- 5,107
- Nor Cal
- sturk0167
No need.
Discriminating against college applicants based on their race is illegal and unconstitutional.
It's not really defensible.
A racist past cannot be undone by more racism.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 40,459 comments
- 1,848,578 views
Discriminating against college applicants based on their race is illegal and unconstitutional.
It's not really defensible.
A racist past cannot be undone by more racism.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,627
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
DeSantis pledged on Wednesday to abolish the IRS and three other government agencies in his war on wokeness.
amp.theguardian.com
DeSantis says as US president he would eliminate IRS and other agencies
Florida governor vows to ‘push back against woke ideology … we see creeping into all institutions of American life’
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,326
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Wait, there's a right wing Soros?
www.theguardian.com
The king of dark money effectively controls the US supreme court now | Joel Warner
From its recent rulings to its billionaire donor scandals, this supreme court term has been defined by judicial activist Leonard Leo
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Always has been. Notably absent is the allegation that they've used their money and influence to advance the Jew agenda of destroying Western civilization with consequence-free crime, rampant drug use, pornography, feminism, and gender ideology.Wait, there's a right wing Soros?
The king of dark money effectively controls the US supreme court now | Joel Warner
From its recent rulings to its billionaire donor scandals, this supreme court term has been defined by judicial activist Leonard Leo
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,627
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
You mean another one?Wait, there's a right wing Soros?
The king of dark money effectively controls the US supreme court now | Joel Warner
From its recent rulings to its billionaire donor scandals, this supreme court term has been defined by judicial activist Leonard Leo
Koch network - Wikipedia
Presumably Jewish people don't register on the right as enemies of freedom provided they've found Jesus. Or are Jesus.
Last edited:
- 11,953
- Marin County
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,627
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
As you must have seen, the Constitution affects what should be permissible under law as it underpins their legal system. It's the ultimate expression of what rights should be guaranteed to every American.
Those who throw the term around indiscriminately without reference to specific clauses or amendments are likely to be less convincing, however. They only seem to care about it when it affects them or people who are like them.
Last edited:
OMG thank you.lol
This is no different from a Democrat living in a deep red state citing family who worry about their situation. Tell me, how effective a rhetorical device do you consider that to be?
Republicans: "States' rights."
Also Republicans: "ReEeEeEeEeEeEeEe SaNcTuArY CiTiEs!!1!"
As I've said before, Republicans are only for "states' rights" (states don't actually have rights; states only have force) insofar as they can invoke it to block federal enforcement of that which they oppose. They absolutely want federal enforcement of their own agenda.
Particularly humorous here is the conservative cause célèbre of advocating for the selective abolishment of federal law enforcement, but obviously not ICE...because reasons.
Oh, they absolutely understand it, they just think they should benefit from it without being constrained by it; in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
So I've been seeing a lot of this supposed "PedoCon [Pedophile Conservatives*] Theory" which highlights those who want to link drag and general LGBT-"ness" to child sexual abuse being revealed to have been involved in child sexual abuse themselves, either indirectly as by possession of sexual abuse materials or directly as by sexual assault of the underaged, and at bare minimum I'm more than a little curious about the contents of your various electronic devices, while on the other end I may wonder if--to borrow from online rhetoric of the anti-drag right--a wood chipper might be called for.
*I should say that I'm not super thrilled about the name for reasons that I've stated elsewhere. Pedophilia is thought alone and doesn't imply action, nor are those who perpetrate child sexual assault necessarily pedophiles. Rape isn't sex. Rape is abuse.
That said, the theory itself is certainly probative. Examples provided are numerous.
A pending lawsuit isn't meaningful--people can sue over just about anything--but I suppose you're referring to the Center for American Liberty...lol...and its suit against the Chico Unified School District over a counselor "socially transitioning" a student by using their preferred pronouns without the notification of guardians, which isn't in violation of California statute and thus isn't an actionable tort, but then performativity is the point when it comes to conservatives' pronoun bitchfit.
Notably, "social transitioning" has exactly nothing to do with puberty blockers and "genital mutlation," but neither is it accurate that an 11-year-old isn't allowed to make legal decisions. There are circumstances in which consent by minors isn't recognized by law unless a parent or legal guardian also consents, such as medical decisions (of which "social transitioning" is not an example), but there are many others in which sole consent by minors is.
It should be said that parents don't own their children, nor do parents have rights. Individuals have rights and individuals may be parents, but "parents' rights" is collectivist nonsense that's too often invoked by conservatives to ignore or disfavorably weight the rights of individuals, even when those individuals are also parents.
Private actors availing social networks conditionally and entirely at their discretion absolutely have expressive rights, and removal of user content on the basis that private actors disagree with it rather than that it's in violation of the law is itself free speech. Again, in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
Free speech is speech not subject to legitimate state action, either direct as by penalty or prosecution, or indirect as by adjudication of civil wrongs.
All speech is free except when it's not, and ideally it's only not when individuals are legitimately harmed by it. Speech is freer in some countries than others. The United States is pretty good, but exceptions such as fighting words and obscenity still exist as binding legal precedent.
Fighting Words Doctrine holds that speech which may provoke physical retaliation may be punished, except physical violence is never appropriate in response to otherwise protected expression and is itself a violation of rights.
Obscenity weaponizes offense, which is to say that expression may be unprotected if an individual may be offended by it. There is no right to not be offended (which is why there is no "hate speech" exception to free speech in the United States), and that offense is subjective makes it clear that the individual isn't legitimately harmed by it. Absurdly, the current test for obscenity in First Amendment jurisprudence (the Miller test) even employs community standards as one of the prongs; the notion that individuals in a community may be more likely to be offended by materials.
It's funny because conservatives will even cancel conservatives when, like Kaepernick, they're guilty of wrongthink. See the pro-Trump media outlet Breitbart's smear campaign against DeSantis using conservative influencer and prominent DeSantis supporter Pedro Gonzalez's racist and anti-Semitic messages.
lol. No but those are passive threats. Just like the bomb threats directed at hospitals based on the falsehood perpetuate by conservatives that they're performing gender reassignment "bottom" surgery on minors.
Is it weird that conservatives insist that the Democrats (who were conservatives) were fighting to keep slaves at the very same time that they insist that conservatives (who were Democrats) were fighting for "states' rights"? I think it's weird. Also the Confederate flag is definitely a symbol of Southern heritage, right?
Republicans: "Hunter Biden is a junkie, a whoremonger, a tax cheat, and generally corrupt."
Also Republicans: "Hunter Biden absolutely would not lie about his dad, the former vice president, being present for a text conversation to impress someone on the other end. Nope."
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
But even the people who should know best seem to get it wrong.
When they declare that something's unconstitutional, do they really believe it, or is it being used for rhetoric/furthering of an agenda. And if they are "bending" the constitution to fit their narrative, does that then dilute the phrase's impact.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,326
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
OceanGate's former finance director said she quit when Stockton Rush asked her to be the Titanic submersible's chief pilot after firing the original one for raising safety issues: report
The finance director told The New Yorker that she didn't trust Rush and that at one point, some of OceanGate's engineers were teens paid $15 an hour.
www.insider.com
More innovator news that casts more doubt regarding Oceangate's focus on safety
- 820
- Fresno, CA, USA
- SnakeEyes427
Happy 4th
- 13,206
- Seattle-ish
I thought millimeters were communist.
