That is literally not the case for her. She is not allowed to many any legal decisions on her own, including hiring a lawyer, receiving medical treatment, or spending her money. All of that is decided by the conservators such as her father.
she said she has a contraceptive device that she wants removed, but is not allowed to go to the doctor
her father, Jamie Spears, [is a conservator who has legal control of] personal affairs ranging from her medical care to who visits her secluded villa outside Los Angeles. Jamie Spears also is a joint conservator of the singer's finances.
Life is actually something that is just happening to her and she has very little legal control. That's the whole point of this case.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
It's impressive to try to figure out how many commenters didn't read the article, or how many just didn't understand it.
"The IOC has never obliged athletes to hold a press conference,"
[The IOC] will not require Japanese tennis star Naomi Osaka [...] or any other athlete, to speak to the media
Osaka's agency announced that the 23-year-old [...] would represent Japan at the Tokyo Olympics.
I understand how many people misinterpreted the headline as implying special treatment for her, but that's not substantiated by the rest of the article.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
She won't drop out since it's not going to be played on clay.
Never mind the fact that she also dropped out of her next planned tournament, which was on... wait for it... grass
Interviews aren't mandatory at the Olympics either.
If she plays at the Olympics, I feel like this is a much more likely reason than the fact that it's not on clay.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I don't understand how so many people are still dissatisfied with her decision. Last week it was "she should have handled this better" and this time she did and people are still mad. Compassion is free and still so hard to come by.
It seems like it wasn't really about that at all . I guess there are so many entitled people who expect athletes to be robots and shut up and play no matter what instead of being real live humans.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
@blacklabel She did not "demand special treatment". There are rules and clear penalties for breaking them. Don't do the interview? Pay a fine!
Naomi decided that she was ok with that rule and that the fines were acceptable to avoid the interviews.
It was the GRAND SLAMS that were trying to change the rules when she didn't care about the fine (which is why fines are horrible-- they're only a punishment for the poor) and it was them saying "well actually we may disqualify and suspend you, too" that made her quit the tournament.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
If she does have mental health issues, then she should take a break [...] People have sympathy with others suffering from depression, but have little time for people who do nothing about it,
...She skipped an interview, paid the fine, and then quit the entire tournament when people didn't like it. This article is literally the response to her "taking a break" and "doing something about it".
You still don't seem satisfied, though, so forgive me if your comment seems a little disingenuous.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
It's really sad how unsympathetic people are. She says "I need a break from this" and tries to start a conversation and so many commenters are responding "If I have to suffer, so should you". This is a perfect opportunity to go the other way and say "It would be great if everyone took all of these things seriously and we could ALL end up in a better place" but so many people are stuck in crab mentality.
I feel sorry for the world that so many people have so little compassion to want better things for other people.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I don't get why some transgender people are so keen to tell everyone
I'm not even going to touch the rest of your comment because it's just intentionally aggressive, but the goal is so that like-minded people can find each other, just like most of the tags on Twitch. It allows people who want to see that kind of content find each other more easily, and find a better community for yourself.
Also I don't even know how the second commenter still has an account with an insult in the username, but there's a limit on how many tags you an add on Twitch, and if you're telling us it's for personal gain rather than because they're accurate, then calling you out is none of those things.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
I'm not weary of the state of emergency. I'm weary of "we've tried asking nicely and now we're all out of ideas". Make some real decisions that will actually have claws and you might see some real effects. I'm weary of ineffective measures and expecting "gaman" to make it magically go away.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Anyone earning over $250K/yr related to sports should be barred from competing in the Olympics
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I feel like this headline is misleading with then average is 124 and 391 is just one person.
I'm also highly suspicious of that because it's an average of about 19 hours per day with no days off. How much of that time was falling asleep at the desk because there's no other time they were doing it.
Either way it's a systemic failure, where both the pandemic response and the labor standards and horrendous.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is an awful ambush interview and extremely rude when he is clearly not consenting. I'm disappointed in this reporter for asking and continuing to ask when very clearly rebuffed, and I'm disappointed in RikiWeb for publishing it.
13 ( +15 / -2 )
I don't feel a ton a sympathy for this guy, but I care a lot that he spent days spreading the disease thinking it was a hoax and not caring about anyone else that he could get sick, and I feel awful for the essential workers that had to interact with him.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
This headline is way too generous to the government. I feel like a more accurate headline would be something closer to "As coronavirus cases surge, government backpedals and chooses to ignore all previous emergency benchmarks."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Jin Boyang had plenty of mistakes in his free skate, including popping two planned quadruple jumps into doubles. Falling on a fully-rotated quad (like Hanyu did) is still worth at least twice as many points as a mediocre double that properly lands, because the level of difficulty is so much higher. Hanyu had a rough free skate, to be sure, and I agree that I'm iffy on whether his free skate program really was the best, but you also have to remember that Hanyu was already 15 points ahead after the short program where he set the world record.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
I don't particularly care about baseball or Pete Rose, but he's got a very fair point.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
There's a lot of ignorance in this article. You can LEGALLY change your sex in Japan. I'm assuming (although the article doesn't seem to say so explicitly) that the person in question has done so. If that person is legally considered a woman, it makes sense that they have to be treated the same as any other woman and this was legally a case of discrimination.
Furthermore, to legally change one's gender in Japan, one has to undergo surgical sterilization. It's a court-affirmed requirement. Anyone like the person in the article will have done so before being granted a change of gender. It's quite unlikely that someone is going to go through that just to be able to peek in the bathrooms.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
I think the design is clever, but I prefer the bid logo. I find it more attractive and more accessible to a worldwide audience.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Yes? If a company is making money while requiring workers to do work that involve risks, it should also be paying for the insurance for them to take that risk and for the lost income/medical expenses if the employee gets injured in the course of work. That seems like pretty basic worker protection.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
I agree that Naomi tends to handle "scandals" or anything potentially upsetting very well. But please don't mistake her mild public comments as being definitively representative of her feelings. As an international public figure, there is a lot of pressure on her to give the "right" answer for a lot of things. She seems to avoid controversy and this could be a response geared towards that rather than she doesn't care.
So I agree that she has a good way to respond to this, that doesn't mean that she doesn't care or isn't upset about it. We have no way to know that so please don't assume it. It's very easy to interpret "Naomi doesn't make a big fuss" as "Naomi doesn't care" which becomes "Why should we?" but they're not all the same thing.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
But we use "they" to refer to a singular person all the time when we don't know the gender.
"Someone broke into my house. They stole everything"
There's no reason not to at least attempt to use the pronouns someone asks for except to be a jerk to them. Yeah, if you make a mistake once or twice it's inevitable but actively refusing is just being obstinately mean. It causes you zero harm to use the pronoun that someone prefers.
And to everyone suggesting "it" in place of "they", the issue with that is that "it" is usually used for things that aren't considered people, and trans/non-binary people have enough issues being dehumanized already.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
I completely misunderstood this headline until I read the article. I thought that it meant the House had sent a (symbolic) bill meaning an invoice to Trump telling him that he had to find the money to pay for the issues at the border.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
But the point of the census isn't to find out how many citizens are in the US. It's to find out how many people are there. According to the constitution, it is to count "the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed". The problem with the citizenship question isn't about finding out how many illegal immigrants are in the country, but with how many people might not answer the census at all because they're worried about that question for themselves or someone in their house.
Furthermore, the census wouldn't give an accurate count of citizens even if it did ask the question, because it's only counting people living in the US anyway. I'm a US citizen living in Japan and won't be counted because I don't live there.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
EU should give an extension with specific deadlines.
June 30: Last chance to ratify an EU deal. If there is no deal by this time then there will be no deal and after that the choice is binary-- remain or hard brexit.
July 31st last day to decide between stay as is or hard brexit. If UK can't make a binary decision then hard brexit is the default and cannot be changed.
August 31st. Whichever decision is implemented, regardless of if the UK makes any decision. If the UK makes no decision by July 31st then this will be the last day that the UK is part of the EU.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
@kohakuebisu Sex is not the same thing as intimacy. You can have intimacy without sex and you can have sex without intimacy. Implying that a lack of sex is a lack of intimacy is a false dichotomy. I do think that they are often correlated but they aren't causal in either direction.
And to all of the people worried about the end of Japan because there aren't enough people having babies... immigration is a thing that exists and also "less babies" is not the same thing as "no babies" and can eventually reach a stable population. There's no need for dramatics.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I'm glad that this decision was made, but it's just kicking the can down the road. What this tells people is that gay people in relationships should just overstay their visas illegally, when instead Japan should make a legal framework for them.
The difference is that Japan HAS a course for straight people in relationships that want to stay in the country due to their relationship. It's called "marriage". With no gay marriage, that option exists ONLY for straight people.
1) Gay marriage is not legal per se in Taiwan. The constitutional court ruled that this situation is unconstitutional and it has to change by May 24th this year, but that's still in the future.
2) That Taiwan decision was in 2017, a year after this person was ordered to be deported.
3) Even if it were legal there, there are a host of other reasons that someone may not want to move to another country. No one country is perfect and solves every problem.
4) It's still unjust that it's not legal here and some people believe in fighting for what they think is right. This person has brought a lot of attention to this issue with this legal battle.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@BertieWooster several big points
1) It's not applying one case to all. It's talking about trends and averages. Spanking every child will have significantly worse outcomes overall than not spanking any child and using other methods of teaching and discipline.
2) Even if not all people are the same and it's "water off a duck's back" for some, you have no way of knowing who may or may not be harmed by the corporal punishment. As such, you should still choose the method that will cause less harm, because "for some children spanking is really harmful" and you don't know if your kid fits into that category.
3) I was responding to specific comments asking about evidence, which is included in the links I have given. Please kindly do the same if you want to refute my points. If you don't have any evidence, you're not really contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [...]deployed the H-word twice in one tweet.
"The H-word"? What? Are we avoiding the word "hero" for some reason?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The constitution has been amended 27 times, not 33. There have been 33 amendments approved by congress but only 27 have been ratified by the states.
As far as I can tell, there is not a requirement per the constitution for ratification to happen within seven years. The most recent amendment was approved by congress in 1789 but not ratified by enough states to come into effect until 1992.
However, most modern amendment pushes do include a deadline for ratification. That's a decision made by congress at the time of writing and approval, but not a constitutional requirement.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@Bass4funk @Kapuna @Jimizo
The American Psychological Association suggests that spanking is harmful for children. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking
The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees.
Pretty much any reputable, scientific source is going to tell you that spanking is less effective and causes more long-term harm to children than other parenting methods. It is seen as effective by parents because it leads to immediate, short term acquiescence, but it doesn't lead to long-term improvement as effectively as other methods.
1 ( +4 / -3 )