We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
And would you really want LI convos to be a free-for-all where everyone constantly posts their Xi / Winnie-the-Pooh and Rahul and Modi memes and shitposts and AI generated fake image memes for the lulz, and pro and anti-trans memes and articles and YouTube shorts and so on. Aren't there other platforms where you can get such 'content'?
The key aim of online moderation is to encourage a sense of community and free and open discourse, but not with so much freedom / anarchy as to make the place too unpleasant to spend time in.
And while fighting out ideological battles may be interesting and important to some - and it is interesting to see some of the prevailing views on both sides of the spectrum - then let's at least agree to stick to verifiable facts and bona fide arguments when talking about politics, and that's actually not very hard to judge. 'Bad faith' is often not much harder to identify than obscenity or other primitive judicial tests by "you know it when you see it". Likewise, consistent (mis)use of obfuscation, straw-man, ad hominem or other bad-faith argumentative techniques or fallacies are often good evidence of bad faith and can be established fairly objectively.
Sure, some edge-cases are hard, but 99% of examples are fairly obvious. And crucially, allowing those 99% of bad faith comments would not actually contribute to an insightful discussion, would it?
Disagreement with mainstream Western gender narratives is not phobia. Deciding against enriching a propagator of an idea you disagree with is not phobia either. These are rational, decent, civilized forms of voting with one's wallet. You do it yourself when you choose environmentally sensitive brands or boycott Harvey Weinstein.
I would be more ready to accept the 'phobia' label if, say, there were violent riots and arson on Starbucks property, or calls to ban the buisness.
One person may find a cartoon on a politician (Xi, Modi, Rahul) to be genuine dissent and another may find it to be an insult in bad faith. Likewise on other issues including gender politics. Good faith is subjective, and none are so pure as to be trusted as its arbiters. Hence, judgement over good or bad faith is an illegitimate restriction upon dissent and critique.
Of course, at the end of the day, this forum is a platform owned by someone, paid for by someone. That owner has final say on what they wish to pay to host on their property. No arguments there.
The thesis was: "Trans people are people too and should be accepted by their families."
Unless you have an anti-thesis or sound argument to counter that statement, please don't respond with obfuscation. People should only have the right to challenge, question and dissent if they do so truthfully and in good faith. Anything else is abuse of those rights.
Found this very interesting article.
======================================================================
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/13/starbucks-advert-trans-boycott-india/
Advertisement is the non-state, private-actor version of propaganda. It is meant to subliminally leave a mark, associate certain feelings towards the brand and manipulate you into buying the good(s)/service(s). In this case, it appears that the advertisement is intended to invoke associations in the viewer's mind between starbucks and a set of virtues (here it is queer affirmation, but that is immaterial, it could just as easily be any other ideal or virtue).
It is always nice to see a democracy question propaganda that it is fed, evaluate the realities independently and reject the associations that are shoved down it's throat.
My personal views on transgenders or gender poltics in general are beyond the scope of this discussion and this forum.
Who is using Twitter as a barometer for India?
How many actual Indians use Twitter (except for some a very minor portion of our population)?
Is Twitter even relevant after Musk's takeover and content policy shifts that have left rampant abusive and misogynistic trolls become a disproprtionately loud voice on the platform?
In short - who gives a hoot.
From your warning above, do we infer that you are against dissent?
I would be pleasantly surprised if you published this comment.
Are you saying anything depicted in the ad is a bad idea, besides the potential Starbucks virtue-signalling cringe factor?
Or are you saying corporates jumping on bandwagons / pushing boundaries to advertise is bad?
Prior warning: only legitimate responses / attempts to engage will be published.
Undoubtedly a cultural landmark. 👏🫡 🏳️⚧️ Probably the first ever ad in India showing trans persons in a sensitive and normal way, that too by a major MNC. But the transphobic RW is trending #BoycottStarbucks and accusing Starbucks of virtue-signalling and wokeness. Unfortunately, certain "educated" Indian ▮▮▮ aunties are also joining in and mimicking Germaine Greer, JK Rowling etc. So looks like a redux of Western controversies in India in India. So are we witnessing the beginnings of a gender culture war in India, like in the West?
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/too-woke-starbucks-faces-backlash-for-new-ad-in-india-heres-why-381024-2023-05-12
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/boycott-starbucks-trends-on-twitter-the-brand-faces-backlash-for-transgender-ad/articleshow/100202118.cms?from=mdr
https://www.thequint.com/neon/social-buzz/starbucks-new-ad-showing-a-trans-woman-gets-mixed-reactions
https://www.news18.com/viral/boycott-starbucks-coffee-giant-receives-backlash-over-viral-ad-on-transgender-inclusion-7797721.html