The Lemmy world news sub is a trans rights echo chamber.
I fully support trans rights and hate the rhetoric against them. People should be allowed to live their lives the way they feel comfortable within reason and law.
But Jesus. I blocked world news when I got into it with an mod who said I'm a transphobe when I brought up a trans issue. Sighted that I had multiple downvoted comments as a slight against me.
If you can't listen to criticism get off the internet.
I’ve worked for some time with developmentally disabled young adults, children, and teenagers, generally people under 20, with debilitating autism.
To me, there’s a stark contrast between that stereotypical autism and what the term has turned into today. It almost feels as though any kind of personality quirk now qualifies as autism.
Yes, people behave in accordance with their physiology—we speak through our mouths, see through our eyes, hear through our ears, and so on. Despite these shared functions, there are natural differences among humans. But we cannot just start categorizing every behavior deemed “inappropriate” as autism. There needs to be a sharper line between what is traditionally considered autism and what are simply personality traits or quirks.
At this point, the labeling is becoming preposterous. I even know people in my own life who call themselves autistic simply because they are unsuccessful. That feels like a slippery slope to me.
Well to be fair the law is interpreted and then administered by judges and prosecutors.
The police uphold the law to the best of their ability at least in theory. So technically speaking local law enforcement can begin arresting what would appear to be ice agents since they don't identify themselves and have no identification and wear masks. There's really no way for them to determine if they are ice agents or not they're just armed masked men.
The interagency turmoil though that would be epic.
I work for a large home appliance warranty company. Many of you in the States probably have one, they are very popular.
My boss just had a meeting with them, and the only thing they care about is five star reviews. That is it. How many we get, how high the average looks.
Here is the problem: nobody is going to pat me on the head and say “good job” because I fixed their dryer. That is just the basic function of my job. You do not leave reviews for the Kroger checkout lady just because she scanned your produce correctly. On the other hand, if I mess up even a little, I get slammed with a one star.
I service seven orders a day, five days a week, plus six on Saturday. Statistically, that means at least one job a day is going to turn into a one star review, not because I did something wrong, but because someone is unhappy for some reason. And the truth is, people rarely go out of their way to leave a five star review, but they will absolutely make time to leave a one star.
The home warranty company does not care about that reality. If our average rating drops below 4.0, we get significantly less work. The higher ups do not deal with customers or field service, all they see are the numbers on a spreadsheet. From their perspective, the companies with the most five stars get the most jobs, period.
Bottom line the five star rating means absolutely nothing it's not a measure or metric for anything it's completely false.
I often have this discussion about DEI on this platform, and someone always responds with, “That’s not how it’s supposed to work.” And you’re right, but what happens in practice and what happens on paper are two completely separate things.
The bottom line is that these lower to mid level employees are given a list of criteria and very little training in DEI itself. They’re then required to fill these slots so it looks like the company is making progress, when in reality it’s very likely they’re hiring someone underqualified.
It’s true that many companies implementing DEI have seen an increase in profit margins, but I think that’s happening because DEI pushes back against nepotism—which, in my opinion, is significantly worse than hiring someone who may be slightly underqualified.
The post isn’t wrong, but there’s some nuance to it. With the credit thing, it’s true that women couldn’t reliably get their own credit until 1974. That’s when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, which finally made it illegal for banks to require a husband or male co-signer. Before that, a lot of women could be and were turned away outright, even if they had the income to qualify. So the way it’s phrased is a bit simplified, but the gist is accurate.
The marital rape part is more complicated. Nebraska was actually the first state to outlaw it in 1976, and then other states slowly followed. By 1993, every state had removed the explicit marital exemption from their rape laws. That said, a lot of states still had narrower definitions, weaker penalties, or loopholes, so saying it became “illegal nationwide in 1994” smooths over a messy process. What really happened is that by the early ’90s, no state could outright say “marital rape doesn’t exist” anymore, but enforcement and protections still varied a lot.
So, while the tweet compresses the details, the broader point stands: these changes are incredibly recent. We’re only a generation or two removed from a time when women couldn’t open a line of credit on their own and had virtually no legal protection if their husbands assaulted them.
I completely agree with the statement 100%!