• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    Of course it’s horrible, but

    It reduces the liability placed on schools in sexual misconduct cases. It also requires live hearings and cross-examinations, and allows lawyers to be present at those hearings.

    The Biden administration extended sex discrimination protections under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump informed educational institutions that his administration would no longer enforce those protections.

    The headline is clickbaitily (that’s a word now) misleading.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, let’s have lawyers cross examine traumatized children. No way forcing them to go though that in a adversarial way could make the trauma worse or intimidate victims into silence.

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes, if you’re accusing someone of sexual assault or harassment that could result in the persons expulsion, they should have a lawyer present to argue for them.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Read what I wrote. Of course it’s horrible.

        The headline suggests that acts which are currently considered to be sexual assault are no longer going to be considered sexual assault. “Ease sex assault rules.” Yes, the headline is “technically true,” but it is purposely misleading.

        Same as this one from the same source. “Trump Admin Emails Air Traffic Controllers: Quit Your Jobs”. Yes, technically true, and still horrible, but it’s the same email that all federal employees got. The administration didn’t specially pick out ATC.

        This is how propaganda works. Word things in such a way that they’re true to a very careful reader, and whistle idly while most readers digest a misleading message.

        I’m not bOtH sIdEsing this. A lot more propaganda has been put out by the fascists, for longer, and to a greater degree of falsehood. That doesn’t make messages that you want to hear immune from being propagandized. These examples are small potatoes by comparison, sure, but if you want to make accurate judgments and !resist@fedia.io fascists effectively, do so on the basis of actual facts, and point out propagandizing when you see it.

        • endeavor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If anything the last time to ramp the resistance propaganda up to the max. Last time you tried not playing the game you elected a felon who attempted a coup

        • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not sure I follow your logic. This doesn’t seem like propaganda to me, or “technically true.” It just flat out is true. The headline doesn’t say that only ATC were receiving the emails. The headline is just highlighting that specific subgroup, because that’s the point of the article. Showing that while yes, all federal employees received those emails, one particular group received those emails, which were sent out shortly before 2 major incidents involving plane crashes.

          The point isn’t that only ATC received this email. It’s about the consequences of sending this out to all federal federal employees across the board, and highlighting the risk of this using an example of consequences that have already happened. And most likely the buyouts aren’t directly responsible for the crashes, the timeline seems too quick for that. But considering that ATC is already understaffed, this is only going to exacerbate the problem we’re already seeing.

          If I take a sledgehammer to all my walls, and knock down a load bearing wall in the process and cause the building to collapse, would you be upset about a headline reading “Man causes building collapse after knocking down load bearing wall”? Would you consider it propaganda because I wasn’t only knocking down load bearing walls, I was knocking down all the walls. Or would you understand that the headline is highlighting the part of the story that is relevant to the article that is being written.

          I do agree with you on the main headline though. If I’m understanding the article correctly, they’re easing protections against gender and sexual orientation based protections, and increasing the hoops sexual assault victims have to jump through. So the headline is just blatantly misleading.