No, but this really lacks context.

I've actually responded to that already, making this the fourth time, so let me state clearly: No, I have not. And that is in no way a requirement to calling out people who do. Only a fool such as yourself would claim otherwise.

What is normal? And the way I've seen these requests get made are in no way mild.

Guess again.

You must have a lot of experience with being outraged by news.

Nothing, I do it all the time.

What "said" paper? You're implying a form of some sort, obviously, but I'm trying to think of any form I've ever filled out that has explicitly asked for a pronoun, other than perhaps a complaint form or a witness statement. I haven't had the need to fill out any such forms in decades.

And as I've already stated twice: I've never been pressured to do this. I have however heard from others who have, and have seen others get pressured to do it publicly. You don't have to have personally been wronged before you're allowed to say something. The fact that you have made great effort to indicate that you clearly believe otherwise suggests that you have either no intelligence worth speaking of, no integrity, or more likely, neither of the two whatsoever.

Asylum fraud is, as a matter of law, illegal. Committing asylum fraud while remaining in the country is also, as a matter of law, illegal immigration. A person who does this, is, thus, an illegal immigrant. You can't get more succinct than that.

I'd ask for numbers, but something tells me you will not provide any. Big Brother requires that you hate me, and you will obey.

And where are your numbers for this?

Even if that were true, what difference does that make? In my own experience, the words "fascist" and "socialist" are very commonly used incorrectly in political discourse, even in the pejorative, but I haven't heard of anybody arguing that this is some form of hate speech, in the manner you are here. Even if they were, asking people to not use the term when it accurately and concisely describes something defies all reason.

I don't have a king, and if I'm being totally honest here, your neurons are obviously crossed given you somehow jumped to the conclusion that I have any kind of political allegiance with any of the people who commented about eating cats and dogs. There is nothing wrong, morally or ethically, with wanting to curb illegal immigration, especially if it means providing more means of legal immigration. And wanting to do so is not at all in any way an indication of a political allegiance. The fact that you're claiming otherwise just tells me that you're only interested in being part of the problem.

It's a good thing he can't have another term then.

More likely some combination thereof, and I'm sure there are other contributors as well. Either way, shouting down a reasonable ask to have less illegal immigration and more legal immigration, if that is what you're doing, doesn't help.

I think you're making edge cases to be the rule rather than the exception, which is intellectually dishonest.

It's nothing of the sort, it's a very concise term that says exactly what it means. Given the terminology used obviously matters more to you than the issue at hand, and given you obviously have contempt at a reasonable ask of allowing more legal immigration where it makes sense to do so, it's obvious at this point that you prefer to be part of the problem.

Nothing.

Exactly. I couldn't care less if somebody does that because that's what they want to do.

I don't participate in the culture of "you believe A, therefore you believe B C D E F G H I and probably J as well." If you want to burn things down, I can think of less effective ways than blindly telling another person what leader they follow.

I personally haven't experienced it, nor did I claim to, nor am I anything close to resembling a conservative. I have however seen this happen to others on social media, which I don't actively participate in.

I don't know about any companies, my comment is based entirely on what I've seen on social media.

I believe the answer to that is certainly not more illegal immigration. It would make more sense to simply step up work visas, that way they can immigrate legally to fill in for any labor shortages.

Those who complain about lack of worker protections, tax evasion, etc., should similarly be opposed to illegal immigration, which only serves to enable all of that. Unless you're a nutter who hates the idea of borders, lowering illegal immigration and facilitating legal immigration should be a no-brainer.

Whatever you think about DEI, for or against, I think it's safe to say that it objectively went too far. Let's be honest here, only a total cunt would pressure another person to put their pronouns next to their name, even if they didn't want to.

This is because the federal budget is basically built out of sacred cows. Every line item that ends up there was lobbied HARD for, and whoever lobbied for it will complain loudly if you gore their sacred cow.