Hello, Elliot Page

[Silvanus]

I really don't understand why Jessica Yaniv comes up as an example of how the system is open to abuse.

She tried to sue people on poor grounds.... and roundly failed. The system prevented her doing so. Surely that's an example of the system working as intended, and preventing an abuser.

 

[Buyetyen]

I really don't understand why Jessica Yaniv comes up as an example of how the system is open to abuse.

She tried to sue people on poor grounds.... and roundly failed. The system prevented her doing so. Surely that's an example of the system working as intended, and preventing an abuser.

I get the impression that the complainers think filing lawsuits is their right and privilege, not that of minorities.

 

[Worgen]

Because they hoped people wouldn't abuse the system like some have decided to and hen it was conceived they probably didn't think it would end up being used as it is.

That is why you can't build a system on hope, its why libertarians and socialists are naïve. They think you can make a system with good intentions and everyone will just play nice, you have to take into account those who will abuse the system and decide how much of that abuse your system is wiling to accept. Because ultimately there will always be some, but you want a system strong enough to take it and flexible enough that it can't be broken by people abusing it.

 

[Worgen]

I really don't understand why Jessica Yaniv comes up as an example of how the system is open to abuse.

She tried to sue people on poor grounds.... and roundly failed. The system prevented her doing so. Surely that's an example of the system working as intended, and preventing an abuser.

She's used as an example by the right of why there shouldn't be laws protecting trans individuals. They love to bring her up.

 

[Iron]

I get the impression that the complainers think filing lawsuits is their right and privilege, not that of minorities.

If a white man lives in Japan, does that make him a minority? Would you then champion the minority rights of white men living in Japan?

 

[Buyetyen]

If a white man lives in Japan, does that make him a minority? Would you then champion the minority rights of white men living in Japan?

I have no idea what point you think you're making, but for the sake of argument, yes.

 

[Iron]

I have no idea what point you think you're making, but for the sake of argument, yes.

The point here is that there's an implicit assumption that minorities are something static and immovable - i.e. the minority could not become the majority, and thus could not ever become an oppressor. I'm glad you're not subscribed to that mode of thinking

edit: BTW there are no residency laws in Japan. If you are not Japanese, you can't vote.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That is why you can't build a system on hope, its why libertarians and socialists are naïve. They think you can make a system with good intentions and everyone will just play nice, you have to take into account those who will abuse the system and decide how much of that abuse your system is wiling to accept. Because ultimately there will always be some, but you want a system strong enough to take it and flexible enough that it can't be broken by people abusing it.

I've often found it that libertarians aren't naive, they are just hoping the system is open to abuse in their favour, but will be clearly able to see the problems when they are at the pointy end.

 

[Buyetyen]

The point here is that there's an implicit assumption that minorities are something static and immovable

So you projected onto me, got it. Moving on.

 

[Iron]

I've often found it that libertarians aren't naive, they are just hoping the system is open to abuse in their favour, but will be clearly able to see the problems when they are at the pointy end.

I often found that socialists aren't naive, they just want to legally steal rich people's money and live off it.

 

[Iron]

So you projected onto me, got it. Moving on.

what. This is the thinking behind terms such as "reverse-racism"

 

[Worgen]

I've often found it that libertarians aren't naive, they are just hoping the system is open to abuse in their favour, but will be clearly able to see the problems when they are at the pointy end.

No, they are very naïve, you just have to listen to them go on about how ownership would work and personal property and such to know that any such system is totally inadequate and would become extremely complicated very quickly. Actually, lets link some Sam Seder debates with them since those tend to be fun.

 

[Iron]

Hopefully Elliot will understand the plight of manlets

 

[09philj]

I liked them in Hard Candy.

 

[Cheetodust]

That is why you can't build a system on hope, its why libertarians and socialists are naïve. They think you can make a system with good intentions and everyone will just play nice, you have to take into account those who will abuse the system and decide how much of that abuse your system is wiling to accept. Because ultimately there will always be some, but you want a system strong enough to take it and flexible enough that it can't be broken by people abusing it.

Does causing a global financial crisis not count as breaking it?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I liked them in Hard Candy.

That was...25 years ago?

Wait, no, only 15, was feeling really old for a moment, change that to only somewhat old.

On the wiki for that movie, they've already updated his name, which I thought might have taken longer.

 

[Worgen]

Does causing a global financial crisis not count as breaking it?

That gets a bit more complicated then someone abusing litigation. But it does show the resilience of our systems that we have been able to recover from it, but it also shows how cutting regulations can lean to outcomes like that where people do rampantly abuse systems and why you do need oversite and regulation so you can prevent bad actors from causing harm.

 

[Cheetodust]

That gets a bit more complicated then someone abusing litigation. But it does show the resilience of our systems that we have been able to recover from it, but it also shows how cutting regulations can lean to outcomes like that where people do rampantly abuse systems and why you do need oversite and regulation so you can prevent bad actors from causing harm.

Maybe I misunderstood, I was saying that in response to to libertarianism and socialism being naive as opposed to capitalists.

 

[Schadrach]

I'd think he would only rise in demand after this. Netflix is most likely hurriedly rewriting a script to cast Elliot as the lead.

I'm sure in the market space Elliot Page exists in, being Elliot rather than Ellie is probably beneficial to his career. Especially when he's still permitted to take roles for female characters away from women (eg Vanya in Umbrella Academy). Just another example of the patriarchy at work, letting men steal jobs from women like that.

I don't think he's the first person to ever change their name.

Retroactively changing their name on everything they've ever done previously is a relatively new phenomenon, though.

Netflix is handling this exactly how I feel they should.

Elliot Page Will Continue to Star in ‘Umbrella Academy,’ Netflix Changes Credits on His Past Films

Elliot Page will continue to star in 'Umbrella Academy,' as Netflix moves to change credits on actor's past films.

variety.com

Of course. The only case where it's woke for a man to take a woman's job is if the man is trans. Trans > woman on the oppression scale, after all.

 

[Houseman]

I'm sure in the market space Elliot Page exists in, being Elliot rather than Ellie is probably beneficial to his career. Especially when he's still permitted to take roles for female characters away from women (eg Vanya in Umbrella Academy). Just another example of the patriarchy at work, letting men steal jobs from women like that.