Hey, free shipping!

Have people forgotten that book bans are a historically bad idea, or are they too busy setting other things on fire to see what they've become?

I've seen those who have made the attempt to explain their side be unjustly vilified, and if those who vilified them would do such a thing to someone they once elevated, I expect the same unenviable behavior towards others who aren't in the same position.

Just a guess, but even in something meant to protect the rights of a person to use the appropriate toilet, there just might be a loophole that just might be exploited by one who just might be described as another sort of orifice. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of a smaller group of people, it endangers another in the process - and in this case, if that smaller group uses the same facilities as the larger, it is as much endangered by the sort of orifice who would exploit that loophole. (Quite certain I haven't changed this opinion since the last time I posted it.)

Attacking someone for pointing out that loophole is trashy, falls far short of the empathy and inclusiveness claimed by those who condemn and call themselves woke, and I am decidedly not chill with that pile of pontification.

(To be fair, I have read of those who act as a toilet chaperone to people who haven't transitioned - good idea, but since the abuse of a good idea meant as a kindness extends well beyond teens and toilets, bathroom shenanigans are a thing I wouldn't put past them.)

Do those who are offended by that fictional character see themselves in his place? Is the offending trope so common because it could so easily happen, if it hasn't already? Will that character strike a target he did not intend to strike, precisely because of the loophole he decided to exploit?

Guess I'll find out in three to five.*

(Also looking forward to finding out about what part of economics so bothered the 熊.)

*9/25 - Rather sweary, this.