Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

Reminds me of my partner and I's story of "Two Knives Guy"

So we're looking for a place for dinner downtown at dusk and this kind of guy starts following us. We are just outside one of those bustling Italian places where there's this outdoor seating lit by brewer's cable and there's like a whole bunch of people milling about waiting for tables or drinking. We are just at the edge of the crowd when behind us the guy calls for our attention.

We turn and he has a knife in each hand, one trained on either of us. I tense thinking that okay - it's a VERY short run to safety but I am not leaving my partner, if this guy attacks I'm protecting my man. The mugger gives us his best glower and goes "GIMMEYRMMMMERRGGR"

My partner blinks as though confused by his intentions "Umm... What?"

I feel like face-palming.

"GIMMEYRMMMMERRGGR!!! "

"I... sorry what are you asking?"

The guy just looks at us like we're complete idiots he turns to me and I just shrug. He tries one more time and my partner just goes "I don't understand..." and the guy, who realizes somebody in that busy establishment is gunna notice what's going on eventually just growls, feigns a slash at my partner and runs away.

When we were talking about it over dinner we broke the interaction down and we were like. The guy had a knife in each hand... If we tried to hand him something how would he take it? I dunno if we rolled a 20 or if the guy rolled a nat 1.

As a Set Dresser/On set dresser - any set build before a director sees it/ wideshot films it.

How it generally works is we get a bunch of stuff and... Something. This something can be as exact as a blueprint (techpack) that clearly marks where furniture is supposed to go or as vague as a one sentence long description of what the set is supposed to be. We are usually given a bunch of options for virtually everything that is used. Then we make up the set.

Then the waveform goes nuts. The Heirachy goes Set Decorator, Production Designer, and then Producer. They will randomly visit or call in sometimes separately and whatever plans that existed immediately cease to matter. The set may completely change a random number of times back and forth as anyone above us in the hierarchy demands unless it countermands a specific demand made by someone above the demander in the hierarchy.

That is until shoot day. Once the Director has the floor all of that prep goes immediately out the window and the director may change whatever they please about the set and while there's usually too much time constraints to change everything it could mean getting rid of anything. The waveform only collapses to depict a singular reality once the wideshot is in the bag which means there is now a continuity that must (okay "must" is a strong word) be obeyed.

Ohhh no... As a person who regularly builds random shit for film and television, the single slotted screw is the bane of my bloody existence. Some designers fucking love em for the aesthetic but the cam outs on them are terrible. Is it technically easier to produce? Yes, is it viable to use for construction purposes comparitively - fuck no. Every time you cam out ( lose traction on the screw) you risk accidentally damaging whatever medium you are screwing into.

Locally there is an insane institutional preference for the Robertson screw (which is basically a square) because it doesn't cam out much, drives in well and arguably resists stripping better than a Phillips... This is believed in so much that any screw not seen by the camera is a Robby (usually size 2) while anything that is perceived by the audience is a phillips or a single slot screw. Given a choice nobody wants to handle single slots and chances are good you only find them in period specific builds or when the designer is a psychopath.

In the articles I have read the terms "raised alarms" does a lot of work. Yes a lot of Christian groups "raise alarms" but that's a little toothless when there is a history of a lot of sects believing that suicide, regardless of it's circumstances, is a gateway to hell. The median age of people taking up the offer on assisted suicide is at age 78.

We as a country have a massive die off occurring as the youngest of the Baby Boomers, one of the biggest ever generations in our country's history... Is now reaching retirement age. There is a steep change in how the body ages and metabolizes things around age 60 and there's a bit of an expected die off that accompanies that change. Considering the Canadian government and population is particularly sensitive to watchdoging any potential genocide or eugenics programs the system is designed with a lot of checks and balances. You need two doctors who are unrelated to each other's practice to sign off on even starting the process which takes about a year to complete if you are not terminally ill. Any particular spikes in pairs of potentially colluding doctors who sign off together on the paperwork too often trigger an investigation.

Part of the cultural development of the last two decades has been fallout from the government admiting that they and the Catholic Church were jointly responsible for a genocide of the indigenous peoples. While keeping a weather eye on the program is merited a lot of the controversy is more towards the end of people wanting a scary bogeyman to point to in order to erode faith in the Government when really the system is one that was heavily advocated for and was very carefully designed. While concern is natural... It's also good to do the reading to explore the depths of the system's design and implementation and know that it was from the get go in conversation with ethical watchdogs and is under review since it's inception to monitor the effect it is having. "Somebody warns scary numbers are scary" is basically the imperative of the media who only gets paid when you pay attention to them and scary, half explained things is one of the noisemakers that is effective.

As a Canadian who has watched a loved one die very slowly and spent a fair amount of time in hospice I changed my mind about wanting to fight to the bitter end.

My mother in law was a lovely lady, but unable to really face her death. Seeing what others were going through she begged us to not let that be her but the rules are she and she alone needed to sign off on the paperwork while she was lucid. We couldn't set that up for her, she needed to do it herself... And she couldn't face it and she missed her window.

The last week of her life was hell. She was so weak from not eating due to her cancer that she fell and hurt her hip. Thing people don't really tell you about wasting away is your brain essentially becomes too energy expensive to run. She lost the ability to understand what was going on around her and had to be restrained in the bed so she wouldn't try to get up and she, unable to interpret what was happening, started making escape attempts throughout the day and night frequently crying in pain. She begged like a small child for us to help her and looked at us like monsters because we couldn't. She had been one of the most staunchly independent people I had known and she spent her last week in agony and all of us were powerless watching knowing it was the last thing she wanted.

I was so thankful for the Hospice care. I realized it could have been so much worse if her care was expensive or wasn't handled with such an incredible standard of compassion... But the experience left all of us close to my MIL more than a little traumatized.

It's important to realize that these decisions are intensely personal. I would not wish what happened to my MIL on my worst enemy. Depictions of death in media do not adequately prepare you for the potential realities of every situation. That perceived duty to live as long as you can isn't always a kindness.

I theorize this is because she's had to adapt to code switch to speak a rhetoric specific for wider media coverage. Since the attention span of the general reader is fairly narrow and so many readers demonstrate confusion at perfectly correct terms (or the right wing coverage co-opts things in a very specific pattern) there's a certain way of looking at language utilized in short, quotable format as a unique tool. In those instances it's more useful to approach language from the aspect of what is the specific choices being made doing rather than saying. It's not always correct to believe the person saying it believes what they are saying is strictly literally true. The reasons for an intentional error are many, it could be phrased that way for a personal political reason, to attempt (though not always successfully) to make the quote more legible to someone with only a passing understanding or to achieve some kind of specific desired result in the reception of the audience.

Those who know better usually find it frustrating to interface with but if you are speaking to a large group you are actually speaking to multiple audiences and usually your target is to capture those at the bottom of the engagement curve. As an informed audience member target wise you are far more likely to understand what is being implied and are thus not the ideal target for the potential language tools being employed. In many ways as an audience type you can be safely ignored in favor of outreach to people who are generally not so literate or aware.

Wow, your name is pretty accurate huh?

Wow, lucky you.

While I won't argue that the media is causing a number of problems thinking it's a storm in a teacup is your privilege showing. Even though I live in one of the most trans accepting places on the planet I have had the unique experience of having to sneak past protesters who are trying to remove people like me from public life, using slurs over megaphones and openly marching hundreds strong in the streets... And again this is rated one of if not the most trans friendly place in the world. There is no safer place to go.

It's a lot harder to see it as a storm in a teacup when the world is dramatically becoming a smaller place for us personally because laws keep passing that people do not understand or do not care how they actually impact us. The media doesn't report a lot of us who are murdered even when it's a hate crime. This year in the US there was 41-ish such hate motivated crimes which is near double 2023's total... But we can't be sure of the actual number because a lot of the time the transness of the victim and the nature of the motive is obscured by the media reporting. Some of the media shenanigans only gets caught only by loved ones as media frequently uses vagueness and dead names that friends and community members don't recognize because that person hasn't gone by that name for decades.

Your opinion comes from the fact you don't personally have a horse in the race so whether you engage with it or not is a choice. The safe places are radically shrinking. The next government projected to win federally here is known to be openly hostile to trans people and I know that at least one of my friends will die directly as a result from them removing the supports currently in place. So enjoy the storm you aren't living friend but realize saying it doesn't exist is really crass to those who cannot find shelter.

Kinda reminds me of the time Ken McElroy was murdered in the middle of Skidmore Missouri during an altercation where most of the town was present and "nobody saw anything".

You do you. Everybody's circumstances are different and if you think that they give no positive value to your family life then that's the way to go. This would only be a potential strategy if you didn't want to give them up.

Baptism is also a hard line a lot of Christians get on because they think it's basic hell proofing moreso than the average rituals. It's not like they will stop their general pressures if you agree... but on this particular point people have been known to risk it BIG because they believe the mortal soul is imperiled and it comes at a point when the kid is at their most physically vulnerable being practically newborn.

Risk assessment should be holistic. It's not necessarily compromise and framing it that way risks it becoming more about a battle of egos. it's about recognizing and having a real situation assessment free from personal emotional triggers about how best to respond to potential dangers that center the baby's safety first in a way that can stop the police from getting involved because faith is not reasonable.

While I realize that hard boundry setting is the new norm sometimes harm reduction is a better strategy. While a lot of folk have religious trauma to deal with that makes them want to do exactly zero church stuff one aspect of not believing in God is that a lot of the ritual aspects are pretty low stakes once one you strip away the mysticism. One way to handle the worry of your Mom wanting to do something dangerous to essentially just splash water on your kid is to participate in the silly ritual safely so that it's done with minimum risk.

There definitely are hills to die on but if you give an order you know won't be obeyed because the stakes from your Mother's perspective are incredibly high then one way to look at it is baby's safety comes first. Not because of the possible existence of the soul but because risking kidnapping to perform at end of day a boring nothing ceremony that ultimately means nothing isn't a good idea. If it is distasteful to participate because of trauma then recognizing that you can deputize somebody you trust to get the hurdle over with is an option but realistically, your kid will never gain that same trauma from this. They will grow up with a completely different belief system as their basic. If them simply being baptized is a personal trigger it is wise to unpack exactly why because whether they are or not isn't something your kid is likely going to care about. Having grown up in an agnostic environment and having a number of friends in the same situation some of us were baptized for the sake of family peace but for everyone I know it's a complete non-event. One advantage of these things actually meaning nothing is that there is no change of state. A baptized baby and a non baptized baby are the same.

To my crew anyway a lot of us our parents aversion or reactions to church stuff seems out of proportion due to them having a history. Theirs is a more volitile strongly opinionated atheism as opposed to the more passive naturalized one we developed because we do not feel betrayed by belief. Sometimes their aversion causes them to do things which from the outside display that they are still letting their rejection of religious upbringing effect their judgment in an outsized way because they didn't ever really heal.

You are partially correct. Judges are allowed to perform marriages in their off hours as they are ordained to do so.

Big HOWEVER here...

Courthouse weddings are an offered service of the state. These judges are officially on the clock to perform these services which are booked through government infrastructure meaning that when they are performing this service they do so as government employees operating on Government funding. This is provided by the Government as a means to make marriage accessible to all protected legally marriagable couples. When a judge is engaged this way this is specifically what they are being paid by the government to employ their time. They cannot spend their time on other matters.

Lets be clear here. This is not a "health care ban for minors". If you are under 18 and you are looking for gender related care - which can include psychological support you require the consent of all involved parents and guardians and a licenced medical professional.

The average team who all have to agree for a young trans person's gender health to go forward and continue forward is as follows.

• Guardians : need to be supportive, willing and be capable to demonstrate informed consent.
• Pediatric Doctor : Serves as the baseline General practitioner since a young person's body development has specific differences from an adult.
• Psychiatric Doctor : To repeatedly assess whether the young person is a good candidate and adhering to diagnostic frameworks of similar cases to lessen risks should there appear to be any oddities or reticence in continuing.
• Social Case Worker : Investigates the child's relationship between parents and guardians to make sure coercion is not at play.
• Endocrinologist : In the event of pursuing hormones or blockers this specialist observes the process and paitents must routinely go in to make sure no adverse effects are occurring.

Any of these parties may revoke their endorsement for treatment if something appears to not be going to plan. It is this panel OF ADULTS who consult and operate with informed medical consent that these laws are stripping the choices to pursue recognized treatment plans from. Not minors who are by default powerless if these adults do not align with their wishes.

Does that look like a "gentleman" to you? By familiarity of this particular sort who broadcasts his open distain for trans people on his shirt I warrant he is not a chivalrous, courteous, or honorable man.

I think "male" is probably polite enough and better than he deserves.

Huh, I've been banging on about this for awhile in isolation after talking to a lot of cis people about gender and it's really weird to see it in an article by someone else.

Weird and validating.

Depends on your context of "proud". Pride movements for instance aren't nessisarily about being specifically proud of your gender / sexual orientation in the same way one is of your accomplishments. The movement co-opted the word to mean something subtly different. When some says "I am a proud gay man" for instance the statement does not imply "I think I am particularly special given this trait and am worthy of praise because of it" what is actually being implied is "I am not ashamed by this trait and will not be treated as if I should be. "

The movement has it's own language and "Pride" specifically was chosen as being the opposite of shame which was the affect people were expected to have by society. The people who created the idea did so out of participation in gay support groups at the time where the social norm was always that you had to perform a performative regret like being gay was a habit akin to a drug addiction. You were reinforced to adopt a narrative that you were unhappy and struggling - even when actually your partner and community might be a source of great joy. Gay Marches were shirt and tie events where one soberly asked for people to see you as a human that passes for straight, all the culture and actual proclivity tucked behind a neat mask where that undercurrent of shame was still at play.

True Emancipation, according to the Pride movement, was fighting the narrative that there was anything shameful about being happy. They decked themselves in rainbows as an allusion to the joy they wanted to show the world, modeled Pride events on Independence day events and affected instead of performative shame performative pride. Something that would allow them to be unapologetic in their fight for actual rights to exist in the light of day as opposed to the former affect of shame that turned them into pitiful beggars asking for scraps of patchy tolerance to exist in the shadows as people who would treat their own way of being as a failure state.

Even if you trained relentlessly to preserve your original tone - lean muscle mass, fat distribution, bone density and skin thickness are all tied to your sex hormones and your cells are constantly being replaced. The oldest a muscle cell (exempting heart cells) gets is like 15 years with the average being more like 10. The good senator has been on HRT for over a decade. There's not any even negligible physiological advantage of experienced testosterone puberty left.

Like anything trained skill and age is more important a factor. Unless either is a trained martial artist the advantage most at play would be that McBride is like 20 years younger. Greene does however give the impression like she has punched out a few people over low cost electronics at Black Friday events so I dunno.

Gunna say it's a close toss up.

There's a hidden usage of "hon" from the history of the toxic trans communities message boards to mean "trans women who don't pass" and is used condescendingly. That usage is basically dead in the water and barely known outside of a pretty narrow sliver of the queer community but it can still get you a side eye in some places.

I feel like I have watched in real time as Y'all has gained usage up in the Canadian Queer community.

I am old enough to still regard "hon" as demi hostile but "dude" seems to be drifting more and more gender neutral. At heart we may all just be ninja turtles all the way down

Yes I do. Because The situation in Gaza was not an election issue for Biden. There was a fantastic amount of campaigning, a lot of it bought and paid for, that turned that genocide into a single issue vote with tis holier than thou reaction of withdrawal from the entire system toted as the answer. It is political suicide to run a mainstream Pro-Palistine presidential campaign in the US. A candidate of one of the two main parties need unilateral support from their donation streams and encumbant systems and the Republicans knew that. They know that's the devil's bargain every DNC candidate has to sign to even get a shot.

Republican money supported Jill Stein to serve as a spoiler candidate to engage those with a naive veiw of the system but still wanted to vote and then they helped pipe that message through all manner of socials that if enough people withold their vote then Kamala would have shift her position... Because they knew how enticing that is. The idea that you don't have to compromise your integrity and that that will be rewarded. They turned this into a single issue campaign for so many people knowing that they didn't need to shift their position even a little. They could let their Red capped demogogues talk about literally beheading people and those high on this intoxication of absolute righteousness would ONLY care about an issue that Republicans can flaunt their support in favor of.

It was misplaced moral superiority in part that got us here because if you were lulled into not voting or voting third party because one candidate wasn't "leftist enough" when the alternative is someone popular with an entrenched imobile base of support who wants to make sure leftistism dies dead then you failed to get the assignment.