𝙈𝙞𝙖@quokk.au to politics @lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoOhio Dem Party Has Banned Criticism Of Gov. Candidate Amy Acton Calling Trans Girls “Boys”www.erininthemorning.comexternal-linkmessage-square120linkfedilinkarrow-up1206arrow-down110file-text
arrow-up1196arrow-down1external-linkOhio Dem Party Has Banned Criticism Of Gov. Candidate Amy Acton Calling Trans Girls “Boys”www.erininthemorning.com𝙈𝙞𝙖@quokk.au to politics @lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square120linkfedilinkfile-text
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/usa/p/1051767/ohio-dem-party-has-banned-criticism-of-gov-candidate-amy-acton-calling-trans-girls-boys
minus-squareSnoopSqueak@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months ago They asked about submitting the post for approval …which was ignored. Instead: they were offered a meeting with Acton. …which turned out to be a lie. Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post? the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up. It was banned.
minus-squarenull@piefed.nullspace.lollinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·2 months ago which was ignored Does not appear in the quote. If you have another source for that claim, it’s weird that you haven’t shared it by now. Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post? Fair, I’ll rephrase: you cannot demonstrate that they were not allowed to resubmit the post.
minus-squareSnoopSqueak@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months agoI do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.
minus-squarenull@piefed.nullspace.lollinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·2 months agoSo you don’t know. Like I’ve said on every loop.
minus-squareSnoopSqueak@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months agoI know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid. Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?
minus-squarenull@piefed.nullspace.lollinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·2 months ago I know what the article and the headline say Congratulations? Your initial criticism is still invalid. It’s not. Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post? Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.
minus-squareSnoopSqueak@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·2 months ago Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed. If you can disprove the contents of the article you chose to criticize, please do.
minus-squarenull@piefed.nullspace.lollinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·2 months agoDisprove what about them, beyond what I already have?
…which was ignored. Instead:
…which turned out to be a lie.
Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?
It was banned.
Does not appear in the quote. If you have another source for that claim, it’s weird that you haven’t shared it by now.
Fair, I’ll rephrase: you cannot demonstrate that they were not allowed to resubmit the post.
I do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.
So you don’t know.
Like I’ve said on every loop.
I know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid.
Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?
Congratulations?
It’s not.
Why would I do that when it’s not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.
If you can disprove the contents of the article you chose to criticize, please do.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Disprove what about them, beyond what I already have?