BryanM wrote:oi...
Even discounting all other arguments, the point of these exclusive spaces (including things like Black history month) is to give people who'd otherwise be invisible a space to be seen or compete. Letting people like Fallon push others out is not in that spirit. They're probably doing this stuff to create drama and boost ratings, all for the $
Bryan you TERFy bastard, if you die 2night I won't go to ur funeral
BECAUSE ILL BE IN JAIL FOR KILLING THE MUHFUCKA THAT KILLED U
BulletMagnet wrote:BIL wrote:If I've read the judgement correctly, the school officially declined to publish the essay for reasons of age-appropriateness, this being a book for 10y/os and their families.
In part, yes (ignoring that the principal is said to have openly factored in the potential reactions of local parents), but the court primarily defers to a previous decision which concerned high schoolers' submissions to the school newspaper, which determined that school officials do not violate their students' constitutional rights when they choose to suppress
any material that could be considered under their purview as educators, for
any reason.
Yep, I saw the precedent. 1988, highschool-aged children disallowed from discussing teen pregnancies, and divorces, in their school paper, if I'm right? Seemed more contentious than the current case, on the face of it. Those aren't topics I would want 12+y/os discouraged from discussing openly, let alone outright barred.
We certainly weren't, in our conservative church-run school. I'm surprised, tbh - not often my neck of the woods seems relatively progressive. Though as my uncle always reminds me, "America is a fucking massive country."
This is the larger point that the article was making: the "free speech advocates" who inevitably pop up at convenient times like to brand themselves as the inheritors of
Sir Thomas Moore's mantle, claiming that their devotion to free expression trumps all else, that personal viewpoints play no part whatsoever in their activities, have had
precisely nothing to say about
any of this, either the decision at hand or the precedent (and its subsequent interpretations) informing it.
From where I'm standing (Nazi TERF Baby Eater's Front), he's rammed a square peg into a round hole - conflating a school's discretion to regulate what they consider age-appropriate in their publications, with some wider government crackdown on free speech.
Schools can suppress speech, technically. So can other state organs. Like Tinkletowne Constabulary, who have informed me and my lads that our plan to raise awareness of prostate cancer (kills men like breast cancer kills women, holy fuck) by marching naked up and down the high street, waving flags emblazoned
"ONE UP THE BUM, NO HARM DONE" will almost certainly be prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Shit sucks.
You'd think that the people who are willing to make open calls to violence their hill to die on in the name of the sacred Constitution might be willing, if not eager, to weigh in on the implications of repeatedly allowing schools - you know, the ones who in every other instance are indoctrinating our children and cannot be trusted - near-total discretion in what they allow students to say out in the open. Somehow, though, this time it doesn't seem to rate their attention - as the article posits, this can only suggest - and strongly - that the specific subject matter that has run afoul of free speech issues - not the overarching issue of free speech itself - is the true motivator for their outrage, no matter how indignantly they insist that others are the ones who are dealing in "petty partisanship" for being so rude as to point that fact out.
Oof blimey, way outta my orbit, that crew.
Do we have many of those sorts around here, any more? This is a pretty milquetoast joint nowadays, AFAIK. >_> I mostly enjoy this thread for the unparalleled MovieBob content - which I provide!
vol.2 wrote:BIL wrote:Ah, it's Rolling "A Rape On Campus" Stone.
No doubt, but you can't hold the whole staff responsible for the worst thing ever done by one of it's employees. If we are holding news outlets accountable for spreading bold-faced lies, then every right-wing outfit would instantly have to be thrown in the grinder. Credibility in US media and politics is basically non-existent at this point; there is zero weight to calling out anyone anymore when they can just glaze over it or go on like it never happened. There used to be some integrity to the whole thing, but when people started to believe the political tabloids, that all ended. We are more than halfway to the Brave New World. Get ready for it.
I'm spoiled by the News Of The World's falling on its sword RE: hacking Milly Dowler (teenager murdered by Levi Bellfield)'s phone, I think. :/
Not that the paper didn't simply dissolve into Murdoch's empire, reconstituting elsewhere. But it's rare these hacks so much as throw the public a bone.
I defended Nathan Robinson
Makes sense. It's important to note here though that the Zionist community is largely pro-trump. He is seen as an ally in the fight to cleanse the orthodox territories of other minorities. For example the Caribbean communities in Brooklyn which have been forced out of the fringes for years now. So it's more complicated than just one and done IAC.
Oh sure - not meaning to endorse him, or any other commentator. I just know the "criticise Israel? ur a Nazi" brickbat when I see it. For all I know, the guy's secretly a frothing Stormfronter. Certainly couldn't tell that by the tweets that got him canned, though.
the outcome of male rapist Karen White being placed in a women's prison
As well you should be (IMHO), but is it a gender issue, or is it the failing of the shitty, broken prison system in the US? The fact that there is a decent argument to be had that goes something like: were these assults worse than all of the other woman on woman assults that happen regularly in US prisons? begs one to really look at what's happening in our industrial prison complex. But I understand that's a lot harder than just pointing the finger at a couple men that did despicable things.
I should've clarified, the Karen White incident happened in England. I bring it up as, tragically, it's subject to the sort of hyper-polarisation our intrepid journos seem to be dining particularly well on, lately.
I don't see obliterating nuance like this leading anywhere good. I'm "anti-LGBT," because
"Prison Governor Biruford, should we house this violent male rapist in our women's facility?" gets a "No, I'm afraid not, too risky" from me. The school is "anti-LGBT," because they decided to keep it G-rated for the 10y/os.
My country
is anti-LGBT, because
*record screech* homosexuality is punishable by ten years' hard labour, and our culture has a violently homophobic streak running from the poorest slums to the highest halls. Do you chaps know Beenie Man? He was gonna break big in the early 00s, with his hard-hitting yet expertly radio-refined dancehall RIDDIMS. Interviews in all the big UK music mags - I remember well, because I was a student at the time! Di white yute, dem a loved BEENIE! But then, you happening cats
actually read his lyrics, and that was that.
Raas!
DEM A CANCEL BEENIE
(I was reading about this poor kid campaigning for LGBT rights back home. Young law graduate, excellent schooling and grades from a leading US college, must've had his pick of training contracts over there. Decided to put that on hold and go back home to campaign, but had to wind it up because, yep, he was running a real risk of getting shot in the face on his doorstep. For suggesting we not prosecute gay people for existing)
I like being able to say
"You fucking muppets, what did you think would happen" RE: Karen White without becoming Random Barbarous West Indian Homophobe #526,345,345.
Such subtlety is going the way of the dodo, it seems. >_> (I would admittedly take a belt sander to White's piggish mug, but 99.9% of people I'd go Full 80s Slasher on
are random straight guys like me. Fritzls, Garridos, Castros, list as long as your arm! Be like Tom Zito's greatest hits when I get my hands on 'em! doesn't mean I'm an androphobe! an INTERNALISED androphobe, even)