Funny events in anti-woke world

[Trunkage]

You either have a very basic misconception about how the law works, or you think that everyone is incredibly stupid.

Statutory law, the law as written by legislative bodies, is one part of the legal system. But there's a whole other part whose job it is to actually interpret that statutory law and apply it to actual cases. Your "reading comprehension" or personal interpretation of the text does not matter, it has as much legal power as my farts. If a judge or jury can interpret the bill to mean that using a child's preferred pronouns is providing material support to their social transition (which is not remotely unreasonable given how extremely vaguely it is worded) then it can absolutely happen. The law does not need to actually say "if you refer to a child using pronouns that do not accord with their assigned sex you are guilty of a felony", it only needs to not contradict that interpretation and leave the implementation of the law to a judge who may be inclined to interpret it that way.

The point of laws like this is, and the reason why they are universally vague and obtuse, is to deliberately make it difficult to determine what is or is not legally permissible so that people will be frightened to do anything at all. This has been a tactic in anti-LGBT legislation for decades now, and we can absolutely recognize it.

The fact that you can read the law and argue that it would only apply in a limited range of situations (and even that is pushing it, this one is exceptionally unsubtle) is completely meaningless because in practice very few people are going to be willing to risk their careers trying to establish the boundaries of what they are and are not allowed to say. The purpose is to deliberately create confusion and fear in order to stifle discussion or support. We have seen it enough times, at this point, that there is not really any room for debate. I grew up under a law like this.

I don't know if you're incredibly naive or just faking being incredibly naive and to be honest I don't really care. Do better.

It's Alabama IVF all over again

 

[Silvanus]

USING pronouns is not part of that bill.

Please tell me the difference between 'pronouns' being in the bill and 'USING pronouns' not being in the bill.

 

[Casual Shinji]

A) There is no artistry in just making offensive material. You aren't making art, you just wasting people's time.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it, as that description could be (and has been) leveled toward art that has gay or trans characters in it by some christian evangelicals.

Offensive material or expressions can have meaning just by their offense alone. Case in point; putting gay or trans characters into a story to offend those who see them as offensive by their very nature, like christian evangelicals do. Or showing women in ugly, revolting, or otherwise offensive ways to piss off those who think women should always abide by traditional beauty standards and feminine behaviour.

Or just having a character fart or shit simply to disgust the audience. You don't have to like it, nobody has to like it, but that doesn't make it not artistic. Art is basically just conveying an idea or expression through ways that differ from the usual means of interaction. Which is why A.I. art isn't art, since it's just a program that compiles data.

Whether the offense is a waste of time is up to the consumer to decide, but even it being considered a waste of time can be viewed as somekind of artistic intent. Some common sense ofcourse does apply.

 

[Silvanus]

Or just having a character fart or shit simply to disgust the audience. You don't have to like it, nobody has to like it, but that doesn't make it not artistic. Art is basically just conveying an idea or expression through ways that differ from the usual means of interaction. Which is why A.I. art isn't art, since it's just a program that compiles data.

I'm with you on "offensive" material. There is value in transgression itself, because it prompts thought about the nature of acceptability and challenges how people react to such material. Its easy for such an approach to become puerile and lose much of its value. But not always, and not just because it is transgressive or offensive. Art with 'transgressive' or offensive elements used to make a genuine point has been produced by some pretty great artists, among them John Prine.

But I don't gel with your mini definition of art there, conveying information in a way that differs from the usual means. That would encompass a lot of information that isn't artistic (I.e., is purely functional), and wouldn't necessarily exclude AI anyway. I'd say that 'art' is best described as a form of communication intended to evoke an emotional response and/or appreciation (beyond an objective understanding of the information). What excludes AI is the absence of intent.

 

[Casual Shinji]

But I don't gel with your mini definition of art there, conveying information in a way that differs from the usual means. That would encompass a lot of information that isn't artistic (I.e., is purely functional), and wouldn't necessarily exclude AI anyway. I'd say that 'art' is best described as a form of communication intended to evoke an emotional response and/or appreciation (beyond an objective understanding of the information). What excludes AI is the absence of intent.

Art is nebulous, but this conversation we're having now on its own wouldn't be considered art, eventhough information, opinions, and ideas are being traded. I guess that's what I mean by the usual means of interaction.

But even absence of intent could be artistic, or gain a life of its own as a piece of art. A book written as a follow-up to a previously successful book for the sake of more money is still art. And while the writer might include some artistic value by force of habit, the intent is solely to get more money. It's in a way difficult to explain why A.I. art isn't art, except to keep it simple by saying the human brain isn't a computer, and it is within our nature to want to interact with other minds, not programs.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Depends on the context. That guy wasn't compiling a list of the games that company worked on as some sort of interesting trivia. Instead the list was compiled to support the argument that it was an eeeevil company with EEEEEVIL designs to ruin gaming for...uh some reason.

Or to keep it in line with your Bethesda example. There's a writer over there who's quite widely disliked. If you made a list of Bethesda games then this wouldn't be encouraging attacks. But if you made a list of Bethesda games specifically that involved this writer and if you accompany it with the argument he's going around maliciously ruining them for uh...some reason then the context changes.

Why can't you make a list for people that either want to buy or not buy games with a common element? A lot of people find EA or Activision evil and everything just carries on fine. Why this Sweet Baby company so special? You do realize this is where we are at as a society that we are complaining about making a list that says what games a company has worked on. Do you not see how asinine this is? It's merely the Streisand effect.

You either have a very basic misconception about how the law works, or you think that everyone is incredibly stupid.

Statutory law, the law as written by legislative bodies, is one part of the legal system. But there's a whole other part whose job it is to actually interpret that statutory law and apply it to actual cases. Your "reading comprehension" or personal interpretation of the text does not matter, it has as much legal power as my farts. If a judge or jury can interpret the bill to mean that using a child's preferred pronouns is providing material support to their social transition (which is not remotely unreasonable given how extremely vaguely it is worded) then it can absolutely happen. The law does not need to actually say "if you refer to a child using pronouns that do not accord with their assigned sex you are guilty of a felony", it only needs to not contradict that interpretation and leave the implementation of the law to a judge who may be inclined to interpret it that way.

The point of laws like this is, and the reason why they are universally vague and obtuse, is to deliberately make it difficult to determine what is or is not legally permissible so that people will be frightened to do anything at all. This has been a tactic in anti-LGBT legislation for decades now, and we can absolutely recognize it.

The fact that you can read the law and argue that it would only apply in a limited range of situations (and even that is pushing it, this one is exceptionally unsubtle) is completely meaningless because in practice very few people are going to be willing to risk their careers trying to establish the boundaries of what they are and are not allowed to say. The purpose is to deliberately create confusion and fear in order to stifle discussion or support. We have seen it enough times, at this point, that there is not really any room for debate. I grew up under a law like this.

I don't know if you're incredibly naive or just faking being incredibly naive and to be honest I don't really care. Do better.

It's all in this line and pronouns alone are not included.
"the person is acting in his or her official capacity as a teacher or school counselor and the person provides support, regardless of whether the support is material, information, or other resources to a child regarding social transition"

You can argue a lot of things in lots of laws, doesn't mean they can happen. A law saying you can't lure kids into a car/building will be vague enough to be interpreted as merely saying "hi" from a car/building can be considered luring, but it won't ever be. You all point out vagueness in a bill you don't like but not so in a bill you do like.

Here is the specific section of 566.400

8 (2) "Social transition", the process by which an individual adopts the name,
9 pronouns, and gender expression, such as clothing or haircuts, that match the
10 individual's gender identity and not the gender assumed by the individual's sex at birth;

45 589.407. Tier I sexual offenders include:
71 (p) Contributing to social transition under section 566.400;



In before the clown specifies that using pronouns isn't a crime under this, using the wrong pronouns is, so like, just don't use them.

And 566.400 section includes the following:
"the person is acting in his or her official capacity as a teacher or school counselor and the person provides support, regardless of whether the support is material, information, or other resources to a child regarding social transition"

Please tell me the difference between 'pronouns' being in the bill and 'USING pronouns' not being in the bill.

Just because a word is in a bill doesn't mean the bill is making it illegal to say said word.

---

Also, you guys do realize this bill that you're so upset about that doesn't do what you claim isn't ever going to get voted on, right? People just run these articles, put out these tweets to make people like you be outraged. You can dig the bottom of the ocean for bills that will never see the light of day and bring them to the surface to make anyone get outraged.

 

[Elijin]

Are you fucking dumb? Those are follow ons. Step one defines the teacher offering support to social transitions, step 2 defines what social transitios are, including the use of pronouns other than ASAB.

It's okay to be wrong, but this? This is just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Cicada 5]

 

[Chimpzy]

Donald Trump, Seeking Cash Infusion, Meets With Elon Musk

It’s not clear whether Mr. Musk will spend any of his billions on the former president’s behalf. If he does, he could erase Mr. Trump’s financial disadvantage in the 2024 race.

www.nytimes.com

Now here's a match made in hell. Also wonderful opportunity for Musk to buy itself a presidential candidate.

 

[Silvanus]

Just because a word is in a bill doesn't mean the bill is making it illegal to say said word.

OK. Yet it says it aims to criminalise contributing to someone's 'social transition', and explicitly identifies pronouns as a part of that.

 

[Cicada 5]

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A) There is no artistry in just making offensive material. You aren't making art, you just wasting people's time. (This might be because I've been reading Captain Underpants which is meant to be offensive, in a kid way, but is absolute trash because it's just trying to be offend and nothing else. They are a bore and a chore to read.)

If a person makes a piece of art that happens to offend people, that's different.

Now, to your point. Most art is pleasing and less demographically targeted by design. Mona Lisa, Girl with the Pearl Earring, American Gothic, Mario... Most of Nintendo's catalogue for that matter, Lion King, Harry Potter,...

I can't imagine anyone calling Dune an offense. And it's smashing it at the box office right now.

Most art goes out of its way not to be offensive and is not aimed at a demographic.

B) Publishers have always had the power to cancel people. They have been doing it for centuries. They didn't need to be people to do that. It's inherent in their nature, by design.

You can, of course, want to take away that power. But you don't actually want to take away that power. You just want them to go back to when they only used that power on lefties. When you grow up, I can join you. But you have to realise that this means that you have to make all publications done by the government. You cant force a company to invest in everything. That's not how capitalism works.


C) I mean, Musk, Bezos, Koch, The Zuck, Dorsey and Shapiro have all said very similar things about forcing their ideas onto others and cancelling people. But then, that's not really what this is about

A) I thought art is meant to challenge people so challenging peoples sensibilities and would be one of them which is the basis of being seen as offensive is it not?

Haven't there been recent attacks on the Mona Lisa?? Hell I know in the past there were attacks on paints like The Rokeby Venus being attacked.

Harry Potter pissed of a lot of hardcore religious idiots in it's day lol.

I'm sure there's some on twitter getting mad about Dune's white saviour story or something too.

B) Yeh the argument here is people were being mean and trying to cancel the publisher and hurting the corporations feelings. Also yeh you can't force investment in everything, but the same goes for customers and media. Media isn't owed peoples money and I find it rather pernicious the whole "If you don't buy our media it means you're a racist / bigot" approach being taken by some towards certain media etc.

C) Yeh cause bringing up those guys is a deflection of just how much the employees of Sweet Baby Inc would be crucified by their own side in the modern age. Yet it's people who were on about how all jewish babies should be aborted are now the ones calling others Nazis........

 

[Silvanus]

Haven't there been recent attacks on the Mona Lisa??

Hmm... sort of. Food protestors threw pumpkin soup at it in January. But it has been behind glass since the '50s, and in no danger of actual damage, as the protestors themselves well knew.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So I haven't looked too far into this and I don't think there's much to look into other than to laugh at these people. They strike me as sovereign citizens, especially when they bring up "military tribunal".

 

[Gergar12]

Katie Porter suggests billionaires rigged California Senate primary after losing to Adam Schiff

Senate candidate Katie Porter, D-Calif., on Wednesday suggested that the California primary race was rigged by “an onslaught of billionaires" after losing to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

www.foxnews.com

This but unironically.

 

[Cicada 5]

Sweet Baby Inc. Doesn’t Do What Some Gamers Think It Does

No, one company isn’t ‘forcing’ diversity into all your favorite video games

kotaku.com

 

[Casual Shinji]

Is... this real?

Not that I don't think racist scum like this doesn't exist, but this feels like B-movie level Evil racist. Even the response from the daughter gives off a strange vibe. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and says this might be manufactured. If I'm wrong I'm wrong though.

 

[Avnger]

Is... this real?

Not that I don't think racist scum like this doesn't exist, but this feels like B-movie level Evil racist. Even the response from the daughter gives off a strange vibe. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and says this might be manufactured. If I'm wrong I'm wrong though.

My reaction as well to be honest. Awful racist shitheads certainly exist and likely would act similarly, but this particular story comes across as made up for clicks.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's truth in that, but hard to say, these days. Not that long ago, Trump would have been a bad movie PotUS.

 

[Chimpzy]

Sweet Baby Inc. Doesn’t Do What Some Gamers Think It Does

No, one company isn’t ‘forcing’ diversity into all your favorite video games

kotaku.com

One of the more amusing possibilities of the railing against everything woke, is that they might have inadvertently made the "woke games epidemic" happen.

Remember some 10-15 years ago, when complaints of lack of diversity and such were often met with "If you want more diversity in games, go make those games yourself"?

Of course, it was not meant as genuine advice, but as a conversation killing platitude. But it might've been taken to heart nonetheless.