Drivebyhaiku

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.