“A report, called “Give the Kid a Break – But Only if He’s Straight,” found that LGBTQ young people are given harsher punishments than their straight, gender-conforming counterparts. In the study, participants suggested disciplinary consequences for an older teenager having sex with a 14-year-old. A 16-year-old straight culprit was much less likely to end up on the registry than a gay 16-year-old.
[…]
Even the laws themselves can be blatantly discriminatory. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on same-sex sodomy; however, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion included this single negating phrase: "[the] present case does not involve minors, which this comment will refer to as “the minor exception.'” Kennedy was referring to adult-on-minor sexual conduct, but states have used it as a loophole. Texas law, for example, considers sexual contact with a minor under the age of 17 a felony, unless both participants are under 18, no more than three years apart, and they are of different sexes.”
Quote from the article, my emphasis added. Please read the article and see the point it’s making before assuming the worst.
Seems interesting, perhaps I’ll give it a read if i get the time, i usually only read comments and pick titles i find interesting and let the ppl decide how they feel about it and im always open to ppl fact checking things and calling me out on it, id rather hear various perspectives and truth than echo chamber chants or rose id spend more on gab and such. Thanks for your input
My opinion though is that the title of the article couldn’t have bern more poorly written, idk i just found the meme (which i didnt make) mildy interesting
I get that, I had that bad habit in Reddit, too, usually because there were already 40 people picking apart things in the comments section.
But there’s a value to doing it yourself, and leaving it to other people can make that part of you that engages in mental analysis flabby. In this day and age, we often need far MORE critical analysis and primary sources than we’re getting!
That, and oftentimes bad actors scoop up the funny and wrong posts because they know that a joke that implies their opponents are idiots will land better than just a rant, so you have to be careful about not adding fuel to the fire.
I agree that it’s an eyebrow raising title, though that might be the point. Still, you’d think journalists would realize at this point that titles can’t just be provocative in order to be catchy. :/
Yeah i work like 16 hours a day and post while working, fact checking is a rare occurrence for me, I honestly rely on u guys and many others do as well
“A report, called “Give the Kid a Break – But Only if He’s Straight,” found that LGBTQ young people are given harsher punishments than their straight, gender-conforming counterparts. In the study, participants suggested disciplinary consequences for an older teenager having sex with a 14-year-old. A 16-year-old straight culprit was much less likely to end up on the registry than a gay 16-year-old.
[…]
Even the laws themselves can be blatantly discriminatory. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on same-sex sodomy; however, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion included this single negating phrase: "[the] present case does not involve minors, which this comment will refer to as “the minor exception.'” Kennedy was referring to adult-on-minor sexual conduct, but states have used it as a loophole. Texas law, for example, considers sexual contact with a minor under the age of 17 a felony, unless both participants are under 18, no more than three years apart, and they are of different sexes.”
Quote from the article, my emphasis added. Please read the article and see the point it’s making before assuming the worst.
Seems interesting, perhaps I’ll give it a read if i get the time, i usually only read comments and pick titles i find interesting and let the ppl decide how they feel about it and im always open to ppl fact checking things and calling me out on it, id rather hear various perspectives and truth than echo chamber chants or rose id spend more on gab and such. Thanks for your input
My opinion though is that the title of the article couldn’t have bern more poorly written, idk i just found the meme (which i didnt make) mildy interesting
I get that, I had that bad habit in Reddit, too, usually because there were already 40 people picking apart things in the comments section.
But there’s a value to doing it yourself, and leaving it to other people can make that part of you that engages in mental analysis flabby. In this day and age, we often need far MORE critical analysis and primary sources than we’re getting!
That, and oftentimes bad actors scoop up the funny and wrong posts because they know that a joke that implies their opponents are idiots will land better than just a rant, so you have to be careful about not adding fuel to the fire.
I agree that it’s an eyebrow raising title, though that might be the point. Still, you’d think journalists would realize at this point that titles can’t just be provocative in order to be catchy. :/
Yeah i work like 16 hours a day and post while working, fact checking is a rare occurrence for me, I honestly rely on u guys and many others do as well