Originally posted by Surtur
Transgender writer for NY Times rips conservatives who don't view 'Rudolph' as 'queerest holiday special ever'
Sounds like she's just defending the show to lefties.
Because of all the other bad stuff the article mentioned, like bullying and mean words and stuff.
Hey, she likes Steven Universe. And it may he trans-friendly, but it's also a damned fine 'toon.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not sure why she even mentioned that cartoon in between mentions of "Queer Eye" and "The L Word". Is Steven a tranny? Or gay? Or a gay tranny?
He's half boy, half gem.
All his friends are gems, who happen to look like girls. And one gem was actually two gems, so girl on girl love. And Steven learned how to do the same fusion trick, and did it with a human girl, making an androgynous fusion super warrior.
You're thinking of the other gem based cartoon:
Kind of makes sense all the Crystal Gems are girls, after seeing that.
Would have been a hilarious crossover though.
The only good gem based cartoon doesn't even have gems.
Funny, though the fact that tards in Cali keep electing dipshits who enact policies with completely foreseeable outcomes like this is a god damn great argument for the electoral college though.
Oh and: learn to code b*tches
Kill yourself if you feel this way, trigger warning(slit vertically):
Leftists DEMAND Santa Clause be Female Or Gender Neutral Because Everyone Is Insane
There is no way you're going through life feeling anything close to joy, why not end it?
https://time.com/5590167/paid-family-leave-united-states/
I don't get this country.
Read the fine print on discrimination based off pregnancy: Their condition forces them to take time off, that isn't guaranteed to be paid. And their jobs may not be there when they come back.
None of that is technically considered discrimination.
If I didn't know better, I'd think these laws are built from the ground up with such loopholes, on purpose.
Originally posted by cdtm
https://time.com/5590167/paid-family-leave-united-states/I don't get this country.
Read the fine print on discrimination based off pregnancy: Their condition forces them to take time off, that isn't guaranteed to be paid. And their jobs may not be there when they come back.
None of that is technically considered discrimination.
If I didn't know better, I'd think these laws are built from the ground up with such loopholes, on purpose.
What is your position on this?
1. That parents should get paid leave when they have babies (regardless of who pays: taxes or company)
2. That parents should not get paid leave for babies?
Because, from reading your post, I don't actually understand what your position is.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What is your position on this?1. That parents should get paid leave when they have babies (regardless of who pays: taxes or company)
2. That parents should not get paid leave for babies?
Because, from reading your post, I don't actually understand what your position is.
If not paid leave, at least some promise that the job will be there when they get back. But preferably paid leave, as giving birth is part of being a woman, and you're splitting hairs between discrimination of refusing to hire a woman because they may get pregnant and require time off to give birth, or letting them go as they're in the process of taking take off and giving birth.
My position is that anti discrimination policies based on pregnancy are toothless. If they don't protect during the unavoidable leave that pregnancy entails, then they are useless.
Originally posted by cdtm
If not paid leave, at least some promise that the job will be there when they get back. But preferably paid leave, as giving birth is part of being a woman, and you're splitting hairs between discrimination of refusing to hire a woman because they may get pregnant and require time off to give birth, or letting them go as they're in the process of taking take off and giving birth.My position is that anti discrimination policies based on pregnancy are toothless. If they don't protect during the unavoidable leave that pregnancy entails, then they are useless.
Oh. Makes much more sense.
Yes, we need the educated and employed to have far more children. We are turning the world into the Idiocracy thing.
If there is an incentive and safety net to:
1. Have a job
2. Have children with that job
3. Get very generous time off to have children (6 months)
People will be more likely to have a child
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh. Makes much more sense.Yes, we need the educated and employed to have far more children. We are turning the world into the Idiocracy thing.
If there is an incentive and safety net to:
1. Have a job
2. Have children with that job
3. Get very generous time off to have children (6 months)People will be more likely to have a child
Never happen in the US though, because the elite classes obsession with money has trickled down to the masses, who seem more supportive of the money grabbers interests over their own.
Originally posted by cdtm
Never happen in the US though, because the elite classes obsession with money has trickled down to the masses, who seem more supportive of the money grabbers interests over their own.
Have a robust paid-parental leave system and you get:
More people who come from educated back grounds.
More money.
More likely to retain educated and dedicated people means more revenue over time and smaller operating costs.
Pile on a universal healthcare option and you have a healthier, more stable, workforce, too!
It's a no brainer. It's capitalism! 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have a robust paid-parental leave system and you get:More people who come from educated back grounds.
More money.
More likely to retain educated and dedicated people means more revenue over time and smaller operating costs.
Pile on a universal healthcare option and you have a healthier, more stable, workforce, too!
It's a no brainer. It's capitalism! 😄
That's a long term view in a capitalist system obsessed with short term profiteering.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have a robust paid-parental leave system and you get:More people who come from educated back grounds.
More money.
More likely to retain educated and dedicated people means more revenue over time and smaller operating costs.
Pile on a universal healthcare option and you have a healthier, more stable, workforce, too!
It's a no brainer. It's capitalism! 😄
To coin a phrase from Andrew Yang's website: "Human-Centered Capitalism"
Humans are more important than money
The unit of a Human Capitalism economy is each person, not each dollar
Markets exist to serve our common goals and values
Gotta love it.
Originally posted by snowdragon
To coin a phrase from Andrew Yang's website: "Human-Centered Capitalism"Humans are more important than money
The unit of a Human Capitalism economy is each person, not each dollar
Markets exist to serve our common goals and valuesGotta love it.
Spot-on!
Add two heaping scoops of realism - humans actually have to perform meaningful work or we will end up with a ton of human capital living in abject poverty like troglodytes - and you have a meted philosophy that really works.
Facts schmacts. We got an agenda to push:
Historians Tell NYT: Your 1619 Project Is Wrong. NYT: Take A Hike.
GLAAD Tried To Force JK Rowling To Apologize For ‘Transphobic’ Comments. She Refused.
She refused to show up for indoctrination. How dare she.