Share this page!

Gabriel Malor Profile picture
Twitter logo
27 Oct, 11 tweets, 4 min read
NBC ran this op-ed about how Sen. Sinema could inspire bisexuals to have better politics because "Kyrsten Sinema is not an accurate representation of all bisexuals."
nbcnews.com/think/opinion/…
Can you imagine in any other context being told you're not an "accurate representation" of something you are?

Oh hey, Obama, you're not an accurate representation of a black man.

Oh c'mon @chrislhayes, you're not an accurate representation of a man.

It's offensive.
"Accurate representation?" Look, kids, Sen. Sinema is bi. And she isn't less bi because she doesn't share your politics, assholes.
This NBC News-published column is a pathetic retread of exclusion that gay and bi people have experienced forever from folks who are more safe. They can safely cast Sen. Sinema out as not the right sort of bi person. And be promoted by no less than NBC News' twitter account.
Column: she's not the right kind of bi person because she tricked us and it's a problem because people think bi people are deceptive.

Me: Uhhhhh. I probably would not have run that, @NBCNews. Because it's a fuckin' problem.
@NBCNews This thread is making me wonder if I should be writing about bi people more because it's quite clear from this NBC piece that some folks don't actually know what having attraction to both men and women is about. It's not about deception, fer cripessakes.
@NBCNews *bi people just trying to live their lives*

NBC OP-ED: DECEIVERS!
@NBCNews Okay, that could have been a little unfair. The author is only "asking questions." The author is just "wondering," if you would please allow it.
@NBCNews (Psst. LGBT folks, @NBCNews official twitter hopes you'll be less of a stereotype, which, in this bizarre case means conforming to what they think your politics should be.)
@NBCNews Tha's the intrinsic poison here, btw.

For Sen. Sinema to *not* be a stereotype, according to LuxAlptraum, she must conform to the progressive agenda and not be her own woman.

The word "stereotype" used to mean something else, but here we are.
Yeah, yeah, I've been griping about this stupid sloppy column for almost three quarters of an hour.

I just really hate when I see an LGBTQ person being told they're being a bad LGBTQ person for not behaving the right way. I got that a lot.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Gabriel Malor

Gabriel Malor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gabrielmalor

Gabriel Malor Profile picture
14 Oct
Some notes.

(1) Congress has the option to seek a declaratory lawsuit over its subpoena authority to challenge Bannon's Trump-derived claim that his testimony is privileged. But that's not where they're going.
(2) Ordinarily, these things don't actually get litigated. The individuals eventually agree to testify with certain reservations.

(3) Going straight to a referral to the US Att'y's office is skipping straight to the nuclear option.
(4) Under this scheme, the US Att'y would then have to decide whether referral to a grand jury is warranted.
Read 5 tweets
Gabriel Malor Profile picture
2 Sep
SCOTUS will not block Texas SB8, the fetal heartbeat law.

Count is 5-4. The majority holds that the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" prevent plaintiffs from carrying their burden.
CJ Roberts writes a dissent. Breyer writes a dissent. Sotomayor writes a dissent. Kagan writes a dissent.
Here's the majority reasoning in full.
Read 27 tweets
Gabriel Malor Profile picture
1 Sep
This is an interesting read, but commentators are failing to grapple with just how unusual the present posture of this case is and how novel SB8 is as a legal instrument specifically designed to avoid pre-enforcement review.
In other words, I don't think SCOTUS is going to be silent or indifferent on the procedural issues here. I bet that's why it's taking so long.

And those procedural problems come *before* we even get to the question of just what this SCOTUS is going to do with Casey/June Medical.
Too much of the commentary is skipping to: is Roe going to be overturned (even though they mean Casey and June Medical).

When there's a whole mess of procedural issues to resolve before we get to the underlying abortion question.
Read 8 tweets
Gabriel Malor Profile picture
1 Sep
More chaos in the Oklahoma courts as the McGirt fallout continues.

To recap, last month the state's highest criminal court ruled that McGirt would not apply retroactively—that is, to cases decided before McGirt issued.
Yesterday, the high court vacated and withdrew four previous orders granting McGirt-based relief, citing its new holding that McGirt does not apply retroactively.

Here's what that looks like. Note, Oklahoma is presently seeking cert. from SCOTUS in Bosse. So that might be moot? Image
This all wraps around to whether state convictions that took place on Indian land that had never been disestablished under federal law were valid.

SCOTUS said no in McGirt. So the question then is whether McGirt applies retroactively.
Read 5 tweets
Gabriel Malor Profile picture
31 Aug
Update in this one. Texas has filed its response in opposition --> supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…

And the private defendant has filed his opposition too --> supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…

Now we wait for SCOTUS (or, I suppose, the 5th Cir.) to act.
(I don't think it's very likely that the 5th Cir. will save SCOTUS from having to act, but it is, technically, a possibility.)
Still waiting on potential SCOTUS action on the Texas fetal heartbeat law.

The law goes into effect at midnight, Central Time.
Read 8 tweets
Gabriel Malor Profile picture
31 Aug
This one is going to come back to haunt.
This is one of those things that'll be true right up until the moment it's not, and worth nothing.

The relevant question will be, having departed Afghanistan, can we *keep terrorist groups on the ground there from acquiring the capacity to attack the United States at home?*
There is this little pesky matter of precedent for Afghanistan-based, Taliban-sponsored attacks, ya know.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @gabrielmalor has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @gabrielmalor!

Read all threads by @gabrielmalor

:(