Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's a really weird situation. .. Here we have a conservative who is writing the kind crime novel that conservatives tend to write about trans people that utilizes a bunch of fairly stereotypical transphobic narratives that internally within the trans community would elicit disgust and ridicule and then appearing to act it out.

While it's possible they could have been trans themselves this feels a lot more like someone treating the conservative stereotype of trans people as a kink and acting on it. JK Rowling writes this kind of shlock the key difference being she, at least as far as we know, didn't write it as part of some sort of LARP. This person was in a complicated situation, even if they weren't trans they were caught doing things the right would look at as definitive evidence as trans and they likely had trans or trans ally commenters telling them that what they were doing was not okay. So you either have a trans hypocrite willing to set their own community on fire because of their subscription to conservative values and tropes or you have a rather stupid conservative secretly treating a trans psychokiller trope as their personal fetish or trying to use it to add realism to fuel their hobby of writing transphobic fiction and got caught by a community that is both extremely transphobic and equally not empathetic to it just being a kink.

For those who are claiming cognitive dissonance in the audience there are a few things at play.

• Suicide is a tragedy. Many of us know what the impacts of that are on communities and loved ones. This person did some bad shit but not the sort of thing we would execute someone for doing. This is still a tragedy.
• In a conservative run world being closeted and driven to suicide is a thing that has happened to generations of trans people who were not this person. It is okay to register that is not something we want to keep or return to. Feeling some empathy for trans people caught in this situation is normal.
• We don't really know what this person's actual situation is but in absence of context they effectively died becoming the sort of bogeyman the right loves to spread. They effectively died making the trope seem more real.
• Stalking isn't fucking cool. Neither is writing this kind of shit.

However you want to feel about this on the spectrum of "fuck this person in particular" to "that poor person, this shouldn't have happened" this all is valid. But it isn't hypocrisy, it's nuance and the right does not fucking understand nuance.

It's a really weird situation. .. Here we have a conservative who is writing the kind crime novel that conservatives tend to write about trans people that utilizes a bunch of fairly stereotypical transphobic narratives that internally within the trans community would elicit disgust and ridicule and then appearing to act it out.

While it's possible they could have been trans themselves this feels a lot more like someone treating the conservative stereotype of trans people as a kink and acting on it. JK Rowling writes this kind of shlock the key difference being she, at least as far as we know, didn't write it as part of some sort of LARP. This person was in a complicated situation, even if they weren't trans they were caught doing things the right would look at as definitive evidence as trans and they likely had trans or trans ally commenters telling them that what they were doing was not okay. So you either have a trans hypocrite willing to set their own community on fire because of their subscription to conservative values and tropes or you have a rather stupid conservative secretly treating a trans psychokiller trope as their personal fetish or trying to use it to add realism to fuel their hobby of writing transphobic fiction and got caught by a community that is both extremely transphobic and equally not empathetic to it just being a kink.

For those who are claiming cognitive dissonance in the audience there are a few things at play.

• Suicide is a tragedy. Many of us know what the impacts of that are on communities and loved ones. This person did some bad shit but not the sort of thing we would execute someone for doing. This is still a tragedy.
• In a conservative run world being closeted and driven to suicide is a thing that has happened to generations of trans people who were not this person. It is okay to register that is not something we want to keep or return to. Feeling some empathy for trans people caught in this situation is normal.
• We don't really know what this person's actual situation is but in absence of context they effectively died becoming the sort of bogeyman the right loves to spread. They effectively died making the trope seem more real which isn't great for the trans community particularly regardless of this person's potential transness.
• Stalking isn't fucking cool. Neither is writing this kind of shit.

However you want to feel about this on the spectrum of "fuck this person in particular" to "that poor person, this shouldn't have happened" this all is valid. But it isn't hypocrisy, it's nuance and the right does not fucking understand nuance.

This basically backs up what I have read on the subject. I feel like the disconnect comes from what we categorize as "work" often not counting stuff like making stuff for yourself and your own home, lessons, tasks you could do keeping your hands busy while you socialized or talked, housework and so on. Depending on time and place (mostly pre-enclosure) the time and production one owed their lord was relatively low in most places and did come with minor kickbacks. The church did keep a lot of proper holidays and Sunday as a sabbath was observed but again in a society that doesn't really have things like regular sit and watch style entertainments a lot of the things you did on your days off did produce something.

There's also a lot of times of year where one's work in regards to food production was relatively easy and others that required a lot of physical push. The lack of regular steady illumination after dark due to scarcity of material for rushlights and candles did mean more technical downtime but the trade off is there being less options of entertainments one could do in the dark.

Also the amount of incredibly litigious peasants in England was some evidence that in places there were some protection and recourse for lordly overreach. Peasants had surprising rates of literacy in some places but they really didn't use it to read or write for entertainment. They used to to fight for access to stuff.

It's kind of a difficult task to have discussions about how much work a society in time regularly does because of the unstated assumptions everyone has. We are all primed to veiw our modern lives as more convenient where we live better because of all the things we are not on the hook making ourselves which lends to our current hyper specialization... But with that hyper specialization comes an odd stagnation. The way we work with sharp delinineations between what counts as "work appropriate" behaviour and social ones is fairly mentally taxing and not what our ancestors did. The amount of formal interpersonal communication required by our tasks is higher. The diversity of tasks we do regularly is less. The people we are expected to impress regularly with high outputs and not just meeting a fairly low bar quota are relatively new. The amount of time we work is inflexible to the amount of energy we have during different seasons with expectations being that we operate at a steady efficiency over the course of the year. The idea that the amount of hours per day one works is fixed regardless of what actually needs doing before we have free time is different. The amount of time we can do tasks after dark has altered how we as a society operate. Work has changed to be utterly unrecognizable between the eras. There's definitely some bonuses like to stability of food supply and efficiency of output but there's a lot we do now that really works against our own needs as creatures so it's really difficult to compare what counts as "work" and what doesn't.

Reading and comprehension are two different things. They have likely read the bible. If they believe in hell and quote Leviticus as though it represents Christian law then they have failed to comprend it.

I think the issue that a ban will take years to effectively cool the possession of assault weapons is not actually an issue worth stalling over. While a lot of people tend to look at a law as "if it's not immediately 100% effective it is garbage" in reality if you call for a refund based recall it will take a chunk out of the total guns out there. Patience is nessisarily.

Seizures of weapons in illegal transport or market will eventually account for another chunk. Guns are regularly stolen from home break ins so a lot of personal arsonal will find it's way into black markets. Over time when the things can be reported when used in gun clubs or spotted in the wild you take away a lot of the "fun" quotent of owning the weapons making surrender much more likely. The legal ramifications of finding the weapons in self defense cases motivates from another end. If you can't use them for self defense then the argument of what the point of having them gets stronger. A lot of people own these weapons in part for the same reasons they do expensive cars - the joy of using them and the cashe of bragging and showing them off. While 2nd amendment stans might hoarde them for ideological reasons they probably are gunna be forced to make them hard to find and make sure they don't mention them to young children who might narc on them making kids getting their hands on them less likely.

The more effectively useless and detrimental you legally make something over time you do wear away at the trouble and anxiety required to maintain ownership. What the US should aim for is long game de-escalation. If people don't start the process it just means the payoff is gunna be that further down the road.

Ah yes, good old "we just have to focus on mental health bandaids because it's miserable people who are the problem, not easy access to weapons to enact their misery on others!"

Heads up, no matter how much you increase access to therapists miserable people are still going to exist. Society's focus on psychiatry as a catch all leaves a lot of people in the lurch as therapy providers are already overwhelmed with paitent backlog. You can't even get the US to agree to fund accessable health care, you think they are gunna find success in the pro-gun politicians somehow funding any kind of public mental health initiative?

Give it long enough and enough people will stop gulping down 2nd Amendment flavoraid and realize how many stable democratic societies exist where the kids have never had to participate in an active shooter drill.

Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.

There's this fantasy that has been planted in your head that you need this security blanket of complete unrestricted access to firearms to uphold your democracy... But just like a child's security blanket it is a fantasy of false security. What would happen if you and a bunch of your buddies decided to turn on your own government and plan an insurrection or resist a sitting government directive? If it comes to resources you would have to create concensus for enacting violence all under the spectre of surveillance and then you would be facing one of the most milliterized nations in the world on their home turf. Your right to carry does less to protect you than the reluctance and image concerns of a governing body that calls itself "free" to fire on it's own citizens...

This isn't the 18th century anymore. What makes a constitutional right is a CURRENT agreement by the standing government body. Dynamic rules that exist to modify it. That document can be amended AND repealed. Saying "It's a constitutional right!" as though that is immutable isn't a reason in itself. The option always exists to ditch it as a right.

You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege. If you do not respect the nature of a privilege it can be taken away. Look at cars. There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car. Yet more and a wider variety of people likely own cars than guns. If you are caught using your car in a way that endangers regular citizenry - say you are drunk or show a history of repeated reckless endangerment while operating then you can have your licence to operate a vehicle suspended or permanently removed. Taking someone's ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to because driving is a privilege, everyone knows it's a privilege and when you fuck around with that privilege you find out.

There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.

I am wagering on a White Vault senario.

This is why I as a Canadian can't fathom why Americans seem to think they have more freedom than I do somehow. To me the whole "States Rights" debacle essentially gives Americans two countries worth of laws that they are bound by instead of one.

The fact the US also enforces it's laws on non-citizens for things done outside it's country legally gives the whole thing the sense of the US being drunk on it's own sovereignty. Like it's legal to smoke pot here but if you are tricked into mentioning at a US boarder crossing that you EVER smoked weed on Canadian soil even if it was in the distant past you risk being forever barred from entry into the US.

And to be clear this is not their citizens doing things in their own country that are not illegal by the measure of that country's law. From what I understand there isn't much of an appeal process either because once it's done our citizenry suddenly goes into category "not my monkey not my circus".

The US is very very fond of restriction of freedoms from an outsider perspective.

They want small government. Small, weak and unable to defend itself.

I don't think you can tar all Republicans with the same brush... A lot of them are in fact very stupid. Eventually if you keep using enough thought terminating cliches and logical fallacies your party uptake starts to be polluted with the muck you spread. While a lot of them know what they are doing I would call a solid chunk of them just warm bodies capable of parroting the handbook.

Ah. I am Canadian. We have a parliment. The American system's imploding nature due to partisan politics utilizing it's own neurotic infrastructure to essentially cheat is something that negatively effects my daily life but I do not get to vote on that.

I would rather the people making choices on my behalf be held to some basic level of account then basically leaving it to a series of Facebook polls. In a democracy at some level someone else is always determining the rules that bind the individual. You as an individual are beholden to whatever principle fuels the majority of vote casters. I actually have no issue with allowing people to make the vast plethora of nessisary mundane decisions for me in a government setting but I would like those decisions to be backed up by accountability and be presented so that all side of the issue can be weighed appropriately and care be taken to make sure binding law is made carefully.

Direct voting takes a very simplistic stance regarding law. It imagines that by chipping in for the things you personally care about things will get done... But behind every law there is a web of things that require careful consideration as to things like exact wording, how it dovetails into previously existing law structure, giving chance for expert opinion to be consulted and to present their case in regards to predicted outcome, reasonable debate towards reaching concensus... For everything. A staggering amount of minutiae designed to keep the process stable and fair.

Direct voting has some definite drawbacks mostly involved with the amount of time it takes to fully read and digest each instance of bill making. Everyone has an opinion but just check around here and you will see how often people will comment without doing so much as an easy google search to bring up the specifics about how programs work. I don't think that I would want that principle dictating my life. Legislation requires briefs and budgets to be read and attempted to be understood and that means time. If you didn't put a stipulation on everybody having to sit through the brief then basically you are voting continually on unnuanced, pop culture ideas of how something works. If you put the stipulations of having to participate in the brief then you have a system that favors people with free time... Time for that kind of pursuit favors people who don't need to spend every minute trying to work to make it to the next rent payment.

Like it or not the act of voting on legislative matters to make a body of government run should be a full time gig. I personally throw my lot in with the idea of Democratic lotteries where anyone can volunteer for a random chance at a seat for a term but winning requires that you accept all responsibility to do the job properly. If you slack off, try and break the rules or can't show up you lose the spot. I have more trust that the demi random sample of people in the system will more represent a reasonable approximation of the overall will of the people then the politicians that get elected usually because the can sort of perform like parrots saying the best catchphrases they think people want to hear to solicit votes.

Also since the system would have no campaigns it would partially eliminate the possibility of having politicians and outside business interests in bed together. It would mean you'd have to crack down on the possibility of winning candidates being bribed for kickbacks upon exit from political power... But our current elected system has this problem anyway.

Not... Always... The "you can always come back" thing is not something that you can always count on. Being wholly rejected for trying to be your authentic self can leave some wicked deep scars. It's always on the wronged person to forgive when there's a lot of pressure to accept someone back into the fold. It can destroy you when everyone around you just wants to forget what happened in favor of social peace when you have to carry that damage with you. Coming out as trans historically is a lot of people's last ditch effort to live in that they feel they the status quo is killing them. Sometimes they also look at being openly trans as the last resort failure state but are desperate to find any reason to go on even if the tradeoffs are horrible.

The kicks you receieve when you are at your lowest point you never really forget. Sometimes "trying to make it right with the wronged" means accepting you hurt someone bad enough that you don't get second chances to try again and having to respect that.

Part of the system works off of a similar system to triplicate prescriptions which has a cooling effect. Basically every time a single doctor signs off on this it gets flagged in the system along with what other doctor is doing it. Doctors know their data is being tracked by an active investigative body, physical hard copies are required and who their second doctor is is relation to their participation is actively logged and guaged. A two kevorkian system would set up a red flag and cause an in depth investigation with potential criminal persecution.

Not saying that it could not happen but it would create an undue legal risk for any doctors who would try it and doctors are made very aware of the data logging requirements of the program.

Not many really ever look into safeguards of these programs and let their imaginations take the reins. Here's the basics of MAID.

The things you need to get the process started is sign off from two doctors or nurse practitioners from two completely independant medical practices who are not directly involved in any long term care planning for the patient and are not experiencing any financial incentive. Doctors are allowed to refuse participation for any reason. They also must have demonstrated expertise in treatment of the condition for which someone is using as their reason for seeking MAID.

In the event of a non terminal illness one also needs a witness to back up your decision to pursue MAID to sign off on all the papers. There are some restrictions about who can count as a witness but in addition to those this person cannot :

-benefit from your death -be an unpaid caregiver -be an owner or operator of a health care facility where you live or are receiving care

The law requires all other potential services and harm reduction strategies be discussed as options and made available and stress is to be put on that you can opt out of the process at any time.

Once the paperwork is signed it begins a 90 day minimum assessment period. Witnesses found to be in violation of any of the witness or doctor restrictions are liable to be criminally charged.

People without decision making capacity are ineligible to apply for MAID. If their case is degenerative they can waive their final consent requirements but people can legally specify under a different program in palliative care a pre-determined termination criteria to pick what level of mental degeneration activates the order and it must be signed off on while the person is of sound mind or else your only choice is a naturally occuring death.

Lastly the final assessment requires active consent and cannot be in a state judged to be mentally incapable of decision making authority unless they previously waived that requirement. The person must be given every opportunity to opt out.

Finally the assessment request now requires a mandatory sign on for data collection for posterity. This is for purposes of determining if the system is being potentially exploited requiring the data in regards to identifying whether race, Indigenous identity and disability seek to determine the presence of individual or systemic inequality or disadvantage in the context of or delivery of MAID. The data regarding everyone who seeks the program, the doctors and the witnesses who signed on and those who decided later not to pursue then is referred to an investigative inquest body and the presence of the program has to be occasionally reviewed by federal Parliament and actively renewed over a predetermined cycle.

Oh if Mr Rogers was current he would have been seen as incredibly "woke". This is the man who during the civil rights discourse decided that kids needed to see black people as less scary and capable of authority so they implemented the character of Officer Clemmons. There is a famous clip of him offering Officer Clemmons a chance to cool his feet in the same wading pool he's using because out in the world there was a massive push to keep public pools segregate and conservative nutjobs were throwing caustics into pools that didn't comply and telling their kids that black people were dirty.

They would have been screaming for an end to Rogers " woke SJW tyranny".