EffectivelyHidden

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bingo.

"Just switch to Bluesky or Mastadon" doesn't work for artists who have spent years building up their customer base on Twitter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Translation.

Fuck, we can't pay our server costs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This isn't legalization.

There is no government regulation of sex work being done here, this is partial decriminalization, which in the context of sex work means eliminating the crime.

So far, the research suggests that decriminalization is the best model for sex workers and for communities. New Zealand's model is better than what you see in Amsterdam. Making it legal and regulated just drives sex work “into more covert forms where working routines are negatively impacted” (Vanwesenbeeck, 2017, p. 1634). It's why when France implemented a Nordic Model, they found that “not only had it failed to reduce demand for sex work, it also failed to impact the incidence of trafficking into prostitution, and it put sex workers at greater risk by increasing the stigma against them” (Östergren, Dodillet, 2011).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

But you can't fix inequality by treating everyone equally.

The people who are already at an advantage will just continue to grow that advantage, while the people at a disadvantage will fall farther and farther behind.

That's why, despite being found repeatedly to be a form of racial discrimination, affirmative action was previously found to meet the standard of Strict Scrutiny on dozens of occasions. The Supreme Court backtracked on decades of rulings today.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Certainly a better starting place than what we have now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

They got rid of the Elemental Forms too, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should have written a law that explicitly does that then, and not what they did.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Affirmative action is an opportunity, the opportunity to go to a prestigious college.

It's not equality outcomes.

Equality of outcomes would look like UBI.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Correct.

But you can't fix inequality by treating everyone equally.

The people who are already at an advantage will just continue to grow that advantage, while the people at a disadvantage will fall farther and farther behind.

That's why, despite being found repeatedly to be a form of racial discrimination, affirmative action was previously found to meet the standard of Strict Scrutiny on dozens of occasions. The Supreme Court backtracked on decades of rulings today.

You only don't like context because it, like so many things, is inconvenient to your ideology. Cant' have things like facts and nuance, no sir.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

What's important is the language these judges are using.

They are pushing back on the reactionary right's claims that gender affirmative care is scientifically contested, and insisting that the right back their claims.

They can't, because the right's claims are bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Except, as demonstrated by the Epic Hack, those platforms are generally run by idiots and/or grifters with terrible security practices. Pushing them there makes them extremely vulnerable to other forms of disruption.

I have no interest in Google being the arbiters of truth, but I'm not going to bat an eye if they are using it to suppress vaccine misinformation.

Here is to hoping kbin isn't run by idiots with terrible security practices.

view more: ‹ prev next ›