So I was reading this article about Trump’s crackdown on DEIA initiatives, and I must admit, I didn’t know what the A stands for in that acronym. So I looked it up and and it’s accessibility.
Which raises the question: doesn’t killing accessibility programs violate the Americans with Disabilities Act? To my knowledge, the ADA is still very much in force.
Another possible angle to mete some justice to this depressing heartless man…
Put on Luigis Shoes.
Note how I very deliberately added “this side of the law” in my rhetorical question.
What makes you think that limiting yourself to following a structure of laws that the ruling class themselves ignore will result in useful opposition?
The law is still mostly fair. Not all of it is, but most of it. By following the law, we are better than those who don’t.
The time to ignore the law is when the law itself becomes unjust. We are not there just quite yet.
For some, the law is already unjust (see push to deport legal immigrants, treatment of LGBT+/disabled people by federal law, etc).
Anyway, if Luigi hats are out of stock, you could find a red one instead and say you’re his brother or something.
The 1% is trying to take over the systems, so they can reduce their costs to corrupt, the ROI on buying elections is pretty good…
The idea of the law is potentially fair
In practice the engaging narrative wins
I’m glad that the legal opposition is fighting
Flooding the zone makes it into a battle of legal resources
What makes you think they think otherwise? The specification made it pretty clear they’re aware imo
Usually people don’t ask for options to follow the law unless they want to follow the law. I suppose you’ve got a point though.
Take a F Fascist with you