Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
So, how's that whole Elon free speech Twitter thing going? Turns out, not great. An article from Mike Masnick over at TechDirt has the details. Basically, back in November, shortly after Elon finished buying Twitter, he noted his belief in free speech was so strong it extended even to leaving up the Twitter account @elonjet. For those who don't know the @elonjet Twitter account used publicly available data to Tweet whenever Elon's private plane flew somewhere. Elon tweeted:
My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk
The man behind the account, Jack Sweeney, also operated a bunch of other plane tracker accounts for other billionaires (including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and various Russian oligarchs). As of today it seems the @elonjet Twitter account, along with all the other plane trackers and even Sweeney's personal account, have been suspended. Apparently this suspension is pursuant to a new Twitter rule about sharing personal information:
Under this policy, you can’t share the following types of private information, without the permission of the person who it belongs to:
...
live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available;
It took a whole month for Elon to craft a policy to ban the account he specifically said he wouldn't ban due to his commitment to free speech. So much for the idea that the limits of Twitter moderation would be anything like "only illegal speech." It also seems (according to the TechDirt article, and I tried this myself) that you can't even tweet links to @elonjet accounts on other platforms (like Facebook or Instagram). Amusingly Elon's original tweet from November now has a Community Note on it noting what the account that was being mentioned in the tweet was and the fact that it's banned.
Twitter files dump about the internal deliberations on how this policy change and these bans came about when?
ETA:
Seems @elonjet was unsuspended. Apparently the new policy requires "slight" (no word on how long that is) delay before posting info. Although, at the time of this edit the account appears to be suspended again. Link.
ETA2:
Elon now claiming that legal action is being taken against Sweeney. Would love to hear what legal action he's alledgedly taking.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I don't know why people in this particular debate are so obsessed with intuiting the answers to empirical questions. It is not the case that nobody has ever tried to measure the sport performance related effects of gender transition. Here is a BMJ meta-analysis from 2021 of 24 different studies. What do they find? Basically what you'd expect. 1-2 years on HRT decreases strength related performance pretty substantially. The study subjects retained some advantage over cis women but were significantly worse than cis men.
In keeping with the muscular anabolic effects of testosterone and the mixed effects of oestrogens, studies using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry report decreased LBM (0.8%–5.4%) in association with GAHT. Twelve months of GAHT also decreased muscle CSA (1.5%–9.7%). However, a further 12 or 24 months of GAHT did not always elicit further decreases in muscle CSA. Strength loss with 12 months of GAHT also ranged from non-significant to 7%. Taking these strength parameter data collectively, and in consideration of cisgender women demonstrating 31% lower LBM, 36% lower hand-grip strength and 35% lower knee extension strength than cisgender men, the small decrease in strength in transwomen after 12–36 months of GAHT suggests that transwomen likely retain a strength advantage over cisgender women. Whether longer duration of GAHT would yield further decrements in strength in transgender women is unknown.
n contrast to strength-related data, blood cell findings revealed a different time course of change. After 3–4 months on GAHT, the HCT or Hgb levels of transwomen matched those of cisgender women, with levels remaining stable within the ‘normal’ female range for studies lasting up to 36 months. Given the rapid fall in Hgb/HCT to ‘normal’ female levels with GAHT, it is possible that transfemale athletes experience impaired endurance performance in part due to reduced oxygen transport from the lungs to the working muscles. This postulate is consistent with findings reported in one of the few studies conducted in athletic transwomen. In this study, the race times of eight transfemale distance runners were compared at baseline and after one or more years of GAHT. After adjusting performance for age, the eight runners were not more competitive in the female category (after GAHT) than they had been in the male category (before GAHT). Given this, and that the changes in Hgb/HCT follow a different time course than strength changes, sport-specific regulations for transwomen in endurance ver strength sports may be needed.
And trans women tended to be less strong than average cis-men even pre-transition.
Of interest, compared with cisgender men, hormone-naive transwomen demonstrate 6.4%–8.0% lower LBM, 6.0%–11.4% lower muscle CSA and ~10%–14% lower handgrip strength. This disparity is noteworthy given that hormone-naive transwomen and cisgender men have similar testosterone levels. Explanations for this strength difference are unclear but may include transwomen actively refraining from building muscle and/or engaging in disordered eating or simply not being athletically inclined, perhaps influenced by feelings of an unwelcome presence in sporting arenas. Taken together, hormone-naive transwomen may not, on average, have the same athletic attributes as cisgender men. The need to move beyond simple comparisons of cisgender men and women to assess the sporting capabilities of transwomen is imperative.
Anyway I think the whole discussion is kind of dumb. Different athletes have all kinds of different advantages due to biological features. Is there some level of biological advantage at which point intra-group competition becomes unfair? Is the advantage a top trans woman has over a top cis woman larger than the advantage Michael Phelps had over his fellow Olympians? One can't help but notice that no one was interested in banning people from competing in sports due to biological advantage until the discussion was about trans women.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
More developments in DeSantis' political stunt of sending some migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
If you didn't already know the migrants were not even in Florida when they got on the flight. The migrants started in San Antonio, Texas. The Bexar County Sheriff (which covers San Antonio) has announced a criminal investigation into the matter. They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation. I'm not an expert on Texas law but it seems to me their law on unlawful restraint may be applicable. The law provides:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception;
...
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
Did DeSantis' agents move a person from one place to another by deception such that the persons so moved did not consent? Seems like it to me! If any of the people so moved were children under the age of 17 the offense is a state jail felony otherwise it is a Class A misdemeanor.
On the civil front some of those same migrants have filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis (maybe flying them to the island full of rich lawyers was unwise.) There are 12 listed causes of action in the complaint (starting on page 23 in the pdf). These range from violations of constitutional rights (since this was ostensibly done under color of law, using state government funds) to regular torts like false imprisonment, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress (intentional and negligent).
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8mo ago
What about hugging?
Yes, nonconsensual hugging is generally bad.
What about hand shakes?
I am not sure how you do a nonconsensual handshake? But yea, bad.
Back pats?
Nonconsensual ones are bad, yes.
Was my old aunt sexually abusing me when I was 10 and she'd plant a big lipsticky kiss on my cheek?
Maybe!
Did I sexually harrass my dad when he was lying in a hospital bed in a coma and I kissed his forehead?
Probably not.
Or am I being outrageous?
Yes.
Is it bad, but the same way answering your phone in the library is bad rather than sexual abuse?
It is (much) worse than answering your phone in a library but probably not as bad as the median example of conduct described by the term "sexual abuse."
But is answering your phone in the library bad enough to lose your career over?
Probably not, but forcibly kissing a woman might be.
Could there be a middle ground perhaps, where it's not something people should do moving forward but we don't crucify this guy for not being American?
People learn what to do and not to do because of the consequences for the things they do. I am pretty sure he is criticized for forcibly kissing a woman, not for "not being American."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Let me see if I understand correctly.
In Biden's case the staffers who discovered the documents immediately alerted NARA to their existence, turned the documents over, and are cooperating with the governments investigation into how the documents came to be there.
In Trump's case NARA learned Trump had documents bearing classification markings after some were included in boxes of presidential records Trump returned to NARA. NARA told Trump they were going to inform the FBI of the classified docs. Trump asks NARA not to tell the FBI, but produces no further documents. Eventually NARA informs the FBI. The FBI gets a subpoena for all documents at Mar-a-Lago bearing a certain set of classification markings. Trump turns over some documents and (falsely) certifies that those documents are all the ones in his possession that are covered by the subpoena. The FBI, by means not fully public yet, develop probable cause to believe Trump has further documents covered by the subpoena which he has not produced. A magistrate judge issues a warrant and the FBI execute that warrant. In the course of executing the warrant the FBI discover their probable cause was correct and Trump had lied about compliance with the subpoena.
Now, maybe some very damning facts will come out in the Biden case. It is a developing situation after all. But on the basis of the facts I know so far the differential response by law enforcement and related entities seem totally explicable.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I mean, I think they have a belief that a crime was committed, just not an awareness of exactly what statute it violated.
Imagine the police find a dead body. They probably form a belief that a crime has been committed but exactly what statute will be applicable can depend on as-yet-unknown factors (like the perpetrators state of mind). I do not think the police in such a case are "fully into 'I'll find you the crime' territory."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
21d ago
One thing that I don't understand is why nobody "inside the kitchen" don't notice how weird their attempts at propaganda seem.
I don't think most people think "white woman protagonist with black man love interest" is "propaganda." Like, propaganda for what? Would it be propaganda if they were both white? If it was an asian woman and a white man? What is the non-propaganda interracial pairing? What makes such a pairing not propaganda?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
I feel like Popehat's Rule of Goats applies. "Yea I made a bunch of Nazi references, but I wasn't doing it sincerely!" Ok, well you still made a bunch of Nazi references. I am somewhat sympathetic since I had my own edgy-4-chan-humor phase when I was younger, but I also did actually have a bunch of unironically racist opinions at the time.
These arguments strike me as so divorced from reality that it’s difficult to bridge the gap. These jokes are not actually making light of Hitler, Nazis, and the KKK. They are making light of online lefties being pathologically obsessed with speech. Referencing Hitler isn’t funny; what’s funny is watching online lefties think that referencing Hitler indicates a deep seated hatred of Judaism and a real desire to exterminate non-whites. It’s the overreaction that’s funny. Or another way to put it – edgy Hitler jokes are shibboleths indicating that the speaker doesn’t buy into the predominant lefty internet culture. The speaker signals that he has such little concern for the culture that he considers stifling, censorious, and ridiculous, that he invokes the greatest taboo possible. IMO, this is the essence of edgy 4-chan humor.
I am confused. If this is what IH is doing then isn't getting threads like the ones you've linked the point? Those threads (the leftist overreaction) are the punchline to the joking references, right? The point of the jokes was to make leftists think he was a Nazi! Is it surprising or disturbing that he succeeded? So he spent a bunch of time and energy making references to try and convince certain people he was a Nazi, he succeeded, and now... those same people need to be convinced he's not a Nazi? Why spend all the time and energy in the first place convincing people you were a Nazi!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
Of course, on seeing this news I immediately wondered why it would count as "punishing" women to prevent them from doing something men don't generally have the option of doing (that is, making money by flashing breasts).
The policy is broader than "don't flash your breasts." According to your link it prohibited any content that "deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region." I have no trouble believing that women were modded for content that men got away with. If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man. I think there is a pretty straightforward sexist implication to "men are allowed to do this thing but women aren't."
Why don't we say it "levels the playing field" to prevent women from using their sex appeal to crush their competitors on a gaming platform?
Because the conception of Twitch rules as existing to level some competitive field between streamers is nonsensical? Should Twitch ban streamers who are too good at games, because they'll get more viewers by being better? Should Twitch ban face cams, because more attractive streamers will get more viewers? Or maybe mandate face cams! No hiding for you uggos, you might get undeserved views! Make everyone use a voice modulator to have the same voice, some people might have nicer voices that lead to more viewers!
I guess someone realized that if you allow streamers to turn your site into OnlyFans with Vidya, then the women are going to drop their tops and the men are going to just... use filters?
Wat? How many men on Twitch do you think are currently using filters to become women to get people to watch and sub?
I don't actually know, I don't use Twitch because I play video games and have no interest in watching others do so, but I am decrepit and out of touch so whatever.
You didn't need to put this here, it's apparent from the rest of your post.
Now I'm left pondering the apparent Fisherian runaway of human beings trying to become--virtually, at least--teenage-presenting (cat?)girls as quickly as possible.
Wat. What fraction of twitch streamers do you think are involved in this "Fisherian runaway?" What fraction of, say, the top 100 or 1000 streamers?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6mo ago
I've read the discussion on the destruction of General Lee's statue in Charlottesville in last week's thread. I got the impression that many commenters here are prone to come up with explanations why the official removal of the statue was at least unsurprising or objectively justified from a culture war perspective, and I get that. But it seems they aren't focusing on the palpable difference between legally removing a statue and destroying it in a furnace. Because as far as I'm concerned, it's a big step from one to the other.
I mean, they didn't just melt it down and throw it away or something. They're melting it down for the purpose of creating some other art piece based on community input. At least, that's according to the proposal submitted by Jefferson School African American Heritage Center that the City Council accepted. It is a literal transformation of a symbol of Virginia's racist, white supremacist past to one of its more egalitarian present. The symbolism is the point.
And what happened to Lee's statue certainly cannot be explained by financial considerations either, as I'm sure that whatever arrangement that was on the table for putting it away as a museum piece was cheaper than melting it down in a furnace.
I think this misapprehends the process. The city solicited proposals on what to do with the statue. The people who made the proposal the Council accepted were responsible for all the costs of transporting it, melting it down, etc. It didn't cost the city anything.
In the end, the only sufficient explanation I can come up with is that local authorities were afraid that Lee's statue, no matter where it were to be placed, was likely to become a site of pilgrimage for right-winger heretics opposed to the culture-warring leftist interpretation of race relations in the US, hence the statue's destruction.
That seems like a pretty reasonable fear? The initial decision to remove the statue was the impetus for the Unite the Right rally. Where a white supremacist murdered someone and injured 30 others.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7mo ago
Not sure I agree. I can imagine a scenario where it would be sensible to describe A as having gotten B drunk, or drugged them with alcohol. An obvious example would be A adding some more potent alcohol to B's drink without B's knowledge or consent.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7mo ago
It is absurd to infer that women want a thing to be done to them because they read fiction about it being done to other people.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but Desantis's campaign coordinator said they were all given brochures of Massachusetts and info on Martha's Vineyard. Seems like if that's true then your points are completely moot. Hard to argue that you tricked somebody if you gave them a pamphlet of their destination in advance.
What if the pamphlet contained information that was false?
From the complaint:
On information and belief, the brochure was manufactured by Defendants. The brochure echoed the type of false representation that had been given orally, including statements such as: “During the first 90 days after a refugee’s arrival in Massachusetts, resettlement agencies provide basic needs support including...assistance with housing...furnishings, food, and other basic necessities...clothing, and transportation to job interviews and job training...assistance in applying for Social Security cards...registering children for school....” The brochure had a separate section entitled “Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA),” which stated: “Provides up to 8 months of cash assistance for income-eligible refugees without dependent children, who reside in Massachusetts.” It had other sections that described “targeted services for . . . employment.”
On information and belief, this brochure was not prepared by the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants, or any other Massachusetts agency or immigration services organization.
On information and belief, Defendants manufactured the official-looking brochure— lifting language from the Massachusetts Refugee Resettlement Program, a governmental program with highly specific eligibility requirements for which no members of the putative class are eligible—in order to buttress their false oral representations to Plaintiffs in furtherance of the conspiracy described throughout this complaint.
The complaint also alleges that the migrants were told they were going to Boston and only learned they were going to Martha's Vineyard after boarding the plane:
Before the flight, class members were told they were heading to Boston, Massachusetts or Washington, D.C. But right before landing, they were informed they were in fact going to Martha’s Vineyard, an isolated Massachusetts island just south of Cape Cod, reachable only by plane or boat.
So DeSantis' agents lied to the migrants about where they were going and what would be available to them when they got to their destination. The migrants relied on these false representations for their "consent" to go.
"Not only that, they all signed consent forms to go. And then the vendor that is doing this for Florida provided them with a packet that had a map of Martha's Vineyard," said DeSantis.
"It had the numbers for different services on Martha's Vineyard. And then it had numbers for the overall agencies in Massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. So it was clearly voluntary."
The fact of signing a consent inform is irrelevant if the reason you signed is because someone deceived you about what you were consenting to. Similarly the fact that the packet had a map or certain phone numbers does not establish that their consent to being transported was not based on lies.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
To a first approximation there is a culture war because different groups of people have different ideas about how society and government ought to be ordered and these ideas are often mutually incompatible. Disagreements about these questions are often acrimonious because they are moral questions about justice and fairness. This can turn disagreements about these issues into a perception that other people are immoral or evil for their position on the issue in question. Each tribe hates the other for approximately symmetrical reasons having to do with believing that the way the other side wants to order society is bad (for different definitions of bad).
3) Why does the blue tribe hate the red tribe?
To concretize my first paragraph a bit you can read the deluge (1, 2, 3) of stories of women with life-threatening pregnancy complications being denied abortions because they weren't life threatening enough. I think the legislatures that inflicted these conditions on these women are evil.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I would be interested in hearing what your proposals to "fix it" are. I think the reason few to no people offer solutions to the issue is that there are not any solutions people operating in a broadly liberal framework would find permissible.
From my own liberal perspective, nobody is owed a girlfriend, or relationship. If you (or a lot of young men) are unable to get someone you want to be in a relationship with to also want to be in a relationship with you, that's a you problem. Relationship formation is that good old double coincidence of wants. It's not enough that you want to be in a relationship with someone, you need to find someone who also wants to have a relationship with you.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
That Rasmussen survey is crap. Basically all of the described conduct can be legal depending on jurisdiction. Maybe you think it's all colloquially fraud, but that does not make it illegal. Just using my own state as an example:
17% of mail-in voters admit that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are “no longer a permanent resident”
That's totally legal in my state. If you are a US citizen living abroad and maintain a residence in Washington state you're allowed to continue voting at that residence. Or even if you live more permanently in another state but have not registered to vote in that state, you can continue voting at your Washington residence.
21% of mail-in voters admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member
This is legal in many jurisdictions, including mine, when the voter in question has a disability. From the AARP guide for Washington state:
Voting with a disability
When voting by mail, voters with disabilities can request assistance filling in their ballot from a person of their choice or by contacting their county elections office. Voters are required to sign the ballot envelope, but if the voter can’t sign the envelope, they may make a mark, such as an “X,” and have two witnesses sign the envelope.
When voting in person, those who need assistance filling in their ballot can receive help from either two election officials or a person of their choice. Each polling place is equipped with an accessible voting system. Get more information at the secretary of state’s website.
This also goes to the next Rasmussen question about signing a ballot for a friend or family member. Rasmussen makes it sound nefarious by combining "with or without" their permission but that distinction is pretty important! With permission it can be totally legal.
8% of likely voters say they were offered “pay” or a “reward” for voting in 2020
Again the equivocation between "pay" and a "reward." If someone offers you a sticker for voting, is that a "reward?" Would it be "fraud?" Note also that it is being offered for voting, not for any particular candidate.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What's your definition of "shadow-ban"?
According to urbandictionary
Banning a user from a web forum in such a way that the banned user is unaware of the ban. Usually takes the form of showing that user's posts/profile/etc. only to that user; other users never see them. Considered underhanded chicken-shit behavior.
And according to Twitter
People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”
The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.
So, what accounts is it alleged Twitter shadow banned, according to either its own or the pre-Twitter-Files definition? As far as I can tell the actions Twitter is alleged to have taken are:
-
De-boosted some accounts such that their content would not appear in one's timeline, but could still be viewed if they went to the posting account directly (i.e. not shadow banned) and;
-
Hid some accounts from auto complete in the search bar, but which could still be viewed if one navigated directly to the posting account (i.e. not shadow banning).
As far as I can tell this new post-Twitter-Files definition of shadow banning as any kind of limit of an accounts reach is entirely invented for the purpose of claiming Twitter lied about not shadow banning people (in the same blog post where they are extremely clear about what they mean by shadow banning).
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security. If I give you information about a real government program, which I know does not apply to you, but I present the information to you as if it does, for the purpose of inducing you to take some action, is that fraud? It sounds like it to me!
I think the author needs to take his schizophrenia medication. (I deserved the warning).
Up-efforting my comment:
I don't really see a lot of the connections the author makes in the piece. I think the excerpts in the post here are some of the more cogent parts and even those are questionable. The piece seems committed to the idea that there is some shadowy they out there that are responsible for various culture shifts but it does little beyond vibing to actually make that case. What particular entities are responsible for Kelce's rise? For his dating Swift? How did they do that? What is the evidence that they did this? You will search this piece in vain for answers to these questions.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
It is hard for me to understand how posting about Pride could fall afoul of such a rule given that Pride, as both celebration and flag, pre-date 1988.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I admittedly know relatively little about Tate but it seems to me totally on-brand for him to be a sex-trafficking rapist. It'd be like if you told me Roosh V was a rapist. Like, no shit. It'd be more surprising if he wasn't. The guy who was banned from Twitter for saying it is partially a rape victims fault that they are raped and who said that 40% of the reason he moved to Romania is because police would be less likely to prosecute rape charges, is a rapist? What a shocker! Who could possibly have thought such a person would rape and traffic women! Here's an interview from 2019 where Tate gives his thoughts on the Romanian legal system:
The women understand they ain’t going to sit there and drink all your drinks and play with your d*ck, go to your house and suck your d*ck and then start having sex with you and say, you know what, “it’s rape.” It doesn’t even cross their minds. They’re very self-protective cause they know if a rich Romanian man did something wrong to a Romanian girl and she called the police, he’ll just give him $500 and it’ll go away. It’s as corrupt as f*ck. So there everyone’s far more personally responsible.
Definitely sounds like a guy very concerned with staying on the right side of the Romanian legal system!
Presumably their hustler university program and other businesses provide plenty of legal revenue; why engage in such unnecessary risk?
What I have heard from online rumors is that the women were trafficked as part of the Hustler University program. Basically "look at all these hot women who'll have sex with you if you follow our program!" Only the women are not there consensually. Maybe he thought he'd be able to give the police $500 to fuck off like he mentions in the interview and that turned out not to be the case.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I think I was pretty clear in that post and I'll be clear now. Twitter has not violated the First Amendment in either its conduct in 2020/2021 nor by banning the @elonjet account. As @czr notes I am merely amused by the quick demonstration of Elon's own hypocrisy on the topic of free speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What if I told you the brochures were only received after they had already boarded the flight?
Specifically, while on the plane, right before landing in Martha’s Vineyard, Defendants provided the individual Plaintiffs each with a shiny, red folder that included other official-looking materials, including: a brochure entitled “Massachusetts Refugee Benefits” and instructions for how to change an address with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency which oversees immigration, including USCIS Form AR-11, “Alien’s Change of Address Card.”
Here's what the order of events wasn't: DeSantis' agents gave the group of people physical documents about where they would be going and what services would be available when they got there and made sure this group of people understood what was in such documents.
Here's what did happen: DeSantis' agents made verbal promises to people about where they would be going (potentially giving different people different locations) and about what would be available when they got there. Then, after the people were on a plane and at their destination, gave them inaccurate information about where they were and what services would be available.
I am curious what proposition, overt or covert, you take the depiction of interracial or LGBT families to be propaganda for.
I suspect most people are not thinking about the plausibility of genetic relationship between depicted family members when buying children's books. For one, people can have family members whom they are not genetically related to. For two, children's book authors are known to take creative liberties with reality for the purpose of telling an entertaining story or imparting a moral. For example, they may depict an animal doing something it is quite unlikely for it to do in reality (like a caterpillar eating chocolate cake) or imagine entirely new creatures which do not exist (like large furred horned hominids or dragons).
More options
Context Copy link