I think you and others who thought the policy was a good idea are missing the key reason why it isn't.
The rule forced schools to notify parents regardless of the circumstances. It did not say that parents must not be notified under any circumstances. That's a massive difference.
As you said, this is not a cut and dry issue. If a school deems that a trans student's health and safety are in danger and that the parents should be notified, then they can make the decision to do so. However, under most circumstances, if the parents are not already aware that their child is changing their gender identity then there is a good reason for that.
These situations are highly sensitive and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the policy destroyed all that and put many students in danger unnecessarily by completely removing all nuance from the situation.
From what I gather, many evangelicals who support Trump see him as a fighter against a corrupt worldly government and a champion of their causes.
Then there's the MAGA concept, which plays into their Great Replacement paranoia (the fear that the white Protestant American majority is being replaced by non-whites and non-believers).
The fact that he is about as far from Christ-like as it's possible to be doesn't seem to deter them all that much.
I think the issue is due to the fact that your laptop has a discrete Nvidia GPU, which complicates things on Linux machines. Your display outputs are therefore controlled by the Nvidia drivers themselves rather than the Linux kernel.
Check out sections 2.4.x of the Arch wiki Nvidia page and maybe you can find a way to configure it manually.
Same. GRUB might offer wider compatibility and support legacy BIOS, but it's a cantankerous, wheezy dinosaur compared to systemd-boot. I don't know why more distros don't at least offer the latter as an option during installation.
They're right, though. The proposed resolution put a ceasefire wholly contingent on Hamas giving up their only bargaining chip (hostages) instead of outright calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Had it passed, Hamas would have simply ignored it and Israel would have felt justified in continuing its murderous ethnic cleansing campaign.
These are valid points, but I still think what sets apart the current situation from Iraq is 1) the scale and 2) the intent.
With regards to #1, bear in mind that those figures for Iraq are calculated over a period of fourteen years as opposed to just six months in Gaza. For the latter, the daily death rate is four times higher. Similarly, the fact that most of Northern Gaza is now an uninhabitable pile of rubble dwarfs even the destruction that occurred in Iraq. With regards to the genocidal language, the comment from Rumsfeld is a far cry from Isaac Herzog saying “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” for October 7th or Yoav Gallant saying "We are fighting human animals."
As for #2, the vast majority of Palestinians are have been displaced southwards and are now basically trapped in Rafah with nowhere to go. The equivalent in Irag would have been for US to build a wall around Baghdad and prevented any women and children from leaving while they carried out their bombing campaigns. Also, the steps that Israel have taken to block humanitarian aid from getting to desperate and starving people sets the behavior apart from the US in Iraq. There's also the sense of "collective punishment" in Gaza that wasn't present in Iraq.
Again, I am still somewhat in two minds about use of the word, but I think there are still distinct differences that makes the current situation what the ICJ terms a "plausible genocide".
FWIW, I have also been personally deliberating over whether Israel's actions in Gaza are technically a Genocide as opposed to, say, ethnic cleansing (which it undeniably is, and has been for decades).
However, I can understand why the term is in widespread use at the moment regarding Gaza:
The sheer scale of civilian deaths.
Cutting off water, electricity and aid to civilian areas.
Indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas.
Wholesale destruction of public infrastructure.
Genocidal and dehumanizing language being used by Israeli government officials specifically towards the civilian population.
With Genocide, there has to be a discernable intent on wiping out the people themselves, not just their government.
Yes that's true to a large extent, but a President does have some executive power in terms of leverage and how they choose to engage diplomatically with Israel:
Reagan famously threatened to cut off aid funding during the Lebanon War, which lead to a withdrawal of Israeli troops.
Obama was very critical of settlements in the West Bank and his administration chose not to veto the UN resolution condemning then.
Trump's administration was very supportive of Israel, officially recognized Jerusalem as it's capital, and also brokered the Abraham Accords.
So yeah, you're right in that the US government as whole has more or less guaranteed to ultimately support Israel no matter what, the President can still have an effect by themselves.
It's not a zero sum game - you can simultaneously be against both Trump and Biden regarding their Israel policy.
That said, I do agree that a lot of people don't realize that Trump is even more hawkish in his support for Israel than Biden is, and actively contributed to the rising tensions between Israel and Hamas during his administration. So when it comes to Israel, as surprising as it might be to some, Biden is in fact the lesser of two evils there.
aleph @ aleph @lemm.ee Posts 4Comments 582Joined 2 yr. ago
I think you and others who thought the policy was a good idea are missing the key reason why it isn't.
The rule forced schools to notify parents regardless of the circumstances. It did not say that parents must not be notified under any circumstances. That's a massive difference.
As you said, this is not a cut and dry issue. If a school deems that a trans student's health and safety are in danger and that the parents should be notified, then they can make the decision to do so. However, under most circumstances, if the parents are not already aware that their child is changing their gender identity then there is a good reason for that.
These situations are highly sensitive and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the policy destroyed all that and put many students in danger unnecessarily by completely removing all nuance from the situation.