Part of society’s implicit notion that LGBTQ is inherently sexual in a way that heterosexuality (or being cis) isn’t. Telling kids that some kids have A mommy and a daddy is fine, two daddies is a kink that shouldn’t be mentioned. Ok well it’s either all inherently sexual or none of it is.
This problem comes from gay men too. I have read a couple of times how gay men dont “announce” that they are gay, because whatever happenea in their bedroom is their business, as if being gay meant only getting dick in the bed. That’s a mentality that is taught in our world.
they mention a long track record of harsher treatment of queer content but I wish they linked to that data or mentioned a couple comparisons for context.
The MPAA argues the constituency for its ratings system is parents in traditional families who may find queer themes inappropriate for their children. Paradoxically, a number of organizations serving adolescents identifying as LGBTQ or as questioning their sexualities have created lists of recommended films, many of whose MPAA ratings make them virtually off-limits to teens unless their parents approve.
A system that discloses what’s in the movie would be better. You see an R-rated movie and that doesn’t really tell you anything about it. Is it R-rated because you see boobs one too many times? Or because someone says “Fuck” a few more times than is ‘acceptable’? Or is it because two men kiss? Or is it because 3/4 of the movie is graphic torture?
If there were (for example) icons for each category of “objectionable” thing, that were color coded green / yellow / red based on how many instances of that there are / how severe it is, it would let parents make actual informed decisions about what they want their kids watching (and additionally, let adults make informed decisions about what they want to watch).
At a point, it is going to be arbitrary regardless.
How long do they pan over the boob? Do you see nipple? Is man chest worse? Is military violence different from gang violence? Are drugs used or glorified?
Every question you’d ask in regards to rating a new film is entirely subjective, depending on what you view as acceptable.
Honestly this is a big one that isn’t brought up enough. There’s a huge difference between the drug use in, say, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Requiem for a Dream.
They do that for TV shows and I think it works out pretty well. Knowing that it’s TV-MA because of language vs. TV-MA because of nudity or TV-MA because of violence is a big game changer for many parents.
We have something like that in the Netherlands. It’s called “Kijkwijzer” (loosely translated as viewing guide) and has icons for sexual content, violence, drug/alcohol use, scary content, bullying/intimidation, etc. and age advisories.
That's what I don't get. She had to have studied physics, and magnetism. Microbiology, virology, and vaccines would all have been in her curriculum. What happened? The license wasn't suspended because of all that, tho'. It was the doctors unwillingness to cooperate with her state medical board, given they had 350! complaints against her license. As a licensed physician, for reasons related to our oath of practice, and as a small business person, for reasons of not sending the business one has built over years over a cliff, I just cannot comprehend this doctor's actions. smh.
I’ve observed something for awhile, and I’m not quite sure how to explain it.
I work in a hospital. Not part of the clinical staff, I’m in a support role. I’ve listened to some of the clinical staff say extremely odd things given the education they had to go through to get where they are. They had to have absorbed some of the curriculum while in med school, so they had some level of understanding of the science behind it. They are textbook smart, but there seems to be some odd disconnect between what they’ve learned in school and their applied knowledge in the real world. It’s very bizarre and I don’t know if I’m explaining what I mean very well…
Here's what I see going on: Sort of an educational drift. There's been a lot for stress, particularly for medical professionals over the past 3-7 years. Humans have this need to be 'in the know', not just to know things, but to know them before, or more thoroughly than our peer group, or community. Especially smart people, which leads us to a host of logical flaws (which one should study and seek to eradicate) because if they are not guarded against, they can be used for the purpose of manipulation. Unless one has been completely disconnected from the internet, and news media, one has been subjected to a huge application of all sorts of disruptive propaganda over this time. Sherri Tenpenny succumbed to this propaganda, perhaps making a bunch of money in the process, and she didn't want to give that status up, so she resisted her state medical board. But you can't practice without a license, they will literally bring you to court, and possibly even lock you up in jail, fine you, etc. We're all subject to these same flaws in our thinking, as they are an epiphenomenon of our very nervous systems.
This “educational drift” you describe is why I technically have to get recertified by CompTIA at regular intervals. Technology changes, and so their exam objectives adapt to said changes, and so I am supposed to take the test every few years to remain “certified”. But I don’t, because a lot of this stuff can just be googled and the risk is low, assuming you don’t fall into any of the really deep but obvious pitfalls.
This, however, is dangerous misinformation. How on earth there isn’t some regular testing to retain licensing is beyond me. Or am I misunderstanding, and there actually is?
Memorization is a skill humans are generally really, really good at. If you put in enough time, there’s a good chance you’ll be able to regurgitate what you put in, both in words and actions. That’s enough to get you through most schooling. When you step outside of memorization is when people like this run into trouble.
Surgical tech here. This shit is prevalent at every level of every job. The last few years have taught us not to automatically respect the title “doctor” - they can be extremely knowledgeable in the context of their field, but still a fucking dumbass in other areas. This is true of nurses, techs, admins, you name it.
Generally you can trust what your orthopedic surgeon has to say about bones, but the second he starts ranting about epidemiology, safest assumption is that he did his ‘research’ on truth social and fox.
Yep. All the way up to the very top. If I needed advanced neurosurgery, I’d go straight to Ben Carson. If I needed absolutely anything else in the entire world, I’d go the opposite direction.
For years abortion has been thought of as a bitterly partisan issue, but the Ohio vote is the latest example of how the issue seems to defy the partisan 50/50, red/blue lens that defines most everything in American politics in 2023. In state after state, initiative after initiative, voters seem to be coming down on the side of abortion rights — and the data suggest one big driver of those outcomes might be suburban Republicans.
But that single issue was abortion for many of them. Damn, they are mindless.
Conservatives are highly motivated to harm others. It’s only when they accidentally harm themselves that they relent just long enough to make a correction. When they figure out how to allow abortions only for conservatives, these voters will resume their harmful positions on the topic.
I don’t think anyone’s seriously considered abortion a 50:50 issue in a long time. As far as I remember, it’s always been an extremist faction within the GOP, but a faction large and energized enough to dominate party politics. And it’s been ‘safe’ enough for mainstream GOP to play along with, because it was settled law protected by SCOTUS. Now that protection is gone, GOP politicians are going to have to decide whether courting those extremists in the primaries is worth the cost in the general.
I was discussing this earlier. I’m a pro-choice republican. I won’t vote republican until they change their stance on abortion. I’m rarely a single issue voter but this is one issue I won’t back down on. I personally don’t know any republicans who don’t want some compromise on the the issue.
There is a major disconnect between the voters and the politicians on this topic.
Otherwise known as a Democrat. There’s no disconnect between voters and politicians. Republican voters want “no abortion” until they get it. Politicians are delivering that.
Republican voters do not really vote based on policies. They vote based on values. You may have said to yourself “This person seems like a decent choice”. " I like where they’re coming from." None of those are policies.
Yes, and I do fault them for that, but only to an extent. Wedge issues are a valuable commodity, aren't they? Republicans certainly kept banging on that pro-life drum (which supposedly no one really wanted and y'all were just yelling about to keep the rubes on board?) The flip side of that was that you all looked like extremists. (But Roe is dead and buried, so I guess you're doing Nazis now. We all sort of hope that's cosplay as well, but... look at Roe. Someone might start to suspect you're serious.)
I guess there is such a thing as a slippery slope.
In any case, "you had 50 years to make a law about it" seems like a silly argument if the right in question is protected by the constitution. Every SC nominee in recent memory has testified to that specific question under oath.
And what sort of law are we talking about here? It's far easier to restrict a right than it is to affirm it. It honestly makes no sense practically or politically. The only way to attack that right was through a challenge to Roe, so that was how things went down. They had to overturn Roe. Took half a century. I guess that's something.
Tell me how many years in the past 20 that democrats had enough votes in the house, and the Senate, and control of the white house. How much time did they actually have to pass laws with republican obstructionism? How would they pass laws that protect abortion when bad actors like Manchin and Sinema constantly interfere. What I did see was republicans systematically attack the privacy provisions from Roe up until their final success with the Dobbs decision. And I know you voted for them even though they made it abundantly clear what their intentions were. Constantly voting against your own interests under the guise of not being as cruel and heartless as the clowns you support.
I’m not sure what you think I was wrong about? Your article has nothing to do with congress. Congress has to enact a federal law. SCOTUS said the same thing. Everyone knew this was coming since roe was enacted. Yet nobody put in a federal law to perfect abortion.
That’s ridiculous. You would need 3/4 of the 50 states to ratify that change. There are way too many pro-2A red states for that to ever happen.
Throwing away your rights is the dumbest thing you could vote for. They don’t just give out new rights regularly, it takes a lot of fighting and effort to get rights.
Well I’m glad your opinion on it doesn’t matter, because our gun rights are practically set in stone at this point. The gun cases getting appealed to the SC will be fun to watch.
We all have a right not to be shot, and this is protected by the laws against murder and assault. In the USA we also have the right to bear arms, which is a crucial freedom in the long term scope of democracy and in the short term for self defense.
Only if they also have evidence that the orders for it came from him. Otherwise it is similar to the shit with Michael Cohen: he can claim he expected lawyers to follow the law.
Nope. He’ll never spend a day in jail. Nothing has seemed to slow him down. He’s been effectively martyred in political history, and the longer he stays relevant, the greater chance he gets in.
47… the cheapest one was probably 500$ or so. This is fetish. What the hell are you going to do with them all? I can think of 3 or 4 models I need and the rest of my stockpile just needs to be ammo for them.
To elaborate… Need as in some kind of self defense scenario or even as a survivalist. There are 4 firearms I would probably want to have, each having a specific purpose. But that is it. Having 47 is like a cat lady or something. To me it is weird and unnecessary.
This is America, I have no problem with people owning guns. I support gun restrictions and the banning of automatic assault rifles as well. That is common sense to me.
Unlike typical ballistic warheads, which fly on predictable trajectories as they fall from space to their targets, hypersonic projectiles can change course, making them more difficult to target.
The author doesn't understand what they are writing about. Hypersonic has nothing to do with manuevering, it's a speed definition. Anything traveling at Mach 5+ is considered hypersonic. Western countries already have access to systems that defend against hypersonic missiles. The ability to change direction has nothing to do with being hypersonic.
This is the state of medicine in this country: she wasn’t even censured for being obviously batshit insane, just for refusing to submit to the medical boards investigation.
The state medical board indefinitely suspended her license Wednesday, saying she refused for over two years to cooperate with the board’s investigation of over 350 complaints against her, which suggested possible violations of state medical regulations.
Ya, that was my reading of this. It seems like “Issue 1” was a change in the Ohio Constitutional process. Yes, it was absolutely aimed at the potential abortion rights amendment; however, it makes much more sweeping changes and there may be people who were opposed to such changes on their own merit.
Precisely! In addition to abortion, Ohioans are working on recreational marijuana which also would’ve needed the insanely high 60% vote, had this issue passed.
It’s funny because the pro issue one people on my Facebook were all either completely focused on abortion or the fact that currently a 50.1% vote (or a single person) determined the outcome of something.
Both just completely disingenuous arguments… but arguments that are successful to a certain group of people.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.