I ❤️ malicious compliance
February 22, 2025 - 10:21 UTC
1
0
349
That’s what annoys me. It’s not compliance at all. She’s not changing pronouns but honorifics.
10
0
9
No, she is still calling him a Chairman, just using a different pronoun/prefix than his preferred gender. 🤷🏼♀️
0
0
0
No, she changed his pronoun as first. Calling him madam chairman was changing his pronoun. He tried to use just chairman as a pronoun instead, but that didn’t work because it’s an honorific of position and she knew it.
0
0
1
It's the same thing. Man/woman aren't pronouns either, but they demand to call trans people by their assigned gender at birth but we can see them getting mad here when they're called by the opposite honorific. This nitpicking you're doing is just pedantry for pedantry's sake.
0
0
2
It stuck out to me as well but i was much more annoyed that the chairman agreed that it was a pronoun. Surely he must know what a pronoun is if he’s voting about them…
1
0
3
So you think a title is more important than personal identity? Lemme tell you there's nothing honorable about dehumanizing people because you don't like their life choices. I could give a shit what old white dudes job it
1
0
0
But then again, maybe with the right court case, Kavanaugh, Roberts or Thomas could be convinced that it also applies to honorifics. After all it’s a matter of law and not language and an originalist reading of the Constitution could change everything. 🤓😂
0
0
2
You don't have to be pedantic to support this. They aren't smart enough to know the difference and that's half the gaf. Fuck these magats
1
0
4
