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.

I feel like so much of it comes from really not doing the work to understand. It doesn’t help that With trans issues people get flat out lied to and because there’s nobody on hand to say reality check stuff like : "What the fuck do you mean ‘The uptick of trans men is causing a wave of hysterectomies in a mass sterilization plot’ … one of the largest reason for temporary detransition is for pregnancies. Also STOP TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE BREEDING STOCK. " You get a rolling problem where the disinformation is layers deep and they only trust the sources who are financially rewarded for saying the bullshit- because they believe so hard that everything is a conspiracy and have this backwards perception that if only a tiny handful of people in a field are saying something that contradicts a varitable mountain of concensus then that thing is automatically somehow more believable…

I feel like having someone in your family who opens your eyes to the realities because of the immediate demonstratable contradictions of observed reality makes sense. These people caught in transphobialand have by and large been duped. They were ignorant and a bunch of people took advantage of that for financial and political gain. While I can see how not being immediately empathetic isn’t great I dunno if I am as mad when observing from the angle of these people just being kind of dumb enough to be played.

Political correctness was fired in the early 2000’s. It was dissected as something called “cold politeness” that wasn’t really doing anything but making corporations and beaurcratic systems feel better about doing something to fix problems by slapping a new coat of paint over the mold. They subtly hired “Hey maybe just stop being a dick to people” into the role but nobody noticed it was a totally different guy.

Now when people talk about what PC would say “Don’t be a Dick” struggles with feelings of never being acknowledged for the actual work they’re doing. Forget what that ass PC did and try getting to know “Don’t be a Dick” on their own terms will ya? They are not so bad and probably very supportive of your opinion on sexy rabbits. They attend some furry conventions I’m sure.

This strikes me as a common misconception. A cat’s affections are more difficult to earn than a dog’s and they regularly have only a few people they legitimately attach to. Cats must be approached on their own terms, to connect with one you must adapt your behaviours to it. Dogs however have pack instinct and adapt to what norms humans set. They want affection as one of their primary needs and they will compromise their own behaviours to learn and assimilate. Dogs basically are much harder to fail attaching to.

It doesn’t surprise me that most groups whose needs are not often centered in society that favors the comfort of cis, straight men and require understanding on their own terms to flourish because they often comprise on their own needs to assimilate to get by… Enjoy the company of critters whom must be approached on their own terms to flourish and refuse to compromise because they have no need.

You only really understand cats once you become part of one’s true inner circle. They become incredibly attached, loyal and work to understand you back. Like if your cat keeps bothering you at your computer and messing with your keyboard one solve is to give them their own keyboard because what they really want is to mirror your behaviour and do what you are doing even if they don’t quite get the appeal.

I like both but it took me awhile to understand the appeal of cats because when they are around outsiders they avoid PDAs with their owners and some owner and cat combos just never unlock that affection at all.

Oh they always just say it in a word vomit. Ie :

“The antifa, globalist, deep state, Black lives matter, gender confused mob…”

It’s like bad beat poetry.

I have been stuck swamping in a truck for days with the driver blasting right wing radio. They never stopped whining about BLM, they just pepper it into everything because they no longer feel the need to talk about it on it’s own anymore.

When something becomes that ubiquitous it’s always there but as a supporting member of the chorus, not the one in the spotlight

I think we should probably go file a statement with the Magnus Institute. Not that they’ll do anything to stop the horrors unfolding mind, it’s obviously too late for that, but recording these things for our amus… Posterity is a good idea.

Yeah… And I am saying that is bullshit.

Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.

In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .

There’s also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that’s their privilege.

When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don’t need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.

It’s really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.

It is a sad fact that our industry is treated and often treats itself so often as an exception to the conventions of a workplace. A lot of it has to do with novel input and output. At our core though we are an industry and the rules aren’t different. It’s just the context of process is more difficult to grock then in other applications of the laws. Producers on indy productions tend to think of their creative role primarily and often consider that they are an employer with responsibilities and duty of care of their employees only belatedly… And society tends to treat them as though they are functionally airhead babies who can’t be held accountable because “how could they know better”.

It’s their job to know better. They often don’t because a studio tends to have internal means of enforcing safety to protect their investments… But if there’s nobody and no process to stop you making decisions that kill someone then liability is your reward. Indy shows don’t have the safety valve infrastructure and protections union or big studio shows do and that cuts more than one way.

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.

A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren’t dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.

People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn’t adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo… But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.

The issues with the US bulling their way in here is that while they set themselves up as the arbiters of free speech… these are not your counties. These are democratic institutions who have made independently made these decisions based on their concepts of what constitutes safeguarding the welfare of their citizens. They have determined that repeat targetted provably untrue propaganda based out of intellectual dishonesty that is designed to leave people angry at minorities creates conditions where people logically come to the conclusion that the killing, oppressing and subjugation of people to the point they see death as preferable to life is not okay.

The version of “free speech” that constantly gets toted as a universal good is essentially an experiment. When you see how something is functionally shaping your society and you see that while aspects of it are very healthy and cause additional stability and protection to people but a misuse is causing some people to be treated as subhuman then it’s time to amend the rules. A government should be held accountable for the welfare of all it’s citizens and those non-citizens whom it has temporary sovereignty over. Each country has the right to determine how best to initiate that directive. You are very welcome to defend your version of free speech as defined by American sensibilities on American ground, but American meddling in the ethics of countries whose value systems deal in more nuance would be very unwelcome. Quite frankly since the application of “free speech” under American terms has caused so much political stratification in their own homeland to the point where civil war or a breakdown of other democratic norms are snowballing they need to see to their own house before they can critique other nations.

I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn’t completely relevant to the crime.

Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn’t they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it’s your duty to make sure your crew is safe… And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn’t feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.

We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.

This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.

There are many examples of House Elves in the books who treat essentially the single one who was freed and happy about it as an abnormality. Look at how Dobby is reacted to by every other house elf. Hermione’s advocacy that they have autonomy is ultimately treated as being something only an extreme minority of their population would want and her continued efforts treated as comedy.

Effectively house elves are narrativly speaking a subservient slave species whom treating poorly is narrativly punished… but emancipation is not desired by the whole and they feel fulfilled as long as their masters treat them well. The profiting from their labor is framed as mutually beneficial.

I don’t know if Hermione is strictly a self insert any more than her other characters are, we just sort of assume that because she’s the girl. Oftentimes we see Rowling pop up in the framing devices and not the characters themselves. We are always drawn to some conclusion the plot wants us to. Often what Hermione does is a lampshading technique. She brings up the issues around moral issues but we are lead to see her concerns and advocacy as invalid as the plot makes them inconvenient or proven to be incorrect. It’s the actions speak louder senario. What the characters individually say is not wholly important because from an authorial standpoint some of them are intended to be misguided and Hermione is framed as good-hearted but ultimately misguided.

Hermione’s sense of moral objection is treated more often as a flaw, an annoyance to her peers and unneeded or even counter to the needs of by the people she is advocating for. She is more closely aligned to a caracature of how JKR veiws advocates of minority rights then a reflection of her own advocacy. That every other character tends to just ignore Hermione isn’t veiwed as a tragic instance. It’s played for comedy.

I mean his collected works of modules have quite a bit of sexism. The age old shit of rape and exploitation as set peices, maidens in need of rescue, duplicitous backstabby honeypots, women depicted as sparsely dressed supermodels or villians and just general statements that women were less capable of enjoying his stuff because of “biological differences in the female brain” is kind of all over the place. We could dredge that all up as the article sumerizes but we’d be here awhile. There’s not much point. Guy is dead.

This article reminds me vibe wise a little of the whole “Trans people are responsible for the closing of gay/lesbian bars.” thing. Like I am sorry, why is it my fault that my gay friends don’t feel comfortable in the establishments where their trans partners and buddies are hassled, dissed and generally not allowed to go and just chill and just be? It’s in the favor of the bar owners to invite more people in to spend money than to play games that shut people out. It’s not like little forums online that will be there as long as somebody shows up. If brick and mortar locations don’t make enough to keep the lights on they close.

If my buddies want me to wingman we’re going to the trans inclusive places where we all feel safe and your bar withering isn’t our problem. Good luck finding a MAGA friendly gay bar.

My folks are generally wholesome. I do have family members who are not onboard but like… We estranged from them largely for other biblethumpery reasons.

My coming out to my Grandparents was hilarious. My granddad with his hearing aids somewhere other than his ears was bellowing at the top of his lungs "(Chosen Name) IS A GREAT NAME KIDDO! I ALWAYS KNEW YOU TOOK AFTER ME! " as my Gran was like a minute behind the conversation and trying to clarify what was going down over the din granddad was making. It was like 15 minutes of utterly chaos that had me just dying with laughter.

But then they are all kind of cool. My 90 year old Great Uncle has a non-binary carer and went to his small town pride with his walker wearing a shirt that read “I’m 90 and I get it. What’s your excuse?”

Coming out to my Mom as a transmasc non-binary person was kind of hilarious.

Mum : So you are kind of a gay man then?

Me : I… Guess so?

Mum : So your Husband (who has a solid female phenotype preference)… Is also gay?

Me : Uh… He’s kind of queer by association yeah. Like my LGBTQIA+ 1.

Mum : Oh! That’s what the plus is for!

Me :… Yes.