I have to disagree here, pede.
I prefer to call it Independence Day and that comes from my parents who also called it Independence Day because it's not just a day when we happen to go have a barbecue, it's about recognizing our heritage and history and the meaning behind the Fourth of July.
I do understand your point, but we're in America, so when we say Independence day we mean our own.
I suspect this is exactly what Gorsuch is setting up right now. As Roberts pointed out in his dissent, the court has been drawing a lot of inference for years now. Gorsuch's majority opinion was basically that the text matters. Congress never explicitly took the land away from the Indians and instead tried to do it by implication and political power over the years.
I guess... but this comes off as racist and there's a better way to get that message across.
This is that crazy leftist woman who got scared by a black man.
I think this is fine. Shouldn't we all support everyone's right to speak, and shouldn't we hear them? In that sense I think many of us could say that we support Black Lives Matter, that is in the sense that normies understand it. Obviously not in the sense that we understand it.
What I don't support is agitators. There are good people in BLM and there are agitators in BLM. Trump had it right back in Charlottesville. There are good people on both sides. Hear the people who have a message of truth, and condemn the people who simply want to agitate.
We have to move past organizational labels.
This is #FakeNews click-bait of the worst kind.
The article literally says and shows that it's off by default on iPhone but rampantly speculates it might be turned on surreptitiously even though every public statement by Apple has said otherwise. The facility exists, but the user has full control over it. The user must install an app and for the user to do that, the app needs to be approved by Apple.
There was another article recently stating that very few people have installed any of these apps making the facility completely useless. Sounds like the people have already spoken and they know it is bullshit.
Former coastal Virginia resident here, not D.C. area. There is a one term limit on the governorship.
If he has political aspirations in Virginia his next step is going to be vying for a U.S. Senate seat like George Allen, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine.
One possible play is that Time Kaine decides not to run, making Ralph Northam the natural choice for the Democratic Party U.S. senate nomination in 2024.
Virginia politics are... interesting. Most people in Virginia deeply understand campaigning vs. governing, except in Northern Virginia where people don't care about anything except keeping their government jobs. If it weren't for that, Trump would be Virginia's ideal candidate.
You've almost certainly run into the level-headed ones without even knowing it.
Just don't engage with assholes of any kind. You're wasting your time being angry about them. That's their manipulation of you.
I don't know about you, but I would fire an employee for lying to me for any reason.
I'm in good spirits because I think there are a number of people who are in circumstances similar to the ones you experienced in your life and who just need some love and understanding from the majority of humanity. They need to be allowed to have their own experiences without opposing politicos trying to push them around.
I can't do anything about the subset of LGBT politicos who openly treat this as a "rainbow jihad" as you put it. What I can do is show love and understanding to all and encourage others to do so. I can quietly, calmly, and lovingly encourage people to just be whomever they want to be and not allow their sexual identity to get them caught up in a political movement.
The political movement's goals have nothing to do with anyone's individual freedom and everything to do with manipulating and abusing people for political gain. You don't fight those assholes by engaging them on their terms, you fight them by blowing up the premise of their argument.
That's why I like Justice Gorsuch's legal opinion. He firmly grounded the debate back to one of individual rights and freedoms. I am following his lead and leaving behind the childish political gang warfare of the past half century.
Short term... you're probably right, it will embolden some politicos. Long term I think we'll all be better off. Gorsuch delivered a centrist opinion based on conservative principles (like individual liberty) and relatively sound reasoning-- at least better than any I've heard up to this point. I'm in favor of that type of thing.
Excellent news! Now I no longer have to be exposed to advertisements for mass-market crap I don't want anyway.
Advertising has long been politicized and Google willingly exiting this niche market is an opportunity for other companies to fill the void.
Your story seems eminently believable to me. A large percentage of people growing up feel they somehow don't fit their body. I personally never had that feeling in this way, but I certainly had plenty of other feelings growing up, like all of us. Adolescence is difficult.
I think the root of the problem is that modern parents seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of their children's lives and can't deal with uncertainty. Instead of treating transgenderism as something that might or might not be an adolescent phase it has to be one or the other. The fact is you can never really know what is in someone else's head, not even your own child. Every human has a different experience.
Kids are blessed with the wonder of not having to make a firm choice one way or the other on any given topic. Adults seem to actively discourage that way of thinking. Obviously part of being an adult is the reality that you do need to make decisions and choices. The flip side is you also need to know when to make the choice to not make a choice.
I'm a lot more positive on Gorsuch's ruling. I think it restores Title XII as an enumerated individual right instead of the swamp interpretation we've been operating under.
I'm not Jewish, but it's really sad to see this.
I have deeply enjoyed reading your replies in this thread.
Similar crap occurred in my church, so I said no thanks and decided to read the bible on my own together with all of the many practical observations of human nature from our country's founders and others. I find our founding documents to be deeply inspired.
I couldn't be happier nor feel more connected to God than I do today, having given up this type of mystic bullshit. It's not specific to Judaism by any means. The same crap happens any time a particular denomination or entire religion gains strong political favor in a society.
I'm not Jewish, but your answer and your conservative Rabbi's answer remind me of the good real-world biblical advice handed down to me growing up as a Christian.
I've never been able to stand the mystics in the church. It always seems to boil down to social control through religion and that's the point where I check out.
Perhaps you should blame your employer for their clearly inappropriate interpretation of Title XII instead of blaming the law? Not all companies are like you describe.
As is too often the case, Coulter's take is trash for the weak-minded cuck-servative intended to make them feel exactly what they want to feel: that someone is taking advantage of them and oh poor them.
This is totally cucked.
Justice Gorsuch's opinion was way more on point than most people around here realize. He pulled a Trump and flipped the table.
I would take a slightly less jaded view. Ultimately HR's purpose is indeed to protect the company from employee lawsuits, but the proven most effective way to do that is to de-escalate and resolve early.
Unfortunately a lot of cry-bullies have been abusing the HR system based on a combination of prior bad case law and regulatory language which mis-interpreted the 1964 law as applying only to protected classes. An unfortunate number of HR personnel on both sides of this issue have pulled away from the intent of the law to various bastard interpretations of it like "Well, so and-so is <insert protected characteristic here> so we'll just have to let them win any arguments."
Gorsuch firmly grounded the law back to the law, as an individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change. It's not a license to pick fights with your coworkers then claim discrimination.
That's literally the exact opposite of what Gorsuch's ruling says.
He goes to great lengths to avoid the "protected class" bull and focus on how the law applies to an individual. He backs this up by pointing out that the text of the law itself speaks to an individual right, not a protected class.
If you really read his opinion I think it's pretty clear he just intentionally and very slyly decimated the whole "protected class" regulatory mindset that has perverted the original intent of the 1964 Republican-passed law. It was always supposed to be an individual right to not to be discriminated against for an enumerated list of physical characteristics one cannot change. It was never supposed to be a way for assholes to run around screaming they are part of a protected class so you can't touch them. That interpretation has always been utter bull.
Don't fall into the trap of interpreting the law the way the Uniparty executive branch has chosen to interpret it for the past 50 years. Interpret the law as it was actually written. Gorsuch firmly did that today.
For a much older example of a reasoned trans-woman, look at Wendy (née Walter) Carlos. Arranger and performer of the excellent Switched-on Bach and co-composer, arranger, and performer of the soundtrack to Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. She's a very private person so you won't find much from her on the topic except a decade or two ago a few comments that her sex-reassignment surgery in the 1970s didn't give her the result she was looking for.
Lots of trans-women and trans-men want nothing more than to be treated as human beings who just happen to feel better going about living their life as other than their birth sex. What difference should that make to me or anyone else?
It's wrong to paint every trans-person with a broad brush simply because the most vocal among them are manipulative attention seekers. The most vocal of any group are manipulative attention seekers. Fighting those people only gives them more power and drowns out reasonable discussion.
I have a lot of similar thoughts myself. Justice Gorsuch brought reason back to what has been an incredibly unreasonable debate and did so in a way that protects individual rights for all and doesn't play any word games, especially not any with sex vs. gender.
Justice Alito's dissent, which Justice Thomas joined, is nothing but word-think; he literally does almost nothing but quote dictionary definitions of words. I read the main part of his opinion and just skipped over the rest because I found his argumentation to be entirely unsound.
Justice Kavanaugh's dissent is far better, but his only real argument seems to be his general disdain for retroactively applying existing laws to cases their authors supposedly hadn't considered. I especially didn't care for his argument that it was a bad thing that Gorsuch's opinion means the original law back in 1964 should have applied in this case this entire time. Yes, it should have applied. That's the whole point. People generally got less bigoted in the intervening 56 years and therefore are more willing to accept a textual reading of it coupled with reasoning.
I'm sure there were plenty of people even back in 1964 who absolutely thought one day this law would be interpreted to include homosexuals, they just didn't publicly say it back then. Kavanaugh's argument only works if none of the people who worked on the law imagined at the time that one day it might apply this way. He tries to argue with examples of some people then who vocally believed it shouldn't apply to homosexuals. That indicates to me the topic was discussed and in the end a decision was made to not include any specific language that would prevent it from being interpreted that way nor any language that would force it to be interpreted this way.
In other words, I find Kavanaugh's evidence to be not in support of his opinion, but in support of Gorsuch's opinion. I still respect Kavanaugh's opinion, I just find his argumentation lacking.
Read it more carefully without assuming intent.
As another responder said, exercise is the answer. I like to take a walk outside, just around the neighborhood. Nothing but the sounds around me and my own head.
I personally don't like listening to music while I walk.
This. Right here. White people do have the privilege of being subversive without getting arrested, so long as they aren't actually harming anyone.
Use your privilege for good, 'pedes. We mean no harm to anyone, and it's our job to get the leftist children to fall back in line. We knowingly allowed it to come to this.
When the leftist children finally stop their screaming, the reasonable people of all kinds will finally be able to be heard.
If you like a super close shave with minimal fuss for very little money, I can confirm that nothing beats a double-edged safety razor. A decent properly-weighted handle is maybe $30 tops and you can splurge on super high quality blades. There are several variety packs on Amazon you can use to get a feel for what brands and types of blades work best for you. When used correctly with fresh quality blades you will not get razor burn. In quantity the blades are so cheap you can use a new one ever few shaves and not even care.
However... on a total whim I picked up one of the Philips Norelco OneBlade face + body starter packs. Wife likes it because the cut hairs are less sharp when they start growing back and I like it because it's plenty close for me and I get zero razor burn ever. More expensive, but it's a solid product. Still cheaper in the long run than Gillette for sure.
Take a piece of advice: if someone ever says that to you non-jokingly... just roll with it. Correct yourself to "this person" and move on. If they try to couch your language further than that, and some of them will, then you can spit some fire back at them.
That's how I tell the difference between the instigators and the victims. Let the other party do the escalation. Works like a charm every time.