It's not even out, why are you convinced it's going to be horrible?
It's not illegal to fire workers who don't show up for work, even if that's part of a union action.
Protections against retaliation are just for joining a union, not striking.
So the people elected him, and the military vetoed his election win.
This article really downplays what just happened, and even tries to shift the blame to the man the people elected because he owned some media shares.
According to The Economist, Thailand is a "flawed democracy" rather than a Hybrid or Authoritarian regime.
This is not democracy.
You're just restating the claim without giving one reason it's not healthy.
It's literally this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peMtoUVZC5w
You just restated the claim without any supporting evidence, that isn't contributing to the conversation.
So you're restarting the claim, with no supporting evidence?
Seriously though: How is a meal consisting of bread, vegetables, and meat unhealthy?
Just because it tastes good doesn't make it unhealthy.
US regulators will consider clinical trials of a system that mimics the womb, which could reduce deaths and disability for babies born extremely preterm.
The Slate article goes into that.
Dont use quotes if I never said it.
Isn't that like a giant red flag for laundering money?
No, money laundering is taking your own dirty money and finding a way to make it look clean i.e. laundering it. Taking money you can't explain the source of, and making it look like it came from a legitimate business.
They are just trying to take other people's money.
Permanently Deleted
The nearest university to me has a gender ratio of 60% women to 40% men, and yet they have publicly boasted that they give preference and scholarships to women to boost their enrollment.
Giving preference to the most overrepresented group has not attracted any negative press.
Most employers will have an "equal opportunity" clause on the footer of their website that notes that they give preference to women.
Those employers are not suffering from lawsuits, sanctions, or lost business.
No one seems to care that the goal of these programs and their explicit policies contradict.
The news had a story about a man who sued his school for gender discrimination because they gave preference to women despite being majority women already- the anchor and the journalist on the ground both talked negatively about him and basically accused him of being a bigot.
Sexism will probably play out well for them, unfortunately.
How are women protected by disallowing men the same option to choose drivers of their own gender?
Most people, even most men, acknowledge that men are more violent.
When are we going to take the next step and acknowledge that didn't happen by accident, and it's due to the conditions men live under.
What's the feminist explanation for why so many men turn out this way and not women? I've never heard a good theory for this from that perspective, just that men choose to be bad, for unspecified reasons and the conversation ends there.
Men have pressures and expectations on them to compete and provide for those around them in a way that pushes them to this. Those same pressures aren't on women, and if they were they would turn out just the same.
Any ideology that demonizes someone based on their gender, and uses dehumanizing ideas like "this gender just choose to be bad, while the other choose to be good" is oversimplifying it and ignoring the actual causes for these outcomes.
Permanently Deleted
Yes. A masculine-presenting person can put non-binary and pick up women.
But a man who wants to have male riders isn't allowed to.
So it doesn't really achieve it's goal, but if a driver notices he has easier conversations with other men? No way.
It's needlessly sexist.