Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

Still a valid point though. Canadians are a minority on platforms so most of the time I try my best to base my replies to be as generally applicable to American systems as possible... American law is less approachable I find but a Canadian enthusiast of legal philosophy generally learns both systems to be able to have conversations with a wider audience.

They kind of got us coming and going there. In the case of the 2023 Nashville shooter the reporting on trans masculine shooter Aiden Hale (he/him) was widely reported using only his deadname and was referred to a "trans" "female" "woman" and the articles used she/her pronoun sets making the whole reporting very confusing and supporting a framing that Aiden was a trans woman.

A lot of the popular discussion at the time misread the articles as this being a trans woman and a lot of people used the case as justification to solidify their opinion that trans women are provably as prone to violence as cis men.

From a trans perspective, there is no way to fully disprove someone is non-binary in a court of law that would not negatively impact actual dearly held trans identities. To encourage rhe speculation and treatment of fakers and bad faith actors still causes the ax to fall heaviest on trans people. We keep the boundaries of gender identity fuzzy on purpose because Non-binary identities are quite a wide spectrum representing a bunch of different states and needs. A lot of well meaning cis people tend to simply treat Non-binary identities as just a third box to check and treat that the end of the conversation. Pronoun sets are basically surface level requests for an accommodation seated in a range of deeper needs , you should not need to justify yourself or identify as trans or non binary to request the use of a preferred and most of us do not require that everyone we ask to use them deep in their heart of hearts believes we are metaphysically anything specifically... Though it can be a requirement to actually establishing deeper connections.

So many people want to establish credentials. To create a rubric for determining real from fake but policing gender is antithetical to the point of wellness of the people who need the accommodations. Conservatives being bigoted idiots and implying that any individual's deeds speak to some deep rooted evil in an entire population group should not be tolerated under any grounds. A trans person could shoot up a queer nightclub for internalized transphobic reasons and it would still be a hate crime.

In Canada it's partial mix of protections granted from Charter rights and expanded by the Human Rights Act to apply more universally but in the US you're right, it's covered just under the civil rights act I think?

I may have slipped into common error by mentioning constitutional affairs where it doesn't belong.

Thanks!

I find it helpful to leave no muddy water or room for misinterpretation. Conservatives understand hypocrisy well and they prime every one of their folk to not consider or think of it.

"Conservative" being a reference or implicationto a policy that is expected to be either frugal or tempered by moderation and due concern is basically branding gold. Conservatives LIVE for that shit. It's why socially progressive people still hold onto "but I am still a little conservative" seed. Because everyone thinks they are moderate and the belief that the Conservatives are cutting services to save money seems to make sense to them. The minute you try and get them on why they cut or outsource social programs they plead money saving and the second you throw a budget in front of the public proving they are still overspending you get whataboutisms, red herrings or logical fallacies because that's how they train people to think... Or not think rather. They are already trained to let an argument about spending just slide over them and never sink in.

It would appear so but anything to do with digital spaces are murky.

As we kind of treat digital space the way we do physical space aince the digital space is owned the people who own it get to set the rules and policies which govern the space... But just like a shopping mall can't eject you for the sole reasoning of you being a specific race certain justifications within moderation policies are theoretically grounds for constitutional protections.

However it is a fucking mess to try and use a court to actually enforce the laws like we do in physical spaces. Like here in Canada uttering threats and performing hate speech to a crowd and scribbing swastikas on things for instance are illegal. But do that over a video game chat or some form of anonymizing social media and suddenly you're dealing with citizens of other countries with different laws, a layer of difficulty in determining the source that would require a warrant to obtain and even if both people are Canadian you would need a court date, documentation that the law was appropriately followed in obtaining all your evidence, proving guilt, deciding where the defendant must physically show up to defend themselves and even if they do prove assault by uttering threats or hate speech violations... They would probably just get a fine or community service.

Nobody has time for that.

So if you want to enforce the protections of these laws either you hold the platform responsible for internal policing of the law and determine whether it is discharging it's duty properly by giving citizens a means to check for and report violations of it's own internal policies for later reveiw and give them means to pursue civil cases... Or you go hands off and create means to give a platform's users means to check and make informed choices based on their own personal standards and ethical principles. Every moderation policy leaves a burden on someone but the question is who.

So it might be a transparency law but it also opens the door for applying Constitutional protections to users by holding the business accountable if there are glaring oversights in their digital fifedoms...but such laws are basically inert until someone tries to challenge them.

It would appear so but anything to do with digital spaces are murky.

As we kind of treat digital space the way we do physical space aince the digital space is owned the people who own it get to set the rules and policies which govern the space... But just like a shopping mall can't eject you for the sole reasoning of you being a specific race certain justifications within moderation policies are theoretically grounds for constitutional protections.

However it is a fucking mess to try and use a court to actually enforce the laws like we do in physical spaces. Like here in Canada uttering threats and performing hate speech to a crowd and scribbing swastikas on things for instance are illegal. But do that over a video game chat or some form of anonymizing social media and suddenly you're dealing with citizens of other countries with different laws, a layer of difficulty in determining the source that would require a warrant to obtain and even if both people are Canadian you would need a court date, documentation that the law was appropriately followed in obtaining all your evidence, proving guilt, deciding where the defendant must physically show up to defend themselves and even if they do prove assault by uttering threats or hate speech violations... They would probably just get a fine or community service.

Nobody has time for that.

So if you want to enforce the protections of these laws either you hold the platform responsible for internal policing of the law and determine whether it is discharging it's duty properly by giving citizens a means to check for and report violations of it's own internal policies for later reveiw and give them means to pursue civil cases... Or you go hands off and create means to give a platform's users means to check and make informed choices based on their own personal standards and ethical principles. Every moderation policy leaves a burden on someone but the question is who.

So it might be a transparency law but it also opens the door for applying - Constitutional civil rights law protections to users by holding the business accountable if there are glaring oversights in their digital fifedoms...but such laws are basically inert until someone tries to challenge them.

You have fallen for the grift... "conservative" doesn't refer to money conservation or a cautious disposition towards taking measures. Oftentimes Conservative ideology and politics is neither of those things beong actually more wasteful and sporadic than other political parties ...

At it's core Conservatism believes in a heirachy that requires effort to conserve from the forces which scatter power horizontally. Social welfare programs, debt relief, market protections, union power and democratic elections are all things which upset the "naturally" forming heirachy like one might conserve a nature preserve. That the heirachy they are fighting is actually fairly artificially enforced isn't something you are supposed to think about. Originally they were post revolution pacts conserving the power of the old powers... rich land owners , the lords, monarchists, the industrialists, the capitalists, colonization and imperialist powers... And they still kind of are.

In this instance Disney essentially has power it was granted outside the Conservative veiw of "efficient" heirachy. Disney was fine until they started doing things that conflicted with party directives and exercising their power autonomously. It's not doing what the officers who veiw themselves as rightful weilders of power want them to do so it must be busted to conserve the food chain.

Should Disney have that level of sovereignty? Probably not, but watching snakes try and swallow each other starting at the tail is fun.

Uh... What do you mean "if they win"? The LGBTQIA community here in Canada has dramatically expanded with Americans looking to apply for citizenship. LGBTQIA protections and civil rights are crumbling in the States even without the GOP strictly in power. The Exodus is already underway.

Okay, can we just take a minute to acknowledge that the ONLY gender affirming surgery legally on the table before you are 16 is for breasts?

It also requires the sign off of a legal guardian and there are a bunch of recommendations in place from therapists about how to make good long term decisions so it's not like minors are making uninformed decisions on their own.

Thank you!

Paul's inclusion in the bible does make sense...I just don't think it does from an actual "this is what the intentions of Jesus were" kind of way. Problem is too many people read every inclusion in the book as though it is a tacit endorsement of everything in there and not just citations of early deviations in the intergenerational game of telephone.

My Grans and Gramps on my Mum's side were major critics of Paul and I think three generations down it's the best gift we coulda had. Growing up with zero religious trauma coming from inside the house was a blessing. My fam are the most lovable and happy buncha muppets you can find.

Oh did they? I will have to amend my notes! Good catch!

Well Technically... Of the 150 plus democracies on the planet only three have a constitutional right to firearms. The USA, Mexico and Guatemala... Of those Mexico actually has actually fairly heavy restrictions on what firearms are covered by the Constitution and which are restricted to police and military use.

So realistically this sort of thing happens in the US and Guatemala... If it is any consolation the US is flagging way behind Guatemala in gun related deaths when you adjust for population?

Alright so wiki link to getcha started here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

Is where a lot of early Christians got their message and first ideas of Christianity from. He never met Jesus when Jesus was alive. From the writings it's easy to get a vibe that he was a sex repulsed asexual who didn't want anybody to have sex. That it be within the confines of marriage and strictly procreative in purpose in that context reads a bit more like a concession to the practicality of his followership being a majority bunch of allosexuals. Jesus didn't say much about sex outside of marriage and even refused to carry out punishments levied against adulterers. Arguably because God's law is not for people to judge. Side note - Given that "washing of feet" is sometimes used as a period euphemism for sex and "feet or foot" often used to refer to the male member... Well Mary Magdeline drying his "feet" with her "hair" may not have been referring to the hair on her head so to speak and Jesus may have been fairly sex positive.

But back to Paul. Paul comes along and writes rather eloquently about how he had a vision and that Jesus signed off on him... But the bits that biblically vouch for Paul's authority as personally invested by Jesus is all written of by Paul. Dude basically pulled a "here's the rules I wrote about why the rules I wrote are rules. Paul's teachings being included in the Bible does make sense from the perspective of figuring out where certain cultural aspects of Christianity came from. By establishing himself as an early authority he basically got to codify and pass his veiws off as gospel... But his stuff is also lousy with contradictions because people used him as an easy way to hijack stuff. Out of the 27 bible sections attributed to him only 14 show consistency in syntax and style prompting the belief that there are more than a few forgeries slipped into the mix.

In general what we can gather from Paul's veiws is he is pro-establishment. He preaches that government rule is legitimate and backed by God. He is where we get such gems as women not being eligible for priesthood (aside from the exceptions of the one he elevated) and that leadership "dignity" and authority in the Church was a suitable reward for supplying the church with material wealth and resources.

He also was fairly dismissive and even supportive of slavery framing metaphorically everyone as slaves to Jesus first... Which was pretty rich given he was hobnobbing with rich folks and encouraging them to support the church he was building. Modern Christian scholarship gets around this by proclaiming that slavery at the time "really wasn't all that bad" ... Which is bullshit. Slavery at the time absolutely was chattel slavery. You were legally allowed to do whatever you wanted to slaves including killing them and the children of slaves became your property by extention. This all makes sense for Paul though because he fetishized suffering making him a solid foundation for the Christian martyr complex. A lot of the things the Church has been criticized for - the abuses of power, the hoarding of wealth the frank misogyny and exploitation.... A lot of it finds it's justification in Paul.

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the [one of the gentlemen], taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

• Charles Dickens

I personally hope each and every member of the the GOP enjoyed their visits from the Ghosts of Christmases, Past, Present and Yet to Come.

You seem to be conflating "the left" with the Democrats. The Democrats are not particularly leftist. The political compass doesn't move just because the Democrats do that is like saying "The car drives East so North becomes East." It's wiser to treat the political compass is more of a fixed set of cardinal directions. Leftists and Right Wingers exist outside of parties.

Neither right nor left are parties. So when describing parties stances it's way more accurate to use the party names.

There are a lot of leftists in America, you just don't have a leftist centric party because the way things are established running one would likely cause a spoiler vote. It's something of a sore point amongst leftists that the First past the post system keeps them from voting their hearts or running a candidate so representing the "slightly more left but actually still right wing" candidates as "left" isn't exactly great.

The Pope allows "blessings" of gay couples but strictly outside of the contexts of anything resembling a marriage and actively opposes actual sanctification of a same sex or transgender marriage. I won't argue it's better than their kick in the face policy they used to have but that kernel of homophobia where they are treated as an illegitimate form of family unit is still alive and well and low key still impacting the worlwide fight to end the precarity around civil same sex unions.

Fighting between "they should be kicked in the teeth" and "they should be shut out in the cold but with a kind word to speed them on their way " is still an everybody the asshole situation.

I would personally love if they decided to ditch the Pauline chapters as their key guiding principles and stop listening to the jerk who canonically hallucinated Jesus after being hit in the head with a rock. Like... When most of your contradictions of Jesus's teachings are from one guy with that particular pedigree maybe give it less weight?

It debuted when I was living in Japan and when I got back everyone was using it and I had just finished blogging my travels and was like... Nah, doing this for my regular everyday life is way too much to bother with. Facebook continued to became a major thorn in my side for years as every social event under the sun was scheduled through the fucking thing so I missed a bunch of invites because I basically refused to play ball.

It is odd after so long to be the envy of people after a solid decade and a half of being cursed by them for not being on Facebook.

But immortalized in stuff like the Ninja Turtles movie and various other tv shows. Exactly same principle!

... Actually the lore behind banana peel gags is more interesting than you think. They were a super cheap snack in Victorian London and the bananas they had were the gros Michel cultivar which had really thick slippery peels and a lack of general cuture of actually throwing garbage in the bin meant that a lot of them rotted on the street so early comedy stage acts started using them as a gag because slipping on them was a common sometimes life threatening hazard.

But because art borrows from art the banana peel gag outlasted the cultural problem that sparked it by over a century.