audiomodder

They don’t, actually. They only sell anonymized statistics and don’t allow advertisers to choose who they advertise to. As a result, they can’t charge as much for advertising. So they are actively taking less money to better protect your information in that respect.

Just to be clear, they follow 1 random Jewish student who says they “felt threatened” because they saw a swastika “on or around campus”. They then talk to another student who is the leader of a pro-Israel student group. They don’t talk to any of the people actually at the encampments. They don’t talk to any pro-Palestinian students. They take these 2 Jewish students word at face value. There’s no studies cited, and no other evidence offered.

This story is part of a larger media narrative to paint anything that is supporting Palestine or is critical of Israel as antisemitism. It accepts pro-Israel talking points as fact with little or no actual investigation into whether anything said is actually true.

He claims that she was. And he claims that she did “the same thing her bullies did”. But we don’t have any other details. Assuming good intent on the part of the administration (in this case, specifically the principal), I would guess that she was actually the instigator. I mean, it could also be that they were athletes or other stuff that can happen in a small district. But given the actions of her father and the observation that the nut doesn’t usually fall far from the tree, I’m guessing she’s the cause.

I agree that the super might have been a jerk. But one of those other people on stage was the principal, who would have been far more responsible for day-to-day operations of the school. In most districts, an expulsion is recommended by the principal then rubber-stamped by the superintendent. Hell, in some districts the school board has to approve any expulsion.

So while I have no doubt there might have been some animosity between the father and the super, if that was seriously his grievance then he should have gone after the principal first. You know, the one that recommended the expulsion for his daughter and not “her bullies”.

Evidently during a board meeting they were discussing the bullying of his daughter, and the superintendent “rolled his eyes” to something he said.

That’s it. That’s the supposed “beef” the guy had. Like it’s not even a good excuse.

Correct, the “beef” they are referring to is “rolling his eyes” I’m talking about

There’s 2 possible explanations here: he’s got deep-seated mental issues that lead to him interrupting the graduation ceremony of hundreds of students by aggressively pursuing a person who “rolled his eyes” at his daughter, or, and more likely in my opinion, he’s a blatant racist making excuses for his racist behavior in his town where half the boys of a graduating class took a picture in front of the school doing a Nazi salute.

Either way, the man needs therapy

Yup. Except this time the president won’t hold back the military like Trump did.

Ask for an itemized bill.

Jeebus, I’m a teacher and I’m held to higher impartiality standards than SCOTUS seems to be.

I’m not disagreeing with you about it being incorrectly advertised. I’m saying the headline is written to imply that the bible specifically excludes only the amendments that apply to slavery and women. That is not the case. In fact, the only place in the article that mentions that exact fact is the headline. So while it is technically true to say that it excludes those amendments, it is, at best, misleading. Why not say it “excludes amendment to handle the death of a president”? That is also technically true.

So what I’m saying is: you’re engaging in Lemmy’s second past time, bashing someone for calling out something that’s misleading because the implication fits your narrative.