flicker @ flicker @kbin.social

Mentally ill woman, adult, works for DIDDs (US).

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

318

Joined

2 yr. ago

They're trying to do a "gotcha." What they mean is, "Are even the dead children responsible for the situation they were in?"

It's a fallacy; appeal to emotion. Obviously the dead children aren't reading this, or hearing the words that "all of us are complicit." Instead of thinking as a rational person would that the audience being addressed by those words are the people to who that phrase would apply, they did a rapid-fire, emotion-based response because they want to feel right and superior, instead of taking the mature, nuanced approach.

I played chapter 1 and I felt like the author was writing fanfic of his characters. I hope later chapters clear up what the fuck is going on there but I don't plan on playing chapter 2 until I can buy the whole damn thing because hurry up and wait isn't my style.

I'm going to start introducing myself by offering to be someone's Fran.

If someone could just get me Sam Witwer's phone number... his voice does things to me.

Top notch content!

Sure it does. I've done it!

Code of Conduct and ethical behavior are for everyone, not just people who follow the rules in college. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now, professionally, I'm under an exceptional amount of scrutiny for ethical behavior and I very much should be! I work with marginalized and underrepresented people! They are easy to exploit and are very protected by the law, as well as our ethics. I've reported others for their unethical behavior (as well as conducted conversations about appropriate interaction with the people we support).

What that means is, my (metaphorical) nuts are at the band saw every minute of every day. I am absolutely fine with that. It needs to be that way. And if I have a reportable offense, if I ever refer to my actual employer by their name online, I hope to God someone reports me. Because I need a reality check, and I need one badly.

Goose, gander. Rules for thee, rules for me. The poster isn't somehow allowed to be abused because they did something in the past (which they paid for!) by someone with a superiority complex. That person isn't somehow immune to the consequences of their actions just because of something OP did in the past.

Dip a chocolate digestive in tea for maybe two full seconds and it is absolute glory.

I second the person who says you need to bring this public behavior to the attention of his employer.

He reported you for misconduct and the sword of damocles swings both ways.

Fry scrubbed his nipples clean off!

You know what's extra fun about this?

Those secretions bleach underwear. That's right, my cute black panties are all inevitably doomed to have a white spot in the crotch over time!

https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ee0425a7-ba6c-42c0-a9ff-16f7d1513102

"Due process" is fair treatment through the judicial system. When we discuss making laws regarding how people should be treated, those laws become the process that is due. I reject the idea what we can't discuss changing the law because "that's the way the law is."

Additionally, broadening the point to "property" doesn't at all somehow change the premise. "It's about property rights!" It's about the rights to the property of firearms.

And you did what the other person did! Y'all keep completely ignoring what I'm asking, to try and make some other point!

I started typing up an answer to your hypothetical but then I realized you didn't at all address my question. I'd love an answer to the content of my comment instead of an answer designed to try change my mind without addressing the premise or in any way engaging what I said.

The problem I have with this is the cost.

The cost of living in a world where someone can strip you of your right to currently possess a firearm by accusing you of violence, is that you get to not have access to a firearm, currently.

The cost of living in a world that doesn't restrict a person's right to access a firearm via a claim of violence, is that people die to firearms by those in possession of a firearm.

I haven't really seen a good argument as to why someone's right to have the ability to always, at all times, and forever be allowed access to a firearm that makes it more valuable than a human life.

I've seen a lot of fantastic arguments for ownership of firearms, lemme tell ya. And I support them. But if we are paying for those privileges with human lives, we need to quantify the value of a firearm, versus the value of a human life. I can't (I'm being serious, I really can't) figure out exactly how many human lives we should be willing to "pay" in order to continue to have those freedoms.

I absolutely haven't heard anyone infighting about this thing I'm hearing about for the first time, and also am referencing other times we added things and people engaged in infighting, since last behavior can often help predict future.

I take issue with putting a specific group first, intentionally, and can tell you (now that I've had a day) that the first indigenous person I asked about it said that it was "bullshit" because it feels "placating" to persons historically unrepresented and oppressed. Which does support my concern even if n=1.

For clarity, he is neither cisgender, nor heteronormative in any fashion.

I specifically referenced an incident but there were others. Did you finish reading that sentence?

Adding is absolutely not the issue here. I think I was pretty clear on that. There is room for everyone in our world.

It's the intentional effort to put one group before all others, especially when that group has been vastly under-supported, historically.

I don't like the idea of expanding the acronym to intentionally place someone "first."

Everyone has an equal place at the table and this feels like a great way to start the kind of stupid infighting that I've found exhausting since I first heard a man claim that he didn't have an interest in a community that spent any time and energy fighting for anything but his needs. At a Pride parade in the late nineties ffs.

Additionally, it feels hollow in the same way that corporate pride feels. "You haven't been represented appropriately in this community up until now, but look! You're first!"

I promise that I'm not but I appreciate it anyway. ❤️

For others, this comment is "Hai," or "yes" in Japanese.

I get being frustrated that you were silenced and didn't get a reason but people, by and large, don't care about your personal beefs, and expectations react badly to complaints of not getting ups. That's a knee-jerk that people have.

In future, don't complain about votes first. Make the meme about it seeming broken or something. The majority of people who complain about votes (and find out they were banned or whatever) look like salty crybabies because most of them are.

This is a learning opportunity for being on the internet so use it that way. And then ask about this ban and clarification of rules there.