I generally try not to read them either. I have elementary age kids. Before I had kids I owned a handgun and would go to the range but when the kids came along the gun had to go. There’s no level of risk other than zero that’s acceptable to me in this regard.
Even more important that the one time bump is the very last line of the article:
Starting July 1, 2027, the rule requires Labor to adjust the salary threshold every three years to account for updated wage data.
Rather than having to fight for these things every few years, we need to just tie minimum wage and the overtime floor to CPI. But, that’s something the GOP will fight tooth and nail.
Excellent point. It is important to note that anytime employees stand up to employers, you get no shortage of propaganda trying to shout over the top of the issue that these workers dont deserve to be treated better bc of X, Y, or Z.
Like how when actors or athletes try to get a bigger piece of the pie and u get a throng of poors getting mad at them instead of getting mad at the multibillion dollar corporations that are capable of paying them as much.
A higher paid salary has negotiating power when being asked to work over time. Want me to stay late for a couple days no problem. Want me to work overtime for a couple weeks? Then I need to be paid at least straight time for every hour worked past 40.
So far I haven’t had any issues with this approach. They either pony up or suddenly it’s not that urgent. Have yet to be fired, but I don’t get asked to work overtime unless it’s truly needed now.
Those fast food and Walmart managers probably don’t make above the threshold, and the ones who do probably set their own hours and delegate down the chain anyway
That is nowhere near universal and doesn’t address the fairness issue at all. What’s fair is fair. Your salary is for 40h/wk dedication. No bullshit negotiation every time you’re asked to work more.
Similarly I wonder how much of the observation is projection. We don’t know what the bee thinks it’s getting out of rolling the ball around, we don’t know that the fish was actually reacting to seeing itself. At some level we’re assuming that’s what’s going on because it makes sense to us.
We are limited by our own understanding and imagination, but I don’t know any other explanation for silly little nonproductive activities other than “play”. Is it because it is play, or is it beyond our understanding? We can’t communicate with them, but we can draw parallels between their behaviors and our own natural behaviors.
Humans have a really, really hard time NOT assigning human attributes to every other living thing.
One thing that makes this hypothesis seem possible, is that some researchers are suggesting consciousness is external, and eternal. Meaning all living things are essentially antennae.
Or anything with Donald Hoffman, which there is a ton.
Basically, our brain just handles our cognitive needs, and filters consciousness, which is a fundamental property of the universe. Think what you will, but this is a pretty popular theory in the past decade or so. Among physicists and neurologists alike…
So, there’s a chance that there’s an afterlife, I mean if the brain isn’t the SOURCE of conciousness? But are you sure it’s popular? I heard neurologists were strictly “Brain is the source”
With a couple of perfect millennia of perfect human development and advances in all fields, we probably wouldn’t think of these versions of ourselves as more or less sentient than other thing populating Earth.
Sure, they paint caves & make 10s videos, but that’s just natural automation, a response to environment, simply not knowing better.
This will get struck down, and it’ll be the one thing I agree with when it does. You can’t just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal. Semi-automatic firearms encompasses 99% of what people use for self defense in America. This is a clear violation of rights.
You can’t just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal.
Britain did.
And if we’re going on the intent of the founders, they mostly had muzzle-loaders in mind. They certainly didn’t consider automatic weapons able to fire huge amounts of bullets extremely quickly.
Now, if you want to repeal it, sure, there’s a process for that…
Start by getting 290 votes in the House. The same body that struggles to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is.
Then you get 67 votes in the Senate. The same body that struggles to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Then, assuming you get all that, you need ratification from 38 states. In 2020, Biden and Trump split the states 25/25. So you need ALL the Biden states (good luck getting Georgia!) and 13 Trump states. For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state.
Unless you just have a sensible court that don’t claim to be “Originalists” while at the same time ignoring the fact that the arms the founders were think of were not ones that didn’t exist at the time.
Well, then you need to spend 50 years dedicated to changing the makeup of the Court the way the Republicans did with Roe… see you in 2074! Well, not me PERSONALLY, but you get the idea. ;)
Email and Twitter didn’t exist at the time either, but they are still protected under the First and Fourth Amendments. Cell phones with unlock codes didn’t exist, but they’re still covered under the Fourth Amendment That’s a spurious argument that holds zero merit.
The Second Amendment might not be something you like, but modern firearms are ABSOLUTELY covered. The second amendment must be altered or removed from the Constitution to come even close to what you’re asking. And that process was explained to you up the thread a little
Was discussing this recently. A big bit of context that is important is how the founders intended for the military to be organized for their fledgling nation. Their intent was that there be no standing army because all of the powers that they knew that had them used them for imperialism and tyranny. So, the intent was to prevent states from getting in the way of raising regular (trained and uniformed) and irregular (anyone who could shoulder a musket) militia, should it be necessary to defend the nation against an incursion from a hostile power.
Now, it’s been well over a hundred years since the US has had a standing army. While that does not technically invalidate the Second Amendment, it does make it an anachronism that doesn’t fit in the context of the modern world. It should have been re-legislated as soon as a standing army became a thing.
Now, if only there were a mechanism built into the US Constitution to allow it to be updated to fit the needs of the nation. Maybe they could have called them “Changements”. /s
They certanly did, as Thomas Jefferson owned two of them, each carrying 35 rounds of .29mm. One is on display at Monticello, the one he lent to the Lewis & Clark Expedition that was used to successfully defeat a 50-man raiding party, is kept at The Smithsonian.
Agreed! It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have ANY form of Regulation on Arms! Why is it ILLEGAL for me to not be able to own a Grenade Launcher? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Hey folks, this comment above mine is what's called a 'straw-man' fallacy. It's when you don't have an argument against for the specific argument being stated, so you invent another similar but significantly different argument to argue against instead. The first comment states that it's ridiculous to ban semi auto firearms when that's the vast majority of guns you can buy, and the second commenter instead argues that they should be legally allowed to own a grenade launcher in sarcasm as an attempt to show how firearm legal restrictions are a good thing as they prevent the ownership of grenade launchers.
Also, it's legal to own a grenade launcher in the US. It's just not legal to own the grenades. Plus, a grenade launcher is really just any 37mm chambered weapon. It could fire grenades, flares, or smoke bombs. They're also single shot weapons, so a semi-auto ban isn't going to cover them.
I’m Pro Life and see NO PROBLEM with people with Mental Health issues having Grenade Launchers. After all ANY FORM OF Well Regulation is AGAINST the Constitution! And pointing out your Hypocrisy is OBVIOUSLY a Straw Man Fallacy!
Right or wrong it’s a constitutional right for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with hunting.
Similar to GOP and abortion, dems need to drop this fight. Let’s fix healthcare and save/improve more lives than almost everything else you could spend time on.
Unless someone runs an LGBTQIA+ militia and pays for range days and safety classes every month, most militias people look to join are run by obese Right wing nutcases.
There are some of us doing this, but not enough. The Socialist Rifle Association is very LGBTQIA+ friendly. They probably have a chapter near anyone in the US that happens to be reading this, if they are interested in learning how to defend and support their communities.
private schools have no government oversight. public ones do. therefore my (and your) tax dollars to go those schools. This is why i specified public schools over private. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to a private school and if they do and don’t like the curriculum, that’s easily changed. Public school not so much. Broaden your mind a little bit instead of just being instantly confrontational.
“It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.”
Context also matters. The authors also thought that a standing army was part of the park to tyranny, opting for a militia system in place of it. The purpose of the Second Amendment, by its own words, is to ensure that nothing could legally stand in the way of regular and irregular militia being able to protect the fledgling nation.
As it stands now, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that’s sole purpose for existing is no longer applicable. It needs to be re-evaluated and amended to fit the needs of a nation that has both a standing army and a problem with civilians shooting each other (police are civilians too).
The constitution was specifically written to allow a standing army to exist. Not having one was a major failure of the articles of confederation. The second ammendment doesn’t exist for some obscure military purpose, it exists to give people the right to bear arms.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
Casual reading of contextual documents by the authors of the Constitution makes it very clear that the reason for the time limit is the belief that standing armies ought not to exist and are tools of tyranny. The context of the Second Amendment is not done obscure military one, it is blatant in the Amendment’s text that it concerns militia, which was the founders’ alternative to a standing army. In that context, yes, it does require that all people be able to bear arms because the irregular militia was basically anyone capable of shouldering a musket.
However, as the country did move to have a standing army and police forces, the militia system is mostly obsolete. The closest thing to a militia in the country in modern times is the national guard but, they are closer to a “select militia” that was also looked upon unfavorably by the founders.
I’m not placing a judgement on the Second Amendment as being right or wrong but that it was written for a context that is mismatched with our own. It needs to be re-evaluated and updated to account for the difference in context in order to have a logical place in the law of the country.
The US has always had a standing army, so even the people that wrote the constitution voted to keep a standing army. The notion that it was intended to not have a standing army is a wilful misrepresentation.
You know what? I don’t think that you’re correct but am not a historian, though I did study a bit of early US history in university. Fortunately, there are historians that we can ask to figure this out. Will edit with a post if they’re willing to comment on the issue.
lives in an era where vast swathes of the underclass live in de facto military occupation under a standing army in blue uniforms, where there is frequent murder with impunity and framing of innocent people to cover it up
“As it stands now, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that’s [sic] sole purpose for existing is no longer applicable.”
I wish beyond wishing that O’rourke would have just shut the fuck up and deferred about coming after people’s guns in Texas. I really wonder if he could’ve squeaked a victory and Texas would be quite different today. Guns are a losing issue. Even more so than abortion or ‘the gays!’, guns bring single-issue voters out from everywhere.
Yes, it was definitely a self-inflicted wound, or maybe a tacit acknowledgement that the campaign was doomed anyway, before the public numbers made it obvious. There is a career path to being on the record with that position, though not in statewide political office in Texas.
I grew up in Florida and lived most of my adult life in Texas, and guns have always been a presence. I still own several, but they’ve been locked in my father-in-law’s garage for several years now; I’m ambivalent about what to do with them, and I don’t find any joy in “target practice” or fetishizing them as a hobby. Skeet shooting with cheap bird-shot might still be pretty fun, but my single-shot 12ga will be perfectly adequate for that if I ever take it back up.
Chronic gun violence is a tragic, horrific thing that is a fact of life in the US, which is unique among stable democracies. It should be low-hanging fruit to regulate guns very heavily, but due to weird quirks of history and even fuckin’ grammar, it’s not. The only solace is that while gun violence in this country should be near zero, like it is in almost every other stable country in the world, it’s not actually a daily threat for most people. It’s a statistically significant cause of death for people who shouldn’t normally be dying, but it’s possible to overstate the impact of the actual numbers. It’s still rare, though unlike the other equally rare things on the list (e.g. cancer, heart attacks), it’s completely preventable, in theory, and therefore even sadder and more frustrating.
So theory is nice, but the history and legal framework around guns in this country means anything beyond baby steps is a political nonstarter and very nearly as hard as “curing cancer”. While I acknowledge it literally costs lives not to act, it will cost more, including more from gun violence, over the medium term, to campaign in ways that lose close elections to people who would love to dismantle the already inadequate social safety net and encourage “old timey” open racists and even worse foreign policy than we have now. Those who feel passionately about guns should not be silent, but if you’re running a surprisingly competitive campaign in a stubbornly red state, you should consider the political implications before committing to unrealistic goals that piss off people who could be persuaded to vote for you if they don’t think guns are your priority.
The other stable countries in the world have things like much lower rates of income inequality, single-payer health care, solid funding for education at all levels so that people aren’t going into eye-watering levels of debt, and so on. And the countries that do suck in many of the same ways that the US does also have staggeringly high rates of violent crime in general, if not an significant gun crime.
Yeah, this is something I stand firmly behind. Fundamentally, our issue is social and cultural. We are armed, and so when we lash out, that has greater impact.
That doesn’t mean we should disarm. We are armed for good reason. But we should address the underlying cultural issues.
I would prefer much stronger gun control laws and I still agree with you. There are better fights to fight and more likely to win. This feels like empty posturing in an election year.
People always want to make it more difficult to get a gun, but when it comes to them actually paying for it (extra taxes covering free licensing, free safety classes, whatever) it’s crickets
No, he shouldn’t. OJ had a financial obligation to the Goldmans for years that he shirked. He shouldn’t get to keep doing so after he’s fucking dead. OJ gets to control the disposition of what’s left of his estate after his legal obligations are fulfilled.
And that’s not even getting into the fact that HE MURDERED THEIR SON.
I also ANAL but being an executor doesn’t give you carte blanch to weaponize the courts against your debts. They were awarded that money. If there was any rational argument to lower or vacate that judgment, OJ and company had decades to proffer that argument. This just screams petty.
You expect OJ Simpson not to be petty when after getting away with the murder of 2 people?! I sure dont.
The lawyer is just being a lawyer, i also don’t expect him to not be a lawyer.
You dont appoint a lawyer as your executor and not expect them to do lawyer things with legal documents.
The US judicial system is fucked as much as anyone elses but the rich routinely weaponize the court systems there for any number of reasons. OJ doing absolutely everything he can think of to protect his ego is pretty fucking on brand
Its my understanding that the executor is legally required to execute the will as defined by the will or instructions from the deceased.
You are at least partially wrong. The will cannot exceed the bounds of the law. Every state (that I’m aware of) has an order that expenses and debts are paid. An executor cannot choose to not pay a debt simply because the will says not to pay it.
But he should do his best to carry out the instructions if there are proper ways to challenge it and the will of the deceased is to make an attempt in the proper manner.
Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability? I know i do, or what is even the point of having an executor at all?
And to be clear, im hoping he loses every challenge. Also i hope the families of the murdered get every penny OJ had left, i just thought people were blaming the executor who was also the murderers lawyer so he should know all of the details about what is required and necessary.
And maybe the guy is a super scummy lawyer who ISNT just doing the hes supposed to be doing, but thats not what i thought i was responding to. If im wrong my apologies, but it was a misunderstanding.
Just dont want to see lynch mobs come back into fashion and i think we are seeing us get damned close to that today. So we have to be honest even when we dont like something
For what it’s worth, I agree with your interpretation here. The executor’s statements are just douchey and inflammatory, but yeah - the will says what one wants to be done. Others may contest it and the executor tries to act on your behalf to get what you want done.
Your comments are made in the context of the OJ story, so to say “Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability?” is incredibly dishonest.
Personal representatives must pay the debts of the estate. They can decline or challenge debts that they believe to be invalid. The debt to the Goldman family is a valid judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. What legitimate challenge is the personal representative making about the debt?
I assume the challenge is an effort to waste all of the assets of the estate on attorneys fees and administration costs. Essentially so that when a court tells them that they must pay the Goldman family that there are no assets left to pay.
If the deceased owe taxes plus interest to the government but in the will puts that all money must go to charity, that doesn’t mean that the taxes don’t have to be paid.
Well the son is dead, nothing can be done after the jury mistakenly acquitted Simpson. But did OJ really shirk obligations? AFAIK the whole reason he even wrote “IF I DID IT” was to try to pay them what was owed, and they accepted that deal.
The man’s whole estate appears to be worth about 3 Million USD, and he’s survived by four children. Maybe it’s time we put the dead to rest.
What is this alternate timeline where OJ isn’t such a bad guy after all? He wrote the book because he needed cash, and was sued for the money since he still had not paid all he owed.
It’s a little hard to “put the dead to rest” when the dead person is your child and their killer is still walking the streets for the rest of his life.
He was a shit person, but I’m not seeing a better future from trying to squeeze 97 Million USD out of a 3 Million USD estate. He already served 33 years prison for a separate crime and he has 4 children who are wholly not responsible at all but may end up paying for their father’s crimes.
But he was the leader of the SWAT team in question, and before their white, unmarked cargo van drove down Lake Street that night, Bittell told the unit, “Alright, we’re rolling down Lake Street. The first f***ers we see, we’re just hammering ’em with 40s” — referring to 40mm launchers or rounds, or rubber bullets.
Earlier that night, Bittell punctured the tires of vehicles, instructing his officers to puncture two tires because people could easily change one flat tire.
These scumbag authoritarian assholes play “war” against their fellow citizens because they get off on being above the law.
And the bootlickers still think the problem is people protesting this abuse of power.
That happened to them. Guy in a car during the protests, one of these unmarked facist vans rolling by firing wildly, dude pulled his legal gun and returned fire.
They beat the shit out him and arrested him on attempted murder charges, but he was acquitted at trial since they never identified themselves before shooting at him and he immediately complied when they did.
They got one of their own committed to a mental hospital because he was pushing back on their bullshit. They literally have a “friends and family” card you can show an officer and get out of a ticket. These are the people who claimed they have the authority to just randomly search people on the street for no reason.
The NYPD should have been broken up when they tried to kill Frank Serpico, or we could go back about a hundred years and they should have been broken up when the Tamany Hall corruption machine infiltrated the NYPD thoroughly.
I’m from NYC, I’ve got a lot of family in the NYPD and DoC, and the NYPD is more than a hundred years past due to be broken up. They should separate the department into county>borough>city>village>town departments, so they can all watch and investigate each other until acceptable levels of corruption have been achieved. (acceptable levels are usually a very low percentages of corruption, we’ll never completely eliminate it, so the goal is to get it as low as we can.)
Almost like… radio stations are privately owned businesses that know it’s not a good idea to piss of their (very few remaining) listeners? Who gives a fuck what country radio stations are doing lol
Radio stations are in a privileged position of control over the scarce piece of radio spectrum they use to broadcast, and deserve to be regulated in exchange for that privilege.
I’m not saying the FCC should force them to play Beyonce, but the “iTs a pRiVatE bUsINeSS” argument is 100% bullshit in this case.
…radio is regulated and the government can’t nor should be allowed to force media to play certain musicians.
Let us be real, if a law like that is ever enacted, it won’t be to force country music listeners to listen to black artists, it will be to force black listeners to listen to Perry Como.
Should radio stations be regulated? Yes (we both agree on this). Should those regulations include forcing them to play songs against their commercial interests? No (we also both agree on this).
I genuinely don’t even understand what kind of argument you’re trying to make here.
I genuinely don’t even understand what kind of argument you’re trying to make here.
I’m pointing out that the “it’s a private business” argument doesn’t apply. The radio station can choose not to play Beyonce because the FCC allows it to make that choice, not because it has some sort of inherent right to make that choice.
not because it has some sort of inherent right to make that choice
The US legal system works on “all powers not explicitly stated to belong to [governing body] are not granted” so, yes, the radio station does have an inherent right to make that choice. The FCC doesn’t allow them that right. Rather, they don’t forbid them from it, which is completely different.
No, that’s not true. The FCC explicitly has the power (as delegated by Congress) to regulate interstate commerce, which includes radio spectrum since radio waves cross state lines.
Let it go grue, PP_BOY doesn’t even like black folks, as evidenced by his history. Hell, his hatred for my people is probably part of the reason he commented in the first place.
As to the auto industry bailout, would you rather have had a major American industry simply collapse?! Don’t know about the others, but Chrysler paid it all back, with interest, years ahead of schedule.
Isn’t the point of our government to break up industries to big to fail so things like this don’t happen? Congratulations you solved a problem that your institution is supposedly designed to prevent.
The average American were the main ppl who lost their houses and jobs and got jackshit back from those bailouts. (Besides a measly 20 billion back from the bank bail out. Our government budget is in the trillions)
No one is saying forgive 1.7 trillions tomorrow but it is MORE than possible to forgive that much debt over time and recoup it. Especially since as soon as that debt is gone ppl will buy shit like houses, take out loans for businesses, and have kids which all add economic value and tax revenue.
The economic loss of losing a generation and a half of workers who will be unable to save for retirement and will put a giant strain on the economy in 40-50 years when their brains and bodies are shot, but they can’t afford to retire because the money that they could have set aside went to paying student loans. It’s going to be way cheaper in the long run and a better investment to forgive student loans now, than to wait for all those people to hit retirement age and not be able to afford to retire, holding down jobs that should be opening for new generations and screwing over the youth once again. Not that newer generations will be as big, since those strapped with student loans are choosing not to have kids because they can’t afford it. Also if our social safety net for retirees (Social Security, Medicare, etc) is already strained, we’d better give people the best chance we can at being able to afford to save for their own retirements.
If anything, the ROI on paying off student debt is better long term than the auto and bank bailouts - because the cost of not doing it is going to affect the economy for generations.
That profit worked out to be about 0.6% rate of return on a loan to failing businesses on the verge of bankruptcy. Do you know anybody on the verge of bankruptcy who’s ever received a loan with rates like that?
Taxpayers would have been better off holding onto the company stock and receiving a portion of the profits today.
As to the auto industry bailout, would you rather have had a major American industry simply collapse?!
There’s allegedly 94 American automobile manufacturers, per Wikipedia. If there’s a disruption that would collapse all of them, that would be extremely serious - something which should be handled by making sure the industry is not at the whims of the economy.
The simplest quick-fix is having the company give partial ownership to the government in exchange for a bailout, and the alternatives involve arguing about what color to use on the bike shed.
GM paid back the loan but didn’t pay back the 45 billion dollar stock swap.
The Bank Bailouts were paid back, but the excessive reserves were not which dwarfed the loans.
For scale imagine I gave you a small city and 1000 dollars. You paid me back 1050 dollars. Then I never shut up about how I made a profit and enjoy my small city. No exaggeration a small city is the kinda money we are talking about. The excessive reserves program went into the 100s of billions.
‘Member the airline bailout after 9/11? They also “temporarily” increased ticket prices and added checked bag fees (which didn’t used to be a thing at all) to account for the reduced sales. I’m sure those extra profits totally got responsibly invested into the air fleets 🤣
How am I just learning this is a fucking thing. Since when is Medicare a fucking loan. What is wrong with this fucking country? We are straight up fucking evil.
This is actually Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicaid is often used to cover premiums and copays for Medicare for lower income individuals including people dealing with cancer and such though.
Right, but this still makes it a loan. Which I don’t really understand. I thought Medicaid is a “welfare” program designed to fill in gaps in health care for those who can’t afford insurance.
It is ridiculous how overcomplicated healthcare is in the US.
It’s more evil than you think. There are all sorts of ways to protect assets from Medicaid. Of course, it’s only worth doing when there are considerable assets. So basically if you have nothing, Medicaid costs nothing. If you have a little, Medicaid takes it all. If you have a lot, Medicaid will likely take a tiny fraction of your assets. And if you’re caught off guard, it takes everything.
What The Fuck! They take Medicare taxes out of every one of my paychecks. Have for my entire adult life. A program I can’t qualify for. And now your telling me it’s a fucking loan? No fucking way I pay for it I should get it and no fucking way they getting my house or anything.
I swear they better hope I never get a terminal disease with plenty of time before I die.
When revolution starting we can’t continue living this way.
Well corpos are people now, so I think Boeing should be put on a bus to Texas and summarily executed for its crimes against humanity and treason against US persons.
I can see how people raised in stable loving families think 'why shouldnt the parents know?' But I was raised by a raging narcissist, if dad slept bad a head-punch during breakfast was not uncommon. First memory I have is being hurt by my dad...
If I were trans this would have sealed my fate; killed via 'exorcism'
If the kid doesnt want their parents to know about their gender identity well that isnt a bad kid, those are bad parents. Yes really.
Believe you me, the good parents dont need the school to tell them, they already know because a child that feels safe will just tell you. If you really love them you will already know anyways just from paying attention to them.
I know people with mental diagnosis who support this shit. Try explaining to them that they are one the list of undesirables too, or dont if you value your time and sanity.
I tried to explain this shit to my own dad when telling him that I would rather the schools keep that kind of info to himself and he just kept pushing that I would change my mind when my daughter was born. Somehow, it was inconceivable to him that informing parents of this kind of thing puts children at risk of emotional and physical harm.
Guess what: I still believe the same now that my daughter is born because I know there are shit parents out there who would torture their children for not conforming. I’m going to do everything I can to instill the kind of trust my daughter needs to tell me if she’s part of the LGBT community. And if she doesn’t feel comfortable? Then I’ve failed.
If my child is not comfortable telling me, then my job as a parent is to simply provide love and care untill they do feel comfortable, and if they never do for whatever reason (people are complicated and its not always mom and dads fault) then my job is to accept that fact and continue to provide love and care
As someone who took her time before telling a parent she knew would be supportive, you have the exact right attitude. Sometimes you’re afraid of your parent. Sometimes you’re afraid because it’s huge and telling a parent is huge and it will change the relationship and even if it’s only in positive ways that’s still a big thing.
You know, I had my doubts about my parents ability as parents, but they always repeated I’d understand after I had my own. And they were right. After I had my kid I realized what a shit job they did parenting. They mostly meant well, but clearly not enough to read a book about it.
The only way I can parent my child free from government interference is using government surveillance. Government employees need to be mandatory reporters if my child isn’t acting in the manner I requested, anything else is tyranny.
This relation has been said to have been delegated by the parent, by sending his child to school, to the teacher. This justification is tenuous, however, because state compulsory eduction laws require children to go to school.
Rather, a more logical reason for allowing the teacher to stand in loco parentis to the students, thereby resulting in the privilege to discipline the students, stems from the necessity of maintaining order at the school.
This rule ordinarily affords the teacher the right to inflict punishment which is not excessive upon a pupil without incurring liability, although there is disagreement on the question of what constitutes excessiveness.3’
Do you think pressuring impressionable children to chop off their genitalia is some form of discipline? I would say detention or public shaming are more effective methods that should be adopted. Celebrating trans but shunning normal relationships is not equality.
Nearly 52 percent of parents described being pushed to transition their kids
The survey of 1,655 parents, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that more than half of the parents who were referred to gender therapists said they felt directed to put their kids on medical treatments **or change their wardrobe.**The responses came from parents of children who identified as trans, and who were concerned that the decision was more to do with a mental health issue, social media and peer pressure than a genuine discomfort with their gender. They were part of an online group called Parents of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Kids. Rapid onset gender dysphoria is part of a controversial theory that the sharp rise in trans-identifying youths is a social contagion
So you have a Christian faith website, the Daily Mail (for the aforementioned quotes), Open The Word.org (?), and it’s links to parents disagreeing with doctors.
The only one with any teeth is the Feminist Current, which links to the BBC, and has legitimate concerns.
Clinicians reported worries that some patients were referred onto a gender transitioning pathway too quickly.
No-one had irreversible surgery, they had puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, both of which are quickly reversible.
Exactly. I was disowned when I came out at 20. Telling my mom would’ve been bad because it would’ve denied me an important moment in our lives, and an opportunity for her to support me on our terms. Telling my then father would’ve just made him stop talking to me as a teenager.
Other kids face physical violence. It’s not uncommon for a trans person to be murdered by a parent.
This idea that parents have a right to know everything about their child will get kids killed. But kids aren’t people like parents are to many people
Im sorry you had to deal with that. I flipped the script on them, support this crap and they are gone, dissowned, refered to as 'the biggot formerly know as <insert name>', I'll talk about them as though they are sub-human, see how they like it.
Some relatives arent invited to my wedding because although I dont like my sil's spouse on a personal level, they are trans, they are invited and they will be protected. I would rather spend time with someone decent who I dont get along with than someone biggoted who I used to get along with.
I hope you are in a good place in life now, stay strong. It will take time but conservatives always lose to the inevitable march of progress. They've been losing, and that is why they are so mad
That’s exactly it. You’re not going to like everyone of an oppressed group, but you can dislike every bigot.
And yeah, these days I’m happily married and surrounded by my people. My problems are shit like stress and work and a landlord who ignores problems too long. Utterly boring, exactly the kinds of problems my younger self dreamed of.
“It’s not uncommon for a trans person to be murdered by a parent…” could you share news stories about this? It would be helpful to have facts, but I’ve not seen any myself.
I have a trans child, and they were terrified to tell me, but not because of anything I did. They ended up coming out to me multiple times because I didn’t react the way they were told to expect.
They have plenty of trans friends whose lives would be much worse if their parents knew. I don’t think any school has the right to reveal that kind of information before a kid is ready.
Why TF are we renting military stuff from any 3rd party and essentially giving them control to override the military chain of command in the first place? I can’t see this sitting well with anyone on the military side of this.
Sure, but it’s still a problem. Trump could abandon New York, but re-entering the NY market after three years would be like starting over. Probably not worth it.
Or he could turn over control to someone like Ivanka. But for it to survive, she will have to put in her own people and make new contacts of her own. After three years it will effectively be her company, nobody involved will want to see Donald return.
"Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint.
Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways," Engoron wrote.
“Defendants’ refusal to admit error — indeed, to continue it, according to the Independent Monitor — constrains this Court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained,” he added.
The ruling also bars the Trump sons — who’ve been running the company since their father went to the White House — “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of two years.”
So, yeah, I guess the headline was shitting you, because at best it’s going to be effectively a two year ban for this pack of pathologically remorseless creeps who the judge admits are definitely going to reoffend. Ain’t justice grand? /s
Yeah, I really don’t think people should be celebrating this. This is practically giving people permission to cheat on their taxes considering they still came out on top in terms of profiting overall.
That was my thought. The money is a lot and cool, but we know he’ll never have to really pay it. It won’t change a thing wrt how he’s currently living his life. He could set up a GoFundMe and people would throw money at it like Bannon’s border wall scheme.
The business thing though - with our luck that fucker will still be alive in 3 years, running for president again or some shit, and open up another business in NYC just to spite this and do the fraud all over again.
I said this to someone else- I sincerely hope Donald Trump doesn’t make it to next month, let alone 80, but Rupert Murdoch is 92 and still running News Corp.
I said it in 2016 and every year after yet here we are.
And even when he finally does kick the bucket, we’ll never be free of him. The conspiracy theories surrounding however he goes will make the JFK assassination ones look amateur.
That’s the death of the company. Nobody in his family can run this business now. It’ll continue on with someone they have hired to manage it, but the judge will keep his eye on them with the monitor for a very long time.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.