|
I want gav to think he'll be president so I can see him eat incredible amounts of poo poo on a national stage
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
He'll lose in the 2036 primaries to Chelsea Clinton dont worry
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:I want gav to think he'll be president so I can see him eat incredible amounts of poo poo on a national stage So long as that's in a D primary I'm more than just OK with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 07:47
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:So long as that's in a D primary I'm more than just OK with that. Absolutely. The lineup would have to be loving dire for him to make it past the primary. Now, I CAN see it being that dire, but
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:I want gav to think he'll be president so I can see him eat incredible amounts of poo poo on a national stage Like corn dogs and fried butter at State fairs, or just metaphorically? I wanna see both because there's surprisingly few photos of him eating at all and you know he's going to do it weirdly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Newsom justified vetoing the caste bill because he claims it’s already covered in the existing anti-discrimination laws of California. He claims the state’s civil rights protections shall be “liberally construed” by the courts to include caste. Really shows where the party is at when they’re still telling us to trust in the courts. Still, I’m curious what the academic position is on having “redundant” laws on the books. Assuming Newsom’s claims are valid, is there any harm in adding a law that specifies caste is a protected class? https://apnews.com/article/california-caste-discrimination-ban-newsom-veto-eef696fa2e28476d566aa2f9ef3f1997
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
When a Google employee tried to host an anti caste discrimination speaker, a bunch of the Indian employees absolutely flipped their poo poo about "reverse discrimination" until she was, for all intents and purposes, fired. I'm not surprised he vetoed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Euphoriaphone posted:Newsom justified vetoing the caste bill because he claims it’s already covered in the existing anti-discrimination laws of California. He claims the state’s civil rights protections shall be “liberally construed” by the courts to include caste. That said, if we go to reading the "Today's Law as Amended" tab (this shows if the bill became law, with new text in blue, and removed text in strikethrough red)... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403&showamends=false and this is the veto message: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SB-403-Veto-1.pdf I think his veto message is pretty weak. The bill has a notable declaration from the legislature (which the courts would read as intent): quote:The amendments in this act are declarative of and clarify existing law. This act shall not be construed to mean that discrimination on the basis of ancestry does not already include discrimination on the basis of lineal descent, heritage, parentage, caste, or any other inherited social status. The reason the veto message is weak is because it doesn't identify a harm that would have been caused by the bill if passed into law. Which means that Gavin really didn't want to piss off the people opposing this, and vetoed the bill in the most milquetoast way possible. Supporters of the bill have provided some evidence (if you read the various Bill Analyses) that people are suffering Caste Discrimination in California; Gavin's response boils down to "Well I think the current laws are just fine". Euphoriaphone posted:Really shows where the party is at when they’re still telling us to trust in the courts. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah the frontline of the caste discrimination poo poo isn’t in some right-wing community; it’s the more unassuming progressive redoubts
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
This would be lawyer territory but I'd think that a formal statement from the governor stating that caste is included in the definition of ancestry would act as a clarifying statement in discrimination trial. It might not be as strong as a specific definition but I'm not sure that it needs to be that strong unless there's some confusion on what caste discrimination looks like (which maybe there could be?). Like if I was going to write a regulation under APA I would use that veto as a reference unless there's some reason I can't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
why would a statement from the executive have any bearing on the courts' interpretation of the law? is that a thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Zachack posted:This would be lawyer territory but I'd think that a formal statement from the governor stating that caste is included in the definition of ancestry would act as a clarifying statement in discrimination trial. It might not be as strong as a specific definition but I'm not sure that it needs to be that strong unless there's some confusion on what caste discrimination looks like (which maybe there could be?). On the other hand such a letter couldn't hurt, but.... the most effective way such a letter could be done is telling some of his lawyers to do research into the issue and present a legal "opinion" of sorts as the letter (Alternatively ask the Attorney General's office to do it). Make sure it's thoroughly researched as if they were going to argue those things in court, thinking on various specific scenarios. While it doesn't have the authority to say what the law means, any lawyers representing those affected by caste discrimination would have another piece of research to reference, which is less work they'd have to do (or in your scenario, if you're a regulatory agency, then it's less resources you need to spend on writing regulation). To be clear: None of this is binding, and the persuasiveness would only be as effective as the legal research the lawyers did in making the case that Caste discrimination is already protected against by the current law. You're basically doing the homework for other lawyers by doing this Maybe also sign an EO prohibiting caste discrimination in the government agencies he has authority over (This may already exist, but not sure). But I don't see why he'd do that if he vetoed the law. Same groups he's trying not to piss off now would still be pissed off at him. The stuff above is what, say, the President of the United States does, because their hands are tied due to not being able to pass the legislation they want since they don't have enough votes in both houses of the legislature. They lean into their executive powers. Gavin has the power; there's a supermajority, and the law was on his desk. He vetoed it. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Oct 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
iirc the genetic evidence suggests dalits diverged from the rest of the south asian population ten thousand years ago. there's something darkly funny about a blonde-haired white guy telling what might be the worlds oldest systemically marginalized group that the existing laws protect them just fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Cactus Ghost posted:iirc the genetic evidence suggests dalits diverged from the rest of the south asian population ten thousand years ago. there's something darkly funny about a blonde-haired white guy telling what might be the worlds oldest systemically marginalized group that the existing laws protect them just fine 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
BeeSeeBee posted:Like corn dogs and fried butter at State fairs, or just metaphorically? I wanna see both because there's surprisingly few photos of him eating at all and you know he's going to do it weirdly. I hadn't considered the first case but now I do want both
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Can someone explain it to me like I'm five why anyone would be opposed to caste discrimination legislation? Someone in one of the (four?) California threads alluded to Hindus not liking the law but didn't respond when I followed up as to why. Presumably if you're a top caste you want to keep hiring your friends from the same caste and not have to worry about legal repercussions of keeping others out? This isn't a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about except when the law came up for a vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Can someone explain it to me like I'm five why anyone would be opposed to caste discrimination legislation? Someone in one of the (four?) California threads alluded to Hindus not liking the law but didn't respond when I followed up as to why. Presumably if you're a top caste you want to keep hiring your friends from the same caste and not have to worry about legal repercussions of keeping others out? This isn't a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about except when the law came up for a vote The reasons I've heard that people were willing to say out loud were resentment over the state trying to impose "western values" on them and wobbly handwringing from white liberals that a law that targets one ethnicity so specifically is problematic. It's easier to infer worse reasons to be against the law, but people seem to know to not just say out loud that they want to keep their inferiors in their place. Weembles fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Lmao he also vetoed insulin price caps
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:Lmao he also vetoed insulin price caps He's actually the worst wtf
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
I thought he was all about insulin price caps. Have we've been deceived again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Can someone explain it to me like I'm five why anyone would be opposed to caste discrimination legislation? Someone in one of the (four?) California threads alluded to Hindus not liking the law but didn't respond when I followed up as to why. Presumably if you're a top caste you want to keep hiring your friends from the same caste and not have to worry about legal repercussions of keeping others out? This isn't a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about except when the law came up for a vote Generally speaking, whenever you have these bills, go find out the bill number, then go to the bill's page: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403 Then go to the "Bill Analysis" tab https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403 Look for committee analysis (Make sure it's talking about the bill you want, on the off chance the bill was gutted and amended at some point), as that will usually have more detail than floor analysis. The analysis is prepared by a staff lawyer (each committee has at least one afaik) along with other staff. The Assembly Judiciary Committee one on 7/6/2023 is good* Comments from the author: quote:Caste systems exist across the globe and have a long-standing existence in California that predates the waves of migration from South Asia. In my district, I continue to hear about caste discrimination experienced by Dalit women which affirms the importance of this bill. Adding caste to existing protections increases access to resources, cultural competency for agencies and organizations, and empowers individuals experiencing caste discrimination. Depending on an individual’s primary language and cultural background, they may use a word other than caste to describe their experience, however the word we use in the English-language to describe a system of social stratification is caste. That is why the inclusion of that word is important; it has a meaning. Existing anti-discrimination laws are inclusive of caste discrimination, however there is an inequitable application of the law because caste is not expressly stated in our laws. When someone has a claim of caste discrimination, the strength of their evidence may not be sufficient if the presiding judge decides current laws are not inclusive of caste discrimination. This is why we must expressly state caste discrimination is prohibited in California. Analyses talks about current law, what the proposed law will change, relevant precedent and events, comments from the author, and then they'll pick at least one, sometimes two comments from both opponents and proponents of a bill (usually lobbyists). They'll also list all groups who registered support and opposition. I'm not going to say that the committee staff lawyers are perfect (I sometimes disagree with analysis), but their job is to prepare a mostly-neutral executive summary. They present arguments from both sides, though they'll also call out stuff that doesn't seem true or likely true. For instance, the "Opponents “Equal Protection” concerns seem overstated." section talks about how the Opponents of the bill tried to claim that inserting caste into the state's antidiscrimination laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment... which the staff lawyer says is unlikely. This post is long enough; you can find the support/against in the analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:Lmao he also vetoed insulin price caps quote:To the Members of the California State Senate: Those CalRx insulins are still not here yet. I'm reading production might start sometime in 2024? We'll see how it goes but his political future might be hosed if the CalRx insulins don't pan out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Can someone explain it to me like I'm five why anyone would be opposed to caste discrimination legislation? Someone in one of the (four?) California threads alluded to Hindus not liking the law but didn't respond when I followed up as to why. Presumably if you're a top caste you want to keep hiring your friends from the same caste and not have to worry about legal repercussions of keeping others out? This isn't a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about except when the law came up for a vote The stuff I saw about it was largely identical to white people talking about affirmative action. Caste discrimination doesn't exist anymore and actually the lower castes get so much help that it's really the upper castes that are discriminated against, actually. I also saw some stuff along the lines of castes are part of Hinduism and the only reason "they" are doing this is because of hinduphobia, "they" want to destroy Hinduism, etc big black turnout fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Oct 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Can someone explain it to me like I'm five why anyone would be opposed to caste discrimination legislation? Someone in one of the (four?) California threads alluded to Hindus not liking the law but didn't respond when I followed up as to why. Presumably if you're a top caste you want to keep hiring your friends from the same caste and not have to worry about legal repercussions of keeping others out? This isn't a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about except when the law came up for a vote I think it was a bad veto but I can give the reasoning I’ve heard for similar bills. If a wider-protecting law should already cover a group but it’s a little fuzzy, creating a specific carve out for that group could cause other, similar groups that should also be covered by the wider-protecting law to appear to not be protected. So consider a law that prohibits discrimination based on race. An immigrant from Honduras refuses to hire anyone from Nicaragua, and says since Nicaraguan isn’t a race and he hires Hondurans he’s allowed to. If a bill was passed saying “you can’t discriminate against Nicaraguans” that can be (badly) interpreted to mean that they weren’t covered by the first bill and Guatemalans have no protection in the original bill. To me the answer to that is to make the definition simultaneously more broad and specific, as we do when we protect things like national origin. I’m not sure what the perfect law would be instead of the caste one but Newsom should be suggesting that if he’s vetoing this one for that reason. The existing law obviously isn’t working adequately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I think it was a bad veto but I can give the reasoning I’ve heard for similar bills. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403&showamends=false I can just copy-paste it I guess... quote:The amendments in this act are declarative of and clarify existing law. This act shall not be construed to mean that discrimination on the basis of ancestry does not already include discrimination on the basis of lineal descent, heritage, parentage, caste, or any other inherited social status. Newsom's veto is poo poo. I mostly agree with this take: big black turnout posted:The stuff I saw about it was largely identical to white people talking about affirmative action. Caste discrimination doesn't exist anymore and actually the lower castes get so much help that it's really the upper castes that are discriminated against, actually. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Oct 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
It’s been mentioned in this thread, but you might be in for a shocker if you try to discuss caste with your progressive Indian friends. There’s some calcified, hardened attitudes around that poo poo. It’s not going away either because of the newer waves of Indian migrants, many influenced by chauvinist Hindu nationalist politics. Vetoing the bill was the garbage thing morally but the wise thing politically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
The only one I actually cared about was mushrooms and that's dead. I already hated gav but now I lust for the biggest crash and burn possible on the largest stage possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:It’s been mentioned in this thread, but you might be in for a shocker if you try to discuss caste with your progressive Indian friends. There’s some calcified, hardened attitudes around that poo poo. It’s not going away either because of the newer waves of Indian migrants, many influenced by chauvinist Hindu nationalist politics. Vetoing the bill was the garbage thing morally but the wise thing politically. i mean, by 90s neolib logic sure, but in this century the wise thing politically is to have a spine and take a moral stand. maybe the tipping point hasn't quite been reached but we've got as many boomer neolibs as we're ever gonna have, and the number of zoomer voters with no taste for that bullshit is only growing e: it would definitely put him at odds with The Machine though regardless, yeah, because The Machine is a gerontocracy of which he might actually be the youngest member
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
mikeycp posted:I lust for the biggest crash and burn possible on the largest stage possible... ...that doesn't end up with an (R) in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
No mushrooms or insulin price caps, but cursive is back on the menu, boys. https://abc7.com/amp/cursive-california-schools-governor-newsom-teaching-handwriting/13926546/ (I'm a fan of this, but still it's the principle of the thing)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
I could go for some mushroom price caps
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
I remember in the 80s being mad about cursive instruction, and the next year finding out I was the last class to get cursive instruction This is madness, no
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
𝓜𝓪𝓭𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓼? 𝓣𝓱𝓲𝓼 𝓲𝓼 𝓒𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓲𝓪!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
the article raises points in favor that i agree with, but i'm also a weirdo that's in favor of handwriting as much as possible. i know it helps me remember things way better, and writing in script rather than just block even moreso.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah I scrawl barely legible notes to myself on a 6x9 steno pad, it's my preferred organisational system for work stuff Outside of that the only time I write stuff down is usually signatures on documents a handful of times per year. Penmanship is a worthless skill in today's society I'd prefer that time be used teaching budgeting or taxes or financial planning. Calculating how much of your monthly budget your car payment is going to take up is highly valuable
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
Cursive is fine, but I'm not sure it is an effective use of ELA classroom time. When I was teaching elementary, 7 years ago, reading levels were on the decline. My friends still teaching are constantly telling horror stories of middle schoolers that can barely read. Phonics isn't being used as much/as heavily to teach reading anymore, in favor of some highly flawed new methods, and in conjunction with various other factors is going to give us a generation that really struggles with literacy and comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
drat our cops suck. https://twitter.com/KTLA/status/1714632705110159575
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
That looked deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Cursive is fine, but I'm not sure it is an effective use of ELA classroom time. When I was teaching elementary, 7 years ago, reading levels were on the decline. My friends still teaching are constantly telling horror stories of middle schoolers that can barely read. Part of me said “no way” when I read this, but that’s just because I don’t want it to be true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Cursive is fine, but I'm not sure it is an effective use of ELA classroom time. When I was teaching elementary, 7 years ago, reading levels were on the decline. My friends still teaching are constantly telling horror stories of middle schoolers that can barely read.  Highly flawed OLD methods! The current teaching method, The Prussian Method/Whole Word/Whole Language/Balanced Literacy, is the method that was favored in the US from around 1850 until about 1950 when it was found that teaching by phonics worked better, and it was only in the 1990s that there became a movement among teachers to move back away from phonics, because of an impression that it was more just authoritarian rote memorization that teachers felt didn't work for different learning styles and that kids would naturally learn phonics from vocabulary, despite the fact that studies repeatedly show that phonics works better and kids naturally learn vocabulary if they understand phonics first.
fermun fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 02:40
|
|