Oh it happens. We as a community aren’t all angels. Some of us get very VERY warped by religious or cultural trauma where because the base assumption is that we are monsters already by virtue of being something shameful there is a lowered boundary to other shamed behaviours…

But what stops that shame spiral is normalizing queer identities and creating good community with good praxis. Consent is king in so many queer spaces where I am because we’ve all basically had to imbibe the lessons of therapy to rescue people out of the dark. We discuss gold standards of sexual health and behaviour and conduct with frankness and lack of shame because generations of us were abandoned to places where we were vulnerable to exploitation. To become a pdf file is to lose your community as nothing is so disgusting to people in queer spaces as someone who would cause that kind of damage as it is expected that you know exactly what the knock on effects of that act are.

There is a fair amount of speculation that being bi is actually way more common than is generally thought but because current cultural rules of compulsory heterosexuallity codes being bi as being something you must act on to actually be considered that identity a lot of people believe that they are straight simply because they never acted on the attraction.

For guys the comp-het mindset also tends to discount basically any situation where they feel dominant because “straight” and “masculine” to them basically means that as long as they are the petetrative element in a place of absolute control via power dynamics or violence then it doesn’t count as “gay”. Essentially since as long as it holds no emotional attachment to them it doesn’t count. As long as they can’t code their behaviour as “feminine” it doesn’t count.

Which to the rest of us is fucking bonkers…

It’s Union film. It gets weird when you involve teamsters as technically if we don’t work well together folks from my union are way less protected than they are. They may work for my boss but my boss has no firing power.

I am not even kidding when I tell you he is leagues better than the last teamster I worked with who thought it was perfectly chill to play all the hardcore right wing pundits… Particularly Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson who uses the T-slur pretty liberally while I was riding the cab of the truck and couldn’t remove myself (I am trans).

There’s a lot of really fucked up stuff in the film industry that nobody really talks about.

Good gods… This is a complete tangent but I have a coworker who went on a a full rant about how DEI is terrible and they lowered standards to get in poor black people… So straight up bulshit tech bro racism.

But then he starts talking about how he heard from a doctor in South Africa was talking (complaining) to him about how when they started hiring black doctors because of DEI the standards tanked and people were worse off.

And I was like “So a WHITE doctor from post apartide South Africa was complaining about how hiring black people ruined everything and that seemed like a legitimate source to cite huh?”

Which of course sent him on a whole thing about how the doctor being white had nothing to do with anything and how that was a super racist thing for me to imply… But I think the reframing was a bit of a shock to him.

If your wages are hourly or salary then they might be raised dependent on either a “performance” bonus which works as an incentive or by a fixed yearly raise but neither is tied to profit. It’s technically just engineering the workforce to give more output by dangling a carrot. The size of the carrot distribution is factored into the labor cost - it is distinctly not profit, it is operating budget which deducts from profit because it is counted as an expense.

Here is the thing about profit - it comes from saving money on labor, resource or overhead. Sometimes it’s a neutral or good thing when the profit comes from a source like a clever innovation that solves a problem or by fulfilling a highly desireable market demand… But a lot of the time that isn’t the case. Those profits can come from collaboration with competitors to pay labor less, finding cheaper materials that shunt the costs onto other people outside the business by means of pollution or utilizing exploitable workforces with less health or legal protections, outsourcing.

Yes people are motivated by money but why do people want money? In the case of your average worker the demands are quite small. Money equals security - a non toxic and comfortable place to sleep, food on the table, assured care for health when sick or old and creature comforts to create fulfilling free time. Profit oftentimes incentivizes removing these things from other people in service to an investor class. Creating protections against this is often the prerogative of government because government depends on the wealth of it’s people to perpetuate itself so it’s incentive is to protect the majority of people whom hold them accountable on the whole from becoming exploited into poverty, sickness and death because those things can be profitable. One can say “that’s just the way it is” only so long as once a large enough group of people see no value or security in living life they generally start banding together to become violent.

Technically workers do not care about profits, they care about wages. The average worker doesn’t benefit from profit because they represent a fixed expense. The work they produce is worth more than their salary which is how a company produces profit. As long as a company breaks even and the salary is enough to meet one’s needs a worker does just fine. However a worker’s job could easily be axed in the name of profit because they are what is being profited off of, not the entitled beneficiary of the business as a whole.

Profit it just the take home winnings of the investors or owners of the business and the few jobs at the top where compensation is based off of profit percentage or lavish bonuses for making the targets.

Basically yes? Antichrist is pluralized in the Bible in places and thus is not necessarily one individual. The false Prophets are described similarly.

Most of the pop culture picture of the Antichrist as a more singular entity is more like the Thessalonians “the man of sin”… Also known as the Man of Lawlessness, Apostasy, Insurrection, rebellion… One particularly agregious Antichrist that Jesus himself must come down and take out with a breath that exposes his naked wickedness to the worshipping masses who will realize that they are not among the saved. It’s sometimes interpreted that this kicks off the second coming but it doesn’t actually say that… It just says it happens sometime before the end of days which could mean it’s distinctly apart from and not feature of the revelation. Like some kind of Jesus warm up cameo.

Really its kind of tempting to paint Trump and Evengelicals in that role. He wouldn’t be the first nasty to wrap himself up in an altar cloth.

I wouldn’t say that’s the sentiment expressed when people remind others of the limitations of freedom of speech. More like it’s a reminder that knowing exactly where those boundaries lie because somethings aren’t the government’s job to mediate. Sometimes it’s our collective job to resist because nobody is coming to fix it for you.

Realistically rights like the freedom of speech and expression are notoriously weak by way of actual protection by a culture. Russia technically has freedom of speech on the books but you can still be hauled off to prison for spreading “LGBTQIA propaganda”. What actually protects those rights are the expectations and moreover the outrage of a culture’s people against these acts of censorship regardless of who is perpetuating it.

Wouldn’t that be if they were connected at the tail? This is more of a disorganised avian garroting caused by a constant futile bid for meaningful independence.

I think of America more as a swarm of 50 plus angry pigeons tied together at the neck with string.

This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?

If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn’t particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn’t always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors… And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.

It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.

However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.

Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine… But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.

Agreed, but you also said :

I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.

We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.

The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.

Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press… But will also send you to prison for publishing “LGBTQIA propaganda”

Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it’s own.

Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren’t nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It’s on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.

But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn’t the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.

Do they just figure the brainwashing has stuck by now? Is that it?

Like if they draw a connection between whatever weird thing they can possibly shoestring to trans women all of the conditioning will kick in and they will go "Brrr Trans woman BAD, me no trans! Me hate bad thing that will make me trans! "

Not unity specifically. Excellence, Respect and Friendship without discrimination. Technically “unity” is not a core mission statement and what is considered culturally significant is left to the host country to decide.

Is a fashion show featuring people dressed to reference Greek Gods off brand for the French?Not really. Historically speaking the Nobility used to employ people to dress up to become Greek gods in tableau to serve as living lawn ornements.

The original Olympics, both the ancient practice and the og international competition used to also feature arts and culture. Since the painting they were referencing was not the Last Supper and about Greek Gods it wasn’t an intended act of disrespect or division … But other forces are definitely choosing to make it so based on the idea that these things should be of the broadest possible appeal.

I would imagine if it was a bunch of straight people in silly costumes we would be having a very different conversation… Maybe about how art was once part of the Olympics. That would be a fun thing to talk about.

“How dare the queers…” is so tiring a conversation to keep having over and over.

I would argue once the guillotine becomes a factor we don’t become equal… Some of us come up short.

I will see myself out.

Some laws are clarifications of overlaps of other laws that create wiggle room. In this instance the queer panic defense is still being used in court rooms and whether or not it passes as legit is basically up to whichever judge you get, how eloquent the defense lawyer is and how sympathetic to queerphobia the jury is.

If this firestorm of factors does occur you get a situation where there is ruled a legitimate self defense claim because a queer person existed near you.

Trans women experience this way more often than they should just more often then not there’s no charges pressed. A cis straight guy approaches them to hit on them (oft times unwanted), they get clocked as trans during the encounter, the guy freaks out and no matter what the trans person does be it reject, deflect or reciprocate, the guy becomes abusive or violent. The thing that the guy is reacting to is his own homo/transphobia, not the behaviour of the trans person he approached. They could be the nicest, meekest trans woman alive who is just trying to escape the awkward situation and the abuse would still happen. There’s a lot of people out there who would find the cis guy’s reaction way more relatable than the trans woman’s experience so that recipe for the trans panic defense still sometimes finds all the nessisary ingredients. The law leaves much less room for interpretation of what constitutes a valid point to argue self defense narratives.

Yeah… And I am saying that is bullshit.