Consider that those shootings are getting way more frequent. We get a Columbine about four times a year now and around 43 other shootings where there might be only injuries or singular casualties. Kids grow up in the States with lockdown drills. That entire voting block is going to be old enough to vote in 12 years.

I expect anti gun sentiments are growing now as each year new voters are growing up in that system where these events aren’t considered rare anymore. Where parents who came of age in the 2000’s have kids and are now front row to that milliterization and afraid because their families have skin in that game.

These laws are gunna happen one day.

I am sorry, but this take is founded on a lack of knowledge about the spoiler effect in first past the post voting systems. Until more representative forms of voting are introduced this is an idealistic but ultimately misinformed take.

The spoiler effect is a system powerful encumbant politicians use to manipulate populaces at large in part by taking advantage of your better nature and belief in a flawed system. Voting your heart will just not be enough and it’s got hidden dangers. Pressure needs to be applied after this election to change the voting structure to a more stable and open system.

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE?si=qCvPLnk4u6FJ0ec2

Here’s a video that explains fairly susinctly what the spoiler effect is and how alternative voting systems disrupt it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamper_(occupational_title)

Old devilry. The same sort that has union truck drivers called “Teamsters” even though most of them have never been near a horse or mule.

The trucker I swamp for has swapped rhetoric from “Kamala laughs like a hyena/ Trump is fine” to declarations about how he doesn’t care about politics and how maybe we should all just stop talking about it.

Very funny how fast that disengage happened.

Oh but there is an implied value - superiority. When you give a group of people a descriptive property with no inverse you are basically creating a construct of “assumed default”. This comes with other issues of those falling outside the default having no way to effectively talk about people of the assumed default group without using words that have value judgements baked in. Like if I am calling you “a normal person” the implicit value judgement is that I am an abnormal person. I am “othered”.

This sort of denial of language assumes that a group that you are given tools to talk about never and should never talk about your group back utilizing those same tools.

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.

Arguably for a lot of stuff that folk encounter that some count as “subliminal” just means they don’t understand the language and employ of framing devices, juxtaposition, abstraction or rhetoric. We need to start teaching that shit as basic literacy in schools because once you understand them it’s not “subliminal” anymore as it becomes readable text.

The simple presence of an ad in your peripheral vision definitely counts as properly subliminal though and it’s still a menace.

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.

I really want to watch Harris take this chicken apart bone by bone in debate like a mechanical separator. The world demands this man be turned into Trump McNuggets on live tv.

“Being Hot” is never someone’s entire personality. Most of the time it’s just the veneer used to keep people at a distance. There are advantages to not being hot - mainly you are not hassled by people for attention. Getting approached by people who want something from you all the time tends to make one put up walls. It’s easier to be kind when so little is generally expected of you because it’s not being demanded regularly.

Not everyone has the strength to be as nice and polite to the 50th person trying to score their number that week as they are to the first. We as a society spend way too much time dehumanizing people because of this shit. I am not conventionally attractive and I bless my lucky stars that I grew up never being denied affection by family or friends because I wasn’t good looking. I see people at my job talk about the pretty actor folk behind their backs and it sounds just as catty and insecure as the shit people said about me for being unattractive.

I fucking hate thos saying. The moralizing of vanity is just another way to feel superior. The people who put a lot of work into how they look do so for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes it’s because they are just having fun but other times it’s because they grow up being told that they are never enough. That they are simply being deficient for not trying hard enough in which case their lack of vanity becomes instead the moral failure of gluttony or sloth. There is no win state. So then you are simply reinforcing that who they are aside from their appearance is worthless because they are empty voids for caring about the one thing that might be a rare source of validation. We all experience the effects of the privilege of attractiveness or it’s lack. A lot of us spend lifetimes unpacking the toxic effects of that programming. This isn’t the way to go about stopping that cycle.

“Vanity makes a person ugly inside” is just another way to put someone down so the person wielding this cliche can feel big. It’s moralizing someone’s relationship to their physicality and preying on places where people are trained to be weak.

I propose a new social convention where anyone who starts talking about people of any kind in terms of being breeding stock is declared free game to be immediately socked in the gonads by any and all listeners present.

Under this subheading are topics Up to and including :

• Racist narratives about racial replacement or “breeding groups out of existence”

• Facist and Misogynistic theory about the redistribution of resources ie : women

• Transphobic conspiracies about how they are really trying to sterilize swacks of the population through hysterectomies

• Homophobic narratives about how same sex relationships are not “fruitful” and thus worthless

• Idiot relatives who are so desperate to get you to mash your genitals with someone else’s so they can babysit as a hobby that they will drive you to murder if not stopped.

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.

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.

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.