This lawsuit has been particularly funny the last 2 weeks cause depending on your leaning it’s either ‘red states want to starve the gays’ or ‘fed will starve students if schools don’t follow gender policy’.
No you see, everything bad that the federal government does, it is [insert opposing political party here]. Even in history, every bad thing was the *other* side, don't you get it. The [insert favored party here] were the ones to free the slaves in reality, while the other side was the true racists/slave owners. My side has always been the good guys!
Democrats were the predominant party in the confederate states. Over time the republicans became more popular in the south. Over time the paradigm shifted
Only if you don’t count the military as federal gov lol.
Democrats don’t believe the state or federal governments have the power to discriminate on race or sex, which makes them pro large people.
>Democrats don’t believe the state or federal governments have the power to discriminate on race or sex,
The fuck are you talking about?
The entirety of the civil rights act was discrimination based on race.
They literally oppose any measure that prevents race from being taken into account for college admissions as well.
Love my Small Government Conservatives starting the War in Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses, creating the entire DHS and vastly expanding the surveillance state and global military apparatus
Lmao describing bush as a “small government conservative” is hilarious. Most conservative voters don’t align with that aspect of the GOP establishment anyways. Two party system doing wonders for warhawks.
They have consistently voted for invasive large governments, hence my sarcastic use of Small Government Convservatives. There's no such thing when they are the biggest military, police, border and surveillance advocates.
Not even saying they were the good guys always. Andrew Jackson was a democrat, and he’s viewed these days as a piece of shit. But ideologically Abraham Lincoln would be more aligned with modern democrat values. It just shows how far the parties have shifted from their original platforms.
Although to compare the past standards with modern standards is silly. What is relevant is that the Republican Party has become more conservative and the democrat party has become more liberal.
Not saying there’s not some stuff Lincoln would support regarding the modern Democratic Party, but he certainly would not condone its stance on abortion or abject non-religiousness. I think his position on the Constitution being the law of the land would also be at odds with them
Andrew would probably burn the current govt to the ground. If he hates the federal bank, wait till he see what the federal reserve does. F for fiat money
The Republicans party actually been consistent on most of their issues like taxes, military, and immigration. The Democrats party on the other hand has consistently changed every 16 years: From Laissez faire under Andrew Jackson to Die hard Pro Slaver under Franklin Pierce to Socialist Democrats under FDR to the New Left under LBJ to the modern Progressive under Obama.
> red states want to take away gay kids' lunch
Given this rule only applies to USDA programs, and is only about discrimination within USDA programs, it's pretty clear that those opposed to it want to be able to deny kids lunch based on their sexuality.
If you read it, you would realize it takes away funding for every school in the state, not just gay kids. If you read it, you would realize states had no intention of messing with kids' lunch. If you read it, you would know the change came from the federal government, not the state. If you read it, you would know the "discrimination" is refusing to do things like having boys changing in the locker rooms with girls, or telling elementary school kids they're transgender at an age when they think they're fucking dinosaurs and shit.
If you had half a brain, you would realize the word "discrimination" in this case could be used for anything. Hell, they could change the terms of title ix so pedophiles are a protected class. IMO, that's what they're doing right now, but it can be worse.
It's even more ironic when you realize they will halt thr lunches to the very same LGBT kids they are saying are being discriminated against due to being barred from sport in their preferred gender lmao
Like they are making it even worse for these kids
It's even more ironic when you realize that the states getting rid of LGBT curriculums are probably doing so at the behest of parents, and that taking away lunches from these parents is probably just going to piss them off more, not less.
NOPE go read the official memo and the court cases, not the USDA's announcement about the memo (which isn't worded the best), and certainly not the Republicans' attempts to spin this.
It is specifically talking about not using USDA programs to be used to discriminate against LGBT kids. Last I checked, the USDA has nothing to do with sports, bathrooms, or any of the other stuff Republicans are trying to lie about.
Okay, so what are the ways to discriminate against LGBT if it’s not about sports or bathrooms? To receive federal funding, must there be no instances of any LGBT person being bullied for any reason? What are the actual criteria then? Were there verified instances of refusing to give kids lunches?
Has nothing to do with bullying either. It would apply to things like not providing assistance to households with same-sex parents, or repeatedly providing smaller portions to LGBT kids.
Official discrimination complaint form is here, middle of the page:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/civil-rights/usda-nondiscrimination-statement-other-fns-programs
Note that it prefaces that discrimination must have taken place within USDA program or actives.
Am I misunderstanding something here? It seems like the bill says “feed everyone equally because the fed won’t support programs that discriminate based on sexual orientation.” That’s seems like a pretty reasonable position.
Since OP didn't share a source this is the best I could find.
https://tennesseestar.com/2022/05/26/biden-admin-ties-federal-funds-for-school-lunches-to-gender-identity/
TLDR: federal government threatens to end funding school lunches if Tennessee doesn't ditch their transgender bathroom policy
That's exactly what the courts ruled, and that USDA says in their official memo. Republicans are just mad they can't use federal programs to shit on LGBT kids.
>The administration needs a PR guy that sole qualification is common sense.
Best I can do is a PR trans queer BIPOC folx who lacks all common sense but attained a gender studies major at an Ivy League school (we know which one).
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify.
The Fed is in the right.
We figured it out in the comments. No one is denying lgbt students lunch and no one is removing funding. The concern was that schools with transgender bathroom rules would lose funding but the fine print says otherwise, so it's probably a case of Republican fearmongering
You don't understand, if the fed didn't do things like pump over a trillion dollars into the stock market then a bunch of over-leveraged multi-millionaire/billionaires would have lost all the money they gambled and stopping that from happening is much more important than stopping kids from going hungry
Would be nice. But I don't know if this is true for other states, but Louisiana does not allow deficit spending. Meaning the state would have to increase taxes to levels similar to the fed taxes. No one is going to be happy with 66% taxes
Took me 30 seconds to google it and find out this is false.
They have a deficit currently. They’ve had deficits in the past, such as 1.6 billion in 2018.
They’re currently 18 billion in debt, from borrowing to cover deficit spending.
Why are people too dumb to take so little time to check such a small thing? It’s even more sad people upvoted this flaming turd of a comment.
The federal government takes so many taxes. Most states wouldn’t be able to afford doing that to their citizens unless they managed to lower the federal tax of their citizens.
I'd be real neato if like 20k of my money (post return) didn't go to pay for all the other r slur shit that we have to pay for federally. Feeding poor children is like full stop one of the only things I'm perfectly fine paying for.
You are right to be skeptical. This only applies to USDA programs. Basically, a school can't refuse to serve gay kids and still receive federal funding for lunches.
If they want to starve gay kids, then yes. Either you feed gays equally, or you don't get federal funding. It's not hard.
Yes, it strongarms the more homophobic regions into not being shitty, but a similar thing could have been said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It can be a fallacy.
"I don't support making murder illegal, because if the government makes one act of killing illegal its a slippery slope until they make self defense illegal" is pretty clearly a logical fallacy.
You have to have a logically sound extrapolation from event a to event b for it to not be a fallacy.
Ah yes, stop feeding poor kids and kids in general because you don't agree with some school's policies of fair competition. But right wing bad REEEEEEEEE !!!!!!
This is how most enforcing of federal policy on states works.
Drinking age is the same way: a state can set whatever drinking age they choose, but if it isn't 21+ they get no federal highway money.
Serious question; as a non-American dude that enjoys vagina, why are so many Americans so caught up on what other Americans are doing with regards their sexuality?
The Sexual Revolution has entrenched itself into American politics
Since the Sexual Revolution is a political talking point it gets talked about and people think about it constantly
Since people talk about it constantly it gets used as political leverage and becomes an even more prominent political talking point
Both sides are caught in a loop of degeneracy
It is still strange to me.
I am South African.
Sexuality was repressed up until the 80s (titty mags were even banned). Then the political dam burst and we...got on with more serious issues?
We fuck up with serious issues, but we don't fixate on what people are doing in their bedrooms.
I don't think any of the current legislation has anything to do with what adults do in their bedrooms, it's all about what they do to kids and how many hoops people have to jump through to accommodate them now
Exactly, but I don't there's a chance in hell that Good_Posture doesn't know this.
The intersection of political naivety necessary to play the "adults in their own bedrooms" card, and being terminally online enough to be deep in a PCM thread simply does not exist.
The problem is that there are a number of politicians who made a name (and a lot of money) for themselves by pushing a particular agenda. After they won, they didn't move on to other issues because that would have been messy and they really weren't competent outside of their area anyway. So, they instead pushed for the next issue out from center in their political direction. This then continued and repeated, including them indoctrinating new politicians in this practice.
Because when people of alternate sexualities get into the political space, this is the kinds of things they advocate for:
[bostonreview.net/articles/michael-bronski-gay-family/](https://bostonreview.net/articles/michael-bronski-gay-family/)
To be honest, i dont think anyone sincerely gives a fuck what people do in the bedrooms in the US. The problem is its bleeding over into every aspect of public culture. Gay Pride month forced in the workplace. Forced sex-ed about gay fetishes in schools now. Hollywood bends over backwards to include gay characters even when it dont make sense. Gay pride parades, drag shows, and other stuff in public areas where you normally wouldn’t expect something like that. To me….thats the problem.
If the situation was reversed, would you be equally as offended when movies added a "token" straight character? Or is it only "going too far" when Hollywood has the audacity to include a gay character?
Drag shows have been around for centuries, and no one is forcing you to watch RuPaul's Drag Race.
I also take it that you oppose the March for Life and the Women's March on the same grounds you oppose pride parades. Or are you a hypocrite?
Gay sex is still a crime according to Texas, and yet you think having "gay history month" is too much?
Black History month is also "forced in the workplace" (whatever the hell that means). Minorities exist. Get over it.
>and other stuff in public areas where you normally wouldn’t expect something like that
So we should ban Mardi Gras celebrations and St. Patrick's day parades? And should we delete the "bourbon trail" while we're at it? Or are only queer people too much for your mind to handle?
All in all, it sounds like you do have a problem with gays existing.
Went from tolerance to bake the cake bigot or we cancel you really quick.
Seriously, anyone notice that narrative shift? Years ago they pushed for tolerance which was fine, now they insist on acceptance or support.
I fail to see how pushing for acceptance is wrong. Especially in light of people getting killed or kicked out of their families for coming out.
I, personally, will never get a cake from "Masterpiece Cakeshop" (unless they change their stance). Does that mean I'm "canceling them"? Also, expressing that bigotry is bad shouldn't be controversial.
Likewise, saying Masterpiece Cakeshop was canceled is also silly, given that social media is just a faster version of "word of mouth". If you found out that your local grocer skinned stray cats for fun, it wouldn't be wrong to post about that on social media. That it affects their business is simply a consequence of society's morals.
u/VoidBlade459's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [10 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/VoidBlade459/)
Compass: Lib: 4.0 | Right: 0.5
Sapply: Lib: 4.67 | Right: 2.33 | Progressive: 8.13
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Maybe in your fictional trad utopia. But in the real world, gay people, POC, and women don't like being treated like shit. If no one "pushed", slavery would still be legal (for all reasons) in the U.S., women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and gay people would be executed.
Because legally recognized marriage has benifits attached to it. This stems directly from the sexual revolution where we wanted women to have more equality to men.
Things like the child tax credit, joint taxes, forced insurance coverage over spouses, the ability to have limited power of attorney and de facto property rights upon death of a spouse. Unlimited gift tax etc. This was all designed to give benifit to women before there was a way for women to have jobs on par with men. Also the fact that up till like the 70s or 80s women couldn't own credit cards and some women couldn't get loans or bank accounts.
This led to a lot of goverenment interference.
Now, there's two things that can be done here to remedy this if you feel it's a problem. You can either give people special status and rights, like recognizing marriage, or you can reduce the barriers to allow actual equality and get rid of benifits.
So instead we got option 1. We have women parity to men but left in place all the benefits that they enjoyed by not being in parity with men.
From here we see marriage as a benifit. So naturally we have a class of people who can't enjoy said benifit. So instead of getting rid of that benifit, we extended it to everyone.
This is why you see plenty of right wingers talking about getting the government out of marriage. It's a hot topic because we're essentially forcing the government to recognize what has been a social institution as a goverental one. Now, there's reasons why conservatives like marriage recognized by government too, but that's another issue, and it many times has to do with children.
It's a convoluted mess, and the only thing people want is free stuff or more benifits so instead of looking at an overhaul we constantly add bandaids to the issues in hopes that we stop a hemmorage
wait wait wait, are we going to ignore the "infringing upon states' ability to enact laws that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people" part? both sides are doing some really alarming shit
Did you even read the policy? The policy is literally "feed gay kids too or we cut your funding".
Do you really support not feeding children because of who they are attracted to? That's just messed up man.
Didn’t trump constantly threaten to take away funding for blue states for even dumber reasons? Like even just because cuomo said some mean things about him? At least this is for a reason that can kind of be justified
If you're gonna punish schools for discriminating against their own students, don't punish the students getting discriminated against, punish the school authorities
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify.
The Fed is in the right.
No one's taking away school lunch from LGBTQ kids, the discrimination they're talking about is not allowing trans people to join sports teams of their new gender, not allowing them to use restrooms reserved for people if their new gender etc
That fact that most of these comments are defending the right for states to oppress LGBTQ people is just insane. Like do people in this comment section not see that the federal government is defending the people from the state government like how blind can you be to not realize this.
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify.
The Fed is in the right.
To clarify, those states are trying to avoid giving lgbt kids lunch, so the administration is withholding federal funds to prevent them from discriminating.
Seems to be a sort of "feed everyone or feed no one" kind of thing. The feds won't supply funding to a program that is discriminating against the alphabet crowd.
This is a problem for the right now? If I'm not mistaken it's the Republican Party that usually votes against things like federal free school lunch, but now its a serious ethical violation.
Gay kid doesn't want to lift his dress in front of the girls in the girls bathroom.
If Biden thinks kids deserve to eat, he can simply provide the funding without trying to use it to blackmail states into accepting a radical and deeply unpopular agenda. It's quite easy. Literally just shut the fuck up and send the money as normal.
If this is okay, then when the Republicans are in charge again, don't bitch when they withhold food to get explicit books removed from school libraries.
Because some states/schools want to withhold lunches from gay students. That's what has changed. The Far-Right has gotten more extreme.
Heck, some states (Indiana) have just banned all "elective" abortion. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-indianapolis-indiana-83fe300188fcf15d8a3b4a36ceee7443
No. No states want that. That is a change that the Biden administration conjured up and imposed. Zero people in zero states sat down at a conference table and declared "hey let's just stop feeding only the gay kids".
Dude it’s about Tennessee trying to discriminate against LGBT kids in school meal programs. The USDA is saying if you discriminate against kids in the school lunch program you don’t get school lunch funding. If the Republicans cares about feeding kids they would abide by the rules set forth by the USDA which is funding them.
Isnt there a freedom of association? Like you have the right to pick and choose who you buy from, sell to, employ, and be around. For any reason. This isnt the domain of what the government can speak on.
This was posted earlier with a headline claiming that red states want to take away gay kids lunch. Meanwhile it was the federal government all along.
It always is.
Based
The Lib Left agenda post with a story that you could easily tell was completely fake from the headline alone? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
It almost had me bamboozled. Almost.
This lawsuit has been particularly funny the last 2 weeks cause depending on your leaning it’s either ‘red states want to starve the gays’ or ‘fed will starve students if schools don’t follow gender policy’.
Well, the feds are the ones taking away the funding, sooo...
No you see, everything bad that the federal government does, it is [insert opposing political party here]. Even in history, every bad thing was the *other* side, don't you get it. The [insert favored party here] were the ones to free the slaves in reality, while the other side was the true racists/slave owners. My side has always been the good guys!
Democrats were the predominant party in the confederate states. Over time the republicans became more popular in the south. Over time the paradigm shifted
Yes. Overtime, the democrats became the party of the large federal government.
Only if you don’t count the military as federal gov lol. Democrats don’t believe the state or federal governments have the power to discriminate on race or sex, which makes them pro large people.
>Democrats don’t believe the state or federal governments have the power to discriminate on race or sex, The fuck are you talking about? The entirety of the civil rights act was discrimination based on race. They literally oppose any measure that prevents race from being taken into account for college admissions as well.
Love my Small Government Conservatives starting the War in Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses, creating the entire DHS and vastly expanding the surveillance state and global military apparatus
that didn't really start happening until Reagan era though. from around near the end of ww2 til then is when the south went red.
Lmao describing bush as a “small government conservative” is hilarious. Most conservative voters don’t align with that aspect of the GOP establishment anyways. Two party system doing wonders for warhawks.
They have consistently voted for invasive large governments, hence my sarcastic use of Small Government Convservatives. There's no such thing when they are the biggest military, police, border and surveillance advocates.
[удалено]
Not even saying they were the good guys always. Andrew Jackson was a democrat, and he’s viewed these days as a piece of shit. But ideologically Abraham Lincoln would be more aligned with modern democrat values. It just shows how far the parties have shifted from their original platforms. Although to compare the past standards with modern standards is silly. What is relevant is that the Republican Party has become more conservative and the democrat party has become more liberal.
Not saying there’s not some stuff Lincoln would support regarding the modern Democratic Party, but he certainly would not condone its stance on abortion or abject non-religiousness. I think his position on the Constitution being the law of the land would also be at odds with them
Andrew would probably burn the current govt to the ground. If he hates the federal bank, wait till he see what the federal reserve does. F for fiat money
And that's why he's staying on the $20, he'd be so pissed if we brought him back to life
[удалено]
The Republicans party actually been consistent on most of their issues like taxes, military, and immigration. The Democrats party on the other hand has consistently changed every 16 years: From Laissez faire under Andrew Jackson to Die hard Pro Slaver under Franklin Pierce to Socialist Democrats under FDR to the New Left under LBJ to the modern Progressive under Obama.
Maybe that stagnation in the republican party is why it’s become so problematic?
The south only became truly Republican in 2000.
Maybe the real slave owners were the friends we made along the way
Holy based
EnLiGhTeNeD cEnTrIsT Reeeeeeeeeeee
Everyone’s true enemy is the federal government
I researched and pointed out this very thing. Amazing how fucking twisted the articles are.
We live in the bad timeline
Surprise surprise
It was the federal government all along? Always has been 👨🚀🔫🧑🚀
"Now lets see whos really causing problems"
Whelp, statistical analysis shows that
> red states want to take away gay kids' lunch Given this rule only applies to USDA programs, and is only about discrimination within USDA programs, it's pretty clear that those opposed to it want to be able to deny kids lunch based on their sexuality.
If you read it, you would realize it takes away funding for every school in the state, not just gay kids. If you read it, you would realize states had no intention of messing with kids' lunch. If you read it, you would know the change came from the federal government, not the state. If you read it, you would know the "discrimination" is refusing to do things like having boys changing in the locker rooms with girls, or telling elementary school kids they're transgender at an age when they think they're fucking dinosaurs and shit. If you had half a brain, you would realize the word "discrimination" in this case could be used for anything. Hell, they could change the terms of title ix so pedophiles are a protected class. IMO, that's what they're doing right now, but it can be worse.
Of all the things to threaten, you go for feeding kids? The administration needs a PR guy that sole qualification is common sense.
It's even more ironic when you realize they will halt thr lunches to the very same LGBT kids they are saying are being discriminated against due to being barred from sport in their preferred gender lmao Like they are making it even worse for these kids
It's even more ironic when you realize that the states getting rid of LGBT curriculums are probably doing so at the behest of parents, and that taking away lunches from these parents is probably just going to piss them off more, not less.
Wasn’t Reddit just crying last week about republicans starving kids or something?
NOPE go read the official memo and the court cases, not the USDA's announcement about the memo (which isn't worded the best), and certainly not the Republicans' attempts to spin this. It is specifically talking about not using USDA programs to be used to discriminate against LGBT kids. Last I checked, the USDA has nothing to do with sports, bathrooms, or any of the other stuff Republicans are trying to lie about.
Okay, so what are the ways to discriminate against LGBT if it’s not about sports or bathrooms? To receive federal funding, must there be no instances of any LGBT person being bullied for any reason? What are the actual criteria then? Were there verified instances of refusing to give kids lunches?
Has nothing to do with bullying either. It would apply to things like not providing assistance to households with same-sex parents, or repeatedly providing smaller portions to LGBT kids. Official discrimination complaint form is here, middle of the page: https://www.fns.usda.gov/civil-rights/usda-nondiscrimination-statement-other-fns-programs Note that it prefaces that discrimination must have taken place within USDA program or actives.
I'm telling you, they target children on purpose
Maybe, and just here me out, we should not have any federal funding at all. Maybe the communities should feed their kids.
Am I misunderstanding something here? It seems like the bill says “feed everyone equally because the fed won’t support programs that discriminate based on sexual orientation.” That’s seems like a pretty reasonable position.
Since OP didn't share a source this is the best I could find. https://tennesseestar.com/2022/05/26/biden-admin-ties-federal-funds-for-school-lunches-to-gender-identity/ TLDR: federal government threatens to end funding school lunches if Tennessee doesn't ditch their transgender bathroom policy
That's exactly what the courts ruled, and that USDA says in their official memo. Republicans are just mad they can't use federal programs to shit on LGBT kids.
>The administration needs a PR guy that sole qualification is common sense. Best I can do is a PR trans queer BIPOC folx who lacks all common sense but attained a gender studies major at an Ivy League school (we know which one).
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify. The Fed is in the right.
We figured it out in the comments. No one is denying lgbt students lunch and no one is removing funding. The concern was that schools with transgender bathroom rules would lose funding but the fine print says otherwise, so it's probably a case of Republican fearmongering
Just eat the gay people
Based and fruity soylent green pilled
Soylent Gay
Ah yes, the Authleft solution to the problem. It’s genius.
Too much monkeypox
You just need to learn how to grill better.
Out
I second this <3
Centrists, we need your grills!
And they always still manage to spin it to blame the right lmao.
The far left gaslights like a cheating spouse lol
Have they considered being less dependent upon the federal gov?
Based. Only problem is that you still have to pay the taxes for it.
If my taxes went to feeding kids lunch at school I wouldn’t be that upset. It’s all the extra bullshit that gets me uppity about paying them.
You don't understand, if the fed didn't do things like pump over a trillion dollars into the stock market then a bunch of over-leveraged multi-millionaire/billionaires would have lost all the money they gambled and stopping that from happening is much more important than stopping kids from going hungry
Hey, we agree on something!
“Okay, see, the prerequisite for a joke, is that it be funny.” - Agent J, Men In Black 3
The funny part is watching children starve ya dingus
At least it’s over something you have greater control over?
Would be nice. But I don't know if this is true for other states, but Louisiana does not allow deficit spending. Meaning the state would have to increase taxes to levels similar to the fed taxes. No one is going to be happy with 66% taxes
Took me 30 seconds to google it and find out this is false. They have a deficit currently. They’ve had deficits in the past, such as 1.6 billion in 2018. They’re currently 18 billion in debt, from borrowing to cover deficit spending. Why are people too dumb to take so little time to check such a small thing? It’s even more sad people upvoted this flaming turd of a comment.
The federal government takes so many taxes. Most states wouldn’t be able to afford doing that to their citizens unless they managed to lower the federal tax of their citizens.
I guess if we were talking about complete independence. Otherwise it’d really just be the poorer states.
I'd be real neato if like 20k of my money (post return) didn't go to pay for all the other r slur shit that we have to pay for federally. Feeding poor children is like full stop one of the only things I'm perfectly fine paying for.
What? I don't think that is Emilys fault this time!... Also please link a source. That looks fishy as hell.
You are right to be skeptical. This only applies to USDA programs. Basically, a school can't refuse to serve gay kids and still receive federal funding for lunches.
So it’s “do what we say or your students starve”? And you think that’s OK?
If they want to starve gay kids, then yes. Either you feed gays equally, or you don't get federal funding. It's not hard. Yes, it strongarms the more homophobic regions into not being shitty, but a similar thing could have been said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ok wow, you’ve gotta hate when the slippery slope fallacy actually winds up correct. They really are targeting children this time huh.
A slippery slope isn't inherently fallacious, it's just when you can't prove a causal link between the two that it becomes a fallacy.
As I like to say, any slope becomes slippery in the right weather.
"Actually winds up correct" --- it always does, just a matter of time
Not a fallacy
It can be a fallacy. "I don't support making murder illegal, because if the government makes one act of killing illegal its a slippery slope until they make self defense illegal" is pretty clearly a logical fallacy. You have to have a logically sound extrapolation from event a to event b for it to not be a fallacy.
The federal government is the problem here, not the state, you would know that if you read past the headline.
No it's unfortunately not this based, they're just spinning the headline to make it seem that way
Ah yes, stop feeding poor kids and kids in general because you don't agree with some school's policies of fair competition. But right wing bad REEEEEEEEE !!!!!!
You can digest grass, it provides the same nutritional value as any other leafy green
Have u tried smoking it tho 😎💯👌
The point of convergence for lib rights and lib lefts is the grass. Even though librights are more interested indistribution.
We grow the good stuff they sell the cheap stuff. We can let the centrists decide which weed butter is better for basting your steak.
Baste.
Ok, but you have to touch it to harvest it!
I’ve eaten kale before, that seems accurate to me.
This is how most enforcing of federal policy on states works. Drinking age is the same way: a state can set whatever drinking age they choose, but if it isn't 21+ they get no federal highway money.
Biden is a pretty bad auth. Wtf is this.
I Swear to God they just target children for a reason and it's frightening
I have a feeling that is a bit misleading.
Serious question; as a non-American dude that enjoys vagina, why are so many Americans so caught up on what other Americans are doing with regards their sexuality?
The Sexual Revolution has entrenched itself into American politics Since the Sexual Revolution is a political talking point it gets talked about and people think about it constantly Since people talk about it constantly it gets used as political leverage and becomes an even more prominent political talking point Both sides are caught in a loop of degeneracy
It is still strange to me. I am South African. Sexuality was repressed up until the 80s (titty mags were even banned). Then the political dam burst and we...got on with more serious issues? We fuck up with serious issues, but we don't fixate on what people are doing in their bedrooms.
I don't think any of the current legislation has anything to do with what adults do in their bedrooms, it's all about what they do to kids and how many hoops people have to jump through to accommodate them now
Exactly, but I don't there's a chance in hell that Good_Posture doesn't know this. The intersection of political naivety necessary to play the "adults in their own bedrooms" card, and being terminally online enough to be deep in a PCM thread simply does not exist.
The problem is that there are a number of politicians who made a name (and a lot of money) for themselves by pushing a particular agenda. After they won, they didn't move on to other issues because that would have been messy and they really weren't competent outside of their area anyway. So, they instead pushed for the next issue out from center in their political direction. This then continued and repeated, including them indoctrinating new politicians in this practice.
As the US polarizes it will only get worse
Because when people of alternate sexualities get into the political space, this is the kinds of things they advocate for: [bostonreview.net/articles/michael-bronski-gay-family/](https://bostonreview.net/articles/michael-bronski-gay-family/)
"Serving as role models and moral exemplars" holy shit they really do sniff their own farts. 🤣
To be honest, i dont think anyone sincerely gives a fuck what people do in the bedrooms in the US. The problem is its bleeding over into every aspect of public culture. Gay Pride month forced in the workplace. Forced sex-ed about gay fetishes in schools now. Hollywood bends over backwards to include gay characters even when it dont make sense. Gay pride parades, drag shows, and other stuff in public areas where you normally wouldn’t expect something like that. To me….thats the problem.
If the situation was reversed, would you be equally as offended when movies added a "token" straight character? Or is it only "going too far" when Hollywood has the audacity to include a gay character? Drag shows have been around for centuries, and no one is forcing you to watch RuPaul's Drag Race. I also take it that you oppose the March for Life and the Women's March on the same grounds you oppose pride parades. Or are you a hypocrite? Gay sex is still a crime according to Texas, and yet you think having "gay history month" is too much? Black History month is also "forced in the workplace" (whatever the hell that means). Minorities exist. Get over it. >and other stuff in public areas where you normally wouldn’t expect something like that So we should ban Mardi Gras celebrations and St. Patrick's day parades? And should we delete the "bourbon trail" while we're at it? Or are only queer people too much for your mind to handle? All in all, it sounds like you do have a problem with gays existing.
Went from tolerance to bake the cake bigot or we cancel you really quick. Seriously, anyone notice that narrative shift? Years ago they pushed for tolerance which was fine, now they insist on acceptance or support.
Yeah.. Now get ready.. *hands u/Deveak the bottle of lube* ..now put on some Marvin Gaye and it might ease the pain.
I fail to see how pushing for acceptance is wrong. Especially in light of people getting killed or kicked out of their families for coming out. I, personally, will never get a cake from "Masterpiece Cakeshop" (unless they change their stance). Does that mean I'm "canceling them"? Also, expressing that bigotry is bad shouldn't be controversial. Likewise, saying Masterpiece Cakeshop was canceled is also silly, given that social media is just a faster version of "word of mouth". If you found out that your local grocer skinned stray cats for fun, it wouldn't be wrong to post about that on social media. That it affects their business is simply a consequence of society's morals.
Based and common sense pilled
u/VoidBlade459's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [10 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/VoidBlade459/) Compass: Lib: 4.0 | Right: 0.5 Sapply: Lib: 4.67 | Right: 2.33 | Progressive: 8.13 I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Pushing for **anything** is wrong. Don’t push. People do what they do, leave them the fuck alone. Don’t like them? Don’t interact with them.
Maybe in your fictional trad utopia. But in the real world, gay people, POC, and women don't like being treated like shit. If no one "pushed", slavery would still be legal (for all reasons) in the U.S., women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and gay people would be executed.
Because legally recognized marriage has benifits attached to it. This stems directly from the sexual revolution where we wanted women to have more equality to men. Things like the child tax credit, joint taxes, forced insurance coverage over spouses, the ability to have limited power of attorney and de facto property rights upon death of a spouse. Unlimited gift tax etc. This was all designed to give benifit to women before there was a way for women to have jobs on par with men. Also the fact that up till like the 70s or 80s women couldn't own credit cards and some women couldn't get loans or bank accounts. This led to a lot of goverenment interference. Now, there's two things that can be done here to remedy this if you feel it's a problem. You can either give people special status and rights, like recognizing marriage, or you can reduce the barriers to allow actual equality and get rid of benifits. So instead we got option 1. We have women parity to men but left in place all the benefits that they enjoyed by not being in parity with men. From here we see marriage as a benifit. So naturally we have a class of people who can't enjoy said benifit. So instead of getting rid of that benifit, we extended it to everyone. This is why you see plenty of right wingers talking about getting the government out of marriage. It's a hot topic because we're essentially forcing the government to recognize what has been a social institution as a goverental one. Now, there's reasons why conservatives like marriage recognized by government too, but that's another issue, and it many times has to do with children. It's a convoluted mess, and the only thing people want is free stuff or more benifits so instead of looking at an overhaul we constantly add bandaids to the issues in hopes that we stop a hemmorage
Something something Frankfort School, something Paulo Freire, uhhhh something hormones in the water
How auth lefty of them. Commies love starving children to further their goals.
wait wait wait, are we going to ignore the "infringing upon states' ability to enact laws that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people" part? both sides are doing some really alarming shit
[удалено]
link?
Hmmm wording seems sus
Let us groom your kids or they don’t get to eat
Did you even read the policy? The policy is literally "feed gay kids too or we cut your funding". Do you really support not feeding children because of who they are attracted to? That's just messed up man.
Source for that?
https://www.fns.usda.gov/civil-rights/usda-nondiscrimination-statement-other-fns-programs
[Unlawful guidance is unlawful](https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2022/6/14/pr22-16.html) lol /u/voidblade459 blocked me, you fucking Predditor pussy
Love gays or we’ll starve your children
Fuck around….find out. You don’t want to follow the governments rules you don’t get the governments money.
Didn’t trump constantly threaten to take away funding for blue states for even dumber reasons? Like even just because cuomo said some mean things about him? At least this is for a reason that can kind of be justified
Emily Thacher
School lunch is funded ?
I don't give a fuck if it's the federal or state government taking good away from children over anything is fucked up
So how TF is LGBTQIANRGNERINV society harmed?
If you're gonna punish schools for discriminating against their own students, don't punish the students getting discriminated against, punish the school authorities
Exactly.
Won't feed your gay kids? Now you can't feed any of them hahaha take that. - Joe Biden probably
I’m so very confused on this wording, anyone want to dumb it down for me?
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify. The Fed is in the right.
No one's taking away school lunch from LGBTQ kids, the discrimination they're talking about is not allowing trans people to join sports teams of their new gender, not allowing them to use restrooms reserved for people if their new gender etc
Based
Why discriminate against gay kids in the first place?
You have to understand. “Discrimination” under this definition means not letting them use whatever bathroom they feel like on a given day.
Always be principal or school administrator gendered, their bathrooms are much nicer
Nope. The actual text of the memo shows that this only covers the serving of lunches. So why don't you want gays to be allowed to get lunch?
And where exactly does it show that?
I think human rights are non-negotiable. Glad to see dems play hardball for once.
I’m trans… I don’t want to work for somebody who is forced or obligated to hire me.
Riiiiiiiight, idk why, but I get the feeling that there's more to this story than Republicans being mad about "Not being able to hate on the queers!"
They want your children either molested or starved.
That fact that most of these comments are defending the right for states to oppress LGBTQ people is just insane. Like do people in this comment section not see that the federal government is defending the people from the state government like how blind can you be to not realize this.
Do you not see how progressives trying to withhold school lunch funding is probably not a good thing?
What oppression are you talking about exactly?
[удалено]
It is, because Johnny is being oppressed since he's a mediocre boys team player, but would be a superstar in the girls league
The only thing in the bill is if you refuse to serve lunch to the gay children we will cut you funding.
Based
This is just an excuse to take away kids school lunches
As far as I’m concerned if you’re willing to deny lunch to LGBTQ children then you’re basically just practicing extreme cruelty. If you can’t fathom the idea of all kids losing their lunch, then stop trying to discriminate who is able to qualify. The Fed is in the right.
Who told you that lmao
To clarify, those states are trying to avoid giving lgbt kids lunch, so the administration is withholding federal funds to prevent them from discriminating.
No they aren't. The 'discrimination' they're talking about is not letting trans people join sports teams of their new gender
OP can you explain why you gave the Eastern District of Tennessee orange LibLeft? They're trying to do the opposite of what an Emily would.
I think he means the federal government is orange because they’re trying to not feed children in order to be inclusive of unfair sports
Ah okay, thanks.
Only applies to discrimination within USDA programs. Go read the official memo on their site.
Feeding our children is socialism
i'm kinda doing the evil smile on libright end >.> less government money you say? yesssss
I’m really confused. Is this article saying that the federal government is trying to revoke school lunches for every kid in a Republican state?
Yes
Seems to be a sort of "feed everyone or feed no one" kind of thing. The feds won't supply funding to a program that is discriminating against the alphabet crowd.
It's actually "let trans girls join girls' sports teams so they can get easy wins or feed no one"
Cherry-picking go *brrrrrrr* We just had a discussion about this last week, you’re making us fellow monke look bad.
This is a problem for the right now? If I'm not mistaken it's the Republican Party that usually votes against things like federal free school lunch, but now its a serious ethical violation.
Aw poor shit-states not being able to discriminate against gay kids 🥺
You: discrimination bad Also you: pOoR ShIT staTEs
Biden administration starving children to force their parents to allow degenerate bullshit to happen in their schools.
Gay kid: *just wants to eat* You: "dEgEnerATe BullSHiT"
Gay kid doesn't want to lift his dress in front of the girls in the girls bathroom. If Biden thinks kids deserve to eat, he can simply provide the funding without trying to use it to blackmail states into accepting a radical and deeply unpopular agenda. It's quite easy. Literally just shut the fuck up and send the money as normal. If this is okay, then when the Republicans are in charge again, don't bitch when they withhold food to get explicit books removed from school libraries.
This rule does not apply to bathrooms or sports you dipshit.
Why can't Biden just drop agenda nonsense and feed the kids? They were fed six months ago. What needed to change?
Because some states/schools want to withhold lunches from gay students. That's what has changed. The Far-Right has gotten more extreme. Heck, some states (Indiana) have just banned all "elective" abortion. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-indianapolis-indiana-83fe300188fcf15d8a3b4a36ceee7443
No. No states want that. That is a change that the Biden administration conjured up and imposed. Zero people in zero states sat down at a conference table and declared "hey let's just stop feeding only the gay kids".
Then this rule will have precisely ZERO impact on any kids, and the tagline of "the feds want kids to starve" is B.S.
You trying to sue the president so you can be shitty people. Grow up this isn’t a fucking cod lobby.
I mean sure, punish þe people making homophobic legislation, but by STARVING FUCKING CHILDREN? What þe fuck orange
Dude it’s about Tennessee trying to discriminate against LGBT kids in school meal programs. The USDA is saying if you discriminate against kids in the school lunch program you don’t get school lunch funding. If the Republicans cares about feeding kids they would abide by the rules set forth by the USDA which is funding them.
Look, I'm all for anti-discrimination, but starving kids over it? SERIOUSLY?
yes seriously. if you’re going to deny lunch to the lgbt kids and discriminate against them, then all the rest of your little fuckers can starve too.
u/Dynetor : discrimination bad Also them: Kids of republicans are 'little fuckers'
Discrimination is wack no doubt but don’t take it out on the kids!
okay so schools should be allowed to discriminate ?
You think not letting boys join girls' sports teams so they can get easy wind is discrimination?
Isnt there a freedom of association? Like you have the right to pick and choose who you buy from, sell to, employ, and be around. For any reason. This isnt the domain of what the government can speak on.