Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know people who worked on it.

I have a decade of experience in film and have worked on some cool shit and I logically know that just like what I have done at the end of the day it's basically a job like the one that I am doing... But I envy them that one credit so fucking hard and will beg them for stories of what it was like as though I am a starry eyed child who wants to be them when I grow up.

Law is a funny beast. Lots of people do things which are illegal all the time and get away with it because you basically have to assert your right to be protected by law to sort of activate it. Like someone yelling at me that they are going to kill me while I am out in public is technically a form of assult. , I can call the authorities and get them to assist me to make sure they don't follow through and to get them to stay the hell away from me but chances are I am not going to seek restitution in court for something that small because I would have to press charges, seek and pay for legal council, everything would need to be processed to make sure the law is being properly handled at all points of the arrest and the punishment would likely be fairly trifling for all my troubles.

Private entities already basically have the imperitive to determine what is permissible on their platforms. Freedom of speech is not practiced under the auspices of substack. They are allowed to kick you out for whatever the heck they want (some exceptions applying) because they own that space. To remove posts as threats a judge would have to go through each individual one, source it, bring the original commenter into court and go through due process with every single user to check it against their local jurisdiction's laws for threats and the likely outcome would just be small fines and community service... Quite frankly the juice would not be worth the squeeze.

On the other hand we are absolutely allowed to have an opinion that substack letting Nazis spread hate speech on their platform under their watch is a moral failure on their part.

I admit that I technically have a horse in the US healthcare system. The industry I work in contracts our labour vs the US market because they don't have to pay in to sponsor our medical insurance policy coverage. Technically speaking if the US fixed it's healthcare my job would be less competitive.

But fuck, my job ain't worth anybody suffering.

A lot of the time people have this conversation from the perspective of the person who has no horse in the race. They aren't a Nazi, nor are a target of Nazis. It ignores the people who are effected.

Imagine you are in a space and someone posts a death threat targeting you. Others rally around that as any censorship is bad censorship. Every time you use that space you get a reminder of how someone particularly wants you dead. Now imagine that becomes just a regular part of your day. Over and over and over again you are exposed to people smugly calling you less than human, a threat to society, a moraless degenerate. You get this nice cold shock whenever you see it and get to remember how vulnerable you are, how gleeful these calls to take your rights away for something you never opted into and can't opt out of... And you are expected to take whatever anxiety is sown in you as just normal. That burden of people gleefully discussing your death just gets to be a part of your everyday. To others looking at you dealing with that burden it is treated as tolerable level of permanent unhappiness. It's simply not supposed to be other people's problem. You may not ask for assistance with managing those burdens because the cost of societies "tolerance" for speech has decided that you must personally pay for everyone's unrestricted discourse.

Then there's the other half. Say I create a platform. Maybe I am running a print shop. I maintain it, run it, and think that I am doing society a service for facilitating a means to communicate. I find out someone has been printing death threats at my shop. Maybe they are even death threats towards someone I know. How would I feel knowing someone is taking the resources I manage, using the infrastructure I maintain to specifically terrorize someone? This person printing these death threats made ME complicit in spreading their death threat so that someone in the above example gets to feel unsafe as they go about their day. In fact, spreading death threats is a crime. Should I not be allowed to refuse to take their business?

We as a society have the ability to differentiate between death threats and other political discourse. Calling for a genocide of a group of people - is a death threat. It may not be directed at a singular person but lemme tell you when you are the target it feels like it might as well be calling on you by name. There is no moderation policy, even an unrestricted one, that is truly ethically neutral. Your choices about what is or isn't allowed on your watch always effects people and the mental cost is borne by someone.

See up here people go all "I had to wait six months for a specialist! Bloody socialized medicine!" lt's a blindness caused by not having anything to compare to and buying into the American political lies about our own system. That kind of wait time for a scratch test is insane even by our standards.

Maybe he bought the lie that the ideology that belies Conservative platform isn't racist (or is an acceptable parameter of racist) or homophobic... Or maybe he just feels like he's been accepted into the club when he gets cheered on by his Conservative buddies for slaging on trans folk and other POCs because they lift him up as an exception. " Here's what a "good" gay black guy looks like. See we're not racist and our platform has merit we got one of them on our side! Buy him a drink! "... This holds up until you get into company that doesn't have to lie to themselves that they aren't trying to oppress you and want you to just not be an uncomfortable problem anymore.

Every genocide has idiots who join the other side in a bid to be a pet for safety and sell out their own communities in hope they will be respectable and safe... It's a gambit that only proves you're scum before it gets you get killed.

Oooh kay why are you sending me this? I already knew it was a song.

Fuck. Canadian here who is just aghast at the charge. Had a friend go through the same procedure but essentially never paid a dime. We don't even pay MSP any more but back when we did it was locked to your income bracket and while I had some bumpercrop years (my base rate is 33 bucks an hour and I work 12 hour days standard with time and a half applied for everything past 8 hours for 2019 I worked 11 months with routine 60 hour weeks) my payments never crested $250 for a quarterly payment. Heck I didn't even realize that they stopped charging for two years because I had the thing rigged to autopay.

Heck a friend of mine's Dad needed emergency hospital transfer from a small town and they used a helicopter ambulance and the family was never charged.

People want to complain that we're slower and that people have to actually wait in waiting rooms and sure, non life-threatening stuff needs to be put in a queue but from what I have heard from my US buddies wait times at least are pretty comparable.

It's newly refurbished

Technically speaking you kind of do? The way the States have structured things your individual states have the same binding ability full on countries do... "Land of the Free" sounds kind of insane when you exist outside of that and see instead two countries at constant war with each other fighting over whose rules are the most binding over each of it's citizens particularly... You can even be extradited back to a former state you lived in! That isn't how it works for damn near every other democracy. That isn't freedom that's just color coded chains.

Yeah the majority of SCOTUS has basically decreed that if an issue didn't exist at the time of the founding of the Constitution then it cannot apply.

It's very convenient when you can chuck out a solid 150 years of precedent and just pretend the intentions of a bunch of dead people. Fuck ethics and actually engaging with the wording of the law to dicern it's intention amirite?

A lot of it can be largely predicted by the Conservative bias. Vaguely speaking what really defines the left and right politically is it's veiw on the distribution of power. The left is for spreading power horizontally, strengthening democratic processes. The right is more about consolidation and reinforcing the hierarchy of power. What that heirachy is can change depending on time and place - monarchy, nobility, land ownership the intelligencia, the rich or "us" whatever "us" is that distinguishes from "them" (religious background, race, sexuallity etc. etc.). But to them the hierarchy is natural and one aspires to it, not attempt to dissolve it.

Once you separate the grift designed to get people to buy in from the actual objectives of conservatism it becomes a lot easier to see that this was always the aim. They want a king because power flows from the king to his most faithful servants and his devout petitioners first and is weilded against those who oppose. The redistribution of the resources and power back into a heirachy has certain predictable beneficiaries where democracy scatters power over a wide and unpredictable plain.

Once the system is lousy with people who fundamentally do not believe in democracy and do not have to pretend to the masses to support and nurture democratic society it is basically game over.

Hells yeah. OG Godzilla is kind of a marvel. Like those models are bloody DETAILED and they were destroyed for the takes like some kind of beautiful temporary sand mandala. It's focus on the human cost of nuclear disaster is also really chilling.

I saw it in a theater and DAMN is it a good show when it's on the big screen. If you ever get the chance do it.

Firework displays. Those things start and I am immediately a giddy 10 years old.

I wouldn't imagine that a lot of detransitioners have the energy to advocate. Social transition generally has a hot mess stage where people aren't really very confident in their transition and you are just clinging to the bricks with splintering fingers trying to get through the hard part of telling everyone what you need. Going through that and then reversing course and doing it a second time probably holds enough social anxiety for several lifetimes on it's own.

The route of least resistance is to just quietly try and go forward with nobody knowing your history. I would not fault anyone for wanting that.

It's Also reaaaaaaaaallly rare. Like 2020 in the US there were something around 12,800 gender affirming surgeries done in the US. If the detransition rate is about 1% that is only about 128 people. Of detransitioners studies tend to put those who just found it wasn't for them (not counting those who found anti-trans sentiments and pressures unbearable and wanted to flee back into the closet where they felt safe) at around 0.04 percent... That's about... maybe ONE person for everyone who surgically transitioned in the US that year? I dunno how you really count 0.5 of a person so maybe it's a coin toss?

It's really scary being that alone as a voice. You are really vulnerable.

Huh. Should I construe this as Anti-Hinduist sentiments now? I mean I guess that counts as new but it's not exactly a whole new verse just a slightly different refrain. Still dull. Come on, dig deep show me you are just a little bit interesting.

Yeah, sure. You really aren't coming across as anybody I would count as an authority. More like a screaming middle schooler in full tantrum...but you are progressively are getting more boring. Don't you do anything new?

That is the thing though, we are not just tomboys and femboys. It is not on you to tell us what should and shouldn't be nessisary. You are not us. That you believe in your heart that you are an authority is something you need to sit yourself down with and really think about because your experience does not represent the entirety of humanity here and you keep demonstrating to me that you have zero idea what it going on with people like me while trying to tell me what I am. You can't change my position on what I am, I live it every day. When you tell me something that is conflicting directly with the experience I have and the experience of the community where I have a bunch of close friends to compare notes to it comes off as more than a little self centered. To you gender is just something you perform. It does not connect to anything deeper because for you it's basically just clothes and affect. For you gender is superficial and that is part of the experience of being cis so that really doesn't help. The majority of cisness could probably be best described as not as a strong conception of gender that aligns with your body but an absence of strong feelings about gender at all.

If I change my clothes people still treat me as my birth sex. Even the ones who are trying their damnedest to do right by me their brain is still coding me as the other sex and that is disappointing at a basic level. Being trans is not just about dress up. Gender is NOT just something we perform for your benefit. It is also not fully about pain. We do routinely have to tell cis people about our pain to try and break past the inertia to get people to help us we routinely have to prove to you that we are suffering an untolerable level of permanent unhappiness because otherwise you just prioritize your baseline of not having to do even a little mental work on our behalf. It's easier for you to rebel against having to take on that cognitive load rarely when you meet one of us than it is to accept someone needs this.

But talking about pain doesn't cover the joy when we actually get to catch glimpses of ourselves in the mirror because we get to see some glimmer of us in there. It doesn't cover the deep connection we feel immediately with other human beings who react to us as though our gender is a given. It doesn't account for the fact that so many of us literally dream we are not in the body we were born in so we wake up in the morning wanting something that feels so good and natural when we are asleep. A thing about transition is that so often trans people only find their very first actually fulfilling romantic relationships once they are on the other side of their transition. You can't really love someone deeply when you don't like the person you are and your partner doesn't actually recognize what you want and need. It isn't about reducing pain, it's about being happy in a way that resonates with who we are.

And we understand gender expression. Ho boy do we. There are a lot of binary trans people who wish they didn't have to conform to societies binary customs but if they don't then people code them as their birth sex and treat them like their birth sex. There are plenty of trans femmes who desperately envy tomboys for their ability to wear comfortable clothes and still be recognized as their gender.

What makes a trans person feel trapped inside themselves and invisible to other people is the lack of recognition they are their gender. Not just that their body looks like it though we do have strong feelings about our bodies for the sake of them as well. Dysphoria and euphoria, the two halves of the experience of transness, are very good at telling you exactly what the heart wants. It screams it at you even when it doesn't make a lot of sense. Longing is a killer. Because of my circumstances I basically just altered my clothes and style and it sucks. Every time I pass a reflective window or speak and hear the timbre of my voice it makes me lose confidence. I used to pass so effortlessly when I was a kid so I get that sense of loss of something that made me so happy that I just won't experience again. Strangers still automatically gender me incorrectly about 90% of the time which makes me feel like I am a fucking human in a chimpanzee body trying to prove to them I'm human and everytime they treat me like a chimp I just don't want to be around people just that little bit more.

Identify exists in two parts your conception of yourself and other's conception of you. It's basic Heigel. Transness is mostly dealing with the disconnect of these two halves of identity. The constant is our own identity. Gender is a primary key to how we conceptualize ourselves. From everything you have said I can tell that gender is not a component of how you conceptualize yourself... but that's just comfort because of absence. If you are completely ambivalent about something you aren't the best spokesperson for people who cannot live without that thing. Trans people work hard to express gender because if nobody recognizes that in us they do not see us and if we are not seen we are not understood and if no one understands us we are the truly alone.

This is a mix of the composition /division fallacy, slippery slope and the false cause fallacy.

False cause draws a comparison between two things that are not nessisarily connected. Constitutional gun rights and freedom of speech and association. There are a lot of countries where gun rights are non-constitutional that still have freedom of speech and freedom of association. Not all federal law is constitutional and there are a lot of freedoms and protections only actually protected beyond constitutional law.

The slippery slope is more well known. In this case it's sketching out a senario that could have plenty of other possibilities. If gun ownership had limitations they wouldn't nessisarily be each of the limitations mentioned here. It assumes no protections for this kind of thing would be in place despite an increasing world wide stance that this sort of thing is a violation of human rights.

The composition /division fallacy - that one part of something has to be applied to all or that the whole must apply to its parts. That if one part of the Constitution is rethought as an unnessisary and even harmful thing that the entire document will be treated that way.

There are a lot of countries which have rethought their rights charters and constitutional documents and updated them to suit a changing world. The US Constitution is particularly paranoid because it was written during a period when it represented a rather large democratic experiment that seemed incredibly tenuous. They even still modeled the President off of a King because Monarchy was still very much the norm and there wasn't a lot of examples of government that didn't just change who was the king. Not a hundred years prior England had decapitated their king, essentially replaced him with a guy who was basically a king for life in all but name and reverted to a constitutional Monarchy the second he died. It made sense to be paranoid that everything they worked for was temporary and needed to be protected with a show of force. Since then democracy has spread to become the majority system of government and variations on the 2nd Amendment are incredibly rare. Only Mexico, Guatemala and the US has constitutional gun rights. By contrast Freedom of Speech is granted protections by International Law, is considered a corner stone of Human rights and around 150 countries have freedom of speech protections. One of these things is not like the other.

A constitution is not a document that you never change. That's just another fallacy - an appeal to tradition. The US has removed bits of it before too, you get to drink alcohol because somebody rethought your 18th amendment. Your freedom of speech rights aren't going anywhere. Nobody wants that.

It's really okay. You can put the guns down. Most of the world has.

Technically I was raised in a completely non-religious household so I was never myself properly religious but I always found the reasons why that was a thing really interesting.

My grandfather on my Dad's side did a stint in WWII protecting the Vatican as part of the Canadian forces. He never spoke about what actually happened there (because he wasn't allowed to) but it shook his Catholic foundations to the marrow and was never able to reconcile what happened with his faith. When he returned home he had a massive row with the priest at his church that he left. Half the family disowned him for leaving the church. My father never particularly went to church though his mother remained an Anglican.

On my Mother's side my grandparents made an enemy of the local diocese when they and a bunch of their friends conspired to run a priest out of town for being a complete asshole to children publicly and a child molester privately. My grandmother basically swapped to playing organ at another smaller church but the rest of the family became very agnostic and really didn't want to expose their kids to the faith.

So I basically wasn't raised with faith because three generations back everybody in my family had a religious crisis... And I am SO glad you have no idea.