Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Brodie Davis,
please note, I don't believe sexual preference is a choice, I just don't understand why it makes a difference
In some of the incredibly squicky reading I did yesterday, it was stated that US law provides protection for minorities as long as they're "born that way". Now, given they also have freedom of, oh, religion, it's clearly not that simple, but it seems there are a number of people who believe this, that rights around gender and ethnicity have (and should have) more protection than rights around, say, disability and religion. But mostly it is the "if you choose you can just stop, ergo I don't have to support your deviant lifestyle."
I wish someone would support my deviant lifestyle: it's quite expensive.
Paul Brislen was briefly under the impression that the Colin Emma addresses here was Colin the Cat of Point Chevalier.
Soz, Colin. I meant the Colin less capable of critical thought.
given Logan's previous issues, we ought to be glad that he is only plagiarising his own columns for other newspapers now.
That Bruce Logan column was my very favourite batfuck insane anti-equality piece until I found this: Marriage equality causes abortion. Beat that.
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to JacksonP,
When Barrowman talks of how lucky he was he didn't stay in Scotland, and that he might have taken his own life
Extra poignancy for us because it's the realisation that Scotland didn't legalise homosexuality until... 1980.
-
From Steve Gray, on a discussion thread on Facebook:
he is a member of the act party and as we have known for months, despite his attempts at stalling, was always known he had to vote in live with the party
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Tom Beard,
And Twyford's a yes. Tide's turning.
It's easier on your shoes if you notice that before it's up to your ankles.
I sound bitter. I'm not. Tomorrow, I shall be crying my fucking eyes out when this bill passes its first reading.
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Tom Beard,
But if he really has made the decision based on human rights and basic decency, then good for him.
And I'd like to credit that, but his long history of utter bigoted hateful vitriol makes it... I don't know. I can't even. The fuck, etc.
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to JoJo,
The FUCK?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
"Lawyer paid to say whatever Family First wants"?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is related to the fact that all our methods of learning appropriate social behaviour relate to the real world and perhaps are not adapted well to the online world. In other words our methods of raising our children don't work for online communities.
I'm not sure if this is true. It's harder to "read" people on line, to work out what's appropriate, when a joke isn't funny, when someone's having a bad day, etc, but the underlying principles of Not Being a Cock are the same. The usefulness of being able to calmly say, "What you just said upset me," and being able to say, "Sorry, I fucked that up," are pretty much universal.
-
I am so conflicted about this. I mean, those communication principles are very close to our harassment guidelines at Bardic Web - though ours contain explicit provisions for communications which are less than grossly offensive, but which become distressing through repetition. That's often how harassment works: every individual statement is just a bit dodgy, but you're finding them in your message box every day.
But when we have a complaint, when we do dispute resolution, it's a lot of work, talking to both parties, getting all the background and copies of all the communications we have (keep your chat logs, please keep your chat logs...), and then all getting together and trying to decide whether the offence or distress was "reasonable", whether the offender knew the communication was going to cause distress, or could reasonably be expected to know, trying to parse intent - because yes, we get a few malicious complaints. And our decisions are always informed by how much we know about the people involved. Who has a history of being a cock?
I just don't see how you take so many of these important factors into account on a large scale, with people you don't know. It is so hard to get this stuff right, a lot of the time.
-
Capture: Spring is Like a Perhaps Hand, in reply to Emma Hart,
Lavatera Barnsley. Jesus. Stupid brain.
And thanks, Jackson. It was one of those "look at the light! run get the camera!" moments.