• 9 Posts
  • 652 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle


  • Apparently these judges can’t read:

    https://natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-holds-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-are-protected-title-vii

    Even by their own facist supreme court, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves discrimination on the basis of sex (ie, if someone assigned woman at birth can wear a dress but someone assigned man at birth can’t, if an assigned woman can kiss a man but an assigned man can’t, these are both discrimination on the basis of sex). So any law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex will logically have to apply to gender indentity and sexual orientation as well. While the ruling was about title vii, there’s no reason the same logic wouldn’t apply to title ix as well. Title ix can also protect sexual orientation and gender, because there’s no way to discrimate on that basis without discriminating on the basis of sex at the same time.

    It’s totally ridiculous to try and say otherwise. Like take a cis woman being fired from her job because her boss hates women: “No I didn’t discriminate against this person because they were assigned woman at birth, I did so because they identify as a woman.” “oh well that’s alright then I guess”/s

    Opponents who try to seperate sex from sexual orientation and gender indentity definitions when this is logically impossible, will essentially neuter the power the law has to help anyone, whether cis or trans, straight or gay, from discrimination. But that could be the object of some of their intentions as well I suppose.

    Let’s hope the supreme court keeps the same reasoning as their previous ruling when this is inevitably appealed up.






  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Teaching kids to use guns doesn’t save kids’ lives. If you want to teach em to stay away from guns, that they’re deadly, they shouldn’t touch it and should tell an adult right away go ahead.

    Teaching kids to use guns in the name of gun safety is like saying you need to teach them how to drive in case they find some car keys lying around and decide to take it for a spin.


  • Already in the comment, click the links.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/hero-program-overview

    Here’s where it goes through their curriculum per grade level including pre schoolers.

    The 'heroes" program is not teaching pre schoolers to use guns, it’s teaching them about active shooter situations.

    The other link was the one offering actual gun training (for 7 year olds and up so second graders potentially).

    My comment was that it’s sad we apparently need programs to to teach pre schoolers about how to deal with active shooting situations now.


  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    The one I linked specifically mentions shooting afterwards for kids as young as 7…

    But yes if guns are at home they should be locked (and really locked, like a trigger lock plus a safe that’s set to something besides 1111, holy crap you’d be surprised at how cavelier some people are) and totally inaccessible to kids. Teaching single digit age kids about guns is not a substitute for that, but of course I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids that they shouldn’t touch guns and what they can do.

    And teaching kids about guns will not solve the serious gun problems in America. The gun problems unique to America that pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out already. And it’s a horrible tragedy that stuff like “the heroes program” to teach preschoolers how to deal with active shooters is necessary in this country. All to please gun nuts.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/

    Most gun nuts aren’t too interested in education anyways:

    https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/





  • Sure I mean give a perfectly normal person a stimulant and they might feel like they have more energy for a bit (though to an observer they might just appear anxious, jittery and amped up even if the person themself feels great). Calling it performance enhancing for something like a debate is a huge stretch. Equally likely to hurt a speaking performance, unless someone maybe actually had true adhd or something.

    What I mean is, the narrative being pushed here is Biden is this old man with dementia who can’t string two words together, and then he takes adderral or modafinil and suddenly he’s magically cognitively normal but just for a few hours. Dementia does not work this way, you would just get a very energetic and equally confused person. It’s all a ridiculous fantasy, something for Trump supporters to hold in their heads to help with the cognitive dissonance as they watch the debate. Otherwise they’d be forced to reckon with the fact that Biden speaks like a normal human being with coherent thoughts while Trump sounds like a rambling lunatic on a barely traceable flight of ideas.

    I also don’t want this false narrative giving people ideas that force feeding their relatives with dementia stimulants would be a good idea that would improve their cognition for a while or something.