It’s Union film. It gets weird when you involve teamsters as technically if we don’t work well together folks from my union are way less protected than they are. They may work for my boss but my boss has no firing power.

I am not even kidding when I tell you he is leagues better than the last teamster I worked with who thought it was perfectly chill to play all the hardcore right wing pundits… Particularly Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson who uses the T-slur pretty liberally while I was riding the cab of the truck and couldn’t remove myself (I am trans).

There’s a lot of really fucked up stuff in the film industry that nobody really talks about.

Good gods… This is a complete tangent but I have a coworker who went on a a full rant about how DEI is terrible and they lowered standards to get in poor black people… So straight up bulshit tech bro racism.

But then he starts talking about how he heard from a doctor in South Africa was talking (complaining) to him about how when they started hiring black doctors because of DEI the standards tanked and people were worse off.

And I was like “So a WHITE doctor from post apartide South Africa was complaining about how hiring black people ruined everything and that seemed like a legitimate source to cite huh?”

Which of course sent him on a whole thing about how the doctor being white had nothing to do with anything and how that was a super racist thing for me to imply… But I think the reframing was a bit of a shock to him.

If your wages are hourly or salary then they might be raised dependent on either a “performance” bonus which works as an incentive or by a fixed yearly raise but neither is tied to profit. It’s technically just engineering the workforce to give more output by dangling a carrot. The size of the carrot distribution is factored into the labor cost - it is distinctly not profit, it is operating budget which deducts from profit because it is counted as an expense.

Here is the thing about profit - it comes from saving money on labor, resource or overhead. Sometimes it’s a neutral or good thing when the profit comes from a source like a clever innovation that solves a problem or by fulfilling a highly desireable market demand… But a lot of the time that isn’t the case. Those profits can come from collaboration with competitors to pay labor less, finding cheaper materials that shunt the costs onto other people outside the business by means of pollution or utilizing exploitable workforces with less health or legal protections, outsourcing.

Yes people are motivated by money but why do people want money? In the case of your average worker the demands are quite small. Money equals security - a non toxic and comfortable place to sleep, food on the table, assured care for health when sick or old and creature comforts to create fulfilling free time. Profit oftentimes incentivizes removing these things from other people in service to an investor class. Creating protections against this is often the prerogative of government because government depends on the wealth of it’s people to perpetuate itself so it’s incentive is to protect the majority of people whom hold them accountable on the whole from becoming exploited into poverty, sickness and death because those things can be profitable. One can say “that’s just the way it is” only so long as once a large enough group of people see no value or security in living life they generally start banding together to become violent.

Technically workers do not care about profits, they care about wages. The average worker doesn’t benefit from profit because they represent a fixed expense. The work they produce is worth more than their salary which is how a company produces profit. As long as a company breaks even and the salary is enough to meet one’s needs a worker does just fine. However a worker’s job could easily be axed in the name of profit because they are what is being profited off of, not the entitled beneficiary of the business as a whole.

Profit it just the take home winnings of the investors or owners of the business and the few jobs at the top where compensation is based off of profit percentage or lavish bonuses for making the targets.

Basically yes? Antichrist is pluralized in the Bible in places and thus is not necessarily one individual. The false Prophets are described similarly.

Most of the pop culture picture of the Antichrist as a more singular entity is more like the Thessalonians “the man of sin”… Also known as the Man of Lawlessness, Apostasy, Insurrection, rebellion… One particularly agregious Antichrist that Jesus himself must come down and take out with a breath that exposes his naked wickedness to the worshipping masses who will realize that they are not among the saved. It’s sometimes interpreted that this kicks off the second coming but it doesn’t actually say that… It just says it happens sometime before the end of days which could mean it’s distinctly apart from and not feature of the revelation. Like some kind of Jesus warm up cameo.

Really its kind of tempting to paint Trump and Evengelicals in that role. He wouldn’t be the first nasty to wrap himself up in an altar cloth.

I wouldn’t say that’s the sentiment expressed when people remind others of the limitations of freedom of speech. More like it’s a reminder that knowing exactly where those boundaries lie because somethings aren’t the government’s job to mediate. Sometimes it’s our collective job to resist because nobody is coming to fix it for you.

Realistically rights like the freedom of speech and expression are notoriously weak by way of actual protection by a culture. Russia technically has freedom of speech on the books but you can still be hauled off to prison for spreading “LGBTQIA propaganda”. What actually protects those rights are the expectations and moreover the outrage of a culture’s people against these acts of censorship regardless of who is perpetuating it.

Wouldn’t that be if they were connected at the tail? This is more of a disorganised avian garroting caused by a constant futile bid for meaningful independence.

I think of America more as a swarm of 50 plus angry pigeons tied together at the neck with string.

This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?

If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn’t particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn’t always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors… And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.

It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.

However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.

Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine… But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.

Agreed, but you also said :

I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.

We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.

The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.

Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press… But will also send you to prison for publishing “LGBTQIA propaganda”

Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it’s own.

Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren’t nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It’s on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.

But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn’t the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.

I am in the process of a long term tea vs coffee war with my partner. I love both but tea is easier on me. Both are rabbitholes and because they are cultural standbys a lot of people grew up with one or the other and like it more because of personal familiarity than actually forming a detached opinion.

A lot of friends over the years who “didn’t like coffee” simply formed the opinion because people who didn’t really know coffee gave them stuff that was kind of shit. Giving them something on the upper end of the spectrum or is just very different from their expectation can change people into full on coffee drinkers. It’s more common in coffee because a lot of people actually don’t like dark roasts or are sensitive to stale oxidized tastes.

Tea is generally harder to convert people to with as much enthusiasm because individual blends vary so widely that it can be hit or miss for individual tastes. You need to try people on like several blends over multiple days to find out their profile.

I mean… It’s grocery store tea. Same thing as grocery store coffee. It’s in the mediocre range. To convert a non-tea person you need more than just giving them “okay”. If you give someone who doesn’t know tea a mediocre tea and tell them it’s “good tea” you basically just increase the evidence that tea isn’t all that and they don’t see much benefit in seeking it out the same way they would if you go out of your way to blow their mind.

The reason Yorkshire Gold doesn’t trip your sensitivity is because they roast it longer. It kind of destroys the individual character and flavor profile of the different tea varieties but it means that it becomes nigh impossible to oversteep.

How on earth did you interpret I was suggesting you place that kind of burden on a beginner - are you mental?

No! You, the converter make tea for the convertee so all they need to do is put fabulous tea in their face and benefit from your experience… Or just go to a good restaurant and have actually great tea. Point being is if you want someone to potentially like tea the burden of proof that tea is awesome is on you to prove.

Some might be swayed by giving them stale preportioned box tea that is formulated not to be awesome - just harder than average to fuck up with a long steep time because it’s overroasted… But good luck.

I have converted non-coffee /tea people and it’s not like they’ve never had tea before. Some people legit don’t like it but more or have been trained to ambivalence because people have given them a lot of mediocre tea and sold them the idea that the mediocre was good. For those people it takes way more than another banal so/so experience solidifing their notion that tea kind of is just “okay” to actually get them curious.

Yeah, but if you are trying to actually impress someone it’s not where you start. I buy Yorkshire when I am hard up for cash because I am already addicted to black tea and it’s ridiculously cheap but in the realm of tea in general it’s equivalent to the same supermarket coffees.

If you actually want to hook someone you give them the good stuff first to show them the experience to aspire. If it’s coffee go to a roaster, buy whole bean, grind it yourself before brew and use good technique in prep or go to a shop that knows their shit to do it all for you. If it’s tea go and spring for a loose leaf properly sealed, pay attention to steep time and ideal water temp. You want to see their eyes shine when they take their first sip with the realization of a new word opening up.

Give it like a few years and they’ll drink Yorkshire of their own volition. If you didn’t grow up with tea as a nostalgia you got to traverse a barrier and create a memory they want to relive in another way.

I am sorry… They gave you Yorkshire tea and expected you to be impressed? Please tell me you are joking.

In Canadian equivalent it’s like trying to take a foreigner to Tim Hortons. Just because it’s the historical cheap swill choice of the masses one participates in out of habit doesn’t mean it is objectively good.

Well… A lot of their biblical evidence is less a rewrite and more of a translation issue. Take the whole Sodom and Gehmorra story about tje two angels that everyone is so keen to turn into a condemnation of the gays.

In the OG text the words used to describe the angels were analog to genderless forms of the word “master” and because there were two of them they were always referred to by genderless they/them plural… Which is probably why there were two of them. We are probably supposed to imply the perceived gender of the angels was irrelevant to the tale.

The first Latin and English translations off of Hebrew however used gendered terms for the two angels that coded them as male. Stuff like “Masters” “Lords” that kind of thing in large part because those societies were respectively fairly misogynistic and not primed to interpret either of the two genderless entities as possibility female coded. Then you see the anti same sex interpretation gain popularity in the case of England and France at the time they were going through a population crash via plague which caused amoung other things criminalization of same sex unions as a threat to sexual replacement of a sharply diminished population. So really we can trace this story being interpreted as God’s condemnation of the gays rather then just regular old rapists around the same time the word “sodomy” came into the lexicon in the 1300’s and the first waves of plague.

I really want to watch Harris take this chicken apart bone by bone in debate like a mechanical separator. The world demands this man be turned into Trump McNuggets on live tv.

Do they just figure the brainwashing has stuck by now? Is that it?

Like if they draw a connection between whatever weird thing they can possibly shoestring to trans women all of the conditioning will kick in and they will go "Brrr Trans woman BAD, me no trans! Me hate bad thing that will make me trans! "