Tschugguel became a hero to traditionalists in 2019 when he snuck into a Vatican-area church, stole Amazonian Indigenous statues of pregnant women, and threw them into the Tiber River in a videotaped act that was quickly shared online.
Holy shit, what an asshole. Why is this guy so grossed out by pregnant women?
I’m a run of the mill American citizen, 4 generations back my family has been American. No birth weirdness or dual citizenship or anything. Decided to live overseas after uni to broaden my horizons, and last time I came back home for the holidays I was grilled on my americanness by customs… They almost didn’t let me in because they thought I was suspicious, and my passport didn’t seem right. They even said “how can you be American if you’re a resident of (country)?” I think I got the same line as this article too, the whole no way to prove I’m American (despite my passport being in their hands). Theres a gatekeeping mentality that I suspect is rampant in all levels of government, and I just wonder how many good people who deserve to be here are barred from a normal life in the US because of it
the customs there have insane powers to deny and fuck over pretty much anyone without oversight or culpability
if your name looks even slightly middle eastern or have a passport from the wrong country then you will randomly get denied entry if the agent feels that way that day
Hold up. The artist thinks the Virgin Mary is a good example of women having a right to their own bodies? This is a woman who was supposedly forcibly impregnated by a god. What bodily autonomy does her story exhibit?
It’s fine to be Christian. I just don’t understand how the artist’s quote is relevant in any way to this piece of work they made or the defacement of it. The closest I can fathom is that it’s a woman. The logic ends there.
I’m not sure if it’s the artists intention or not, but it gets at the heart of a lot of misogyny. What could possibly be controversial about Mary giving birth? It’s an interesting question to put to the (mostly) men who decry the installation.
“If this banner was a blank banner, we wouldn’t be here,” said Gens. “If it said ‘Support Our Troops’ we probably wouldn’t be here. If it said ‘Black Lives Matter’ we wouldn’t be here, because this gives way to all sorts of selective enforcement.”
I see that “if things were different, they would be different” remains a standard for racists and their defenders.
I love how tame those examples are. None of them are targeting groups negatively, it’s a completely different “type” of banner. Even if it said “Support white people in new england”, it wouldn’t be going to court.
Except in this case, it is directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. When deciding a free speach case, the first part of the analysis is if the restriction is content neutral or not.
A content neutral rule is held to the standard of intermintent scrutiny, and is frequently upheld. A content based rule is held to the standard of strict scrutiny and almost always struck drown.
If the rule against signs on the overpass were enforced uniformly, then the white supremesists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But, at least based on the article, the rule is not being enforced uniformly at all; and is only being brought up now due to the content of the speech. That puts it squarly in the realm of strict scrutiny; giving the government a very uphill battle in court.
“White supremacist banners get taken down more often than other banners” isn’t actually evidence of unequal enforcement, because white supremacist banners almost certainly get reported to the cops immediately by a lot of people, whereas other banners are largely ignored if they aren’t offensive. Especially because it’s entirely legal to put up banners if you have a permit, so people have no reason to call the cops every time they see a banner.
Yes, but the article says this was for a REAL ID, which is a federal program to enhance state IDs. If the guy has a passport, that’s perfectly valid proof of citizenship, and he can just bring that to the DMV. Or, he should have a certificate or report of US birth abroad. If he doesn’t have any of those, he can request a certificate of citizenship.
Or he could just get a regular driver’s license without the REAL ID. Those aren’t going away any time soon and are perfectly valid for driving, no citizenship required.
I kind of get it, but maybe I also don’t fully understand what trans health care for kids is all about. (I’m not against it btw)
You can’t get a tattoo before you’re 18 because that’s (somewhat) permanent. Does trans care interfere with puberty in a way that’s irreversible?
I also realize what I just typed is probably comparing apples to oranges… maybe the people passing these laws are thinking the kids will grow up and change their minds - does that actually happen? (I doubt it, but just asking because I don’t know.)
Kids under 18 aren’t legally able to start hormone therapy or get surgery. The most they can get is puberty blockers and therapy. Ppl who complain about Trans kids changing their mind are full of shit. Everything a minor receives as Trans health care is reasonable, safe, and reversible
That’s what I was wondering too and maybe there needs to be more information on what exactly trans care for kids is all about. I honestly have no clue.
Maybe that’s a good reason why this shouldn’t be a political issue but a medical one decided by experts in the field instead of politicians with influence from the general public.
No reasoning should be necessary to keep government/politicians/anyone else out of people’s private lives - including (and ESPECIALLY) health care decisions.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Puberty itself is full of irreversible changes. Having puberty blockers available to trans youth is important to prevent their bodies from making changes they don’t want, and is reversible later.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.