@lokkju@thehypersphere@Aella_Girl@IveKnownItAll That was public. The idea of a blacklist is that it is private and only used to decide whether to take someone as a client - thus, accusations have no way of spreading and impacting a person's life.
@lokkju@thehypersphere@Aella_Girl@IveKnownItAll Can you really run the risk of defamation for privately listing someone as a blacklist candidate? It's like how plasma donation centers share info about individual donors not to accept
@thehypersphere@Aella_Girl@IveKnownItAll And people on the blacklist should not know they're on the blacklist or else they'll create a new fake name/number/whatever else is on their record.
This helps keep SWs safe! But under current law, it's illegal because it aids a crime
@thehypersphere@Aella_Girl@IveKnownItAll SWers keep "blacklist" sites that only fellow SWers have access to. If an individual is on that list, do not accept them as a client. SWers need personal info to screen someone and check if they're on the blacklist before accepting them
@LilySimpson1312 Ethnic labels are socially constructed (ethnic culture is to ethnicity as gender is to sex) but that doesn't mean anyone can or should be able to "identify" as whatever ethnicity they claim they feel like, like Oli London as Korean
@LilySimpson1312 Socially constructed gender means any label of "woman" that isn't just a sex is incoherent. There's nothing women meaningfully have in common with "trans women" on the basis of being "women" that we don't share with "trans men" and AFAB non-binary"
NIH now recommends Vitamin C, D3 and Zinc for prevention and treatment of Covid-19. The rest of us who have recommended it for the past 18 months don't even want an apology.
@technolawgist@ladybug1776 Like, unrelated people can't throw away a person's life, because they can't be trusted to, but as long as you contributed your DNA to a person, you're empowered to make the irreversible decision for them to stop living, for your utility's sake?
@technolawgist@ladybug1776 If state-run institutions should not be allowed to decide to end people's lives, maybe parents shouldn't have the authority over their children's lives to decide whether to outright terminate them either.
@technolawgist@ladybug1776 "minimizing state power" would mean letting foster homes do so, not stopping them if they believe it reduces suffering to do so
(I believe a lot of people who similarly want to "minimize state power" actually do consider anti-abortion laws a legitimate use of force)
@technolawgist@ladybug1776 What are *you* optimizing for when you condemn the idea of foster homes euthanizing excess unwanted children, even if that were calculated to reduce the most suffering?