The intent is to ban books about topics they don’t like racism, queers, trans folks, abortion, etc as part of the “war on wokeness”. They pretend that they’re sexually graphic or things kids shouldn’t learn about, but it’s incredibly unlikely schools ever had books beyond a few classics.

Obviously, these are everyday topics so it’s going to ban a lot of neighboring content, probably including the bible. Regardless, because it’s at a state-run institution, it’s unconstitutional.

The kids will hear about all of these topics in much greater detail on fox news every day anyway, so this is entirely for show and to cause chaos.

Great summary! a teensy nitpick. I wouldn’t say the most recent court said it was “fine” per se since they didn’t give any reasoning. It is at least possible, that there is a technical issue with earlier rulings. It could be minor technicality, and they let the law take effect pending the next court date?

I think your implication is likely correct, and this is probably political, but we really don’t know the reason, and I think not giving one is surprising.

Yeah, that’s my problem. I added it after they commented.

OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here’s the author’s mastodon post about it. though there are few other details and I can’t find a new story about it.

BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.

Absolutely, but this is another “don’t tempt me with a great time” example. Where certain a politican tries to name something they think is awful, but actually sounds like something great.

GOP: “We support our troops” [by executing them]

Ahh, Google’s tried and true method of throwing a million half-baked features to people before promptly cancelling them all. This will definitely work for them.

This was the intent of the inquiries.

However, I think the title is a bit misleading. I wouldn’t say the research is “buckling”. It’s definitely been a headache, and sure there are some people who would rather not deal with the ever-increasing death threats, but that applies to many areas of research.

The question is how they’re going to try and stop funding research into this. The research around this is especially important from a national security perspective, because it’s become easier than ever to slide propaganda into social media and news media. If you’ve got enough resources, you can likely sway elections even easier than before.

JOE IS TAKING AWAY MY 4 HOUR HOT SHOWERS EVERY DAY??? This is some WOKE fucking nonsense.

So smurfy of you

No one knows what the word woke means. Even people who use it can’t define it. It’s just a boogeyman word for things people don’t like or want, and even they can’t agree on it.

I think it’s largely about control, but on a couple of different levels.

The people who fund the party, use it as a funnel to regress protections and restrictions so they can concentrate wealth and power and force people into situations that ensure that.

The people who vote are left in constant fear that they don’t have control over their lives, their futures, and everything is being taken away from them (it’s not true, but it’s easy to manufacture that perspective).

The politicians leverage this by targeting smaller groups of people, pushing them as a threat, and using it to mobilize votes for nonsensical policies that don’t solve any issues the voters actually face. But it feels like progress. Since 2016, there’s an additional side of this where it’s given some people the audacity to think they can treat people like shit, again because it gives them a sense of being able to control something in their lives, and this is really powerful as a motivator. It doesn’t matter that it works against their entire identity they’ve built up.

Yup. Doesn’t he still owe a ton of money to many local cities for event security that he never paid for?

Chrome lost its way years ago. I value not seeing ads or getting personalized content more than I value 99% of the chrome features.

Since Firefox finally fixed that weird memory fragmentation issue, it’s been pretty smooth sailing for me. Inspector & Debugger could use a few performance patches though.

If there’s one thing republicans hate, it’s a fair election.

This sounds like it’s in that same line of news as the republic election officials banning the use of private money to help maintain and protect aging election systems. There was an article the other day about Zuckerberg’s non-profit donating a bunch of money in 2020 to help support and fund local election offices.

A few highlights:

• He still faces felony charges
• “The deliberations were rife with potential conflicts of interest. Paxton’s career includes six terms in the Texas House and two years in the Senate, serving in the seat that his wife now holds, so he knows many of its members. One was caught up in the articles of impeachment: Sen. Bryan Hughes ( R), accused of helping Paxton exploit his office to aid Paul, who in turn hired a woman with whom Paxton was having an affair. The woman, Laura Olson, later worked for Sen. Donna Campbell ( R).”

I hear you, that would definitely make the case more interesting, if it ever gets to that. That money also means he’s way more likely for him to hire lawyers to get him off on some technicality so judges never have to take that on.

wtf are you smoking? They all literally get right to the point of the article.

huh? I’m guessing you didn’t mean to reply to me.

I was asking why the OP changed the title of the article to add “son of the president”. As if it’d somehow make people care more about this total non-story.

What’s with the title change here?