In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex applies to sexual orientation as well. This is a follow-up to our prior discussions of this issue back in Episode 60 and Episode 91. In the initial segment, Andrew tackles a question from Twitter about the James Damore lawsuit and employment law in general after our most recent coverage in Episode 150. After the main discussion of Zarda, the guys discuss some of the fallout from the Parkland shooting, including decisions by Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to cease certain kinds of gun sales. Is this inappropriate age discrimination? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #65 about vegan criminal law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
Today on The Gist, a unified theory of Donald Trump.
Plus, Trump dragged his fellow Republicans and made his Democrats grin like Cheshire cats at the televised meeting on gun control. What are the chances that the White House lets Trump’s comments stand? Mike talks to Slate politics writer Jim Newell.
In the Spiel, the president has a lot of retrograde ideas that suit him. Here’s one that doesn’t: steel tariffs.
Almost 140 years after his death, the beloved eccentric is still celebrated and revered in San Francisco. So who was he?
Reported by Ryan Levi. Bay Curious is made by Olivia Allen-Price, Jessica Placzek, Ryan Levi, Paul Lancour, Suzie Racho, Erika Kelly and Julia McEvoy. Holly Kernan is Vice President for News. Theme music by Pat Mesiti-Miller.
Ask us a question at BayCurious.org.
Follow Olivia Allen-Price on Twitter @oallenprice.
Use social media for any amount of time and eventually you will come across something that’s designed to both appeal to the angels of your better nature and asking to make a (small) effort to support or propagate this appeal. The prime example of recent years is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.
When these charitable appeals take off, that’s when social psychologist Sander van der Linden perks up. He studies ‘viral altruism,’ and in this Social Science Bites podcast he details to host David Edmonds how he studies this phenomenon.
“The idea,” van der Linden says, “is that you can ‘catch’ altruism in a behavioral way. When someone acts altruistically online, you catch that behavior as a social contagion, which then causes you to adopt that behavior and encourage other people in your network to also engage in that behavior, which then spreads quickly and rapidly.”
Van der Linden observes and describes the mechanics of these processes using something he calls SMArT, breaking down the online altruistic efforts by their social influence, moral imperative, affective reactions and translational impact.
This yardstick allows van der Linden to draw conclusions from what can be a smallish data set of unique events. SMArT allows van der Linden to find shared similarities that create body of data and which can be tracked. For example, van der Linden, is currently looking at the #MeToo movement to see if it fits into his scope of inquiry.
Van der Linden is a social psychologist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cambridge where he directs the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Laboratory. He is also a Fellow in Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at Churchill College, Cambridge and an affiliated researcher at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication at Yale University.
Hope Hicks is out, Jared Kushner is in trouble, Jeff Sessions is beleaguered, and Donald Trump is so angry he just might…implement tariffs on steel and support gun control measures? Then the Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand talks to Tommy about the latest in the Mueller investigation.
Parents enmeshed in the child protective services system often are asked to prove a negative, that they've done nothing wrong, in order to get their children back. Dan Greenberg of Advance Arkansas Institute comments on recent legislative efforts.
