I wouldn't trust it. He could easily change his mind, or the next AG could have differing opinions. You'll only be 'safe' after the statute of limitations ends, and the statute of limitations for murder is infinite.
Actually that’s not true, there’s a legal standard applied to public statements regarding enforcement from prosecutors and other related members of executive branches.
It is fascinating to watch the rise and fall of Tesla’s reputation. They went from “the cool brand” everyone wanted to something that automatically gets you labelled as a sucker and a douche, almost overnight.
Sadly, Musk built the cool brand reputation before destroying it, so this doesn’t really apply. Nobody ever really heard of Tesla - the car brand - before Musk.
Thats what happens when you get a bunch of weirdo cultists who willfully ignore just how much of an astonishingly massive cunt Musk is, was, and always has been, until he pushes even them to the point that they have to admit what they always, deep down, knew.
Tesla could get away with musks behavior if the product was good. It’s not, it’s overpriced and regularly scores amongst the lowest in reliability and build quality.
Just gonna point out that at least he provided sum sort of substantiation for his claims, which is more than most do. Even if you don’t agree with the viability of the reporting of the source, and I admit you might have a point as I did not watch the video, but he did provide something. You want to counter him, counter him. Tearing down someone’s source is an invalid argument, it doesn’t illustrate that you are correct, only that, in your opinion, they are wrong. Those two things are not the same.
Opinions I guess. For me, it shows some sort of effort. Enough care to actually attempt to support themselves and make an actual argument. It doesn’t mean they are right, never said it did. It is about the art of crafting a well-formed argument. If the only thing you can do is attack their source, you have forfeited the argument because it is a bad-faith retort. He says that it hasn’t happened, then provides what he considers to be a credible enough source. You want to retort him, find a source that is at least equally credible, and provide it. It is discourse and proper form. Everyone needs to learn a bit about it and become better citizens to each other. Maybe if we did we could avoid so many messes.
Yes, but they are correct. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug at the federal level, same as heroin.
There is nothing legally preventing the federal government from arresting everyone in every state who possesses or sells cannabis. It isn’t relevant that cannabis is legal recreationally or medically at the state level in most of the country
We’re just hoping that the federal government continues its discretionary policy of looking the other way. But, much like Roe, uncodified rights have a recent habit of disappearing overnight
not really. i read into this a bit, and realllly this is people choosing to fight a losing a battle while attempting a war.
this person could have played by [their] rules, and achieved some success in that arena. instead, they chose to not perform due diligence and/or draw a line in the sand preventing any success. they are losing the good through the the chase of perfect.
this is the second person ive seen who is not seeing that they could achieve something big later, if they play by the 'silly' rules now.
if you want to achieve something in government youre going to have to make compromises to get there.
“I would have filled out whatever was necessary, because at the end of the day, while it would have been a hit to my pride, there is something much more important than my pride, and that’s fighting for this community,” Childrey said.
Make sure you didn't miss what they actually had to say about it.
It isn’t that they don’t want to list previous names it’s that the law was buried and not made apparent to the candidate. It wasn’t on the candidate requirement guide, the petition has no space for former names, many people weren’teven aware of the law’s existence.
While I don’t disagree with the law in theory (listing previous names in normal for things like background checks) it’s clear this law was dug up specifically to try to disqualify the candidate in bad faith.
The candidate is running as a trans Democrat for District 84. The other case you’re referring to is for District 50 which the dems didn’t even contest in 2022.
If they played by the rules, they’d have both lost in a landslide and nobody would have noticed or cared. This news story is the best win they could have hoped for.
I’m going with Hanlon’s Razor on this one and assuming this is just a really stupid bureaucratic failure where a form doesn’t have a box for required info that it doesn’t tell you is required. Curious if there are similar examples for name changes by cis people, which I wouldn’t expect to be newsworthy. Regardless it needs to be fixed.
Believe me, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, and I 100% think this is wrong.
My take here is that filling out a government form and having it be rejected because you didn’t put required information that isn’t stated as required into a box that the form doesn’t have and getting denied/made to redo it is an extremely plausible scenario. In the case of a cis person being denied this way, it’s a mundane bit of bureaucratic nonsense that nobody would blink an eye at.
The article states:
The law has been in place in some form for decades, though it’s rarely been used and usually arises in the context of candidates wishing to use a nickname.
The fact that this law has been identified as a real problem for trans people and that there is a quote in the article from the (Republican) governor saying “this is bad, we should fix it” strikes me as acknowledgement that this dumb rule is disproportionately affecting trans people and should be fixed.
We have a depressing number of real examples of malicious use of the law against trans people, so all I’m saying is that this one doesn’t seem worth getting fired up about unless there is evidence of actual malicious intent here.
The one it originally happened to has a father who is a conservative politician in the state and likely wanted to avoid the hit to his own numbers from people knowing about his child.
When people pointed out it wasn’t enforced, someone was going to use it for everyone else too
I mean, it makes sense to me. Whether you are trans or not, I feel like people voting for you should be aware if you have changed your name so they can do some googling and make sure you didn’t get into any controversy or shenanigans before you changed your name.
Sure they are specifically using this law to target this person because they disagree with their way of life, but it’s an old law and was passed for reasons before trans issues were even prevalent so the law itself isn’t transphobic.
Exactly. Thank you. People change their name when they get married all the time. Are we to believe someone would be barred from the ballot if they get married between the petition and the ballot?
All name changes are. Judges do them so they fall under the public record. I’m sure you can get yours sealed if you can prove that you’re in danger, but without a restraining order it’s highly unlikely
Because an exception for that was taken into account long before now, and trans people were not.
But just because the people that drafted this law didn’t write out an exception for deadnames doesn’t mean it’s inherently transphobic. This was hardly a major topic in the public discourse when these laws were made.
Again, a law that requires voters have transparency is a good thing overall. It needs updated, yes, but the problem here is how it’s being used as a tool to abuse. The law is to prevent fraud, but no fraud is being committed.
I think where the communication is failing here is partly because intent vs effect. Were the people intending to hurt trans people when the law was written? It’s unlikely. Did it? That’s arguable for basically any time before 2015ish, it did create a dangerous and uncomfortable barrier between trans people and serving in the state legislature but it was by no means the biggest until recently. The most influence we had on politics in the 80s was dying, rioting, and when politicians became regular johns. But today’s implementation? They’ve burned every benefit of the doubt and all that remains is that there’s a slim chance some of these people are only enforcing this rule so strictly because she’s a democrat.
Because an exception to that was taken into account long before now, and trans people were not.
But just because the people that drafted this law didn’t write out an exception for deadnames doesn’t mean it’s inherently transphobic. This was hardly a major topic in the public discourse when these laws were made.
Again, a law that requires voters have transparency is a good thing overall. It needs updated, yes, but the problem here is how it’s being used as a tool to abuse. The law is to prevent fraud, but no fraud is being committed.
The dead name requirement isn’t the issue. There is no way to provide that info, the requirement to provide tha info isn’t documented, and they are attempting to disqualify her over it. The actual fuck?
Exactly, if this was a genuine mistake they’d present opportunities to rectify it and try to ensure it doesn’t happen in the future. The law probably wasn’t meant specifically to hurt trans people but the implementation clearly is.
The poster says that this law makes sense because voters need to be able to research their candidates. The exception for marriage contradicts that logic - do we not need to research married people? I want to see how they square that circle is all.
It’s more that it’s trying to catch people who’ve changed their names for political purposes.
People who got married and changed their name notionally didn’t do so for political purposes, and are therefore excluded from having to report.
It’s not that it’s to provide blanket history on every candidate for research purposes. It’s a catch to ferret out those who would abuse the name change process to avoid accountability. This gives the public the ability to know if that is occuring.
For public office I’m not entirely sure there should be an exception. I’m not sure why there is, other than people might say it’s unfair to women who are the most likely to have had a name change and it’s an extra burden than most men won’t need to do.
If a man changed his name for marriage I would like to be aware before voting as well.
But that doesn’t fulfill the stated reasoning i.e. the law makes sense because voters need to be able to research candidates. Do married women not have lives before marriage? Of course they do, but the law seems to treat their premarital life as completely separate.
Here’s what I think: the law may not have been intended to exclude trans folk, but it’s definitely sexist, and the intersection of transphobia and sexism can’t be ignored.
The law doesn’t make sense either, because name changes are public record anyway.
Well, when voters see that her husband has the same last name, it becomes pretty obvious she changed her name at marriage.
The law was passed in 1995, before anyone knew what a deadname was. And I do not see it as sexist, especially when the only reason women change names more than men is specifically excluded.
Just because it’s public record (and even then sometimes you can get records sealed) does not mean the information is easily accessible.
The discussion around deadnaming and necessary or legal record keeping is kind of ongoing, but that’s not what’s happening here.
The point of rules like this is to dissuade deceptive name changes but there’s no reason to view this particular case as deceptive. That’s why it’s going up for review and not disqualifying them immediately. Ideally, Congress would recognize this case doesn’t fit the spirit of that rule and both allow them to campaign while simultaneously setting a precedent or rewriting the rule to exclude deadnames.
As to whether that’ll actually happen, and how fair and impartial the review will be, I think we can all guess it won’t be.
It’s an understandable rule, but this is dishonest enforcement of it.
Yuo didn’t actually explain why marriage should be an exception, though. Why is it understandable? People do marry to get into certain families or escape baggage. It’s less common today but it happens.
I wouldn’t think so, especially with how common it is for people of Anglo culture to use a “non-official” name on official documents (in my experience, which is something I never saw with clients of other cultures).
This is a perfect opportunity for you to go do some research to see if it was known some cis-candidate changed their name and they weren’t removed the ballot.
Short of that, declaring unfairness against trans people doesn’t hold much water.
And that being said, people are always looking for a way to disqualify their opponents, and so in sure it’s standard practice to look to see if they’ve violated this law to get them removed.
Although, IIRC, it you changed your name because of marriage, that doesn’t count. So either they have to allow name changes from transitions to be exempt, or include name changes because of marriages to make the law fair, imo.
I see where you’re coming from but your version of fair seems to only disproportionately affect women rather than men. Not as many men change their name due to marriage as do women.
I strongly disagree with the implication that just because it affects one group more than another, that makes it inherently suspect. Is there more to the argument?
I think we both agree that if something intentionally targets one group over another in an attempt to treat them unfairly, that is unfair. Where I think we differ is that if something doesn’t target some group specifically, but it just happens to affect one group more than another, then I don’t see that as unfair and you, if I interpret your position correctly, see that as a unfair.
However, I suspect I can find a case you would disagree with. Like men are more violent, so laws that punish violence are going to, imo completely fairly, disproportionately affect men. Are laws that punish violence unfair?
Whether you are trans or not, I feel like people voting for you should be aware if you have changed your name so they can do some googling and make sure you didn’t get into any controversy or shenanigans before you changed your name.
Which is what the campaign trail is for. This isn’t an application to take a seat, it’s a petition to run. Ask yourself how you as a voter have ever interacted with one of these forms.
I understand you aren’t defending this action, but theorizing about rational historical uses for this, even uses well outside this incident, only serve to add to the cloud of false rationality that bigots will wrap themselves in to defend this BS.
The crux of your argument about “make sure you didn’t get into any controversy” is baked into the name change process…
A legal name change in the U.S. for any reason other than marriage or divorce typically requires several steps. First, the applicant must file paperwork that includes the reason for the name change and pay filing fees that can be hundreds of dollars. Then the applicant attends a court hearing where they may need to defend the reasons for their name change. If they are granted a court order for a name change, they will need to go through name change processes for other documents such as driver’s licenses and birth certificates, which require additional fees. Many states also require that the applicant pay to publish their name change in the newspaper, with some states requiring multiple publications.
But the original law still exempts name change by marriage . To me it feels like name changes not on official public record should be the target, as in a deliberate pseudonym. Still, what fits under that umbrella? Your twitter handle, if it isn’t your legal name would fit, but no one included that since the law was written.
Me too and I’m not even American, dissolution of NATO, serving Ukaine on a platter to Russia, possibility of more war in Europe with Putin getting bolder.
No pressure Americans but your elections are kind of important for the future of the world.
Yeah but a bunch of white college kids who don’t even know what Mer7aba means have decided that the way to serve the Palestinian cause is to let the guy who handed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Netenyahu back into office to teach the establishment a lesson so we’re fucked.
I’m starting to think they’re actually just right wingers who know that saying what they ACTUALLY want will get them dumped by all their cool allies club friends. Probably why they keep insisting on dumb fuck takes like “bErNiE wOuLd Be A cEnTrIsT iN pOlAnD!” and “AmErIcA hAs No LeFt!!!”
Yeah because when Palestinians at home are being lynched and called sand niggers and towel heads because Trump emboldened the racists again, that’ll teach the establishment for checks notes negotiating the release of Palestinians being held hostage in Israel and securing the right of the PA to access Palestine’s natural resource wealth.
Literally the only person dumb enough to be offended in defense of that kind of logic is the dumb white college kid who can’t tell what all the little dots and lines are there for on Arabic script.
You prefer us as martyrs to your cause than as agents for our own.
Ok but really objectively consider that statement though.
Policy by policy the Dems flank left of most of Europe’s old guard of social democratic and socialist parties. Dems tend to be more in favor of new and expanded welfare programs compared to their European counterparts, they’re less likely than said counterparts to adopt right wing policy and talking points to try and appease alt-rightified voters, and on social issues there is no contest, just say the word “Roma” and watch Europeans range from saying that pulling that card isn’t fair because “that’s different” to saying that what the fascists did wrong was lose before they finished the job on the Roma.
The metric by which America has no left is one by which the western world at large has no left, and at that point what value is gained at all by insisting on it?
Policy by policy the Dems flank left of most of Europe’s old guard of social democratic and socialist parties.
In what bizzaro world!!? We don’t have basic singles payer health care like all other major western nations. Not to mention millions of other things.
Dems tend to be more in favor of new and expanded welfare programs compared to their European counterparts,
Not even. They’ve passed maybe one thing in nearly the last century that approached it. As flawed as it was. And on top of that. Large amounts of Dems have happily voted for eligibility exclusion on even pre existing social welfare programs. Making them more and more useless.
they’re less likely than said counterparts to adopt right wing policy and talking points to try and appease alt-rightified voters,
Hello, last 40 years? Hello, third way Democrats? Hello, bipartisanship over principles. Even to this day Biden still waxes poetically about how we need Republicans and how they are good.
and on social issues there is no contest, just say the word “Roma” and watch Europeans range from saying that pulling that card isn’t fair because “that’s different” to saying that what the fascists did wrong was lose before they finished the job on the Roma.
There are multiple groups who would elicit similar reactions throughout the United States. Including black, Muslims, trans, gays, and even Democrats. Oh and by the way those fascists and Nazis you were talking about. They got their start by checks notes oh, they literally got their start by emulating the United States. Not only that, around topics of which the United States still hasn’t resolved properly yet to this day. You’re batting 0 here.
You seem to have mastered the art of using many words to not say a thing, except maybe for how little you understand European politics compared to American other than “but their actual fascist parties that have elected seats have healthcare.”
There’s no economically left wing party, but it is pretty left wing about a lot of social things. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization happened in some states before much of the rest of the world for example.
m starting to think they’re actually just right wingers who know that saying what they ACTUALLY want will get them dumped by all their cool allies club friends.
So you all lost the 2016 general election all on your own then?
The absurdity of your perspective is that you believe there is a large group of voters who didn’t show up for HRC while also apparently believing not one of them is sharing their reasons why in anonymous forums.
The absurdity of yours is that you’re pretty obviously one of those people who thinks a millions of votes lead in the primary race is “the DNC establishment shoving her down our throats” and not “we have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even vote for the guy we supposedly support!”
I mean it’s either that or “a bunch of selfish pieces of shit voted for Biden specifically to fuck over progressive or leftist efforts”. You sound like the kind of person who would do just that.
There was a rider attached to one of the latest appropriations bills (which is now law) that restricts how future Presidents can pull the US out of NATO. It can’t happen now unless Congress passes an act authorizing the President to do so, or with a 2/3 vote of the Senate (the same mechanism as ratifying a treaty).
So at least on this issue, we’ve put in some safeguards in case we elect an idiot again.
They stopped some of his bullshit, but they also failed to stop a lot of it. If he’s allowed to run for president again, that will be a huge example of rules not stopping him.
Huh? How is that why he’s not in office? I would say that, in spite of all those things, he still received the second highest vote count in presidential election history.
He just happened to lose to the person who got the highest.
Imagine the worst outcome you can think of on the issue that’s most important to you, and that’s probably likely no matter who we elect. Both parties rule as conservatives, and conservatism in recent memory has meant a slow-burn of lost liberty.
Don’t worry though. No matter who we elect they’ll still run us further into debt in order to fund the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, because it’s making our legislators and their backers obscenely wealthy. War is one of the shitty things for which there’s always bipartisanship.
There’s Biden who at worse maintains the status quo and then there is Trump who will become a literal dictator.
No I’m not exaggerating. You fucking centrist morons can’t see you’ll be on a train for the gas chambers if he is elected again and will be shocked when it happens.
Did any of the 2 sides really pushed for actual healthcare? Or did anything substantial about any of the pervasive cost of living problems? Or yknow, stopped bombing other people around the planet? Or did anything about the growing nazi problem?
Its a good cop bad cop shtick, both sides are pretty bad. Not only in the US, mind you.
You’re spending too much time on Reddit and Lemmy. Republicans will always support Ukraine (they hate Russia too!). The issue isn’t about support, it’s about limits. We have to have checks and balances when financing a war, this isn’t a free for all. The Republicans are just making sure the money is being spent how it’s supposed too. All of a sudden, they’re called “traitors” and “ass-kissers.” Which is just ridiculous. How soon we forget Ukraine was once considered one of the most corrupt countries on Earth.
That’s not what Trump’s actions suggested the last time in office, I have no doubt republicans hate Russia, maybe even more than Democrats, it’s Trump specifically I’m worried about.
Trump won’t pull support for Ukraine, that’s just a scare tactic from the Left. The entire government is united on the issue of stopping Russia, Trump alone can’t do much about that. If anything, he’ll just crack down harder on how/where the money is spent. Again, I hate this “just give them what they want!” mentality coming from the Left. There should always be questions, concerns, limits…etc…when giving billions of dollars to any country.
I didn’t need a study to tell you that. In my industry the costs of all my goods are up roughly 30% since 2020, but my margins have gotten thinner at the same time so my revenue somehow managed to magically remain exactly the same. And it’s no coincidence, I’m sure, that the manufacturers are the ones who determine the Minimum Advertising Price I’m supposed to be selling at.
If that 30% number sounds awfully familiar, you’ll find it in the linked article. So, profits for megacorporations rose 30%, and my costs rose 30%, too. Gee, will you look at that. Those two numbers are the same. That’s a fuckin’ puzzler, isn’t it?
So some asshole somewhere in that supply chain pyramid is making a lot of money off of this “inflation” excuse, and it sure as hell isn’t me.
It’s because there hasn’t been any meaningful anti trust enforcement for decades. Every industry is basically an oligopoly at this stage, so they can set whatever price they want, because they know their competitors will do the same (because they face the exact same pressures from the exact same shareholders to increase profits).
If it was a free market, you could’ve found a different supplier, but obviously there was no alternative, or you would’ve done just that.
Oligopolies that run both horizontally and vertically up the supply chain.
This is what happens after decades of mergers and acquisitions in the name of diversification, and corruption of regulators and governments — a small number of multinationals, owned by an even smaller number of oligarchs, reach a point of control where it is relatively easy to collude with the handful of others that collectively own 90% of every market and sector, and operate as a functional monopoly.
It’s the OPEC-ification of the entire global economy. It is of no surprise that fossil fuel oligarchs applied that model to everything, nor that the governments they own continue to enable their crimes. We’re all hostages to the economic terrorists of capitalism.
Great comment, sincerely - completely nails it. My only nitpick (and only delivered cuz you clearly care) is I don’t think it should be called terrorism.
Terrorism, as hate-fueled and damaging as it is, at least has an ethos, an organizing principle, a (generally twisted, but coherent) morality. These monsters have nothing so human to stand behind. As you know, it’s nothing more complicated than “fuck every life on earth but mine, for no reason more compelling than that I want even more stuff”. Terrorists actually compare favorably against that.
It’s just the natural state of capitalism. Regulation can keep it in check, but regulation will eventually falter, then fail due to regulatory capture and weakening of safeguards by politicians sympathetic to capital (read: bribed by).
free markets build monopolies, the only reason we are only at oligopoly is that we still have some regulation on the market (that inherently makes it not free btw)
In almost all cases I buy manufacturer direct. You are correct that there is no alternate supplier.
The only viable plan B is to start my own manufacturing company and make my own damn products, which is a capital expense I strongly suspect most players in my industry will not be able to afford. I certainly can’t.
Ayyyy I got most of my price lists in for next year and it’s like 5% across the board which is pretty typical. Some raw materials have come back down and ocean freight is reasonable again.
I got one of the last pricelists in today and it’s like 30% increase over this year 😂 I’m gonna put in one more PO at '23 prices then I’m dropping their shit.
I’m sure you get to be the grief sponge from people upset about higher costs and lower quality, too. I had the hardest time getting Levi’s to honor a warranty for two pairs of jeans that fell apart after three months. The whole time I was getting more frustrated with the company while feeling terrible for their customer service meat shields who weren’t allowed to resolve it.
Regardless of the fact that there’s no way many of her students will be mature enough to handle this information without being disruptive, there’s a difference between supporting life decisions and accepting them.
Like the difference between fatphobia and supporting healthy lifestyles, right? One is cruelty, the other is not supporting bad habits.
Same with prostitution, it’s one thing to not oppress sex workers, it’s another to tell kids to become sex workers. Hopefully she’s not doing that but is normalizing the profession really what you want around teenagers?
No parent wants to find out their kid started turning tricks because Ms Smith seemed cool.
Especially when her “Ways to Spot A Dangerous John” course wasn’t approved by the principal.
Why would you assume she was “promoting sex work” instead just teaching kids “normal” sex ed? That’s a very strong assumption, and the article says nothing about that. Do you have an alternative information source that says otherwise?
Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
There’s always a fine line to tread by institutions in charge of minors between trusting your kids to be mature enough to handle things like this and knowing how vulnerable they are to making poorly thought out decisions.
I wouldn’t want a prostitute teaching classes on sex ed, and I wouldn’t want a drug dealer teaching chemistry, and just to be clear, I use drugs and have used prostitutes.
I just didn’t do it and won’t support it around people whose brains are literally unfinished.
Seems to be a viable career, if she can charge a $3000 cancellation fee…
I love how you admit to “using” prostitutes, because you don’t seem to view them as human beings. Seems like what’s good for the gander isn’t good for the goose.
Should things that are “social goods” pay living wage? Or should we expect people to forgo survivable wages in order to do good deeds? Most of the schools I’ve worked at have been hiring randoms with no qualifications because there’s not a lot of folks willing to work 80 hours a week for “maybe enough for one person to survive on if you’re never hoping to ever have a kid or home of your own.”
Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
The logic of your argument follows that teaching as a career itself shouldn’t be presented as a viable career is it requires a second job to finance the career of teaching.
Her getting fired means she’ll likely have to rely more on her prostitution to survive. This means the school has now increased the amount of prostitution. How are the schools against it if that’s the case? Maybe the schools should increase teachers wages so that they don’t need to be a prostitute.
It is massively naive to think that zero of the people who are students right now will ever do sex work at some point in the future. Some of them definitely will. Even if you don’t agree that sex work is valid and honorable work (which you clearly don’t agree with) there’s no way to stop people from doing it despite how vilified or illegal it is in any society.
Given that reality, a course teaching people how to avoid the dangerous elements of a job that some of those people will eventually do, sounds like a great course. Having a sex worker who knows WTF she’s talking about teach it? That’s fucking amazing.
Some people view sex as something intrinsically beyond the purely transactional, and for those people it’s immoral to treat sexual intercourse as a commodity. I’m somewhat undecided, but it does seem a bit like the final frontier of neoliberalism.
What a useless word soup. Sex can absolutely be transactional if it suits two consenting parties. Your world view being as narrow as a drinking straw isn’t a basis for how the rest of society chooses to live.
Whose worldview? I’m undecided. I’ve been reading about the lives of prostitutes in Bangladesh though, and it’s heartbreaking. I’m definitely not a supporter of that side of the sex trade.
I’m not making an argument, I don’t understand what you mean. I’m barely even expressing an opinion; at present I haven’t reached any strong conclusions but can definitely see that the sex industry generates a lot of suffering.
Should we punish those sex workers in Bangladesh? I’m not sure why their plight = sex workers should be punished.
Sex work is fucking terrible. I have PTSD from some of the acts I was forced to participate in. Do you know why I was forced to participate in those acts? Because sex work is illegal, and advocating for myself in any way was impossible. Someone could choose not to pay me for my work, and because what I was doing was illegal, I had no recourse. I have often had to allow men to not use condoms or do really fucked up shit, because my other option was not getting to eat.
If you want to stop the sex trade, then advocate for things like universal basic income. Sex workers aren’t the ones who have decided to treat sex as a commodity, they just recognize that others do and that they can use that to eat. Dissociating and letting some boomer wet their dick bought me rice and butter when I didn’t have any other option.
Yes, I believe UBI or something is necessary. The worst excesses of the labour market are absolutely due to systemic economic coercion, including the vast majority of what goes on in the sex trade. Sex work advocates that view prostitution as some mutually beneficial exchange between equals are living in a fantasy world.
Okay cool. But until UBI exists, sometimes sex work is the only option. It is systemic economic coercion, just like working any other shitty and abusive job. Making sex work illegal makes it more dangerous for sex workers. The demand will always exist, and people desperate enough to submit to that demand will always exist, as long as we don’t provide for all human beings.
The biggest factor that made sex work not a “mutually beneficial exchange between equals” was the fact that it was illegal. I had zero protection from people choosing to stealth (ie, remove condoms mid act), or not pay me after the fact (always charge up front!). I did not have legitimate means of work, as the sex on my drivers license did not match my presentation. Punishing sex workers is the most bass-ackwards thing you can do.
Yeah, before neoliberalism prostitution didn’t exist, so clearly it is good to victimize prostitutes, as that’s just sticking it to neoliberals, the ones who invented prostitution.
Do you think sex ed somehow cheapens sex? People understanding sex only makes it better for everyone in every way.
There is nothing about sex ed that teaches anyone that sex is a commodity. My experience in public school was there was no morality involved whatsoever. It was very sterile and 100% about learning technical shit about how our bodies work. Invaluable information, I might add.
And I grew up in what many would consider a liberal area, especially in terms of our local public education.
Freaks like you who are obsessed with which genitals a child has, are incapable of separating the physiological aspects of sex from the emotional ones. Sex ed is not sexy, dude, it was awkward as fuck. If anything, it turned me off of sex.
It’s like saying that learning about the chemical processes used to make meth in chemistry class is the same thing as smoking it.
I’m an advocate of facilitated discourse and was highlighting what causes such polarisation in attitudes towards sex work/workers. Since some people view it as fundamentally immoral, that’s a very difficult bridge to cross.
Sex education is incredibly important and I’m amazed how bad it remains in many parts of the world. I’m unsure how or where children’s genitals come into this.
Seriously. This is a human being we’re talking about, who’s now lost her livelihood, and will possibly need to resort to prostitution again to make a living because of it.
You’re acting like she introduced herself to her students as a former prostitute. The kids never would have known if these asshole adults didn’t dig into her past like it mattered.
You joke, but I knew a woman who danced at a strip club to get extra money for herself and school supplies who got fired after a student’s dad saw her dancing
That’s the world we live in, and the only reason we’re seeing this story is because she was/is a teacher. The number of people affected by others’ vindictive smearing for similar but in less “shocking” circumstances would lend itself to a public outcry that could very well undermine the whole “moral” control this stems from.
If you don’t realize you’re living in a seriously fucked dystopia already, you’re likely a white cis-het male in the middle class, all due respect. Take a look around, and breathe it in.
“In a 2018 US poll, about a quarter of respondents said they had or were planning to have fewer kids than they would ideally like to have. Of those, 64 percent cited the cost of child care as a reason. Ballooning costs — of child care, housing, college, and more — are an issue around the world”
In 2009, after decades of falling birth rates, it began offering six months of paid parental leave, reimbursed at 60 percent of a new parent’s salary — then recently increased that share to 80 percent. The government has introduced a cash benefit and a tax break for parents of young children, and has invested in child care centers.
They’re giving money but you’re taking a 20% pay cut with massive increases in cost. Math doesn’t really work that way. You’d probably need an extra $50k/year to even consider it.
Costs keep going up and income keeps going down.
At the end of the day it’s a good thing. Less humans = less consumption = slowing the trashing of our planet.
When it takes two people’s income to live in the middle class, there is no time for children until much later. The trend is to have children at 30, when you are starting to make a decent income.
It’s not surprising. The Boomers took all the wealth and opportunity their parents created for them and hoarded it. They are the “me” generation, caring only for themselves.
I actually think it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Baby Boomers all die off and the Millennials have to fix the shit that they caused. We may actually see the new age of prosperity
Frankly I don’t know which words are powerful enough to describe this and condemn it. I don’t think the right words exist to explain how bad it is.
This logic is just… If it’s justified to blow up a refugee camp to kill a senior leader of Hamas, then by that same logic, Hamas would be justified in blowing up Israel’s capitol buildings to kill Netanyahu.
Fucking hell, not only that, but this logic defends the Hamas attack on Israel too. There could have been IDF members there or government officials.
I don’t see how anybody condemning Hamas’ terrorist attack could not condemn this. It’s the same picture.
More like it would be justified for Hamas to blow up Netanyahu’s neighborhood to try to kill him. Even then, it’s not even a fair comparison. These are refugees who have already lost their homes and families to Israel’s attacks and now they’re being targeted directly as a group. It’s about as high as war crimes go.
Yeah the whole argument skates over the question of why they were in a refugee camp in the first place. Probably a tree feel over and damaged their apartment building or something.
as was to be expected. :( I am 99.9% convinced Netanyahu was just waiting for Hamas to give him an excuse to escalate. They turned out to be the useful idiots (in the form of raping mass-murdering f*ckheads) that he needed.
I have been thinking about this for the last several years. We have grown our technology but are still basically angry monkeys flinging poo. Until we can evolve our own base instincts to match our reality, then nonsense like this will continue.
then by that same logic, Hamas would be justified in blowing up Israel’s capitol buildings to kill Netanyahu.
As this is a war (started by Hamas, but still a war), then yes, of course they would be “justified” in doing that. And Israel would then be justified in reacting to that. I’m sure they would do that if they were able to.
Fucking hell, not only that, but this logic defends the Hamas attack on Israel too.
Now it does, but not before the war was on. There’s however the subtle difference that Hamas primarily targets civilians. They attack soldiers only as self-defence or when the soldiers are in the way of murdering civilians. Israel works in an opposite way, they only target Hamas soldiers. Given how they don’t give much of a fuck for collateral damage, the end result looks similar, but intentions do matter. It implies that when Israel wins this, almost all gazans are still alive. If Hamas won this, Israel would vanish.
Bro you have no clue what you’re talking about. Hamas is the victims of attempted genocide. They do not target civilians, they launch rockets they aren’t able to aim (because of the attempted genocide preventing them having anything Israel doesn’t approve) at Israel.
Israel is the bad guy in this conflict, not Hamas.
This was was started by Israel decades ago through their apartheid actions. This was always going to happen. Until these millions of people are allowed to be free, this will continue.
No it’s worse. It would be like bombing a school or hospital while Netanyahu was visiting it. The Capitol building(s) are arguably a valid military target.
I was confused for years about the history of the conflict. I had heard “Israel was there 2,000 years ago”, and just had this blurry idea of “Israel was full of Jewish people at some point and there were also Arabs at some point”. But the second you actually double down and go, OK, what were the actual demographics in this region, every year in the last 200 years:
Jewish population in the region - 2.5% as of 1800 - didn’t even break 16% until WWI and hadn’t even been a majority since the 4th century. The influx of Jewish migrants into the region was spurred by post-1880s Zionism, which specifically sought to reclaim Palestine as a Jewish territory. And now, besides the Gaza strip and the constantly shrinking West Bank, they control the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and then some. You keep looking into it and realize, yes, there was actually a forced expulsion of the Palestinian population, the Nakba, in 1948 - 700k Palestinians expelled, 500 villages destroyed, and the renaming of the former towns and cities to have Jewish names. Have you ever heard that word used by someone from Israel, or someone in Western media? “Nakba”? This huge act of ethnic cleansing, central to explaining this entire conflict, and it’s just completely brushed aside, as if the civilization never existed.
You look at videos of interviews about the conflict from the 1980s, they’re using the exact same language about “Israel’s right to exist”, “Israel’s right to self defense”. How long does it take after you violently expel a population for your “right to exist” on the land to take effect, exactly? What is the mathematical formula for reparations and Palestinian right to return here? Nobody is even asking these questions, rather, the remaining Palestinian population in its entirety is being sidelined as a “problem” and “terrorists” - it’s literally the language of Nazi Germany being rehashed by the Israeli state, under its (false) pretense to represent the Jewish people, while the existence of this other population they displaced is just erased. I’m just speechless to witness it. The entire discourse about this conflict is inherently racist, to such an extreme degree.
Most of what I looked into was trying to find the source of it all, so I didn’t look that much into the more modern history, but you’re absolutely right. The British and Zionists made a deal to grow the Jewish population in the region to grow British influence. Israel as a state isn’t even a hundred years old I think.
It is disgusting how between the Balfour Declaration and present the narrative has dehumanized Palestinians and stripped them of their cultural identity – which is genocide through and through. What’s worse is that I think they’ve been kicked down by everyone. In the first Arab Israeli War, the Arab nations occupied Palestine during the war. When they lost, the land was either ceded to or taken by Israel. Now, after decades of using the Palestinians, the neighboring Arab nations won’t take Palestinian refugees. Some have accepted Israel.
And then there’s Hamas, who effectively occupies part of the region and launches attacks from civilian areas. Once again, using Palestinians to their own ends. They have their stockpiles of water and medicine and food, and they aren’t sharing. They anticipated Israel collectively punishing (genociding) all of Palestine in response to their attacks. The radicals are also part of why the neighboring countries aren’t taking in Palestinians. When they did in the past, radicals like Hamas took advantage of it to cause civil strife and conflict. It’s all such a mess. Everyone’s using Palestinians for their own ends while Israel continues their genocide.
At this point, I think Israel has been around long enough that you’d just be punishing children for the sins of their fathers if the state was to be dissolved. By no means though does that mean the borders should stay the same. It should return to the original demarcation, and a state of Palestine, or perhaps Nakba, should be established next to them. Or maybe Israel can treat everyone within their borders and colonies as citizens with equal rights. I know neither are realistic. The latter is impossible with the IDF and conservative government. The former is impossible because of Hamas. They refuse a two state solution, and reiterated the other day that they would continue to do attacks like the first one until everyone there was dead.
Feel free to correct me if anything I’ve said is wrong, like I said I looked into the early history a lot more than the recent. I don’t know what can be done. You have the IDF hellbent on bombing all of Gaza, and you have Hamas hellbent on killing everyone in Israel.
Hung, drawn and quatered - “To be hanged, drawn and quartered became a statutory penalty for men convicted of high treason in the Kingdom of England from 1352 under King Edward III (1327–1377)…The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered. His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge”
Truth is dying, as well. You get to choose what to believe during and long after the fog of war. One wonders why the US supports Israel so much throughout this level of shit if it’s actually this bad.
The US has been propping up Israel as a glorified military base since 1948. America’s politicians do not need to be bought by AIPAC because Israel is crucial to US imperial interests. The influence flows in the opposite direction to what your statement suggests.
The US has a vested interest in Israel and their sustained conflict since the MIC has been major industry in the US since WW2.
Israel pays into a lobby to ensure that otherwise on-the-fence politicians, who’s consituents otherwise don’t care much for Israel one way or the other, or ar evenly split both ways, continue to vote in favor of Israeli-favored spending.
It’s a mutualistic relationship that both sides feed in to to keep the tie strong.
You can even think of it in the reverse.
Without Israeli spending, there’s a chance our nearly broken democracy works and enough anti-Israeli or Israel-skeptic reps get elected that their spending doesn’t go where it needs.
The fact that this post could easily get me called an antisemite us sad. Zionism, and all religious extremism, is a fucking curse.
It’s more like the NRA. The “you’re racist of you don’t support Israel” line was highly effective. So like the NRA they can end your political career in large swathes of the country. Of course you can get endorsements and things too if you play ball.
I have always heard they will come to new politicians and ask for loyalty while offering money. If you agreed you could go forward. If not, they would fund an opponent
Yup it’s all carrot and stick. I just want to be clear it’s not just some back room thing. There’s been major PR campaigns and everything. They’re very much the liberal version of the NRA.
For those of you who are likely imagining a haphazard refugee camp of tents in a field set up for the people fleeing the city of Gaza during this war (that’s certainly what I was imagining), in reality it’s a heavily urbanized area (essentially just another city next to Gaza at this point).
It gets its name because it’s the original spot of a refugee camp in the 1948 war, something like 100,000 people live in the area now, it is also one of Hamas’ strongholds and where the First Intifada of the 1980s began
They are posting Internet messages warning people to get out of a place where they have cut electricity and communications, think about that for a second. Those messages aren’t for the Palestinians, they are for ignorant people like you to defend them in the US.
Wait, what? This isn’t something to be criticized for. Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing. He should be criticized for all the other shit, but not this.
They aren’t complaining that he had a black son, but that he’s an “undercover Democrat” because he’s stated that he learned about racism from the kid, saying things like, “Michael being a Black American, and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges,” he said. “My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”
Further, there was a question as to if the kid was real since there are no photos. That led to the new clarification:
Speculation about whether Michael was a real person prompted Johnson’s office to clarify. “When Speaker Johnson first ran for Congress in 2016, he and his wife, Kelly, spoke to their son Michael—who they took in as newlyweds when Michael was 14 years old,” said Corinne Day, Johnson’s communications director, in a statement first reported by Newsweek. “At the time of the Speaker’s election to Congress, Michael was an adult with a family of his own. He asked not to be involved in their new public life.” Day added that Johnson “maintains a close relationship with Michael to this day.”
So if we are to believe him, there are no photos because that is the way the now-adult kid wants it.
Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing
Has he learned from it, though? I don’t know enough to know about if he has or not.
Also, what were the motives in raising that kid? A lot of evangelical christians view adoption as a way to proselytize and they tend to treat those kids like shit- and usually white washing the kid. (see, for example, most adoption campaigns run by christian organizations… especially those that specialize in placing foreign kids- or indigenous kids.)
I can’t speak to their motives, either, but the nobility of an act depends entirely on the motives behind the act. if somebody, for example, offs putin only to gain power themselves and continue on… that is quite different than offing putin to end the war in ukraine, yes?
I find it really odd they were able to get an adopted child immediately after getting married. I have some friends who’ve been trying to adopt unsuccessfully for years and they’re fairly straight-edge professionals.
In his public remarks over the years, Mr. Johnson describes Michael as his son and did not correct an interviewer who described Michael as “adopted.” Ms. Day said in an interview that the Johnsons did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy adoption process.” Ms. Day declined to say whether Michael was using “Johnson” as his surname.
So, I’m not sure who Day is, that’s the only time they mention her. but apparently Ms Day is saying that, it wasn’t a “real” adoption. whatever that means. non legal, but the kid lived with them? they abducted him? he really is his son, but didn’t want to admit that?
From another reply, it seems they never actually filled out any paperwork to adopt the guy so apparently he just lived with them for a little bit if he actually exists at all.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. But the right has a habit of only showing empathy only when it directly affects them.
Black people deserve protection from the law, yes. But let’s not pretend that he’d change his tune about LGBT people in a split second if his son turned out to be gay or trans.
That’s fine. How would you expect anyone in a conversation like this to apply taxes? Which city, county and state are you going to use for those calculations?
And neither is the youtuber which is exactly the point I was making. That theyre being a cunt to other people over what amounts to be a minimum wage job.
Being a youtuber does not magically make you not subject to the exact same taxes that everyone else is. They are not taking home all of what they made any more than a mcdonalds worker does. In fact, being self employed means you are paying the other half of the medicare/social security tax not just half of it directly with most jobs.
Please look at usernames, I’m not the person you’re arguing with. I just corrected the person who said people who make $12.50/hr are making $2k a week because that’s absurd. That’s all.
I was the person you responded to. Check the username and:
I did not say 2,000 a week. I said 2,000 a month.
A youtuber making 2k a month is not taking home more money than someone making 2k a month at mcdonalds. They pay the same taxes. Actually the employer pays half of the social security/medicare tax while the self employed pay the entirety of it themselves.
No I really wasnt. You dont understand how taxes work and are apparently under the impression that a youtuber that makes 2k before taxes is making more after taxes than a mcdonalds worker making 2k before taxes. Which isnt correct. And I have explained why that isn’t correct.
And as for the month/week thing, you made it an issue. You dont get to just go “who cares” when youve been shown to be wrong trying to correct me. You were wrong about who you responded to and you were wrong about how much the youtuber actually takes home compared to the mcdonalds worker. Did you let it go or admit you made mistakes? Fuck no! You decided I was the one that made mistakes and got mad. Thats a very childish thing to do and if you are ever going to grow as a person, you need to at least learn when to stop digging. I dont expect you to say “oops I was wrong” I just expect that you learn from what you did and not double down.
PLEASE go back to the original comment I made and which comment I replied to. It said “what McDonald’s worker is making $25/hr” which the commentor corrected after someone told them that someone making $12.50 is taking home $2k/month. All they did was 12.5 x 40 x 4.
And alll I said was, no, someone making 12.50 an hour isn’t taking home anything close to $2k a month. That’s it. No bigger commentary, just pointing out the math was wrong.
No comments about what a YouTuber makes.
People seem to be putting all sorts of shit in my mouth.
Also while I didn’t even venture into this part of this discussion… pretending that the way taxes work for a YouTuber is anything like someone working a minimum wage job, then you’re the one who needs to learn about taxes.
Or are McDonald’s workers out there giving up the standard deduction so they can write off all their “equipment”?
I’d rather get shot than work at McDonald’s. Have you worked a low wage customer facing job? Literally anything is better. I’d rather have children kick me in the balls all day.
True, my point was more about using McDonald’s as a measuring stick is a bad call. Like I’d seriously have to think about it if I have to do one or the other for an extended period.
Well if you get shot at McDonald’s, you’ll get workers’ comp. for a while. They’ll cut you off eventually, pay you pennies on the dollar of what wages you lost. They will cover your medical bills though.
It’s interesting, the YouTuber clearly doesn’t have medical insurance through his job because… well he makes YouTube videos for a living. He was shot, so that was presumably a huge medical expense. I wonder who’s paying his bills? His parents?
So long as you pay something on a bill, you generally don’t have too much of an issue. I can’t tell you the number of people I know that are making $5 a month payments on $$$ medical bills. One of my coworkers and his wife had separate major health emergencies that put them in the hospital within 3 days of each other. She was in for months, he was in for weeks. Their combined bills after insurance is just over $500,000. $5 a month.
I have a feeling I’m going to be having surgery sometime in the near future, and I’ll be joining that $5 crowd, because I’m still getting bills from a host of tests run at the beginning of the year that I’m paying on. I’m pretty much tapped out at this point.
He’s working up his immunity by getting shot with smaller calibers first, by the time he’s making 10k/month, he’ll have himself immune to high-caliber rifle rounds from people that are trying to kill him from a distance.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.