ObjectivityIncarnate

Calling his mentality “boys will be boys” when he very clearly said ‘kids will be kids’, very directly implies that you are accusing him of giving male children a pass that he wouldn’t give female children.

And that’s a completely baseless assumption fabricated in your own mind to rationalize labeling him misogynistic. You’re calling him sexist based on nothing but your own bias.

There is zero evidence that he wouldn’t say the exact same thing about a group of girls making AI edits of their male classmates, and there is evidence that he would—namely, his actual words.

Your baseless accusation falls firmly under the ‘dishonesty’ umbrella.

Trump is GOP. Group of pedophiles.

That alone is 99% probability.

Are you seriously implying that 99% of self-identified Republicans are pedophiles?

I have zero degrees, rent, and I saved over $1000 every month on average even before I got my new/better job, when I was making less than $55k/yr.

Don’t know what to tell you other than create a budget and examine it against your expenses carefully. Lifestyle creep is a hell of a drug.

Yes, it is, lol:

Start by saving $1,000, then aim to save 3 to 6 months’ worth of essential expenses by funding your emergency savings, as you would for a bill.

Can’t say I’m shocked that pointing out clickbait and misleading elements in the headline led to a bunch of downvotes. He’s on the Wrong Team, you see, so if you do anything but swallow the headline whole, reading not a single word past it, with absolutely zero scrutiny, you’re defending him, defending child molestation, and basically a pedophile yourself, you know. /s

You lied that the father said “boys will be boys”, and all I did was point out the lie and correct it, by quoting his actual words, and pointing out their gender neutrality.

So people who call out and correct liars enable rapists? Explain how. Be specific.

It’s about damned time. We honestly should have nothing smaller than quarters right now, going by the same logic as discontinuing the half-penny forever ago (which had more equivalent purchasing power than the dime does now).

“Super fucking common” struck me as hyperbolic, so I dug a bit.

Here, under the most recent data, 2019-20, “Removal with no services for remainder of school year”, which is close to expulsion but not quite as severe on paper (if I understand correctly that expulsion is ‘you can’t come back ever’, not just ‘you can’t come back until next year’), is something that happened in response to “Physical fights or attacks” at only 5.1% of schools.

Not being allowed to contact a parent while distressed at school especially strikes me as bad. Even if they have no good reason to be freaked out, preventing a distressed student from reaching out to a parent while at school really sits poorly with me.

Child porn as a term shouldn’t really be used at all.

This is, linguistically, an unwinnable fight, imo. People understand what “porn” is(/is meant to be), and ‘child’ is just a descriptor. People are never naturally going to start saying “abuse material” instead of “porn” in instances like these.

We can’t even get people to consistently say STI instead of STD after all this time. You’ve got to pick your battles, lol.

Yeah, you can tell how clear he makes it by his overall statement being completely ungendered, the moment he’s not talking about this boy specifically:

Kids are kids, and they do dumb things just like adults do. So, especially at that age, they don’t comprehend the severity of what they do.

How exactly is the above sentence favoring boys over girls in any way? I also don’t see him criticizing his daughter for the actions she took, either.

I think you just want there to be misogyny, to confirm your biases.

Well, he was charged with 10 crimes, she was charged with nothing, so I wouldn’t conclude that she ultimately got the worst of it.

The expulsion was almost certainly unfair (though details on why expulsion over much more typical punishments for this sort of thing in a middle school are completely absent, which I find strange), but it can be a lot more easily ‘undone’ than the criminal charges.

no one is asking why a 13 year old boy thought it was okay to sexually harass his classmate? If she should have known better, he bloody should have too.

In fairness, he “was charged with ten counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence”, so it’s not like he was given a free pass or anything.

My thoughts:

1. Re the girl: expulsion seems like a really over-the-top reaction on its face, especially for a girl hitting a boy—my ‘information is missing’ senses are tingling hard. Did she beat him especially severely? Does she have a track record of prior violence? I’d like to at least see the school’s own stated justification for expulsion over a simple detention/suspension, etc.
2. Re the boy: I’m guessing the body of the AI’d image was an adult’s (I feel like the article would have definitely mentioned it if it was an ‘age-appropriate’ body generated with her head). Pretty sure there’s no statute that covers this sort of thing specifically, but from the article, he “was charged with ten counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence”. Ten counts, but the beginning of the article uses “image” singular; I’m guessing this boy generated an image each of a bunch of his schoolmates, and she’s the only one who reacted physically.

This article has a bit more info, mentions that a group of students were spreading the images amongst themselves, but this one is still very light (read: 0g) on the details of the expulsion or the rationale behind it: https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-ai-images-student-nude-law-change-possible/69365110

If you need a second job, your boss in your first job is exploiting you.

That doesn’t logically follow at all. It’s very possible to be paid 100% of the value your job creates (in other words, you create zero profit for the employer), while that amount still not being enough to sustain you. That depends on the job.

That said, I think it’s the government’s job to make up that difference itself if/when it exists.

George Carlin put it pretty well, imo.

If your implication is that his failure to make a deal caused the government shutdown, that only supports my point more. Failing altogether to deliver on a campaign promise also is mutually exclusive with a LAMF situation.

You can’t have a ‘he promised to do X, I assumed he’d do it to these other people only even though he didn’t say that, and now he’s doing it to me’ situation, if X never gets done in the first place.

This is not LAMF. The SNAP benefits are being affected by a government shutdown, and Trump obviously was never campaigning on or making a promise to shut down the government, so the first condition of LAMF (supporting the politician’s promise to do X) literally can’t be met.

Island has an ‘s’ in it. This was started as a stylistic choice to make the word look more Latin despite the fact that the English word has no Latin roots.

Seems a little more complex than that, according to this. Specifically, the first syllable was modified by association to the word “isle”, which does have a Latin root word (insula, same root word for “insulate”).

To be even more pedantic, “would” and “will” don’t mean the same thing, either. 🤓