recogitare.com

or so we're being told.

or are we???

is our telling of this part of that picture?

are some or all of us partly them?

probably partly problematic?

notice how 'journalism' only hints at news lately?

Kelce proposes to Swift?

what if they can simply make up shit, and even get paid?

and then that shit gets repeated?

like, a lot?

did you know it's designed to be addictive?

that it wants to keep you on the internet?






(shots ring out)
.

So, after further review:

The Florida law thing:

In Florida, under new guidance issued today, newly issued licenses have to use biological sex in the sex field. (It might be the gender field. I don't know what is actually on the licenses in Florida.) Existing licenses cannot be changed to match gender identity different than sex. From 2018 until today, such changes were allowed. Florida residents with an existing license may continue to use it, as is.

No licenses are being revoked.

The holiday thing:

It was a Conneticutt school district. Next year, the kids will go to school on Columbus Day and Veterans Day.

There probably is some outrage. I didn't read the full article. There's outrage over everything else, so there's probably some on this one, too. However, there won't be much outrage. Very few people get the day off work on those two days, so having the kids get the day off of school just means a day care headache for people with small kids.


So Newsweek is an equal opportunity outrage generator. In the same day, they got to publish stories saying, "Look how horrible the left wing is" and "Look how horrible the right wing is." Come to think of it, they may have a point.



(To be fair, an awful lot of people would think the new Florida policy is quite awful. However, that's no excuse for misrepresenting it. However bad you may feel it is, it doesn't do what the headline says.)

Trouble with people isn't in not knowing things but in knowing things that aren't so.

are you suggesting that, for instance, that Trump isn't Christ's liaison for Earth?

Or that jesus hisself isn't electable?


(i don't know what to believe anymore, what with the 'many world's interpretation' banging around in my head.)

Should i nurture a state of dis-belief?
Or one of suspended belief?

Modern Republican Christians would absolutely not elect Jesus.

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:34 pm Modern Republican Christians would absolutely not elect Jesus.

To be honest with you, your quote ^ reminds me of the OP in that it reads like a bs headline.

There would be degrees of probabilty as to whether modern Republican Christians would elect/not elect Jesus.

Some groups would, some groups wouldn't. It's pretty basic stuff, one's inferences don't outweigh verifiable descriptions.

Here's one that doesn't fit the actual criteria of this thread, but I just found it amusing. I wanted to share it, but didn't think it was worth a thread.

"Able-bodied actress cast as Richard III says she will not play the king who had scoliosis 'with a visible or physical impairment' after disability groups blasted Shakespeare's Globe over 'offensive' casting"



So, advocates for the disabled were upset that the actress playing Richard III didn't have Scoliosis. Richard III did have scoliosis, so the advocates thought it was terrible that an able bodied actor would play the King.

I totally get it, and I only found it amusing, not offensive, but there's still something that strikes me as even more odd in that headline than the lack of scoliosis. The article made no reference to any other casting issues.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 11:23 pm As an aside for you Down Under, General Motors, once America's largest employer, always marked Veteran's Day, but not on the official holiday date of November 11. It was always marked on the first Monday of deer hunting season IN Michigan.

That's a policy I'd support 100%.

Venison... mmm.

Today's headline:

Tennessee Bans Almost Half a Million Americans from Voting in the Presidential Election


I'm "playing by the rules" this time. I haven't read the article.

It's in my MSN feed. That's where a lot of the stupid lives. Presumably, it will be a story about keeping people off the voting rolls if they aren't eligible to vote. Don't get me wrong. That's a source of shenanigans going way back, but the article wants to fire up some outrage, when in fact whatever they are doing is perfectly normal. Or....who knows? Maybe not this time. I guess I'll just have to read.

(Warning: Very click-baity style. One of those ones where the "article" is in the form of a slideshow. The ones used to claim more eyeballs on ads.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... s-BB1hIpJg

ETA: As expected, it's about felons voting. The articles are weird. (There were several with the same theme.) Both the linked article and some others I found on the same theme said that in order to get your voting rights back, you first have to get your gun rights back. That's kind of true. What you have to get back are "full rights of citizenship", which includes both gun rights and voting rights. It makes it sound more ridiculous by phrasing it the way the authors phrase it.

Just in case people don't understand the substance of the complaint, it's fairly straightforward. The US Constitution specifically allows states to restrict voting rights of people convicted of felonies. It isn't required, but it is allowed. It's a state's decision. Some states have done so for a very long time. Some have a permanent ban. Others have temporary bans.

In recent years, it has been observed that people who have felony convictions are more likely to vote Democratic, so states where Republicans are running things are very likely to pass voting bans for felons.

So who cares? Felons are too busy robbing gas stations to bother standing in line to vote.