Nightwingdragon @ Nightwingdragon @lemmy.world

Posts

48

Comments

2,103

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly, does it matter?

They were there supporting ICE raids , deterring protests, and keeping reporters from doing their job. At this point, they're all one and the same.

I would like to point out a subtle piece of "reporting" that is not only inaccurate, but I believe in there in an attempt to "both sides" the issue and appease Trump.

Newsom and Trump officials exchanged barbs all weekend after Trump federalized and deployed the California National Guard in Los Angeles amid violent anti-ICE protests.

The protests, as evidenced by the livestreams of LA, were almost entirely non-violent. Violence shown was almost entirely ICE committing the violence, such as when they intentionally shot rubber bullets at an Australian reporter in order to scare her away from reporting.

Saying the protests were "violent" does nothing more than give Trump justification for sending troops in the first place. This is intentionally misleading reporting that does nothing but give Trump more cover, possibly in an attempt to "both sides" the issue in case Trump's goons come knocking.

Unless the goal is press intimidation…

DING DING DING.

I'm going to be honest, I would not be the least bit surprised if media outlets were intentionally toning down the coverage and framing it this way as an attempt to avoid getting into Trump's crosshairs.

And yeah, watch the video. He intentionally raised his gun and shot her in an attempt to scare her away from continuing to cover it.

That's assuming it gets that far. If your skin is a little too brown for their liking, you could find yourself on an involuntary tropical vacation at one of Trump's increasing number of third world hellholes. Good luck getting a hold of anyone that speaks English, much less get in touch with your family or getting the charges dropped.

No, Susan Collins will do that.

Chuck Schumer will protest Trump's order until it's time to vote in favor of legislation criminalizing mask use. Then he'll support it at the last second while the rest of the Dems in the senate act shocked and surprised.

To be fair, people have been saying "I’m pretty sure that’s not within his power to dictate" for the past six months or so, and it hasn't done a whole hell of a lot of good. Granted, this will be more difficult to enforce, but I can see a whole lot of people being arrested on a whole lot of trumped-up charges for wearing masks at a protest.

As illegal as his order may be, it'll still end up being you that is arrested. You that is put in jail. You that is denied your civil rights. You that will have to face an uphill battle in a MAGA-rigged court system with virtually no resources against the US government. Trump will face no repercussions. He is immune from prosecution. He will not even know your name, much less be inconvenienced by your arrest. He can pardon any cronies who are charged for violating your civil rights. Trump knows this, and he is acting accordingly. He knows that the fact that this battle is so lopsided in his favor is itself enough of a deterrent to make many rank-and-file people back down.

He knows the order is illegal. But he also knows that the overwhelming majority of people aren't in a position to do anything about it.

The comments sections make me weep for the future of this country.

Who do you blame though.

Who else do you blame? The fault obviously lies with some low-level lackey that nobody has ever heard of.

I predicted this yesterday. Musk has a lot of money but no political influence outside of Trump. Even when Trump had his head crammed up Musk's ass, most Republicans reluctantly tolerated him at best because they had no other choice.

Jesus Christ, please read what I wrote again because you obviously failed to understand what I was explaining.

This will be my last reply on the matter as your replies show not only a complete (and possibly even intentional) misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court decided, but your reasoning has become little more than conspiracy theories mixed with bigotry.

Not just any case gets before the SC. They choose cases for a reason, usually because it involves an aspect of the law they wish to clarify or (increasingly commonly) overturn. Special interest groups shop around for cases that they can find a defense for to make the political changes they want (for example Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was funded by Alliance Defending Freedom). As you said this case began in 2017. There is NO WAY a middle manager at a state agency can afford to pay some of the best lawyers in the country for 8 years. She’s not some secret billionaire. Yes, her funding is unknown but that’s exactly why it is relevant. Dark money groups pushing political agendas are manipulating the justice system.

You have absolutely no idea what her financial situation is, and you're using that lack of knowledge as proof of sinister acts. Since you don't know where the money is coming from, it must therefore be some kind of dark money billionaire? For all you know she could have inherited $100k from her grandmother or has investment money tucked away somewhere. Unless you have some kind of proof of this "dark money", her funding source is none of your damn business, nor does it have a shred of bearing on this case. And without said proof, your dark money theory is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

This woman is just a convenient tool to weaken minority protections. Previous SC precedent from 1973 holds that Title VII cases consider a history of discrimination of groups in question when determining how much evidence is required to prove the case. There is no history of straight discrimination but there is significant past history and current LGBT discrimination. It makes NO SENSE to treat these events as equally probably but that is exactly what overturning this decision does.

No, it does not. Not even remotely. The only thing that this case did was remove the higher burden required to even bring a reverse discrimination case in the first place. That's it. Nothing more. It did not discuss or consider the merits of the case. All this did was give this woman the right to be heard. It does not give her a guaranteed win, or even any leverage. There is nothing stopping whatever judge is assigned to the case to either dismiss the case or rule in the employer's favor because she didn't meet that higher standard anyway.

All this case gives her is the right to be heard. That's it.

This strips protections for LGBT, black, disabled people, non-Christians, and other protected minority groups. Now to prove they are discriminated against, they cannot rely on the well-proven precedent of this fact. This makes discrimination against these groups easier which of course is the point of all this anti-DEI stuff. It is Christian white supremacy in action.

The case says absolutely no such thing. It does not strip away protections from a single person, nor does it prevent a judge from dismissing the case or ruling in favor of protected minority groups in any way. All it says is that members of the majority group have the same rights to bring discrimination lawsuits as anyone else. It does nothing regarding the validity or legal weight of those claims.

I challenge you to go back and watch her on-screen role during the late 90s and early 2000s. By all accounts from every shoot video on Youtube, the woman backstage was just like what you saw on screen: Wooden, devoid of charisma, and lacking anything resembling independent thought. Her entire role as CEO of the company was simply to sign off on whatever Vince McMahon did while he touted her as a beacon of progress for having a woman as CEO.

This woman does not possess the intelligence or creativity to come up with such a scheme.

(As a side note: Vince McMahon sold his company to the same people who run UFC, and then was driven out of the company as the result of numerous scandals. He no longer has any ties to WWE, outside of ownership of about 3% of common, non-voting stock.)

I know the white part doesn’t matter because the actual suit is for being straight alone. The justices (unnecessarily) added the discussion of race.

They added the discussion of race to ensure that everybody knew that it applied to every majority group.

I know the suit is an attack on DEI because it made it to the Supreme court.

So the Supreme Court is only handling DEI cases now?

It takes years and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to maintain a court case.

You do realize this case dates back to 2017, right?

Private individuals usually can’t afford this. The client, who works for the Ohio Department of Youth services, certainly couldn’t. Most SC cases are funded by special interest groups looking to push a particular change in the law.

First, how do you know what she can and can't afford? Second, why does the source of her funding for her legal bills matter? There are lawyers who take cases pro-bono if they believe that the notoriety they get from those cases will advance their careers and therefore make them even more money in the future. Her funding source is both unknown and irrelevant.

Trump and the Conservatives have made it very clear that they are against DEI because it makes it harder to discriminate against minorities.

This case started about 7-8 years before Trump turned DEI into political poison.

This decision weakens the protections for those groups.

No it does not. At no point does it discuss the merits of the case, and there is a very real chance that she'll ultimately lose the lawsuit in the end. All this decision does is give her the opportunity to sue, not a guarantee that she'll win. We do not know if this case has merit yet.

I know she’s awful because no decent person would bring such an obviously bigoted suit.

Just some food for thought. Ever think that telling a bunch of straight, white people that it's perfectly OK to discriminate against them might just be one of the reasons why those straight, white people suddenly have a problem with DEI? Racism and bigotry are wrong regardless of what side of the issue you're on, and reverse discrimination is still discrimination. DEI means Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It's meant to combat all forms of discrimination. If you think it's OK to discriminate against straight, white people (or any other group for that matter) because you're a member of the minority (I'm speaking generally here, since I obviously don't know your race), then you're not actually against discrimination. You just want your turn to be the bigot.

And exactly how do you know that?

They'll go where the voters go. If public sentiment among the MAGA base stays with Trump, so will they. And Musk isn't popular enough among the MAGA base (outside of being a rich useful idiot) to significantly shake Trump's hold.

Of course it's far too early to tell how this is all going to shake out, but a number of articles are reporting that House Republicans are almost entirely on Trump's side and lashing out at Musk. While there may be a few grifters from super-safe districts that may speak out, Trump is still the face of the party and his influence goes well beyond money; some of these people may stay on Trump's side out of fear of retaliation, especially if sentiment among the rank-and-file MAGA base sticks largely with Trump.

Sadly enough, this won't escalate into anything because Musk didn't exactly have a lot of friends in the GOP even when Trump's head was crammed shoulder-deep in his ass. He was only tolerated because the GOP had no other real choice, and they didn't want to risk him funding a primary challenger. He has lots of money but no actual political clout. Which means I doubt there's going to be a bunch of Republicans suddenly jumping to Team Musk.

He'll probably go the Liz Cheney route of just being ostracized by everybody. But hey, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun watching all this shit in the meantime.

What's the difference between this case and every other employment discrimination case? Because she's straight and white?

I don't know the specifics of how everything works, but I could see a path where he could do that, legality of his actions notwithstanding.

My guess is that international students applying for student visas need to list what university they're going to attend. I could see Trump ordering that the State Department simply decline any visas for students that are heading to Harvard. That would essentially accomplish Trump's goals and leave Harvard in a position where they can't really do much about it.

That's because we do not know the validity of this yet.

The woman in question believes she was passed over for a promotion that was ultimately given to a gay woman. She attempted to sue, which would have given us the information needed to decide if her case was valid in the first place. It never got that far; the courts said she couldn't sue at all because she's a member of a "majority" group (straight people). It's basically a legalese version of the belief that "You're straight/white therefore you can't be discriminated against at all."

The Supreme Court said that's not the case and struck down lower courts' rulings that members of a majority group need to meet a higher standard before even bringing the case in the first place. The SC ruling was 9-0, and did not discuss the merits of the case itself.

The woman who originally brought the suit can now sue her employer in court. Then we'll be able to get enough information about whether her particular case was valid in the first place.