followed tags: 150
followed domains: 3
badges given: 36 of 38
member for: 2063 days
If you work at a company that actually supports you, then hustle can be a good thing. If you work at a company that needlessly exploits you, then you should be using your hustle somewhere else.
I work at a bakery. I do 10 hour shifts that are almost all hustle and hard work. It is by no means my dream job, but you know what?
- I have benefits, and I get paid pretty fairly.
- I have a positive work environment.
- I have a boss that has my back.
I am more than willing to hustle for her, pick up extra shifts, help out, come in for meetings on my days off. Good companies give back.
I get that, but I'm more commenting on the fact that the choice to stop working on domestic terrorism is connected to and linked with the cultural attitudes of both the US in general and the cultural attitudes of the police agencies, both of which are long standing problems that go back before the Civil War.
Now, "Choice" is sort of a weird word because in some ways it's less a conscious choice and more one that has a lot of subconscious elements to it, in addition to a level of context within the attitudes and fears of the times. Of course the US was looking outward in the aftermath of 9/11 - Who could blame them for doing that? but the continued focus on that area when there were warning bells going off domestically has a lot to do with those cultural attitudes, and the messaging of all of the state and federal governments since 9/11 (the Obama administration included).
No they didn't. They just didn't care, or in some cases were an active part of it. US Police having ties to the KKK and other white supremacist organizations is so supremely not news that it was noted as a growing problem in the Reconstruction.
no, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the bill he's talking about is not the bill he'd be un trouble because of. He'd be in trouble because he's endangering his student's safety and discriminating against them on the basis of gender identity. It's not a "free speech" thing, it's a "endangering the life of a minority" thing.
And regarding non-passing trans people like Muscato, you just use your best guess first (which if you're not sure of someone's gender, should be "they/them" for simplicity's sake), and then if you're corrected, use the corrected pronoun. Real fucking simple.
The situation with non-passing trans people has gotten so toxic that cisgender women that don't "fit" into societal norms of what a woman should look like are now getting misgendered more often. My bass teacher for my masters degree is one such woman who has to deal with this.
- The lawsuits make him seem like a hypocrite, but they don't invalidate the point: that the idea of criminalizing the refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns is ridiculous.
No, he's still a hypocrite because you literally cannot use the laws as written to do what he says that you can. If you refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns, you're not a criminal, you're just a literal piece of human trash.
However, if you are in a position of power, such as a teacher, and you refuse to use that person's pronouns after having been corrected by the student, You not just a piece of human trash, you're also being discriminatory towards a transgender person and making them unsafe, which under Ontario law and Canadian Federal law, is likely to be a crime. That's never been tested, and there's never been a court case, so we don't know full legal arguments for both sides, but I don't think that the teacher in that situation would have a leg to stand on, legally, especially considering "free speech" as it is defined in the public conscience, is not actually protected as such in Canada. You can't just say whatever you want here.
- You do something about it you become POOR.
Ah yes, that greatest of American Sins.
I mean, if you know that it would, maybe you should like, do something about it instead of hiding it away and making it worse? Just food for thought, y'know.
I'll be honest, the only argument I accept against assisted dying is if the patient can be shown to be incapable of making informed decisions themself (i.e. dementia, degradation of mental acuity, etc). I think we try and keep our loved ones living in poor health too long, because we don't want to let go.
I saw it happen with my grandma on my mom's side. She was in her late 70s, and had lung cancer. She was not going to recover, and she knew it, so she decided not to seek treatment. My mom flew out to be with the rest of her family as they convinced her to go on chemo and radiation therapy, and she did, because she loved her children. But by accepting that, they removed her agency in choosing her method and time of death, and instead she hung on for maybe eight more months, lying in her recliner because it was the only place she could be comfortable enough to sleep, and slowly waiting in pain for the end as her breaths got shallower.
I look at that situation and I see my mother as being selfish. So you weren't ready for your mom to die - No one ever is. It's not like she's some dog you can keep limping along because you're too attached to see that you're keeping them alive for you, and not for them. She deserved the right to die, then, even though Canada didn't have it at the time. She deserved to be able to avoid those months of pain and waiting for the reaper to show up like the ghost in It Follows.
I think she's probably got a shitton of trauma herself and has convinced herself that pushing it all down and "being strong" like she has is the only solution.
Doesn't make what she said okay, but I do feel bad for her. Very few people get into that many hard drugs because they're "fun". It's usually a form of escape or self harm at that point.
There's a fourth (Resurrection),unless you're trying to forget it exists - which some Aliens fans do.