The podcaster host Brace Belden of TrueAnon was forced into The Monarch School as a teenager, which had a similar curriculum to Elan. His podcast takes some deep dives into the treatment of students as part of “The Game” miniseries. Episode 4, in particular, focuses on how the Synanon organization transforms itself from a cultish and violent drug rehab operation into an even more predatory troubled teen outreach organization.
I read most of that (think I missed the last few chapters, but he was out of Elan and had done some traveling)–it was horrifying. There’s also a 3 episode documentary on Netflix called “The Program” where the documentary maker revisits the now closed school where she went (The Academy at Ivy Ridge) and by episode 3, she’s followed the money to one family behind a lot of these institutions. But as she and former AaIR students actually see other facilities far from where they were locked up, they’re all carbon copies of each other, they’re all just the same punish-for-everything camps with no escape. Fucked up that there’s like a formal recipe for how to do this to families and not get caught. And that there are so few legal protections for children.
I’d be very interested to know what the wording was in their survey of 600 “HR managers”. Because I find it hard to believe that companies would file job posts that they never intend to fill – and then admit it in a survey. I find it more likely the Internet is trolling them
On the other hand, I would expect companies to put up job posts that they have every intention to fill if the right candidate comes along, but structure the job requiremrnts so that precisely 10 people in the entire country are fully qualified for the well-compensated position. And then complain that they can’t fill the position while collecting everyone’s resumes and getting back to a few of them saying “That position is no longer open, would you consider this one at half the salary?”
I don’t find it that hard to believe, they’re responding anonymously so they know it won’t hurt their specific company’s image, and the general message of “there’s a lot of untrustworthy bullshit out there for job seekers (so if we do make an offer you better take it because your fallback plan might be a mirage) (and, y’know what, just in general - we have all the power here and we are going to lie to you and not feel bad about it because thats normal for us, so don’t even think about complaining to anyone about it)” is one that serves all their interests
I think your “On the other hand etc.” is a pretty accurate guess at specifically how they do this, tho
I don’t find it that hard to believe, they’re responding anonymously
If they’re responding anonymously on the Internet, they could be anyone. We have no way of knowing whether they really are hiring managers, or whether the site doing this “poll” made it up for clicks. I’m skeptical of everything I read on the Internet, even if it comes to a conclusion I agree with.
It does not provide the details, but I highly doubt the polling was done anonymously online. You’re right, that would be completely useless.
However, polling done offline also needs to be anonymized, even though it is offline and the pollster knows the identities of the participants, simply to protect them from repercussions.
Pretty sure signing over your soul is a requirement for HR positions. They do blatantly illegal things all the time and do not care. So yes, they will happily tell the truth in an anonymous survey.
I had multiple interviews with a company and was told they went so well they stopped interviewing other candidates. The interviews did go quite well. Then they hired internally.
It was a bullshit short term contract anyway, but that’s the best interview I’ve had in 3 months of searching. I don’t know if that counts as a “fake” job, but it was a huge waste of everyone’s time.
The Israeli military is throwing out a ton of excuses rather than even give someone a mild punishment. They claim it was his idea, that they were transporting him to a hospital and no room in the car, etc. The video shows this is a lie.
This is like the bullshit mifepristone case-they didn’t up hold reproductive rights on their merits. It’s kicking the can. Overturning Roe got people to the polls in anger, they don’t want a repeat of that this November.
They are counting on people not reading more than a headline and tuning out until after it is too late.
In this day and age there needs to be a non-corporate independent panel that categorizes by type and sets a steep price on each lb or kg of air pollution.
That way when this shit happens they get hit with a bill high enough it can’t be just added to the business as operating costs.
Give them x days to pay and charge interest like a corp would do to normal people. Having the gov’t back this panel would be better.
Pass laws locally in the areas these plants exist and start there.
We have a toothless EPA that can determine the problems. Every time they attempt to impose a fine, more power is taken from them. The newly conservative SCOTUS took power plant regulations out of their control just two years ago.
Congress writes the law, then the EPA supports local and state agencies like the DEP in defining processes to uphold it. If the EPA doesn’t have the authority, then it’s likely the state programs don’t either. It would be up to the governor to empower the DEP or other local environmental enforcement agencies to have more authority than the EPA.
It isn’t about them being available. Its about discussing the content and the deeper meaning. I would be totally fine with reading Adolf Hitlers - Mein Kampf in School, as long as the content gets discussed and why what he wrote wasn’t good.
Nothing is going to be discusses it would just be sitting on the shelf and available. So I think we should all agree that censorship of books in public schools makes sense. I personally am fine with siding on the side of being more cautious and having kids less able to get books people think are not acceptable, and catching books that probably should be available in schools.
You do realise that there’s a version of Mien Kampf that’s four times as long because there’s several experts annotating and debunking Hitler’s ideas right there on the page.
…informing young people about the most horrible decisions made throughout history, why they were flawed, and how not to repeat the same mistakes today?
Hmm…
Just take a look at the world around you. That’s a fucking start…
History is uncomfortable. Revising it to tell lovely stories is all well and good for building a national identity.
However, sugar-coating, ignoring, or even flat-out erasing parts of history benefits no one. People started writing events down accurately because the orators of old never intended paint an accurate picture of the past. And therefore lessons learnt from the failures of humanity (lost causes, preventable catastrophies, perspectives of people on the wrong side, genocides, etc.) were also lost.
History should be uncomfortable, so we can collectively learn and have a chance to do better the next time.
You didnt say the opposite, you repeated the propaganda that is an attack on people that want to censor books. The books that are getting censored are not due to them being about history or learning.
the propaganda that is an attack on people that want to sensor books.
How is this propaganda?
Also you are completely incorrect. Those books are ABSOLUTELY are about history and learning.
Anne Frank’s Dairy is a first hand historical account of life an oppressed and genocided group under facism. Maus is another recollection of first-hand historical accounts of a polish Jew being interviewed by his son but shown visually in a cartoon graphic novel to make the context more visually palatable for a younger audience without avoiding the horrific events of history.
What next? Are you going to claim the Horrible History books are neither educational or historical as well?
Its propaganda because you are literally believeing something false, you comment proves that it works. They are not removing the book we all read in school “The Diary of Anne Frank” they are remvoing “Anne Franks Diary” because “they objected to the book as it contained a ‘graphic scene’ in which Anne Frank asks a friend to expose themselves to each other.”
The part about them wanting to remove lessons of history is just bullshit, they are wanting to remove typically things with sexual content in them. Why are you fighting for books that have sexual content in them so kids can read them?
From the article, talking about the complaints citing the Moms for Liberty rating system:
“Anne Frank’s Diary” and “Maus” both rate a “2” on BookLooks, with the site’s objections to the latter described as “hate involving antisemitism and racism; violence; nonsexual nudity; and mild/infrequent profanity.”
Would you look at that: non-sexual nudity, oh the shock and horror, children might learn that underneath clothes people are naked 😱
As shown by the complaint quoted in the article they’re removing these books because they discuss historical horrors, violence, and hate, therefore your argument holds no water at all.
I looked at the page, its about sexualizing whom I assume is Anne Frank. Why are you okay with one minor asking another minor to expose themselves to one another?
Do you undestand yet that the book was not banned due to anything but sexual content?
If “clutch your pearls too hard” means hating it when sexual things get shown to minors, then I will clutch those pearls till they shatter. Why are you okay with sexual material being shown to children?
A significant part of the population doesn’t think it’s appropriate for a picture book about two male penguins that adopt a chick to be in a public school.
In fact, a significant part of the population doesn’t think white kids and black kids should go to the same school. And have found ways to do things about it.
Censoring books due to reasons like “these books provide a point of view I’m not comfortable exposing my kids too” is usually a bad reason to censor books.
Problem I see is its all a pendulum on these issues where the reaction swings wildly back and forth the more energy were putting into it rather than having it settle the fuck down.
For instance these books being removed aren’t produced in spite of this issue. But for sure if we dig into censorship topic then pro censorship groups start bringing out books to be edgy cunts and prove a point.
Every issue has edge cases and we live in a time where people are so willing to be right they will make every edge case the center of an issue. Like in order to keep Maus on shelves we will now need to have a copy of Bomb making 101 or a book were one of these people wrote FUCK a million times just so they can get anti censorship people to say “hey that isn’t cool guys” but also the problem is I often find people are so militant in our beliefs that we have a hard time saying “that isn’t cool” when faced with something not cool but also that grinds against our moral beliefs
What you are saying makes sense, I just dont see an issue if XX% of people dont want a book to be in PUBLIC schools, then I am okay with restricting it unless there is some kind of cultural significance, and within reason. I am probably okay with Maus from what I have heard, but I dont see it as an issue to take it off the shelf if people feel strongly and there is some level of logic.
Prove they are trying to remove Anne Frank from the libraries, it might be true, but I think that sounds like propaganda.
And yes they are two different things. The big problem here is that people like you dont realize how to stop school shootings, and even if you did, you are unwilling to take the actual steps to do so.
Maybe you should read beyond the titles… A quick google tells me they are not removing anne frank, they are removing a book with anne frank in it because “it contained a ‘graphic scene’ in which Anne Frank asks a friend to expose themselves to each other.” If accurate, why do you want books about minors exposing themselves to one another to be available to minors?
includes a recent illustrated adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary; both volumes of Art Spiegelman’s Holocaust graphic memoir “Maus”; “The Fixer,” Bernard Malamud’s novel about a historical instance of antisemitic blood libel
No it seems to be the Diary of Anne Frank and 600+ other books.
why do you want books about minors exposing themselves to one another to be available to minors?
Have you read the book because that definitely “sounds like propaganda” and we’ve already established you have problems discerning the difference between that and reality.
But hey, why do YOU mindlessly parrot talking points put out by far right Latino zionists like Luis Cabrera? Jk we all know the answer, dumb little tankie parroting a fucking evangelical, fuck off.
On the odd chance you aren’t completely trolling. Anne Frank was a girl going through puberty. She had a crush on her friend and like any normal young person had to deal with scary, unknown, but very normal human feelings and desires of intimacy and love. It’s her own fucking diary, she didn’t self censor herself for prudes in 2024. She had a war and death hanging over her head at any moment.
There is no such sexual material in the book. An innocent teenage girl asked a raunchy question to a friend she had a crush on because that’s the kind of behavior teens display while they grow up and develop themselves. And she got shut down. Nothing graphical was ever shown. It’s showing only what was written by that same normal girl disconnected and hidden from the world as they hide from murderous tyrannical nazi’s. Raw and unfiltered thoughts and feelings of a normal developing teen, as the girl wrote it for herself, not us. As the Anne Frank Foundation said in the video “A book written by a 12 year old can be read by 12 year olds.”
Great, we can agree to disagree, and I support both sides of the issue with having their voices heard. Why not remove that book when a half to a third of parents dont think it should be in public school?
The article states first that a Texas district banned Anne Frank’s diary. Don’t play dumb.
Every fucking other countries don’t have mass shootings pretty much everyday. Only in the US. In Australia, when they banned gun ownership after a mass shooting in 1996, the shootings dropped drastically.
The school shootings are a multi-faceted problem which requires many changes, one of which is the gun culture.
There is a toddler every two weeks that shoot someone in the USA, how are guns not the problem?
You know where this doesn’t happen? Everywhere else in the world.
Ban guns for pretty much anything that is not hunting. Fund social services to provide quality mental health treatments to anyone that needs it. That should get you started in the right direction.
Yes exactly, they want to band “Anne Franks diary”, which is a distinct book that is not “The Diary of Anne Frank”. Do you understand how they used propaganda and it works?
I’m not sure why you keep referring to that dumb argument. There is two distinct book, I know that, but the second book is called the secret annex and is rewritten and more tame.
Otherwise, diary of a young girl is referred to as Anne Frank’s diary and all the other similar name. So shut the fuck up with your propaganda.
Neither book should be banned and for a right winger, you seem to be more about big government than personal responsibility that your ilk like to spout.
There is nothing offensive in the book and parents can decide for their child without being a bunch of christo-fascists cunts trying to ban anything they don’t like.
Walk the talk for once in your life and stop being an hypocrite. If you don’t mind toddlers shooting people and the mass shootings but you get your feelings hurt by a young girl describing what she is going through at puberty, there is no mental gymnastics that can justify that.
So go live in the wood with all your troglodytes so that you can live your christo-fascist life like you want. You can bring your bible with you, we don’t need it.
The point is that you were wrong again, and still dont know what is going on. The book that they want banned was written in like 2018, its a graphic novel, not the one we all read as kids. You need to actually do some research instead of being aggressively ignorant.
I don’t know how you can eat your cereals without choking with that mental prowess.
What do you think the book is adapting? The original Anne Frank’s diary. This is the same fucking story but with pictures. This is not the gotcha you think it is.
I won’t respond anymore because you are clearly just being a dumbass to make your argument look credible.
Do you realize how many books are in a literary? The odds they will chance on one particular book are really small. And ig they do it’s far from the worst thing that can happen to them in a school
I think the opinion as to what shouldnt be in public schools is reasonable, and I am cool if we are overly restrictive if there is a reason that is good and is supported by enough people.
You didn’t answer my question. Let’s try a different one. Once again without copping out: Give us a couple good reasons for why a book should be restricted in education.
Books should be restricted from education if a significant portion of the adults dont think its appropriate for children. This could include any variety of reasons they dont think its appropriate.
Will each book be voted on individually? How does that work in your head? I doubt that people read minimally an excerpt of each book to decide and ban them.
Probably do it on a complaint basis. Each school district could have a diverse board and they could look at the books that people dont like and if X out of Y think it should be removed, then remove it. Does that work for you?
Yes exactly everyone will have biases, and we need to compromise and let all voices to be heard. So if the right wants to remove most things sexual, great; if the left wants to remove anything with the n word in it, great. Its better to be over censorious than under censorious in public buildings.
I sure hope you go see your quack doctor when you are sick then, because modern medecine have bias.
Librarians are trained personnel explicitly for deciding what books are acceptable. The old Crusty Fuckfaces that want to ban anything and everything can become librarians themselves and decide for their school if they so wish.
But until then, they can read their bible and shut the fuck up.
If you want to go back to the dark ages, do so in the comfort of your own home and leave the society alone with your backwards beliefs.
We had like everything, from childrens books to engineering stuff. It’s filed differently so your fragile mind won’t need to see “adult” books if you don’t want to I guess.
If it’s not happening often, why are you hellbent on banning books? They are edge case, but your ilk act like every school library is chuck full of inappropriate books.
I am hellbent on protecting children from adults that will do them harm. If its only edge cases then why are you hellbent on putting rules in place to remove questionable books?
Because the rules are in place and curated by professionals. What I don’t want is every semi-educated group of extremists to have the ability to whine enough that they get important books banned.
Ah yes, “professionals”. After covid you guys should have learned how experts are not so expert. I dont want children to see books with sexual content in them, does that make me an extremist?
It’s quite clear one group of people only want morons dictating what people can do, as opposed to those who listen and trust experts (who have often spent their entire life’s acquirung knowledge in their area of speciality).
After all, who wants a doctor with 20yrs experience operating on their spleen, when Harry the butcher could do it.
Its not The Diary of Anne Frank, its Anne Franks Diary… And thats a great point, why did they add sexual material to a young girls diary that had nothing sexual in it?
This is called a motte-and-bailey. We were discussing a group trying to ban books about the Holocaust, and the larger concept about groups of parents being able to ban anything by whining about it enough. You put forward a different argument you think is bullet proof about banning sexual content with the implication that this argument defends the much weaker argument about banning Holocaust books or whatever books the mob may choose.
Just pointing that out. It’s a common fallacy and one that feels right, it isn’t necessarily done intentionally.
The freakout about sexual content is fabricated and designed to play to emotions. School libraries already ban sexual content. There’s no smut or erotica at them. The small handful of books that people wanted to ban were either educational or were similar to many books that were not targeted by those parent groups and the sexual situations were not the focus of the book. The main similarity was that they were about LGBT sexualities.
The difference between the Bible and other more modern books is that the Bible is the most influential book in western civilization. If you want to have a censored on that removed those exact passages then that seems like a reasonable compromise.
I didn’t know, all the passages they don’t like talking about. Do you know about 2 Kings 2 23-24? I’ll tell you, even in context it makes God look like a psychopath. God literally sends a bear into a village to maul 42 children to death because they made fun of a delicate man’s bald head. That’s not even twisting the story.
Fuck that, the wretched thing doesn’t deserve special treatment. There is nothing about the contents of the bible that are worth granting exception for. You want to ban adult themes? I can think of nothing more deserving of such a ban than the oldest book to incorporate rape, divinely ordained murder (all over the place), instructions on how to perform an abortion, incest, and the severly mixed message of “god loves everyone, unless you don’t worship them, then you get tortured forever”.
Like it or not the Bible is the most influence book in western history, so yes it gets special treatment. But again, if you want to make a censored version for kids that takes out those parts, it seems like a reasonable compromise.
What you’re not getting is that it being that influential is a bad thing and that it’s time to pull it from its podium. It’s just a religious text and if you’re censoring any religious texts, you should censor all of them.
The funny thing is that kids will only read things that are of interest to them, and if they’re interested in it, they’re old enough to read it. If they borrow it because they like the cover or all their friends have apparently read it or some such reason, you can be assured it’ll be returned after they get through the first page.
I understand, but there are literally millions of books, why do we have to have the few books with sexual material that a significant portion of parents object to?
We have these people who go to college and get specialized degrees so that they can do things and work in school libraries and figure out what books are appropriate for the school.
You might have heard of them. They’re called librarians.
Deciding what books do and don’t belong in a library is literally part of their job. I know, because I’m married to one. She used to work in a school library, now she works in a public library. It was a Catholic school (she’s an atheist, they didn’t discriminate) and they trusted her to figure out which books were appropriate for their kids because of her degree. What does that tell you about librarians?
The funny thing is that I know for a fact that there are Trump supporters who work in the library where my wife works (one is a cis woman with a mustache who must be mistaken for trans regularly, which surprised me), and they also don’t approve of this shit. I mean yeah, they’re total hypocrites, but they still don’t support these book bans.
Or because it’s stupid political theater giving Trump’s base an out when he inevitably says some dumb bullshit during the debate and loses. He obviously never expected that ridiculous request to be granted. The act of playing along is an act of weakness, so it’s never going to happen.
Also they’re both going to be on drugs. All presidents are given various drugs. Some to keep them alive, some to help them concentrate. It’s no big deal, it’s a demanding job.
Edit: forgot Obama actually did show his birth cert. Shouldn’t have played along though
Well, most westerners over 50 are on drugs for all sorts of things getting high blood pressure, to diabetes, to cholesterol lowering meds. Not to mention caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and meth.
The stupid thing is that it would not have matters if he was born in Kenya. His mother was born in the US and was a US citizen so he would be. Same deal with Ted Cruz.
Yeah this whole conspiracy line has gotta be based on a movie making fun of NASCAR drivers. You don’t make that phrase with that verbiage without that movie. I’m not sure the guy who said it knows it’s from a movie or not, but I know the guy he heard it from must.
Just because the phrase “human shields” came into it:
Somewhere there is a UN report where they looked in some detail into the theory that Hamas was rounding up random people and having them just stand around perfectly still right next to Hamas during fighting, so that the poor IDF would be tricked into shooting them which they hated doing but they had no choice. At least in the case they were looking into, they found that no, of course they are not doing anything like that, Israel is just telling outlandish lies about where all these dead civilians came from.
I won't say it never happens in any form. But to me it comes across like those comedy action movies where the bad guy grabs a hostage and the good guy grabs his own hostage from some random passerby. Like, ha ha! If you shoot at me, you'll also kill this random Palestinian! And we know that's like kryptonite to the IDF!
The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.
In this particular case, you can’t charge the guy with bribery because it doesn’t meet the definition.
That doesn’t mean a “tip after the fact” isn’t corrupt. That doesn’t mean that’s not in violation of some other law. It’s saying that you can’t apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can’t apply.
Justice Jackson’s dissent is amazing though:
Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."
The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.
Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"
“At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson
Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They’re saying “good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won’t be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)”. While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)
SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.
Usually it’s pretty safe except when there are calves on the field. It happens every year that some tourists (especially with dogs) go through a field with calves and their mothers and someone gets injured. - @SRo
This comment is backed up by a statement from the linked article:
Emergency service personnel cited by Austrian media warned of the danger of dogs getting near cows. “Cows have a very strongly developed maternal instinct and defend their calves,” said an emergency service source cited by news agency APA.
Unfortunately, a lot of the times restaurants are allowed to continue to operate even with serious health code violations as long as they promise to fix them before the checkup visit. It’s rare that they get shut down on the spot.
Just look at what happened when they tried that during COVID. Elon is a loud idiot who’ll screech about how he’s being oppressed, and unfortunately still has a lot of equally loud idiots as followers who will gladly harass the underpaid government employees who actually have to enforce the shutdown on his behalf.
We had a case not too long ago where someone “recruiting” for one of the GAFAM who was stealing PII by “accepting” applicants, getting their IDs and personal info for supposed employment, and when these people showed up for work, the real company had never heard of them. I think they got 30 people last time.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.