Pretty sure I could make a grant program for kilt wearers and it’d get less backlash than this. The fact that black women can’t try to help elevate eachother is ridiculous.
It’s not necessarily racist or sexist. It does, however, discriminate on the basis of sex and race, and I assume that’s what you mean. That would be a problem in some circumstances–for example, housing, employment, or college admissions.
But this is–as I understand it–a private grant. If you’re giving away your own money, you should be able to give it away to whomever you want on whatever basis you want. And that’s the crux of the litigation. If the court decides the thing is actually a contract, the discrimination would be a big problem. But as a gift, it’s a different animal.
The problem with that logic is that when awards and scholarships exclusively go to white people or men, it’s because “they have the correct merit and deserve those things” and the fact that they all happen to be white and/or men gets overlooked because it’s socially accepted that white men tend to be more intelligent than other demographics.
If that fact can go without scrutiny, particularly investigation about the underlying cause of why that is, then calling out race or gender based action that seeks to correct it is hypocrisy.
If we are going to say “It’s not fair for black women to have an exclusive way to empower other black women” then we must also say “It’s not fair for white men to perpetuate the tendency of also empowering only other white men”, because that may actually be intentional by racist white men in power. But that aspect is never even looked at in the same context as something like this.
The way we acknowledge this is either by being conscious of the ratio of white men being handed awards and money or by being conscious of the fact that generational poverty exists and is causing black people, particularly black women to fall behind, and allowing groups like this to exist.
If you can’t do either, then you’re asserting that it’s ok for white men to go without even asking if what they’re doing is racist, but not black women. Which is inherently racist and sexist.
The Federalist Society "judge" in question never sat a bench before being appointed by Rick Scott at only 40 years old to a Florida District Court of Appeal in 2016. Then, facing the prospect of an actual election and still being woefully unqualified, the GOP decided instead that his three years of service to their party made him ideal to be a United States District Court Judge and rammed his nomination through. Now he does them favors like this.
Or, like the Irish did, they are fleeing an oppressive state looking for a better life in a free country ruled by law not man. They did that like immigrants have done on this continent for 100,000++ years looking for a better life which we claim to have.
But all of these “over” stories are fascinating views into the worldview of an empire.
None of these anti-immigration assholes see the irony in our most famous national symbol having a poem at the base welcoming immigrants seeking refuge.
Why at birth? Why isn’t it “this is the room for penises and this is the room for vaginas”? We only wanna stop creeps from invading the others. Wtf is this whole war on choice bs?
Assigned sex and genitals aren’t synonymous. Intersex is a thing. Also Güevedoces, the young “girls” (according to this genital-at-birth definition) in the Dominican Republic who go through male puberty, cause they’re actually male genetically speaking
Creeps aren’t stopped by these laws, you twat, it’s only about making being trans more obvious and more derided (see, a trans woman now needing to use the men’s restroom and a trans man now needing to use the women’s (which is likely to cause panic))
Trans people aren’t fucking creeps, they’re just people. Why is that so hard to understand?
Instead of listening to only right-wing weirdos, listen to the communities that are affected by your malicious actions. You might find some empathy rather than just more misplaced anger
Most importantly, the “reason” for this legislation, men pretending to be women to gain access to the women’s restroom, isn’t a thing. It’s a hypothetical and always has been. Meanwhile, real people are actually harmed by Legislation like this, not just thought people in your thought world
I mean, the PPP folks should also pay back their loans? Although I think when those loans were given out it was stated that they had a possibility of becoming discharged. Still, pay back your loans.
I never understand whataboutism because usually the answer is just the same in both situations. I guess folks are just used to arguing with ideologically inconsistent people?
Sure, but something wild like 65% (and I think thats one of the lower figures) of all PPP money went to things other than what it was supposed to be for. They still forgave something like 75% of all of them. Imagine if half of all students used student loans to buy a Lamborghini, then they forgave more than half of all student borrowers. Wildly different rules for Americas ruling class. No big political or media push around the PPP loan forgiveness either which is strange, almost like the student loan forgiveness uproar is media fabrication to protect the SLABS that rich investors hold. Im sure few would be mad about loan forgiveness if all of the loan went to the employees paychecks during covid instead of the employers bankroll.
Eh, I’m not particularly against loan forgiveness, and I already paid back my own student loans. It’s just, you know, forgiveness.
That being said, it’s criminally easy to get a student loan, and the vast majority of people who got one should have never qualified in the first place. Banks and the government are giving unsecured loans to 18 year olds practically independent of any proven or projected ability to pay them off.
With PPP in particular, the loans were given out with similar levels of recklessness, and so I would argue the forgiveness rate should be the same. I believe it was wrong to forgive those loans in the first place, but now that we’re here it would at least be consistent to forgive current student debt. However, I would like to see it paired with extreme limits on the cost of college to the student so that we can’t end up in another unsecured debt crisis.
Mildly concerned that definition could result in someone being prosecuted for rape for misreading whether someone wants a kiss.
Edit: I looked up the actual bill, it’s fine… I figured it probably was, but god damn lemmy thanks for the down votes and assumptions of the worst for stating a simple concern 🙄
Op didn’t really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn’t understand that kissing isn’t relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.
Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.
Op didn’t really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn’t understand that kissing isn’t relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.
The article does not say that. The article says the law has been Brian’s to include (among other things) oral sexual contact.
I did not look up the literal letter of the law, and I’m guessing you didn’t either.
A kiss could be argued as oral to oral sexual contact.
Which yeah, kissing someone without their consent isn’t cool … but I also wouldn’t consider it anywhere near rape if a date misread my comfort level and “went for it.”
Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.
👎
I have some words for you about that take, but I’m not going to go there.
Oral sexual contact is mouth to genital. Nobody in the history of fucking ever has defined or understood oral sexual contact to mean mouth to mouth, until your ground breakingly stupid interpretation here. So grats on making history I guess.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.