To be fair, it’s a little disingenuous to start counting from the time the first person became eligible, as all the rules had to be in place for over a decade prior to that.
You’re framing it as a program that’s been around for 7 years, when the reality is that it’s been 17.
Don’t disagree with most of your points, but the program itself has been around for quite a while.
Could also be a correlation due to people who actually get diagnosed with dyslexia/dysgraphia being more likely to live in places that are more affluent or with better mental healthcare.
That would tend to correlate with generally more accepting populations.
How do you differentiate what you’re calling psychological torture here from just bog standard negative anticipation?
Is it psychological torture if I tell a child that we’re going to the doctor because they need to get their flu shot? They have to sit and live with that dread for the whole ride over.
If this is in some way a difference of kind, what differentiates them? What is the key characteristic that separates the two?
Is the only difference one of degree? That hurting someone in this way just a little bit is fine, but there’s some amount of damage that makes it unacceptable?
Or is it that the ends justify the means? That it is psychological torture to tell a child about the flu shot, but that the need to get the shot outweighs the negative of the torture? If so, and if someone truly believes that capital punishment is correct in a given case, why would the same argument not be valid?
Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?
Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.
I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.
As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.
I feel like we’re abusing “historical” here. Is this something of particular note that’s going to be taught to future generations?
Does the African American community know which president was the first to nominate twelve judges of color? Do women know which president was the first to nominate twelve women?
This is a good thing, but like, it’s a good fun fact at best. I think saying it’s “making history” is overstating. It’d be like saying the person who has the Guinness World Record for longest handstand is “making history.”
I feel like “making history” implies that they did something that’s gonna make it into the history books and be taught to future generations.
And like, maybe strictly, but like, which president appointed the twelfth black judge during their term? The twelfth female judge?
The first of anything, yeah, that’s in the history books. Everything past that, maybe a footnote.
A good thing for sure, but “making history”? The language feels strong to me.
This is great and all, but does the 12th time you do something count as “making history”?
You’d think after two or three you’d just stop counting.
Oh, I just failed at reading comprehension.
My first read was something like, Lindsey G says “I love gay people,” or something he’s equally unlikely to say. MTG says, “That’s not something you hear often from LG,” to which he responds, “she’s right, I don’t say that a lot.”
The obviously more accurate read is him saying “she’s right,” and following that comment up with “huh, not something I often say about her.”
Ambiguity. The Devil’s volleyball.
What is this in reference to? It never establishes MTG saying anything about Graham in the article that I saw.
Google doesn’t seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?
The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn’t seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(
No, it was kind of a standalone type web forum. Greyish background, iirc.
Pretty sure I was linked it from Lemmy, and I don’t subscribe to no sleep here.
I think he was talking about some of the questionable representation of the tribal peoples in the film.
The NBA allows women to try out though? It doesn’t ban women from competing at all.
A few I’ve been big on lately:
The Meat and Dairy Network Podcast - A British humor surrealist comedy podcast about the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry.
The Horror Virgin - A guy who hates scary movies has two friends who make him watch them.
The League of Ultimate Questing - High production actual play DnD podcast. Very funny with some fun hooks.
Midway Games stock is gonna shoot through the roof selling all the extra copies to make this system work. :P
I honestly think the more likely explanation is that he doesn’t realize Kamala Harris and Nikki Hayley are different people. They’re both just “that woman I’m running against” to him.
I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless.” What’s being conflated?
And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless,” clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).
Why is this superimposed on a screenshot from Quest 64, lol?
I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.
Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).
Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.
That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)
So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.
The word I would contest is “inoperable.”
The system is more than just a retrospective yes or no after 10 years. You have to work with the DoEd to submit paperwork from your employer to make sure they qualify. You have to work with the DoEd to make sure the type of payments or deferments you’re doing are qualified. Etc.
There have been government employees actively working with people on this for the whole of the 17 years. This is a program that has, in fact, “been around for a long time” in a meaningful way.
Yes, the Trump Administration did a good awful job in trying to intentionally eff it up. But people were in fact able to get through it.
Right now, I know several people who are just a few payments away from being able to qualify, but can’t due to payment freezes with the Mohela cutover and all the legal stuff going on with it. Which, to be clear, I’m not blaming on the Biden administration. But it isn’t like the program has made much meaningful headway in the past 4 years either.
And it seems like this is the easier battle to win than general student loan forgiveness. Expand PSLF. Reduce the term to 5 years and reduce the administrative burdens and overhead. Allow a wider range of zero-cost-payment deferments to count as “qualified payments” towards the total payment number needed.
These would be expansions on policy that have been unchallenged for the past 17 years. That passed through both houses of Congress. This is an easy win that would help ease the burden of millions of Americans. Especially teachers who are cripplingly underpaid and often require a masters degree.