DrivebyHaiku

There's a pernicious bit of socialization where women are often stymied from being directly assertive. Often they are rewarded for concensus seeking behaviour - euphemism, gentle value neutral phrasing, permission seeking, not interrupting and ceeding the floor. This socialization pattern rewards quiet and service in favour of other people's emotions often at the direct cost of one's own.

It's not a good thing because it trains women to conveniently fade into the background, never center themselves publicly and builds in an instant hesitation every time they speak that takes years of work to undo. It's effectively the female version of the socialization of men to never express their emotional needs except through anger. In this version one is denied anger or any form of strong self advocacy instead limiting women to a toolbox of subtle manipulations. It fucks women up.

If that is what was intended by this person it's a very shitty standard to hold women to and they are a misogynistic prick. You are better off without that baggage.

People are going to feel what they feel. As a trans person I recognize that this isn't for me. It's a call to action to get cis people to step up and perform heroics. It's a saviour trope with all the baggage attached.

It's not a bad message but it also isn't flattering to be depicted as the battered rat barely standing. It's art. Art is going to strike you differently depending on where you stand. Both takes are valid because it's subjective but the real pernicious bit here is somebody from a group featured in that art is telling people here how that art makes them feel and the immediate reaction is to tell them they are wrong to feel that way. That isn't kind. It's not empathetic. It is demanding unconditional gratitude from someone you feel owes it without reservation of quality of help recieved.

Sadly it's true right now we as a community don't really have the luxury of picking between good and bad allyship, we need all we can get... But it's still kinda a shitty.

Interesting. Really hedging their bets on oil, gas and coal remaining a dominant industry over the long term huh? Not exactly a bet I would personally take but if they wanna go it's their funeral.

I dunno about that. This status quo was created because America came out of WWII smelling like roses. All of Europe was rebuilding and so American prosperity of the time was basically like being the one only slightly scorched house on a bombed block. It's been long enough that the countries in question aren't in need of leaning on the one stable currency.

This could be the push needed to equalize the world stage and break off of old habits. Like take Canada for example. Food self sufficiency in Canada was always a concern. That's why there was a tarriff on US Dairy, because Canada wanted to retain domestic self sufficiency in one of it's food production spheres. That issue persisted through other sectors but there wasn't a strong political motive to make that shift. The government wasn't called to protect and incentivize strong domestic production to a great extent because the US generally has a better growing year in the south. To not have food security however is a weakness in Canadian's self determination if things go bad. Now that things have gone bad structure will be put in place and protected meaning a semi-permanent loss of market for American interests.

What Trump has proven is American volitillity in it's government structure and voting block and nobody will want to tie a shoddy investment around their ankles. In fact some might take it as the opportunity to cut loose a problematic ally.

It's the case that the entire premise of popular elections is kind of flawed system. Actual leadership and technical aptitude and the ability to play to a crowd are not really the same skills at all but we treat them like they are. It is a way to select someone who will make a bunch of promises that give them popular directives... But they aren't beholden to those promises at all.

Having a balance between groups which are hired and fired based on their technical ability to follow the directives and achieve the objectives set by elected bodies is crucial. That they persist through different governments means a continuity of service and the ability to commit to long term planning.

Honestly what most people don't seem to get is that any actual improvement made by a government takes almost a decade to pay off. Half the time they are dissatisfied with "broken promises" it is that those initiatives haven't had time to work because elections aren't that far apart. There's a certain amount of technical fleshing out, research before the fact, wrangling of contracts and trial and error in execution before anything does what it's supposed to do which often means an elected party is praised or damned by the actions of their predecessors.

Gods, had this conversation with a bunch of Americans recently. They were trying to defend Elected judges and I just can't fathom why. Like why would I want someone who is less trained in the law adjudicating the process of the law? I would much rather have a system where you prove you understand and can carry out the code written into law by being selected by people who actually understand the function and process of the law otherwise lawyers are going to be able to pull all manner of fast ones and the judges won't recognize it as perversions of justice.

Elected judges always run on a "tough on crime" platform which creates incentives to throw more people in jail, make police worse and that system never, ever de-escalates. Not everything is made fairer by letting the public vote. Whenever a specialized knowledge set is in play the public is more of a nuisance when they try and put their oar in because they wouldn't understand enough to make an informed decision if they did nothing but study for a year. It would be like taking out a public vote on what medical surgerical proceedures for specific conditions should be the norm.

We need to collectively start understanding and championing the value of administrative branches of government, departments and agencies. Without experts in their fields being invested with reasonable powers our collective gooses will be cooked.

It really isn't that simple. The north didn't have as much strict segregation but in a way it was because they didn't have to. Economic pressure reinforced by subversive hiring practices, prejudice in housing and hostile attitudes kept black communities tight knit and localized which meant you didn't have to have specific "Colored schools" because they were created by these forces squeezing folks together into controllable blocks of population.

In the South the fall of segregation had a number of nasty fallouts which harmed black communities as well. When they merged the systems there was a historicly significant loss of black teachers. People got up in arms over really stupid questions like "What if my menstruating daughter had a black male teacher" and that prejudice ensured that a lot of the teachers who understood the challenges of being black in America were no longer in a position to help students.

This meant that effectively in the North segregated schooling continued to be a thing in practice but not in name while in the South it wiped out infrastructure that was helping black students succeed. It was handled incredibly poorly and was not unambiguously good but it did change a lot of the legal categorizations and is considered a win.

Technically that was a calculated movement of it's time. They wanted a black character in a role that spoke to an easy childhood concept of authority to imply that power dynamically having black people in a dominant respected role in social spaces is a normal thing one doesn't need to get upset over. Hence the whole friendly cop thing.

They were aware through the gay black actor they had in the role that police was something minority communities had issues with but the hope at the time was that more diversity in the force would be a solve. It's naive from a modern standpoint but they did try.

It was sad that they purposefully kept the gay part of the actor's identity under wraps. They knew they were asking him to do something harmful by keeping his private life strictly secret but the actor agreed that he was doing something he deemed worth the sacrifice.

It's not nessisarily skewing the narrative, it's just not providing context. Terrorist acts have a narrow definition in Canadian law. This guy could be a spree killer motivated by racism but unless that killing is for premeditated ideological, religious or political reasons to coerce a specific result or change of policy from the population / Government it doesn't fall under the definition.

No manifesto or claim of reasoning or connections found to groups that claim responsibility - no terrorist designation.

A terrorist attack has a narrow definition in Canadian law where it is specifically part of a premeditated ideological, religious or political attempt to influence government policy or to intimidate a section of the public to a specific end. Basically if this guy didn't have a manifesto or ever stated his reason within this rubric and was not part of a group that has specific aims then it follows under a regular old spree killer homicide unless it was racially motivated in which case it is also a hate crime.

Whether one uses cars or guns is not a factor in determining what counts as a terrorist act. The reporting on this has not been great ar clearing up this point.

There's a very specific rubric for what counts as a terrorist attack in Canada. Probably the level of calculation and premeditation involved was a factor and that he's not a part of an ideologically organized group that is trying to influence behaviour of a government or political body.

A spontaneous hate crime made against a population is technically not a terrorist attack by Canadian definition. To count you have to have done it for a narrow slice of very specific reasons.

But there are a lot of things that exist that aren't exactly friendly. People often hinge their belief or disbelief in any divinity singularly on the bible. They consider proof of God existing is based on whether all the claims made in an old book are true - not that it is a fallible piece. It either has to be all true or all false which is not how any scientific text more than a decade out of date has proven.

Not saying that means anyone should start praying. The God as listed in the Bible given their behaviour does not seem either omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent but those ideals have shaped a lot of the discussion about whether something classifies as a "true" God or not. A lot of thought and debate goes towards squaring that circle. Sometimes the easiest answer is that lies exist. The presense of other gods are noted in the bible. Maybe that one was just a super powered Narcissist.