news Biden admin fires trans woman for promoting 2nd amendment rights for LGBTs

[AMIT]

 

19 minutes ago, khalyan said:

She's only receiving as much publicity and pushback from her social media post because she's trans. If a cis person who worked in the department of agriculture posted a picture of them with a gun, nobody would bat an eyelash.  The US government does not care about people bearing arms as we've seen by the amount of right-wing Republicans who pose with them in their Christmas cards each year. 

18 minutes ago, khalyan said:

Obviously, I don't think Biden really had anything to do with this.  "A call from Washington" could mean anything and I doubt Biden is too concerned with this himself.

 

However, it's a pretty obvious double standard between how this woman was punished and how every Republican in government at the moment is applauded for the same action.

 

You nailed it, sis. 

 

Not surprised a certain set of users are in here already making a fool of themselves as well. 

[awong918]

The Biden administration probably isn't directly overseeing the archaeologist trainee division.

 

She wasn't fired for simply holding a gun. She was fired for her saying she'll use the gun under some vague circumstance, which is promoting violence. Not something you should be doing as a federal employee on probation.

Edited April 16, 2023 by awong918

[Tylerbv]

Unfortunate situation, but it’s the consequences of her own actions.. also on probation? Not smart.

[AMIT]

15 minutes ago, Harrier said:

As a non-American, the gun obsessed left is almost as foreign to me as the right. Literally what do the girls think is going to happen, if there is some kind of worst case scenario trans genocide, owning guns isn't going to help you. It's just aesthetics and posturing, contributing to a culture of fear and violence. Guns never make communites safer and that includes guns owned by leftists.

 

btw wtf is this, idek where to begin 

 

how is owning a gun not gonna help if your opponent also has one and threatens to use it on you? we should just bend over and accept defeat according to you? 

 

the threat of a gun is obviously a deterrent of violent action on top of being a propeller of it, it goes both ways. 

 

why do you think countries such as North Korea have to keep their military ready basically at all times when the US keeps threating them daily with nuclear action?? 

[Communion]

13 minutes ago, Ryan said:

Civil employees work regardless who the admin is.

No one is questioning the admin's legal right to do what they did -we're discussing the ethics. We believe her employer shouldn't have swung the hammer down on her if they wanted us to believe they care about trans people.

 

Like with the punishing of people for smoking weed. Does the Biden admin fully have the legal right to fire people for having (trusted them enough to openly tell them that they) smoked weed? Of course.

 

Does them doing such - even if legal to do -  call into question the ethics of the Biden admin, those within it who make such calls, and the genuinity of then claims by the admin like wanting to legalize weed? Of course.

 

A Republican administration would have defended any random Forest Service employee making an actually threatening social media post showing off their gun, citing their commitment to employees' 2nd amendment rights. But that's the difference. Republicans platform their most volatile for wanting to do harm while Democrats punish their most vulnerable for causing inconvenience by asking to be protected from harm.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Communion

[Bears01]

10 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

You really don’t HAVE to do anything of the sort. You are making the choice to defend Biden in a stan war type fashion.

 

Biden has also made the choice to continue firing staff for marijuana possession, even though it’s under his sole discretion.

 

At the end of the day, Democrats want guns abolished for law-abiding citizens so that law enforcement can run rough-shod over them. They want more George Floyds and Eric Garners, which is why Biden wants to FUND The Police and militarize them even more than they already are. It’s why Democrats in Atlanta have signed off on Cop City. It’s why they want to expand the surveillance state under the NSA and have AI programs spying on every single Discord server (which was being set up even before the recent push to do so in the wake of the leak by WaPo and NYT in their collaborations with Bellingcat).

 

This is peak virtue signal for Democrats. Turn loose a left-leaning trans woman who promotes arming yourself for self-defense because at the end of the day, they don’t want people to be able to even slightly defend themselves from government and take an agent or two down with them when they come to extrajudicially murder them in the dead of night like they did to Breonna Taylor.

Fam, you know you’re cool in my book, but the first part of your statement at me is a bit of a reach. Professional setting, etc. 

 

Him firing people for smoking weed though and how bad it is a valid point, let’s stick with that and not some trainee in a low level department getting fired for making blanket threats with a gun on social media 

[Bhabylon]

She shouldn’t have posted what she posted 

[bliaz]

1 hour ago, Ryan said:

Really, Communion? 
 

1) the Biden admin wouldn’t handle anything on this kind of granular level. 
 

2) She violated the terms of her agreement when she was hired. As a former federal employee I can assure you she signed a policy and procedures manual for social media conduct and THIS is conduct unbecoming.

3) Blaming Biden for her OWN poor judgement shows she lacks accountability for getting herself fired.

[Harrier]

5 minutes ago, AMIT said:

btw wtf is this, idek where to begin 

 

how is owning a gun not gonna help if your opponent also has one and threatens to use it on you? we should just bend over and accept defeat according to you? 

 

the threat of a gun is obviously a deterrent of violent action on top of being a propeller of it, it goes both ways. 

 

why do you think countries such as North Korea have to keep their military ready basically at all times when the US keeps threating them daily with nuclear action?? 

Widespread gun ownership does not deter violence, but rather invites violence. This is maybe the most statisically established fact in politics. It's also really hypocritical to support gun control and actual good measures like gun buybacks, but then participate in the absurd gun aesthetics culture by posting threatening photos of yourself. 

 

I can see why if you're a person that lives in a dangerous area with a lot of guns, or if you occupy a highly stigmatized identidy,  you might quietly own a handgun so you might protect yourself. Maybe, at a stretch - I'm still not very convinced it actually makes you house safer. But how does advertising that fact with threats achieve anything other than contributing to a culture of fear and violence?

 

 

also, what kind of bizarre north Korea comparison. The US is not threatening them with nuclear action daily, I mean what a ridiculous assertion  Sure there is the implicit threat but be serious

[Communion]

15 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

This is peak virtue signal for Democrats. Turn loose a left-leaning trans woman who promotes arming yourself for self-defense because at the end of the day, they don’t want people to be able to even slightly defend themselves from government and take an agent or two down with them when they come to extrajudicially murder them in the dead of night like they did to Breonna Taylor.

I'd rather people just be more honest and say that they acknowledge this is virtue signaling from the Biden admin and that it's okay for certain double standards to exist if it helps with "the PR".

 

I don't doubt many liberals genuinely view any kind of openness to guns as crazy* (this has historically been the trend with liberals and armed resistance). But there's also clearly a whiff of 'can y'all stop doing anything that will alienate moderate voters???". The woman has literally not done anything illegal. Her crime is doing something 'unsavory' to suburbanite moderates reading "TRANS WOMAN EMBRACES GUNS!" on the New York Post.

 

*- And I say this as a sissy with a stigmatism! Me? Shoot a gun? Please! But as long as American law entitles Americans to own guns, it's completely toothless of the Biden admin to betray and punish queers embracing their right to bear arms because "this queer can shoot back" is unsavory to them and their internal polling. 

[Blue Monday]

Can the people who keep posting MTG and other republicans with guns on social media explain what Biden is supposed to do about that exactly

Edited April 16, 2023 by Blue Monday

[Communion]

5 minutes ago, Blue Monday said:

Can the people who keep posting MTG and other republicans with guns on social media explain what Biden is supposed to do about that exactly

Cite it as an example for why a trans woman proudly utilizing her 2nd amendment rights does not violate vague social media clauses that are completely at the discretion of the federal agency to or to not act on after receiving random complaints from conservatives who want trans people dead.

 

But of course, we know that when Republicans go low, Democrats go high profusely apologize and ask Republicans how they can better accomodate them and find a midway point via reasonable bipartisan compromise.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Communion

[rihannafan]

The biden administration firing anybody for having weapons is hilarious. Are they mad she didn't donate the price of the gun to the pentagon budget?

 

That being said, don't own guns

[ClashAndBurn]

52 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Fam, you know you’re cool in my book, but the first part of your statement at me is a bit of a reach. Professional setting, etc. 

 

Him firing people for smoking weed though and how bad it is a valid point, let’s stick with that and not some trainee in a low level department getting fired for making blanket threats with a gun on social media 

Yeah, I won’t harp on you too much, and it would be unfair to cast you necessarily as “stan warring” for Biden.

 

some other folks here though have more of a chip on their shoulder when it comes to defending everything Biden does, whether it’s holding firm on opposing marijuana legalization or his indefensible immigration policies that satisfy absolutely no one.

 

Frankly I just don’t agree with the move of making examples of trans people who are openly under threat.

 

The fact that her supervisor didn’t want to go through with this and fought it up until the demands from upper administration won out is enough for me.

[fathillaryduff]

When did everyone start hating Communion? Maybe ATRL is worth using again, after all.

[Price of Fame]

5 minutes ago, fathillaryduff said:

When did everyone start hating Communion? Maybe ATRL is worth using again, after all.

he makes it very easy (even for people that agreeing with him politically)

[305]

3 hours ago, Ryan said:

Really, Communion? 
 

1) the Biden admin wouldn’t handle anything on this kind of granular level. 
 

2) She violated the terms of her agreement when she was hired. As a former federal employee I can assure you she signed a policy and procedures manual for social media conduct and THIS is conduct unbecoming.

3) Blaming Biden for her OWN poor judgement shows she lacks accountability for getting herself fired.

Get her. Some people on the left are just as bad as the right, believing anything that fits their narrative 

[Heartbreak Prince]

Biden obviously had nothing to do with this  maybe she should have stuck to her contract terms and conditions, as well as getting off Twitter, what a concept!

Edited April 16, 2023 by Heartbreak Prince

[Communion]

1 hour ago, fathillaryduff said:

When did everyone start hating Communion? 

Hold on. Political disagreement =/= hating anybody. *I* don't hate anyone for disagreeing with me. But if people hate me, the idea that ATRL is some haven for communists is silly. I post in spite of historical harassment (the user who made fun of me for sharing in the 2020 election thread that I wouldn't vote for Biden if he won the primary cause my dad was in the hospital dying still posts regularly ).

 

There was even a user who'd quote me saying communists should be arrested and said he hoped I'd be killed "for supporting China". He finally got banned after several outrageous posts, including saying he was sending ATRL threads to government agencies, reporting my posts for treason. 

 

That a high-ranking administrator regularly finds himself publicly disagreeing with progressive users (x) (x) - which he's fully entitled to do (!) - shows that ATRL is very friendly to moderates and liberals. That there is no secret communist take-over despite being previously theorized publicly by some members.

 

People who claim to hold strong political views - to where they find criticizing the Biden admin upsetting - should have enough confidence that they don't need to hide behind a staff member to voice those views.

 

Many of the users hoping Ryan and I keep going back and forth (I guess the implication being the hope that I'll keep disagreeing and he'll ban me out of frustration - which is silly of a thing to assume he'd do) have repeatedly falsely accused staff like Bloo and khalyan of using their staff status to "push" progressive politics.

 

If Ryan posts thoughtful arguments (which, to his credit, he has done more so than any other person trying to defend Biden), of course his arguments should be considered by progressives - not just by virtue of being an admin. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Communion

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

Cite it as an example for why a trans woman proudly utilizing her 2nd amendment rights does not violate vague social media clauses that are completely at the discretion of the federal agency to or to not act on after receiving random complaints from conservatives who want trans people dead.

 

But of course, we know that when Republicans go low, Democrats go high profusely apologize and ask Republicans how they can better accomodate them and find a midway point via reasonable bipartisan compromise.

MTG is (unfortunately) an elected official. The President can’t fire a member of Congress…

 

I understand the point of double standards, but a federal civil trainee threatening violence on social media to an account that is easily traceable to their job in the government is not the hill to die on here.

[Communion]

1 minute ago, Headlock said:

MTG is (unfortunately) an elected official. The President can’t fire a member of Congress…

No one is asking them to do so. But there is no guidance that said this employee must be fired. Employee contracts overtly benefit the employer to do what they want at their discretion. The Biden admin made a choice.

 

By firing this person, this Biden administration accepts and defends a right-wing framework that LGBT self-defense is violence. 

[Elusive Chanteuse]

2 hours ago, Bhabylon said:

She shouldn’t have posted what she posted 

 

!!!

 

But the rules should apply to other people working for the government including congress and senate members

 

[Shaner69]

2 hours ago, awong918 said:

The Biden administration probably isn't directly overseeing the archaeologist trainee division.

 

She wasn't fired for simply holding a gun. She was fired for her saying she'll use the gun under some vague circumstance, which is promoting violence. Not something you should be doing as a federal employee on probation.

Who is this guy 🌹

[Headlock]

12 minutes ago, Communion said:

No one is asking them to do so.

That isn’t my point. It literally isn’t even an option for the President to fire members of Congress, they’re two different branches of government. It’s not an issue of “employer discretion,” it literally isn’t allowed by the Constitution. Using right-wing nutjobs in the House/Senate as an example is a false equivalence.

 

Again, I understand your point (and agree on the sentiment), but this is not the situation to dig your heels into. If this person had just posted the photo without the caption, I would agree her being fired was not justified by comparison. However, she literally threatened violence while holding a firearm. It really is not hard to see why she was fired for that, you can’t do that on an account connected to your job as a federal employee.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Headlock

[Communion]

21 minutes ago, Headlock said:

That isn’t my point. It literally isn’t even an option for the President to fire members of Congress

You're arguing a point I never made on which we agree. The comparison given for the repeated behavior was the White House firing staffers because of legal marijuana usage. Something they can do *but do not have to do* by the same powers given to the fed as an employer when deciding to have blanket "social media" clauses. 

 

The post you've quoted of mine doesn't argue the bold is an option. The post you've quoted of mine explicitly cites that this not being an option for Biden means there's even less reason for his administration, if he cared about trans people, to fire this employee who didn't have to be fired. That the right constantly utilizes the powers allotted to them while Democrats consistently self-censor and punch left because of right-wing Dems.

 

Republicans exploit the power given to them and reject standards. They protect their activists and platform them. Democrats actively self-sabotage and purposefully disassociate themselves from activists connected to the demographics they want votes from.

 

All this is doing is emphasizing that there are no actual arguments in place that show the Biden admin *needed* to fire this person. They *wanted* to. That's a substantial difference. Like how they *wanted* to fire staffers for smoking weed. It's a choice they made because they see LGBT self-defense as violence in itself.

 

Which needs to be reiterated. This person did not threaten violence. They said they'd defend themselves.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Communion