Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

I feel bad for my sibling personally. I at best thought the series was kind of fun but they were a massive Potterhead. We are however both different flavors of non-binary trans. My sibling is the kindest and most principled soul and seeing them go through essentially a grieving process made me fairly furious at the author not just for the shit she was spewing but the pain she was causing my younger sibling.

For me it's more of a rubber meets road issue. Whenever a Harry Potter franchise something is released it becomes a circus of highly performative transphobia that spills into trans spaces as certain people want to not just enjoy their Potter related paraphernalia.. they suddenly find a wave of harassment to ride and do not seem content until they have hunted down trans spaces, people or allies to rub our noses in the fact they are having a really good time while spewing anti-trans sentiments everywhere as they do.

Being a trans person in public and seeing someone wearing Harry Potter related merch out and proud in the world can be a red flag in the sense that marks out a person as more than likely mildly anti trans on the safer side but a decent number of them who have held strong til this point are not nessisarily shy about being openly hostile in a very general - non fandom related sense. If I walk into a place with a bunch of people wearing wizarding house t-shirts and pins... I find away to excuse myself and leave.

The money isn't even much a factor anymore. The inner fandom has become so toxic it basically just provides the mechanical structure of an organized hate group while nominally being about the franchise.

As a gently raised Canadian I too was very confused.

But then the whole "registered party member", primary voting thing doesn't really exist here either. Like parties have internal democratically held meetings to figure out their best candidates... But I could technically go to and participate in every party meeting if I wanted to figure out their schedule. People just can't run for office for multiple parties in an election.

Personally I find it a little fucked up that you register your intentions and essentially choose your political circular mail during the initial voting process in the first place. It would not be out of character from this outsider's perspective if school boards in the US were a partisan affair because there's already more infrastructure to create a distinct two party supremacy down there then we of the north are used to.

Just explaining our electoral system to my American friends usually has them very jealous at the general lack of extra steps. Complaining that we still have very much have proportional representation issues to address on the Canadian side usually falls on deaf ears.

Definitely. For the most part head to foot.

I would say over the shoulder is a veiw point I know but the back of my head as in a video game veiwpoint is kind of a rarity. More of a side on situation is the norm but sometimes the focus can frame me out as well.

I would say that maybe my film career might be relevant because it has the conventions of camera work but it's been that way since I was a child.

But my physicality is usually not "me" in the sense if what I see in the mirror every morning but a way more comfortable conception of me basically like you swapped a body type in a video game but things like skin, eye color and hair color are all basically the same... Most of the time anyway. I have definitely had some odd presentations of dream me.

Yup. I practically never dream in first person perspective and that's about it. Think of it like watching a tv show or a movie and accepting uncritically that the character on the screen is you.

Funnily enough I have another weird aspect of dreaming that I have discovered is very common amongst other trans people. My dream self used to roughly 95% of the time used to be represented physically as my internalized gender...or sometimes would just be rendered as a featureless void capable of interacting with the world and recognized internally as me I suppose is the best way to explain it. Probably sounds a bit Magnus Archives. However post social transition the ratio has changed the opposite direction and now I am represented in dreams by my real world like appearance about 60% of the time... Which I am not the biggest fan of to be honest but my waking world comfort levels have increased so it's not the worst.

I dream in 3rd person primarily and the sort of video game-ish angle you're thinking of isn't my experience. It's more like watching a tv show of yourself with you as the main character. You are in control of your actions in the dream and accept that wholly as you but it's like your veiw point changes like a series of fixed camera angles... But still seems fluid.

Try going out for a weekend and not using a bathroom outside your house. If you enter a bathroom, imagine every person staring at you in curiosity or disgust. Imagine getting hastled and yelled at or assaulted for being in the "correct" washroom because you have a beard but have XX chromasomes. Imagine the cops being called on you. Better hurry and do your business fast and flee the scene because if they catch you they might arrest you, fine you or force you to "prove" your genetalia match what's on your driver's licence or ask tone deaf invasive questions about your medical history. If they are bigots they might call you slurs or just arrest you anyway to try and run you out of the community.

Spend a month never using a public restroom. Watch as your world shrinks to being basically just your house as any legthy trip outside requires precise timing so you won't need to take a shit somewhere risky or perhaps enlist a a friend instead to serve as chaperone and defence to help keep you safe.

How and where we dispose of our waste is actually quite foundational to society. It shapes the layout of our cities, the spaces where we go, our life expectancies and how we spend our time.

It is true... But sometimes it's fun to take the village idiot out for a spin.

Honey, baby, sweetie pie. You have been playing judge and jury to people's individual circumstances in a very condescending way this entire time. Heaven forbid someone got a degree they can't use. Not everyone wants to buy obscure property in the middle of the country. Fucking hell, personally I would wither and die in a suburb if the queerphobes didn't try and drive me to suicide first.

Some people want or need to live in a city and some of us aren't in the US. People know their own circumstances and values. There's not a lot of room to recover from mistakes at present but telling people that they earned their trouble is at best antisocial. If there isn't a raft of decent options outside a very narrow subset of okay - that's a housing crisis. When the eock bottom rent in a suburb one hour and a half outside of city and beyond transit for a one bedroom basement suite is $1400 and your area's minimum wage is $15 for jobs that 20 years ago were careers... That's indicative that you have priced out a decent chunk of the population. There are many times the number of people living rough in tents by highways then I ever saw 5 years ago and quite frankly when you're poor it's way easier to be poor in a city.

The people you've talked to have researched inside their own means, values and life goals and you keep trying to tell them it's fine using nothing but your own narrow anecdotal and judgemental rubric of "nope housing is great actually because you just didn't MATH. "

Congratulations! You don't have a problem which means you fit perfectly inside the narrow slot of comfortable circumstance that currently exists for owning a home! That absolutely doesn't mean housing precarity isn't a massive problem it's just it isn't YOUR problem.

Dude. You have shown regular disregard for the humanity of the people you were discussing stuff with in this thread. Essentially you told someone who is trying to help an ailing loved one that essentially they could always just force an elder to move or abandon them and that the hardship is essentially their fault. Tearing an elder from their eatablished support system is a massive blow to them particularly when they are reaching end of life.

I have also read enough in your surrounding comments to see you routinely try and force your very narrow vision of success and correct choices on others.

At a certain point don't care what the hell what specific context you think absolves you of that notion. It's toxic as fuck and I will personally have none of it.

I also do not mind short low effort comments either though they often fall into "short, quippy and wrong" issues but the series of quotations in response to each individual part of a prior post is the engagement style I've learned to expect of the very self-centered and close minded.

They generally don't want to have a discussion with an actual discussion of ideas, they want to take the least amount of effort to dismiss the post as wrong out of hand and be done with it.

Perhaps, but as far as assumptions go I have not neglected to notice you have not bothered to correct me either.

I have also experienced that some people refuse to give up and feel like they must deliver some nebulous and ultimately wanting ad hominem "parting shot" not persuant to the original arguement so they can self-rationalize their own position and feel like they came away saving face. You wanted to find a rationale to dismiss me and there you have it : I am not worth engaging with because I don't "understand you". Now back to your comfortable life you go.

I am unsure how your individual takes are relevant to the passages you quoted or are at best fairly surface level abstractions or dodges of main topic at hand... and on a personal note I must say that I am quite tired of this style of engagement where an entire post is chopped up, regurgitated and replied to in short, low effort dismissals. If you can't write your own damn paragraph, don't bother.

I will leave this with an answer to your first question. Yes. Laws and legal theory are CREATIONS. Somebody wrote them, had intentions for their use which they tried to write in such a way to illustrate their intent because intent, letter, cultural continuity of precedent and effect to obtain peaceable justice are four independent vectors under which justices balance their individual rulings between. Rights are a body of law. Every single individual part of the operating system of the legal system is essentially optional and it CREATES the rubric for what is a legitimate use of force on behalf of the State. You are simply used to the one into which you were born and are choosing to believe it represents a universal truth. That whole legal possession of in(un)alienable rights was at one political considered a completely radical idea and it had critics. The "Divine Right of Kings" is tracable in an English sense to the Magna Carta which outlines the rules of legal succession which served as a constitutional document. You can trace the application of rights to the populace at large back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689 based largely on the ideas of John Locke and his contemporaries which mostly gained traction as a knee jerk response response to the perceived flippancy and overindulgences of James II but those rights are exceedingly foreign to our modern eyes for not the least reason they are very stratified by class. Your fun fact of the day is the UK didn't legally have the very basics of human rights outlined as we know them in the American modern conception of them on their books until 1998 which was also when they officially repealed the death penalty since it was an ultimate violation of their conception of rights of the person.

Perhaps ask oneself if the original Constitutional right to "Life" is truly protected in the US when the State and the states under that Constitution are allowed to schedule the killing of people. That phrase "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" is a rip from John Locke's "Life, Liberty and Property" in which his definition of "Life" meant "to live a style of life free from government interference." This is what has been interpreted as the US Constitutional definition. UK Human Rights Act of 1998 protects a right to "life" as in a right to breathe, think have a pulmonary rhythm etc. Thus while both promise a right to "life" only one is explicitly understood as a protected right to be alive. You have no perfect Constitutional right to be alive in the US.

Every law requires interpretation at it's point of judgement both ways because the question "what is law" in a broad philosophical sense is something every court grapples with every day. Your take is very much overly simplistic.

... And please don't try and post "gotchas" because I didn't list particular nitty-gritty aspects of individual laws I mention. My posts are long enough and I need to truncate them somehow.

In regards to rights not being created...

Rights are a created and codified concept. Whether or not something is a right or not is decided by someone somewhere down the line. There is always a foundational document that expresses the right because in it's absence you don't really have a right you have either a privilege that can be taken away by a valid or at least powerful authority or you have a grey area where simply no law or social norm applies until further regulation is created. This is subject to change over time and location.

Rights as we understand them today are not naturally occuring. The idea isn't even particularly old in the grand scheme of things. Before that point laws definitely existed but they were pretty simplistic operating codes there was no higher echelon of law that superceed other law particularly just layers of powerful people who interacted with the law. If you were basically in charge of the law you could rewrite it as you saw fit and your potential consequences were pissing off someone who could band together and rebel against your authority. If you felt secure enough you could re-write anything through decree. Rights are a feature that was conceptualized or created from scratch in 18th century philosophy with the rise and design of modern concepts of democratic government.

The 2nd Amendment itself is a wonderful example of a non-universal right. Out of all the governments in rhe world today only four have a version of a right to firearms. The USA, Guatemala, Mexico and the Czech Republic. Of those only the US and Guatemala have no restrictions on both firearm type and a required licencing program. Outside of that guns are most often regulated but legal. Exceptions being situations like Japan where there is an almost total prohibition but where guns are legally purchasable ownership is covered under variation of regular property rights against government seizure sort of like how your car is.

You technically do not have a right specifically to a car. They are just legal to own without a licence and illegal to use without one. But use and possession are two independent principles. The right to property is subject to laws banning or regulations of specific things but also Constitutional rights against illegal seizure. There are a lot of things one can only legally possess only with an appropriate licence and that isn't a violation of property rights.

Heeeeellllll no. Seen enough that I am not touching that with a ten foot pole. I value my mental health more than that.

What mind reading is needed? Even if I am wrong you give off the impression like a middle American Gen Xer. Entitled. Self assured. Old enough to figure people ahould respect you but also so very slightly out of touch and self satisfied enough that you have no proper sense of there being new tricks for your old dog to grock. Leftist or center left but comfortable. Some kind of professional career? Guessing it was either family or local community that turned you sour since that's usually it. Temper on a hair trigger but with that distinctly male flavor where you have no idea how to back down because you don't really know how to self reflect on bad behaviour and you have other people in your life to do the apologizing for you.

That's basically the impression. Take the strawman and have fun.

Holy shit dude. You are an actual psychopath aren't you? Fucking Ebenezer Scrooge pre ghostly trio levels of heartless.

Fucking hell...

Don't need a professional expert to acertain whether the market is sour. Where I am the cost of renting a one bedroom apartment is around $1800 a month plus utilities on the low end. Mind you I am in a city but is you drive an hour and a half away to the farthest "commutable" burbs you are still looking at rents that are $1400 for essentially a one bedroom basement suite.

There are a lot of people my age I know who are working proper professional jobs double income no kids situations who are never able to save up enough for the initial down payment for a house. Why would they when they face so much precarity? Whatever money they are able to sock aside for a rainy day might only cover a car repair or some time off work if they have a life altering event like a parent dying and paying down chunks of student loan.

They wouldn't be able to handle paying for repairs and maintenance for an actual property while still paying high mortgage. Practically every early millenial I know who didn't start making their nest egg through a job in trades right out of high school and instead spent time in the post secondary system getting a degree got bit.

I mean.. I don't know if that's gunna be the complete answer. The Boy Scout leaders had no expectations of celebacy but they had an endemic issue with child molestation. The idea that it's the lack of adult access to sex that creates these situations ignores a lot of the realities of predators.

Personally I think the best thing to do is to actually mandate age appropriate sex ed. They piloted that program in our district when I was a kid. For a youngster of the tender age of 1st grade all this needs to be is "Here's the proper names of the different genital types and if someone wants to touch in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable it's okay to tell a parent, a teacher a doctor or an adult you trust where and how you have been touched to help make it stop.

You would be quite frankly shocked how many kids in the district blew whistles on adult some right out the gate from that first briefing. Preserving some nebulous children's "innocence" isn't worth even one child suffering in ignorance.