22 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Maybe republicans should wait too see what was seized before raging about this being a hit job? What if Trump has recordings of himself selling US secrets to a foreign govt? Would we still all be outraged his home was searched? 

I think it has already pretty much been established that most Trump supporters would be totally okay with that. 

17 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

11 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

When’s the last time (probably never) that anyone on here has seen a black person be turned away at a restaurant because of their skin color? I don’t doubt some kind of minor confrontation/confusion with a hostess, but I highly doubt she wasn’t seated because she’s black.

This quote is from the Mickey Joseph thread. We may not know what actually happened with Mickey Joseph's wife and whether or not she actually experienced a racist incident, but we certainly do know that this poster is 100% unqualified to make any comment regarding the racial biases that other people may have experienced. 

10 hours ago, teachercd said:

Ha. "work from home"

 

Dentist appointments

Doctor appointments

Running errands

Hitting the gym

naps

long lunches with friends

golf

 

I just started a new job, working 100% from home. Thanks for helping write my to-do list!

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.

Come on now, even when arguments get pissy, knapplc is still way more respected on this board than you are. By far.

3 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Everyone's at least a little racist. Conservatives get so butthurt about the conversation and liberals get so frothy at the mouth about the conversation because most people treat it like a yes or no thing when it's really like being hungry. Like maybe you aren't right now but a cheeseburger could cut you off on the highway and all the sudden you're pretty hungry

 

I know I'm a little racist because I get a little extra excited if a white receiver catches the ball in the NFL

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

I know that's not exactly the analogy you're going for, but if we're all "a little bit racist," what does a person have to do to bring that out in me?

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

Here’s an anecdote that might help.

Everyone has biases. Everyone. Sometimes we are aware of them, sometimes we are not. Sometimes our biases manifest in ways that we might not expect. 

Those of us who are white, in our private conversations, do we talk about racial issues with our white friends and family in exactly the same way as we do with our black friends? How many of us have actually talked about racial issues with a black person? As white people, aren't we often a little more aware of our behavior when we are around people of color? I would guess that most white people, racist or not, are at least a little sensitive to how they are perceived when it comes to racial issues.

Some of us try to be very aware and take efforts to do the right thing, knowing that it is still possible to make a mistake because we don't know what it is like to walk in another's shoes. Some of us remain willfully ignorant and only respond when someone dares to call us out on our biases or our behavior (even when it is unintentional).

27 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Is the difference in cost between death row and gen pop that much different? Honestly don't know.

https://ejusa.org/resource/wasteful-inefficient/#:~:text=More than a dozen states,comparable non-death penalty cases.&text=The most rigorous cost study,comparable non-death penalty case.

Quote

• More than a dozen states have found that death penalty cases are up to 10 times more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.¹
• The most rigorous cost study in the country found that a single death sentence in Maryland costs almost $2 million more than a comparable non-death penalty case. Before ending the death penalty, Maryland spent $186 million extra to carry out just five executions.² A similar study showed that California has spent over $4 billion extra for the death penalty since 1978.³
• A study in North Carolina looked at cases in 2005 and 2006 and concluded that repealing the death penalty could have saved the state nearly $22 million in just those two years.⁴

11 hours ago, commando said:

helping people doesn't seem to be a priority

 

Repubs in congress, when asked to comment:

33 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

Mini gun!

 

 

Congrats on the beautiful baby and everything, but...did he just call his wife a beast?

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I think it's fairly meaningless at this point since none have even announced their intention to run yet. Here's one where Sanders is second to Biden:

 

Sigh...this list. I mean, they are all better than any of the Trumpists by a wide mile, but come on, Dems. 

Clinton and AOC are not serious candidates. Clinton's time is over and she needs to go away. I personally really like AOC, but she is polarizing and not ready. I like Pete too, but again not quite ready. Sanders is older than Biden, and Warren is good but also old, and has never been able to poll above Biden or Sanders. Harris was in the best position to be groomed for the big job but she has been a nobody since becoming VP and the bloom is off the rose. 

The Dems have had years to create stars, but they have nobody. Yet, there dozens of crackpot Repubs who are barely literate and mentally deranged but have become political rock stars. What the f*&k? 

On 5/24/2022 at 4:47 PM, TGHusker said:

The agonizing debate within Dem circles - should Biden run or should he say he's not running after the congressional elections.  For now, Biden and his team say he is all in for 2024.  Not sure we want a guy elected at age 82 and serving until age 86.  Ok correction:  I know I don't want a guy that old in the WH - Esp someone who is as gaffe prone as Biden.   I just hope he makes it to the end of his current term.   

Harris is a non-starter with many voters including a growing number of Dems. 

 

 

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/biden-2024-democrats-search-for-alternative.html

 

 

 

 

 

The inability of the Democrats to position someone, anyone, to be a qualified and attractive candidate to stem off the GOP cult has been absolutely negligent and will be devastating to this country. 

On 5/24/2022 at 11:19 AM, Born N Bled Red said:

 

This is why, any registered Dem in Nebraska should re-register republican and turn out as if the primary was the general. It is the only way to put a centrist back into the governor's seat in Nebraska. 

I did this in 2020 in Ohio, there were so many crazies running for office (which is still the case) that my wife and I requested Republican ballots for the primaries to vote for the least insane. For the following two years, we received GOP propaganda in the mail every week, and when we Google our names, we show up as registered Republicans. It felt absolutely disgusting. We switched back to Dem for this year's primary because it was too gross. 

If you can find jalapeño flavored Fritos scoops, dip them in a french onion dip. 

7 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Hahaha...

 

I would say laughter is the best medicine but I have a feeling someone would link an article that laughter does not in fact cure monkey pox.

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Has anyone seen the actual Title IX complaint? Sexual harassment is a different thing than sex-based harassment, and the distinction would be important. 

 

Sexual harassment has a distinct sexual component. Unwanted touching, groping, comments about sexual acts, etc. Sex-based harassment can be something like treating women differently than treating men, or giving women preferential job status or giving men a higher salary because of their gender. Sex-based harassment sounds like what's going on here.

 

What the charge should be (I don't think there should be a Title IX charge here, based on the minimal information I've seen, mind you) is that the kids harassed a student based on their sex. Not "sexual harassment." It sounds pedantic but it's an important distinction. 

 

If the charge is sex-based harassment and not sexual harassment, it's no surprise that the parent would read sex harassment as sexual harassment. It would also not surprise me if the Title IX complaint was created by the school staff that they may mistakenly accuse them of the wrong thing. People conflate these two things all the time.

Those are great points, and no, the actual allegations have not been revealed. We only have the spin from the parents of one of the accused students.

Supporting your thought, the most recent article I could find indicates that this case may indeed be a matter of gender-based harassment, but not necessarily sexual in nature:

Quote

Lora Zimmer, a Title IX investigator with McCarty Law Firm in Appleton, says that discrimination based on gender identity has been ruled as a violation of Title IX.

"As of 2020, the Supreme Court in Bostock vs. Clayton County held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently discrimination based on sex, that you cannot separate the two," Zimmer said.

However, she says whether or not refusing to use someone’s preferred pronouns counts as discrimination is still a gray area.

...

"If it’s in the context of harassment and maybe broader than just the use of the pronouns, then it could possibly fit within a policy depending on what that policy says,” Zimmer said.

A magical frog trains a whiny kid how to use his powers, but when the kid tries to help his friends, his dad kicks his a$$ and cuts off his hand.

49 minutes ago, nic said:

Misuse of pronouns is not sexual harassment in my opinion.

I assume that you identify as a man and use he/him pronouns. Is that accurate?

What would you say if I started referring to you as "she" or "her," or if I told everyone that you were not really a man. You have chosen to be called "nic" on this board, but what if I decide to start calling you Nikki or Nicole or Nikkita. What if we end up using the same restroom and laugh at you and tell you that the ladies room is down the hall. What if you ask me politely to stop, but this only intensifies my actions. I refuse to acknowledge that you are a man and am now mocking you for being feminine. My friends join me, also referring to you as "she" and "Nicole." This goes on for months. 

Would you consider this intentional misgendering to be harassment? Why or why not? 

16 hours ago, nic said:

The more I think about this, I don’t think this is sexual harassment. That is way too big of an escalation.  It’s likely schoolyard bullying. Some kids decided to pick on someone that wanted a plural pronoun. That warrants a call to the parents first. If that doesn’t work, suspension. If that didn’t work, a longer suspension then expulsion. Done. No national news needed. 

You may be right (and it is likely that you are right), but what actual facts are you basing these thoughts on? If it is indeed schoolyard bullying, and if said bullying was based on sex or gender, that's when it potentially falls under the definition of sexual harassment. Maybe they already tried calling the parents and dealing with it another way. Obviously the parents don't think that junior did anything wrong (but notice that the articles and attorney statements do not actually deny the conduct).

I absolutely agree that no national news is needed. But it was the parents of the accused perpetrator who took it to the media. If I am accused of something, whether I did it or not, the last thing I would want is to broadcast the accusation and my alleged misbehavior to the entire world. Thanks mom!

3 hours ago, nic said:

Middle school kids picking on other middle school kids happens everyday. It usually means you get sent to the office, a call to the parents, detention, maybe suspension. Pronouns are pretty new and being redefined for whatever reason. Sexual harassment seems like a big escalation. There are actually lots of articles on this event, but most of the quotes I have seen so far come from the parents of the accused kids. I would just learn and use peoples names to avoid trouble.

Yes, going from "picking on" to "sexual harassment" is indeed a big escalation. In order to justify those charges, especially as a Title IX violation instead of your garden variety teasing/bullying, the totality of the alleged conduct better be pretty darn severe. If not, then the school messed up by filing these charges. I tried to look up the "lots of articles" you mentioned for more facts, or at least the actual allegations, but the facts of the case aren't available, only outrage from parents and attorneys who apparently don't understand Title IX. 

Other than the local news outlets in Wisconsin, the only national places where this is being picked up appears to be Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. A schoolyard harassment case is certainly not national news, yet this particular case is being promoted by the right wing outlets to further their war against the tyranny of pronouns. The parents and attorneys are also recklessly putting their kids' names out there, now this is on the world wide web forever and ever, without actually completing the investigation. I guess stoking ignorant outrage for the culture war is more important than actually protecting your kids.  

16 hours ago, nic said:

I figured this was coming. Middle school students accused of sexual harassment for incorrect use of pronouns.

 

https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/sexual-harassment-investigation-launched-into-3-middle-schoolers-wrong-use-of-pronouns-lgbtq-discrimination-allegations-kiel-wisconsin-title-xi-9-trans-transgender-pronouns-he-him-she-her-they-theirs

 

I wonder what the actual allegations are, this news story is not written well at all, with very few facts presented.

Title IX covers all forms of sex discrimination or sexual harassment, it doesn't have to be in the same ballpark as sexual assault. However, sexual harassment does have to be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive in order to meet the Title IX definition. While I can see intentional misuse of pronouns and mockery of someone's chosen pronouns potentially rising to the definition of harassment (creating a hostile environment), it is unlikely.

However, Title IX regulations require a school to automatically dismiss allegations that do not rise to a Title IX violation, so either this school seriously overstepped (as the law firm is alleging), or the allegations are more serious than this article says. The school can charge someone with other student conduct violations outside of the Title IX definitions, but this article specifically says that it was a Title IX charge. If the school had a competent attorney, they would not have proceeded with such charges without the allegations being severe and pervasive. There was a court case last year (I think someone posted it on HB not too long ago) in which a college professor intentionally misgendered and mocked a student in class, was disciplined, but the school's actions were overturned in court based on freedom of speech and the professor won a settlement. That case was in a different district than this new case would be, but I think most school would be thinking about that kind of case when moving forward with charged based on pronouns and misgendering.

No reasonable school would file harassment charges for unintentional use of incorrect pronouns. We all widely accept that mistakes happen, but it is different when it is intentional, malicious, and repeated. I suppose if some a$$hole kid used someone's chosen pronouns and repeatedly bullied them and/or threatened them, it could be defined as harassment, and if sex or gender identity is the underlying reason, it would qualify as a Title IX violation.

If that is the case, this level of bullying should be taken seriously, don't you agree? 

13 hours ago, nic said:

I would prefer the kids learn about the constitution and branches of government... But if they are fair there must be questions like "a professor from Cornell recently wrote a thesis on how sheet music is racist. Which political party would mostly agree with this premise?" 

You could have just ended the question at "a professor from Cornell" or simply "a professor," since people who are more educated tend to vote Democratic. Hell, that question doesn't even ask you to make an assumption, that's just statistical fact. 

11 hours ago, admo said:

This is hateful imagery, that we have not seen in our country for decades and decades, 

Maybe you have not seen it for decades, because you either weren't paying attention, or simply ignoring it. This hateful imagery has always been there, hiding in plain sight. Many of us didn't realize how bad it was, but it was always there. 

11 hours ago, admo said:

but has now shown it's ugly head in the past few years? 

Trump used hate and vitriol toward marginalized communities as a campaign tactic, and he was successful. Seeing this, hate and racism has truly been emboldened since 2016, and the purveyors of this rhetoric and conduct have been empowered to no longer hide or downplay their ignorance.

10 hours ago, admo said:

But also, there is some down and dirty racists still in our land (Nazi a$$h@!es, mexicans that hate gringos, blacks that hate whites).  2/3rds of those group likely vote democrat by the way. 

Soooo, you acknowledge that racists are prevalent, but in your mind, most of the victims are white folks. Amazing.

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting. 
 

 

Great stuff. This should be required reading for anyone who struggles to understand gender identity issues (which is just about everyone) and anyone who thinks that defining what is a man or a woman is super simple. This twitter thread is a scientific breakdown of the biological component of sex, showing that sex is indeed complicated, and not binary. Without even getting into the social structures of gender at all.