
Like that?
That would be an example, although I was thinking of something more relevant like people saying "accoustic" to insult autistic people.
That's a thing? Ugh
Ah, but you see, there is no restrictions to owning a gun. Our forefathers believed so, even though at the time every gun was a single shot using black powder that wasn't that accurate. They absolutely knew that one day people would have semi-automatic weapons able to fire off an obscene amount rounds in a minute, hitting a target accurately from a long distance.
Don't forget that they were just coming out of a time of oppression and persistent existential fear, but were obviously clairvoyant enough to know that it would be a rule that held in what would be the absolute safest and most peaceful time the world has known in 200 years.