The Department of Education is under the executive branch and holds control over policy and guidance. As a permanent change, it takes about 90 days to go through the official “We want to change eligibility policy” process, but until then, a presidential memo can serve as a directive to the department.
I like generic names for hacking groups like this. It could easily describe dozens of my friends and their polycules.
Not even a month in and the amount of BS thrown into the public’s face has to exceed some sort of methane pollution limit.
It did, but they undid the limits on that too, probably.
It’s not the number of people in the center, it’s the number of people able to enter at one time. Basically, it allows them to ensure that everyone is being clearly identified on entry.
They’re only concerned with grinding it to a halt. Then they can point to a private sector solution that can be contracted in.
This can include invesigators’ findings and interviews.
I mean, I’m all for deporting the US military, but what country would take them?
Would being shitty to trans people be okay if they did make egg prices cheaper?
They have more time and resources as many of the challenges are spun off and subcontracted to their cronies. And they don’t especially care if things grind to a halt, that’s also a win for them, they can play victim to the public with it and scream about how they really want to get on with running a government.
The truth is, they don’t care how poorly written it is, they’re just trying to flood the zone with stuff, and they win no matter the outcome. If it’s not challenged, they have policy, if it is challenged, it occupies time and resources and most importantly, if it’s challenged unsuccessfully, they have legal precident.
I dunno, teens and adult children can be fussy too.
I’m inclined to agree with most of this, and while I feel like parts of this have been poorly communicated and executed, I do feel like most folks care and want the community to flourish. We’re all just people, and sometimes we communicate ineffectively, but like you, I hope all this energy goes toward creating and growing, and making a positive change.
As far as moderation goes, nothing is changing.
How are we supposed to square this with the rationale for the break being to get away from stricter moderating?
When it comes to moderating, we want to cultivate an environment where queer people feel welcome, but the point where we differ from Ada is not being allowed to respectfully disagree. As far as we’re concerned, that person didn’t break any of our rules.
My concern at this point hinges on what constitutes “respect” and what things are tolerable to disagree about. Particularly with the backdrop of a society that sees disagreeing with my gender as respectful disagreement.
Don’t get me wrong, we’re not gonna start tolerating MAGA shit or anything, we just don’t want people to be afraid of getting ejected from the community over a relatively mild take or for committing wrongthink.
That really becomes a question of how far is too far, while everyone is subjected to potentially harmful takes because they’re not overtly hateful. That’s the thing that burned a lot of us out on Reddit.
That still doesn’t really tell me anything. What kinds of differences of opinions? What kinds of things have resulted in admin action that the mods would be more lenient on?
The primary difference is moderatorial and ideologial differences
Such as?
Years back, when I was working helpdesk and was on overtime, I traveled to visit my long-distance girlfriend. The first night, I was so tired that I quickly fell asleep. Apparently, in my sleep, I kept asking her for her username so that I could log the ticket.
While these laws are expressly exclusionary, the overall intent is to erode civil rights protections. It’s easier for them to argue against civil rights when they can present a legal justification for it.
I personally, am dismayed that the democrats aren’t fistfighting in congress.