#places that don't think accessibility laws should apply to them

[runawaymarbles]

at this point i am simply uninterested in any opinion on a hot-button political topic that treats human beings as a mass of meaningless hypotheticals

[theonevoice]

Sorry if this is a little foggy and poorly worded, but I have been sitting on this thought all day, after working on a scene from Mamoru Hosoda's Wolf Children, and might as well put it here. The scene in question is the one where little wolf-boy Ame, sweet child who loves stories and picture books and who struggles to come to terms with his hybrid identity, one day while out in the woods with his sister and his mother on a sort of wolf-training excursion suddenly starts crying. And the reason why is crying is that, in all the picture books, he keeps seeing the wolf depicted as the bad guy that ends up shooed away or killed. And because of such representations, now he wants to repress his wolf identity, that has always been a lively and funny, although hard to figure out, part of his life. He is terrified of being what he is because the narrow representations that he has access to tell him that the world does not like people like him. It's a powerful little moment in a beautiful movie, that always makes me tear up, and if you missed it I highly recommend you watch it. If you are not into anime movie and just curious of the scene, I found a clip on YouTube:

Anyway, this scene made my lonely braincel twitch, and I was thinking, now that we are approaching the end of this glorious - as far as the mediascape is concerned - year 2023, that many people underestimate the enormous power of fantasy narratives in expanding the borders of gender (and minority in general) representation. Having an author canonically establish that certain fixed categories do not apply to one or more characters for in-universe reasons takes away that nasty oblique excuse that some people use to deny and disparage diversity in media (where I live they usually sound like "they only made this character a person of color to please the woke liberalsTM even if the historical context doesn't allow it", or even, comically, "it is narratively implausible that this character is or shows to be queer but they were forced to do it by THE GAY LOBBY" - yes, this is an actual conspiracy theory loudly promoted by Italian journalists and politicians, and yes, I am personally deeply ashamed by it). Obviously, almost none of said people has the faintest actual interest in narrative aspects, but they still use the excuse to pollute the public discourse and attack minorities. And I am aware that there is a possible dark pitfall here: in the best possible world, we should not need to take the route of fantasy settings to have something that should never have been denied in the first place, but from a pragmatical standpoint it does work. Having authors saying "nope, sorry not sorry, they are wolf-children / angels and demons / weird vampires / anachronistic pirates in a fantasy context so your self-proclaimed laws of plausibility do not apply and you can shove them where the sun does not shine while we enjoy the show and put this beautiful, funny, delicate, deep and sad things on screen", is like having a cultural picklock which is also a cultural battering ram thrusting the representation-door open. Shows like Good Omens, Our Flag Means Death, What We Do in the Shadows (and their fandoms with their massive collective creative endeavour), by offering the symbolic shield of a fantasy setting can establish a safe space where 1. queer people (especially young people but not only) can finally recognize themselves and stop feeling like they are alone and don't have the words and images they need to describe themselves; 2. not queer people can get used to a larger set of possible identities and not only realise that 100% of said idenities are in fact - hold on to your butts - still people with thoughts and feelings and needs, but also, through the power of mimesis, acquire a deeper understanding of forms of life that they don't directly experience. Including, hopefully, understanding how similar we all are when it comes to us being ultimately a bunch of naked apes who walk on this spinning rock trying to be as little miserable as possible.

Again, sorry if this sounds clumsy and blunt, given how delicate and complex this subject is (one does not simply walk into Mordor talk about the lives and needs of other people like that), but I had this thought stuck in my shallow brain wrinkles and I wanted to try and put it into words.

[lemonhemlock]

Bastardphobia in GRRM's world.

As you pointed out we see several examples of highborn bastards being treated well and portrayed favourably but it came to my attention that the citation for bastards who are usurpers, is the Blackfyre rebellions that have happened in Westeros.

Before I go into this I'll get the obvious out of the way :

The Dance of the Dragons was inevitable, whether or not Rhaenyra had bastards, Viserys fucked things up for everyone.

Now, the Blackfyre rebellions happened because Aegon the Unworthy legitimized Daemon Blackfyre, who was seen as more Targaryen than Daeron The Good. I won't pretend to be super well-versed about this but Daemon also had all the symbols of legitimacy, which begged the question of who had a right to the throne. This also sparked the Ninepenny Kings rebellion.

This ultimately happened because someone messed around with laws and gave zero fucks about the consequences (this looks familiar)

If these rebellions hadn't happened, this might just be a thing at the very back of people's minds.

Now while there was an anti bastard, this was about people being worried about inherentance,as you stated but as you've pointed out we see bastards who are just minding their own business and doing well for themselves in a world that's generally fucked up.

There's also a class element to this cause where do they fit in, they're outliers.

Let's discuss everyone's favourite bastards Jon Snow. Catelyn who knows her history and has given birth to sons that favour her looks wise, fears what may happen should Jon wants more and the Northern Lords want someone who looks like a Stark.

All in all Fuck the Targeryns.

chaoticcoffeequeen asked: **this is because of the myth that Targaryen's are better than everyone else, they have the doctrine of exceptionalism that allows their inbreeding, this has given them a superiority complex and the idea that rules don't apply to them. (I know why the inbreeding took place but it doesn't change the effects this would have on them) PS: this is why Nettles is so cool cause shes this seemgly non-Valyrian girl who was somehow able to tame a dragon. (Valyrians used blood magic but how did she do it)

Hello & welcome back, coffee queen. Hope you reveled greatly these fine winter holidays. ✨🥂💘

Yeah, I basically think GRRM is using the usurper bastard trope as a means to introduce the premise for dramatic civil wars, but royal bastards are also more high-stakes than the bastards of some random small-time lord. In any case, as long as (like you said), no one messes around with the established laws, the line of succession doesn't get as muddy and the causes for violent conflict remain few. There were bastards on Dragonstone for generations (where the dragonseeds came from) and nothing happened until Viserys I decided to cover his eyes and ears and live in delulu land.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to disagree about Nettles. Obviously I have no way of reading GRRM's mind about this, but I do think it makes more sense thematically for Nettles to have some dragon blood in her from her ancestors. I don't think regular people should be able to ride dragons, as cool as it would be, because it seems to me that within this universe, that kind of ability is only accessible to someone if they've made some sort of pact with the devil. Regular people couldn't have transgressive powers that go against nature because they haven't (yet) transgressed (later part of this post).

[senilthesynth]

Don't want to hijack any posts about KOSA specifically, though please please please if you are a US Citizen resch out to your senators AND representatives because it WILL eventually go through there, because this is more of a general thing that KOSA happens to fall under.

The TL;DR: One should always, ALWAYS, treat any bill claiming to be for ”protecting the children” as bullshit. They never EVER do what they claim they will. They're always a way to lock down spaces even more than before, and companies will always go with the strictest law to apply to everyone to make things easier on themselves. Do not trust them, fight them every chance you possibly get.

Just about every time a law claiming to "protect the kids" passes - or even that argument is used in general - the vast majority of the time it's made up bullshit designed to appeal to a certain group of people who will hate you for not supporting something meant to protect children. My home state had a bill (that I think passed, thankfully) re: expanding sex ed down into grade school. A TON of people freaked out, thinking they were going to be teaching eight year olds about anal sex or whatever (it was similar claims to that idfk).

They were, of course, dead wrong. You could literally look up the proposed curricula and grade school? Was focused around consent, asking permission to do things like hugging, that of stuff. The kind of thing that will actually protect children should they find themselves in an abusive situation, because they'll hopefully ALREADY KNOW that this is a scary person who is not asking them to do these things and you aren't saying yes to any of this. Hell, even saying no and realizing the abuser isn't listening could ring that alarm of "this is somebody not listening to me or my boundaries. I am being Abused" or something like that.

The thing the nuts claimed wouldn't protect children because they thought sex ed for grade schoolers would be the same as sex ed for high schoolers would, in fact, actually help children by virtue of education. Of knowledge. Of knowing what boundaries are, how to set them, and how to ask to do things.

The same shit applies with bills such as KOSA. The goal is never to actually protect children. It's to indirectly harm them by making knowledge access harder. In a time where libraries are actively getting slammed and underfunded, online resources and communities are sometimes the only vaguely safe outlet someone has. It might be the only way a queer kid out in rural flyover country finds solace in being queer, is able to freely be queer. "Protecting the children" (from those filthy queers) means gating off those spaces from people. From letting people find those spaces where they can be free.

Let's not forget the way this can easily gut activism work too. Often these bills are ways to delete spaces for the "outcasts" of society, and once one group of "outcasts" is dealt with, they'll find another. We've seen this "protect the kids" line when it comes to trans people (especially trans women), when it comes to drag, or any form of queer expression. "Cis white men holding hands in public" is seen as damaging to children.

"Protect the children" is effectively (if not outright) a dog whistle for "this law or whatever is actually meant to target a specific group of people, set of actions, etc. without us saying it does that because saying what we actually want to do would mean nobody would like this thing." KOSA specifically can and likely will gut online activism organization, gut queer spaces, black spaces, whatever kind of minority or leftist space you can think up of. It has the power to do that.

And its effects will almost certainly be felt globally, because again. Companies will go with the strictest possible approach, if not outright blocking access from places stricter than they care to manage. Twitter being affected by a bill such as KOSA will affect people worldwide because they have to comply with a strict as fuck law, and it's infinitely easier to apply the basics to every user they legally can (IDK about how GDPR plays into this specific bill).

There's a reason companies cracked down on queer groups after SESTA/FOSTA became effective in 2018 (which, FYI, is likely a large part of why Tumblr moderation routinely cracks down on queer people, trans women in particular!). Because queer people are, by default, seen as more "sexual" and whatnot, that those groups are more likely to get a company in trouble legally speaking. So, they try to suppress those groups as best they can without making it blatantly obvious (usually failing the latter part but they don't care).

"Protect the children" will only be used, and continue to be used, as a way to mask the actual intent. Bills like KOSA do not protect children. If they do, it's purely a coincidence. Their real goal is to crack down on whatever "undesirable" they want to send into hiding next. That's what it's used for. Is the internet, in ways, shittier than it was 15, even 10 years ago? Oh absolutely, and it was still shitty then too. I definitely found myself in spaces I absolutely shouldn't have as a kid. But the solution to that isn't to lock everything up real tight. It's a good education about these things.

Nobody told me that, if I ended up a little too sensual towards an adult, it doesn't matter if they didn't know I was actually 15 and I'm making the advancement and they had no way of knowing my age. They're still the person in trouble here. Mind you, I was just smart enough to stick to the sidelines, maybe make comments in stuff, but that was it. Nobody told me what to watch for, why things were maybe Bad, etc.

I was punished for *gasp* having porn (furry porn) saved to a deviantArt account that I had an app for. This did absolutely nothing for me. Nobody said anything about why it was bad (or could cause problems to the artist). I was just yelled at and grounded. "Protect the children" just results in that happening. In kids and teens getting punished for not knowing things that nobody would ever teach them because "they're so delicate, they aren't old enough to know this yet."

Fuck this "protect the kids" bullshit. Fuck this bill. Fuck every bill like it. Fuck every legislator who supports it. Fuck every court that even dares to uphold it. Fuck whichever US president signs it off. You don't protect children by banning drag or outlawing any form of transition before 18 or whatever. You don't protect children by removing their spaces online. You don't protect children by indirectly empowering their abusers by making sure they never know what they're going through is Wrong and Bad.

I'm pissed off that this needs to be said, that this is even a topic worth bringing up. That this is even NECESSARY to say.

[bonefall]

Hi! I just saw the saltlick post! While the really common use of saltlicks is for livestock, they are also placed in forest areas that hunters have access to in order to draw deer to that area. It’s possible that the farmer located near Windclan could have once owned the forest Thunderclan lives on and used it for hunting, putting up saltlicks in the area, before later selling that plot to the treecut place in TNP. I could imagine this still being a salt source even after they move to the lake territories. A small patrol could be sent out with a container of some sort to just scratch off whatever amount they would need for brine

Not sure if there are and UK hunting laws that butt heads with this idea but I’m a strong supporter of your “cats should cook” idea lol

It's not very likely. The "Deer Stalking" (they don't call it hunting for some reason? england wyd) laws that would conflict with hunting in the area is that it's a popular hiking trail; hunting there would be a massive hazard to people walking their dogs as well as the sawmill workers who work by tallpines.

That aside I went and read The Deer Act of 1991 and I couldn't get any conclusive answers on if salt baiting was banned or not, so it's probably allowed, but when I dove a little deeper into hunting culture in the UK I wasn't able to find anything on baiting at all.

I did find, though, that hunters in the UK like to hunt by moorland, and the Deer Act of 1991 doesn't apply to problem deer that are eating crops provided you can produce evidence that the species of deer you're shooting has been what's causing problems... but in that case, salt baiting might be illegal because then you'd be attracting them to the property.

The law is also a lot stricter on the native deer species, reds and roes, than the invasive Chinese Water Deer and muntjac.

So anyway the most likely deer hunting is done on the border of WindClan and ThunderClan, and salt baits are unlikely... and that's depending on whose permission the hunters need to not be arrested for poaching; it's likely the White Hart Wood is owned by the Chelford Council or the operators of the Chelford Mill. The Windover Moor is probably owned by the owners of the Windover Farm.

I have never gone "deer stalking" in England so I'm not sure what that mess looks like legally LMAO

Stealing Salt From Livestock

[ID: Two sheep licking a red salt block]

Some people suggested this too, but the problem is that the Forest Clan cats try not to steal when possible. When they do, they try to lift plants. Wheat, crops, catmint from gardens, stuff that won't be missed. ShadowClan also scavenges from the Carrionplace, where twolegs don't care if something goes missing.

WindClan actually tries to "pay farmers back" when they have to swipe wheat for tunnelbuns in hard years, by catching and leaving some rats and crows.

If SkyClan was at the Forest territories they'd be ALL over this. They'd hook a rope through that block, tie to to the biggest warrior they have, and tell Thickbutt to HAUL ASS before the farmer saw them. Then they'd smash the block into fine, fine grain.

Salt Access: BloodClan Trade Expansion

But as-is, the only salt the Forest Clans can access on their own is the natural salt in the roots of certain plants, and they could lick the Thunderpath in winter if they really wanted.

You know who does have salt though? BloodClan. LOTS of it. Road salt in Winter, discarded salt shakers, unguarded restaurants full of bags of salt... They wouldn't even understand why the Forest Clans want it so badly and be shocked when they learned that salt isn't just naturally occurring.

SO, there could be a brief period after TPB where the Clans trade with BloodClan, suddenly have easy access to salt, and find out what it's like to NOT have fleas for the first time in their lives. They'd think it must be why stars are white, they've never seen anything that could smite bugs the way salt does.

[hiiragi7]

as a trans person in a system who understands how the sysmed/transmed connection works (especially with the fact both are seen as a mental illness that needs to be eradicated and that is harmful to Vulnerable UWU Teenagers on the internet and people experiencing them are dangerous and people who use rare labels are faking and making "real systems/trans people look bad" and so on), i want to understand why you believe the trans comparison is bad. can you explain your perspective?

About the comparison between being trans and being a system generally, I feel it is repetitive and really just gets us nowhere. I also do not find the same systemic, legal, and social implications in syscourse as I do with trans identity. I also don't find the same risk of widespread and systemic violent physical/sexual abuse and death in syscourse regarding non-medical systems as I do with trans identity.

That does not mean that one is necessarily worse than the other or that one doesn't matter, but instead that they are different enough that to compare them feels like it disrespects nuance and the bigger picture of all of this.

Regarding the word sysmed - I think it's moreso just... Well, unhelpful?

I have less issues with the specific terminology or the roots of the word than others, I feel - I find it to be maybe poor taste at most, but I do not think it is transphobic.

My issue is moreso that I feel it no longer really has a consistent definition (I have seen it applied to anti-endo systems who are not necessarily sysmedical, and I have seen singlet syscringers called sysmeds even though they were 100% anti-plural/anti-system, including anti-CDD systems) and I feel that discussions where the word sysmed is used very quickly get muddied because I feel that in a discourse setting the word is very emotionally charged even if that isn't always the intention.

Many well-known syscourse figures most commonly labelled sysmeds do not even fall under the traditional definition of sysmed - They believe non-medical systems and endos exist, but have different ideas about how this should be approached community-wise.

In my experience being in these spaces, it feels like sysmed has, functionally, just become another synonym for anti-endo or even anti-system and isn't used with specifically the stance of "all systems must be medical" in mind.

For me, it's a lot easier just to use anti-endo if that is what I mean instead of using a word with so much controversy - Using that word means nobody will listen to what you are saying because it is such an emotionally charged word, and in my opinion that emotional charge does come from a reasonable place, which I will talk about in the next few paragraphs.

I honestly just don't find it helpful to draw comparisons between online discourse and those which have extremely severe external impacts regarding discrimination - Such as being trans.

I don't really know of any legal consequences for being specifically a non-medical system - Not for being perceived as mentally ill or laws regarding general religious practices and restrictions, but very specifically being a non-medical system.

Yet I do see this in the vast difference in treatment and resources for medical binary transgender people vs. non-dysphoric trans people as well as trans people that are not 100% binary.

In many places, only dysphoric transgender people get help or official acknowledgement. You have to jump through many hoops to access treatment and that often involves documentation of "long-term, severe gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria".

Nonbinary people often have to "pick a side" in order to access hormone treatment, they still cannot pick "X" in many places as a gender marker legally, nonbinary people who do not medically transition go unacknowledged, so on.

There is also systemic erasure of these groups which transmeds feed into.

This is not, at all, to say that the issues of non-medical systems or endogenic systems are not important or that their issues are "lesser-than" or to play any kind of pain olympics (I do not believe there is any kind of "discrimination threshold" that necessarily needs to be met for it to matter) - Just that it feels like a different area of conversation which invites many messy implications.

Specifically, it is comparing a group of individuals who themselves have extremely high rates of identifying as transgender to their oppressors, and many of these systems themselves have been heavily and violently discriminated against for being transgender. So, yes, comparing them to a transphobic group such as transmeds is likely to shut down any conversation and potentially bring up very hurt feelings and memories of trauma.

And I am just... Not interested in doing that. I want to have discussions, not give someone an identity crisis or flashback.

I feel that when used publicly, the word sysmed is just used to villainize and seperate certain groups and concepts rather than as a genuine, good-faith communication tool - I cannot express the amount of times I have seen things such as fusion, the ToSD, parts language, dormancy, all language more traditionally associated with being a more medical-leaning system, called a "sysmed concept".

I find that unhelpful not only in general, but also as a pro-endo traumagenic DID system. I feel often I cannot describe how my system functions as a disordered system without adding many disclaimers about me speaking only on our personal experience because suspicion about us will be raised solely on the basis of being a medical system using medical language.

I have often found myself asked to censor discussion of my system's very natural functions or language for the comfort of others because it reminded them of sysmeds, and I have come across many people associating traumagenic inherently with sysmedical.

"Traumagenics are cool until they start being sysmeds."

"I wish traumagenics would just leave us endos alone."

"Most traumagenics are sysmeds."

So on.

When the phrase "sysmed" is associated with hatred, especially the level of hatred and violence transmeds perform, and when many people within the system community begin to call "sysmeds" a hate group, when the concept of being a system and medical becomes tied to connotations of such strong ideas about discourse and identity, well... It really is only the expected fallout of that to be that anyone who is a system and medical would be caught in the crossfire.

Long post, but that's my reasoning for not using it personally. I don't have strong enough feelings on its usage to actively strongly discourage others from using it completely, but to me, language is primarily a communication tool and if it is not helping me to communicate or get ideas across effectively then I don't really see a point in me using the word.

[carriesthewind]

Hi! I read the further comments and posts you made regarding the library poll and incoming results. One specific thing was interesting to me personally: when you brought up that the argument "it's not your property" is in some way the same argument used by cops harassing homeless people in parks etc. That never occurred to me, cuz public property (object) and public property (place) are so very different to me, I can't "take away" a park like I could a book. (1)

(2) I wonder how much of my perspective is formed by growing up and living in a country with a relatively good social security net (ofc, slow bureaucracy exist and can have very negative consequences) where (police) violence against homeless people is at least nominally lower - and how much is just the ignorance of always being treated like (lower) middle class

Thanks for the question!

To first address the "takings" question: you raise an interesting distinction. I think how important that distinction comes down in part to what we mean by "take away." So for example, while a lot of the librarians in the library marginalia poll are (correctly and informatively) talking about how writing in books damages them to the point where they need to be removed/thrown away, a lot of writing doesn't damage the book (immediately) to the point of removal, but still interferes with a reader's enjoyment. That's (part of) why librarians erase pencil markings, even though erasing itself can damage the book - the writing in the books "takes away" from the experience of other readers. Meanwhile, for something like a park, many people would argue that homeless people living in a park "take away" from other people's experience of the park; and if enough homeless people live there, it can prevent other people from being able to access (or safely and comfortably access) the park.

If you want to see examples of people talking this way, here's an article from Fox News in the aftermath of a police raid on a large homeless encampment in a Los Angeles park. Quoting from the article: "'It looks like the way it should be. It's a family park. And I think kids are feeling like they can come to a place and not worry that they might find needles in the playground,' resident Joey larva said." You can see from the way the "resident" (a.k.a local property owner) talks about the park, that he didn't feel kids could use it when the camp was there; that it was "taken" from them. (If you really want to be horrified at humanity, you can scroll down and read the comments. I really really don't recommend doing so, however.)

(Because I don't feel comfortable letting that article be the only word on the subject: here's an article from the Guardian about the aftermath of the raid - and the camp itself - focused on the victims of the raid.)

Which leads to the second part of your question - I'm not sure how much it has to do with your experiences, as opposed to mine. As someone who does public interest law in the U.S., part of the reason I'm so sensitive to these kinds of arguments is because I have seen how the state (and corporations) use the idea of property, ownership, and rules/the law to as hammers to hurt vulnerable people. And how resistant those systems in the U.S. are to considering any actual harms in applying those laws and rules. (One of my first criminal defense cases, I tried to ask the prosecutor what his rational was for demanding the punishment he wanted in his plea offer - what goal did it serve? And I went on to detail the specifics of my client's particular case and my great, law-school-approved arguments for why his offer was inappropriate (I can't give details, but please be assured - there was no rational justification for even charging this person criminally). His response was to yell that this was what he always offered for this offense, my client had broken the law (which, technically, they had), take it or leave it.)

And one of the common experiences of doing public interest law work in the united states is that some of the hardest clients to represent are those who have never been on the sharp end of the justice system before (especially former middle, and even upper-lower, class). Because people have an entirely sensible expectation that the justice system will abide by certain standards of rationality and reasonableness. And then it just...doesn't. Because when it says that the only thing that matters is, "it doesn't belong to you;" it really really means it - regardless of the context, of the harm that you've actually done, or the harm that the hammer of the system is about to do to you.

(Apologies for the depressing answer.)

[mariacallous]

Nicola Sturgeon says she wants people with strong views to "treat each other with respect", after author JK Rowling criticised her on social media.

The Harry Potter author posted a selfie wearing a T-shirt calling Ms Sturgeon a "destroyer of women's rights".

It was in protest against the Scottish government's proposed gender recognition legislation.

The first minister said Ms Rowling was entitled to express her views, but defended the legislation.

The author tweeted the picture in support of a rally outside the Scottish parliament, held while a committee of MSPs backed the general principles of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

The proposed new law would make it easier for people to be legally recognised as their preferred gender and broaden the official definition of what it means to be transgender.

Anyone aged 16 or over who has lived in their "acquired gender" for at least three months would be eligible to apply and a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer be required, removing the need for doctors' reports.

Critics including Ms Rowling believe the new law would harm the most vulnerable women and undermine the safety of women-only spaces.

Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: "People are entitled to express their views in whatever way they think is fit.

"I have always thought that on this issue, where people have very strong views, we should all try to treat each other with respect and that is what I will continue to do."

The Bill is currently going through the committee process and the legislation will be examined by parliament after the October recess.

The first minister added: "This bill is about reforming an existing process that is degrading and traumatic for trans people, seeking to make it less traumatic for those who want to legally change their gender.

"It doesn't give any additional rights to trans people nor does it take any rights away from women.

'Passionate feminist'

She added: "It is men who attack women and we need to focus on that, not on further stigmatising and discriminating against a tiny group in our society that is already one of the most stigmatised.

"I say this as a passionate life-long feminist, and I have spent much of my life campaigning for women's rights.

"We don't have to look very far to see the real threats to women's rights right now. They come from men who sexually and violently attack women, who try to abuse women in a misogynistic way.

"They come from law makers in parts of the world trying to take away our reproductive rights and access to abortion.

"They come from places in oppressive regimes in places like like Iran where we are seeing women rise up admirably right now."

She added: "These are the threats to women's rights, and feminists should focus on them, not on trans women who are not the threat to women's rights."

The first minister said that any man who sought to abuse the law on gender recognition for nefarious purposes would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed bill.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I'm going to specify my reasonings for why I think 18 should continue to be the legal age of becoming an adult anonymously cause I have a fandom blog and I choose to remain a closet conservative to keep the peace. Anyway, at 18 we're given access to pretty much everything aside from alcohol and renting a car, and perhaps a few other things. We can live on our own, vote, buy cigarettes, get a loan, apply for credit cards, etc. I would even be okay with lowering the legal drinking age to 18. I think the biggest thing we need to do better, though, as a society, is preparing teens for adult life, helping them to develop skills that are required in adulthood. I know it's a big thing right now for people to bring up the fact that our brains aren't completely mature until we reach 25, but I don't see how we could realistically change the legal age of an adult. What exactly would that look like? Would they have to live at home with their parents until they reach that age? What kinds of jobs would they be allowed to have? Would they be allowed to go to college or would we add more years of high school education?

Anyway, at 18 we're given access to pretty much everything aside from alcohol and renting a car, and perhaps a few other things.

That's literally my point though. If 18 year olds can't be trusted with being a full adult, why do we let them become partial adults? Why can someone vote and serve in the military, but not buy alcohol? And it's even worse these days when adolescence has been extended so far into people's 20s. In a perfect world, the legal age of adulthood, or at least to vote, would be at least 26. But 21 is a decent compromise. It recognizes that 18 year olds are still not ready to take on adult responsibilities, but it sets a reasonable age of adulthood that's already used for other things like buying alcohol.

Would they have to live at home with their parents until they reach that age?

Yes. And considering the growing trend of people living with their parents well into their 20s anyway, this is gonna happen no matter what the legal age of adulthood is.

What kinds of jobs would they be allowed to have?

The same jobs we let under 18s have now. Which are mostly the same jobs 21 year olds fresh out of college with useless degrees get anyway.

Would they be allowed to go to college or would we add more years of high school education?

Of course they'd be allowed to go to college. In most colleges, you need to be 17, which is already a year younger than the national age of adulthood. But even that isn't absolute, since kids who skip grades and homeschooled students can be accepted earlier. What colleges look for are SAT or ACT test scores, along with racial and gender demographics because they're just like that. Age isn't really considered.

The use of "we" when you're talking about 18 year olds makes me think you're either that age, or very close, so I'm sure that's a large part of the reason why you're against raising the age of adulthood. And trust me, I get it. If I was under 21 and people started talking about raising the legal age I'd be pissed too. I thought 18 was too old, since I was smart enough at 16 to know things adults didn't seem to get. I had my opinions and I knew they were right.

And then I got older and realized I was wrong about at least half of what I thought were rock solid facts. I didn't have the life experience, or the fully mature brain, to handle life the way an adult needs to. And most people my age didn't either. And that was in the early 2000s. These days it's so much worse. The amount of young people who think they know everything but actually know nothing is disturbingly high, especially considering how easy it is to access information these days.

As for how to implement it? You just do it. Maybe a grace period gets put in place. Say, anyone 18-20 when the law gets passed is grandfathered into legal adulthood, but for everyone else it's now 21. There will be an adjustment period, definitely. But that's what happens when you change anything, and if that's enough to halt change then we might as well just accept everything as it is and never try to improve anything. And I know how much that'll suck too, because when I was going through school I was always in the first year they were implementing new state standards and tests and a lot of teachers didn't know how to teach to those standards yet, so I was always getting stuck in the experimental year. And it was shitty. But I got through it, and so can kids now.

[burning-sol]

(YOU'RE ALL JUST TINY HUMANS I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO CHECK IN ON AND LOOK AFTER) (HERE IS A CHECK LIST!!!)

(REMEMBER TO STAY HYDRATED!!!)

(REMEMBER TO EAT!!!) (IT CAN BE AS SMALL A PORTION AS YOU WANT) (IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SOLID) (IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 'HEALTHY') (JUST CONSUME WHAT YOU CAN BECAUSE ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING) (YOU CAN ALSO TAKE SUPPLEMENTS IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT NOT GETTING ENOUGH INTAKE) (I'M NOT A COOK SO I CAN'T RECOMMEND EASY RECIPIES TO PREPARE) (BUT STORE LEFTOVERS IN YOUR FRIDGE OR FREEZER IN CASE YOU NEED IT IN FUTURE) (AND YOU CAN KEEP STUFF LIKE TINNED SPAGHETTI AROUND WHICH IS AS SIMPLE AS MICROWAVING TO PREPARE)

(REMEMBER TO REST!!!) (NAPS ARE OKAY IF YOU CAN'T GET A FULL REST) (YOU CAN LAY DOWN OR SIT DOWN AND JUST SHUT YOUR EYES WITHOUT SLEEPING) (JUST LAYING DOWN OR SITTING DOWN IN GENERAL IS FINE) (THIS IS ABOUT SLEEP BUT ALSO IF YOU HAVE BEEN STANDING UP ALL DAY AND NEED TO SIT DOWN, THIS IS YOUR SIGNAL TO SIT DOWN) (AND DON'T FEEL GUILTY ABOUT RESTING BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU TO DO IT!!!)

(REMEMBER TO TAKE YOUR MEDICATIONS!!) (SET UP ALARMS) (USE A MEDICINE BOX) (OR CHECK YOUR MEDICINE PACKAGING, IT MAY HAVE DAYS LABELLED ON IT THAT CAN HELP YOU KEEP TRACK) (IF YOU STRUGGLE WITH REMEMBERING TO TAKE YOUR MEDICATION - WHAT WORKED FOR US WAS INTEGRATING IT INTO A ROUTINE WE ALREADY HAD ESTABLISHED) (WE PUT IT WHERE OUR NIGHT LIGHT GOES SO WHEN WE GO TO GET OUR NIGHT LIGHT, WE REMEMBER TO TAKE OUR MEDICATION TOO) (MEDICATION WILL WORK BETTER IF YOU TAKE IT CONSISTENTLY BUT TAKING IT WHEN YOU CAN IS BETTER THAN NOTHING)

(ALSO MAKE SURE TO PICK UP MORE MEDICATION *BEFORE* YOU RUN OUT) (WE PICK OURS UP A WEEK OR SO BEFORE WE RUN OUT) (GIVE YOURSELF TIME SO THAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG YOU WON'T BE HURRYING AROUND LAST MINUTE OR FIND YOURSELF LEFT WITHOUT ANY MEDS FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS)

(IF YOU HAVE THE ENERGY TO DO SO TRY TO CLEAN YOURSELF UP) (HAVE A SHOWER/BATH) (IF YOU CAN'T MANAGE THAT YOU CAN JUST TAKE A WET CLOTH AND CLEAN THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS) (OR JUST CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES) (TRY TO BRUSH YOUR TEETH IF YOU CAN)

(THIS IS ONLY IF YOU FEEL UP TO IT, BUT CLEANING CAN HELP A LOT) (YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN EVERYTHING) (BUT IF MESS IS IMPEDING YOUR ABILITY TO, LETS SAY, ACCESS SOMEWHERE IMPORTANT IN YOUR PLACE?) (CLEAN THAT) (YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN WITH THE GOAL TO MAKE YOUR PLACE LOOK PERFECT) (CLEAN WITH THE GOAL OF MAKING THINGS EASIER FOR YOU)

(AND GENERALLY, DO ANYTHING THAT WILL HELP YOU RELAX) (THROW ON A BLANKET) (LIGHT A CANDLE) (FIND A PLUSH TOY TO HUG) (PUT ON MUSIC) (WHATEVER YOU DAMN WANT TO) (I AM GIVING YOU PERMISSION) (GO DO IT)

(IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN YOUR LIFE WHO CAN HELP YOU WITH THIS?) (JUST ASK) (YOU'RE NOT BEING A BURDEN BY ASKING FOR HELP) (AND IF THEY TREAT YOU AS SUCH THEN THAT'S A BIG RED FLAG HONESTLY) (JUST FUCKING KILL THEM TBH) (IT'S OKAY THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY WHEN I TELL YOU TO KILL ASSHOLES IN YOUR LIFE*)

(* FOR LEGAL REASONS I WILL MAKE IT CLEAR I AM NOT TELLING YOU TO KILL ANYONE) (AS MUCH AS I WANT TO)

(THAT IS ALL I CAN THINK OF FOR NOW) (REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE VERY FRAGILE AND YOU SHOULD BE GENTLE ON YOURSELF) (THIS IS DIRECTED TO EVERYBODY NO MATTER HOW ABLE BODIED YOU THINK YOU ARE) (YOU ARE LITERALLY JUST HUMANS WITH SAD SKELETAL STRUCTURES)

(YOU'RE WELCOME)

[fictionyoubelieve]

The AI lawsuit stuff has made me think a bit more about copyright. The socialist, anarchist, and libertarian positions seem to be that copyright (and IP generally) should not exist at all, and that makes sense if you already have the other features of each of those ideologies. If we were living under a decent implementation of any of those systems, then I agree copyright should not exist--so if one of those is your ideal society, it's reasonable for you to assert that ideally, copyright would not exist at all.

However, that's not the situation in the US (and most other places) today. We live in a capitalist system where "property" (capital) helps you get by, and it's generally easier to accumulate "intellectual property" than the more tangible kinds. If copyright ended tomorrow, with no other changes, that seems like it would allow far more exploitation by the people holding all the other kinds of capital, and greatly increase inequality on net. So even if you want to take an incrementalist approach towards your ideal society, removing copyright protections entirely seems like the wrong step to take first, before other protections are in place.

(You might argue that the legal system already enforces copyright only for the "haves" and never the "have nots"; while there is some truth to this, I don't think there's enough to negate the above. For all the legal system's flaws--for all the ways it's biased in favor of the party with the biggest money stack--it does offer some protection for the "little guys" in the copyright game. The megacorps would love to never pay royalties again, but even they cannot completely flout the law without consequences, and there are plenty of realistic reforms that could level the playing field further.)

Of course, we still must weigh this benefit against the cost of letting megacorps utilize the same protections, to much greater effect. What do we lose, individually and as a society, by letting them hoard IP?

Current US copyright law certainly has a lot to improve when we consider this tradeoff. A term of 95 years (or life plus 70!) is obscene. Purely intuitively, somewhere in the ballpark of 10 years seems fine to me, so 95 takes some explaining! Fair use should also be shored up and expanded. I think we should care less about people accessing or reproducing copyrighted works in most cases where they're not making money from it, perhaps by shifting the legal standard to focus more on how much the perpetrator benefited (which is related to parts 1 and 4 of the doctrine, but not directly covered) than how much theoretical economic harm was done to the copyright holder (part 4). Of course big companies have more to "lose" from violations!

And finally, most pertinent to the topic of AI art: what counts as transformative? "Transformative" is a relatively recent consideration added to part 1 of the doctrine, and has been inconsistently applied in court. It's basically, and perhaps inescapably, "you know it when you see it." But I think I can still make a claim here: for judging whether an AI model is sufficiently transformative, the process matters, because no one can assess all the possible outputs.

You shouldn't have to sue to find out how likely it is for a company's AI to produce close-enough or verbatim excerpts of your work. There needs to be some level of transparency to provide a check on misbehavior. And AI providers shouldn't need to excessively guard against producing copyrighted material purely by happenstance; they can demonstrate some level of due diligence to reduce their culpability when the wildly rare edge cases eventually crop up ("gosh, this essay I asked for looks a lot like the Bee Movie script!"). I don't know enough about it to suggest a specific solution, only that it seems like there should be one.

Anyway, this is all to say that while I still think the median tumblr take on AI art is fundamentally misguided, some of the discourse has gotten a bit overzealous in the opposite direction. It's completely reasonable for creators to expect some kind of formalization of what their rights are when it comes to AI, so we need to hash that out one way or another.

-

Thanks for reading all that. Since it's obnoxiously long, I'm making another post that links to this one to use for reblogs, which you can find here.

[jollyearthquakecheesecake]

A Beginner's Guide to jasa poster a3

You've got booked the speaker, hired a hall, recruited a staff of volunteers and geared up a advertising prepare. If that wasn't enough, you will need to also be certain your event isn't going to slide foul of various legal challenges. Precise celebration lawful demands vary from area to put and The foundations that apply count on the kind of occasion. The list down below factors out the foremost concerns you will need to consider, but It's also wise to take information with the administrator from the organisation(s) involved with your celebration. If you're not sure about any of this stuff you'll be able to go over them with the location, as they should have practical experience with them.™

Premises Licence

Should you will invite the public to view a Engage poster jasa joki ml in, enjoy a movie, or hear Reside or recorded music, or a thing identical, you'll want to do this in premises which are properly licensed. The licence will decide precisely what functions are permitted and in between what hours. Will not think you may have a concert run further than 11pm with no checking the licence permits it. In case the premises don't have the correct licence you will get what is actually called A short lived Party Notice, that is effectively a short-phrase licence. For more information Get hold of your neighborhood council.

Serving Alcohol

Marketing or providing alcohol can also be regulated because of the premises license. Not just do you should have the right license arrangement in place, In addition, you need to ensure somebody present is a Personal Licence Holder. The penalties for breaking The foundations throughout the offer of Alcoholic beverages can be quite critical so take excellent care On this space.

Wellbeing & Safety Necessities

It really is essential to grasp who is chargeable for well being and security matters and to execute the proper possibility assessments.

The venue are going to be liable for premises-linked health and fitness and protection, such as trip hazards from worn flooring, or unexpected emergency evacuation. But occasion organisers take accountability for party products, which include vacation dangers from electric power cables for speakers or other products brought in the location.

You need to complete risk assessments and document them. Contemplate what type of points might go wrong as well as doable outcomes.

Public Legal responsibility Insurance plan

You must have public legal responsibility coverage in place for your celebration. What comes about if an elderly visitor to your celebration slips in the vehicle park and breaks their leg? Or if a bit of apparatus falls on an individual and injures them? These things do take place so you must have the right insurance in place. Liaise with all your location to determine what is covered by their insurance policies, and what isn't really.

Noise Levels

Ordinarily you may only have challenges with volume Should your celebration options a very loud band or will happen late in the night. Some premises are subject to sound abatement orders, meaning they're legally obliged to measure sounds and preserve it underneath a particular stage. Other premises require to present owing treatment and a focus to their neighbours.

Disabled Accessibility.

All more recent premises are required to give total entry and services for disabled men and women, but more mature premises aren't. Party organisers would not have to make sure obtain for disabled individuals, but it's excellent observe to do so anywhere feasible. Exactly where it's impossible the publicity really should level this out.

Foodstuff Hygiene

For anyone who is serving food stuff to the public it has to are well prepared and saved in accordance with food hygiene rules. Another person which has a food items hygiene certificate need to get accountability for handling the catering.Premises that happen to be often employed for foods planning are inspected from the neighborhood council once in a while.

Parking

In case you are scheduling a major event and do be expecting to own more than enough car parking space it can be clever to speak to the Law enforcement about what other arrangements could be attainable. If you'll want to hold kerbsides distinct on specific roads you are able to use website traffic cones through the Law enforcement for this purpose.

Child Security

Your organisation should have a baby Defense Coverage and also your function must adjust to this. If it does not, or if that is a privately organised function, you need to know about child security difficulties. At the really minimum any volunteers working with children need to have experienced a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Check out.

If you're looking for a good totally free picture hosting Internet site, we advise that you simply make the choice depending on a number of things. In this article, We have now thought of some Most important components that you choose to must contemplate when searching for the very best platform to fulfill your impression-internet hosting wants. Read on to see much more.

one. Pace

For starters, if you host your photos on a third-get together System, you're going to be ready to make certain that your photographs are going to be accessed at a significant speed the world over. If the images don't load faster as a consequence of major load about the servers your site is hosted on, it's possible you'll pass up out on lots of targeted visitors.

For that reason, we suggest that you concentrate on the pace with the graphic internet hosting Internet sites before making this selection. This is important once the size of your photos is compact. For a make a difference of actuality, small photos should not acquire much more than several seconds to load.

2. Internet hosting Alternates

For the reason that readers of your web site come from internationally, you have to ensure that all of them can entry your documents without any difficulty. Using a internet hosting alternate, you may Ensure that none of one's documents are deleted.

three. Trustworthiness

If you don't use a 3rd-social gathering impression hosting website, you could have to confront plenty of difficulties occasionally. When your Net server activities difficulties as a result of program or hardware, your guests can have a lot of hassle.

However, when you go for an alternative, you should have assurance that the photographs are hosted on the responsible server which will be generally on-line. This may increase your viewership and standing on the web. Your images are hosted across quite a few servers on the planet. So, there is not any question of shedding your important facts.

4. Scalability

Lately, most organizations confront two Major troubles as their small business grows Together with the passage of time. As your organization expands, you'll get loads of site visitors on your web site. For that reason, you have to devote lots extra money to acquire pricey hardware to go over your business requires.

This might not be feasible for you personally, particularly when you don't have a huge price range to spend. So, we propose that You do not purchase your own private components and employ the service of the expert services of a picture web hosting assistance provider. They cost a few bucks every month and host all of your pictures. A number of the solutions are free of charge.

5. Safety

Image internet hosting Internet sites are recognized for taking care of very sensitive and private data. As a result, you can get pleasure from best-notch security in opposition to online threats. It is important to Understand that these protection steps are important for any picture hosting Internet site.

So, you might want to look at the safety element when generating the option for The very first time. Ignoring this part is just not a good idea.

six. Consumer expertise

A web-based picture-internet hosting Web-site may help your web site reduce the bandwidth and supply a great consumer practical experience. So, your website can love an increased rank and status, which is significant if you need to keep ahead with the Level of competition. In any case, You can not appreciate achievement if you don't depend on your graphic web hosting Web-site.

Prolonged Tale quick, we suggest that you search for these Main characteristics When picking an image internet hosting Web-site to go over your individual or organization wants.

[ms-hells-bells]

i feel there are a minority of disabilities which are not terminal but make life intolerable for some people (not all though) no matter how many accommodations would be in place. having no legs or arms, for example. i don't know if it's feasible to list every type of disability which could be like this in a very conditional euphanasia law. of course, these examples would be dragged out as a reason to have less conditions in a euphanasia law when a much bigger motivation is $$$

having no legs or arms is actually something that is getting more and more manageable, with bionic limbs in full blast of development. but yes, i agree, like i said, there is a minority of conditions that i think would qualify, although the priority should always be finding cure/alleviation. ones i can think of that i gave as an example are conditions like where your bones constantly grow bone shards on top of them, and it's actually pretty horrific. and also when your skin doesn't grow with your body, so, your skin is just tearing apart 24/7. or that condition where your nerves are sending out 'burn' signals 24/7, and doctors don't even know what causes it. there are intolerable conditions, but these sorts that i have listed literally at most only affect a few hundred or thousand people in the world (some are even 1 of a kind), they are extremely rare, so allowing it would apply to so few that there'd be no slippery slope argument.

i think the big issue is though that as long as we live under capitalism, we cannot guarantee that any applications beyond literally terminal AND in agony are not coerced in any way, regarding economics, government agenda, and family desires. this stuff would be a lot clearer cut if society didn't kill people for not making money and if the world was completely aiding and accessible to disabled and ill people.

[midorree]

How (I Think) Quirk-based Discrimination Works In BNHA

I've seen a lot of claims about how people interpret the quirk-based discrimination from an ableism allegory (not quite) to actually comparing it to Jim Crow laws, which is completely out of pocket. Quirk based discrimination in BNHA is very unique, especially with quirks not existing for very long in the grand scheme of things. Trying to compare it to existing forms of discrimination (that, mind you, exist in the fucking show) is simply put, not accurate in the slightest. Racism has existed for long enough for it to be embedded into our everyday lives and systems. Ableism has existed long enough that it affects how we view disabled people as people and how doctors view their disabled patients. Quirk-based discrimination has not.

PART 1: Comparing and Contrasting: Ableism

I've had this conversation a couple times with my friends, and typically we find that ableism doesn't match up with qbd. First and foremost, let's define a disability.

[Image ID: disability: a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. A disadvantage or a handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law. End Image ID]

Quirkless people do not meet this standard definition unless they are already disabled. Being quirkless does not limit movements, senses, or activities in any way shape or form. Being quirkless is not a hindrance in every day life when it comes to these specific criteria.

But why would people thing that being quirkless is the same as being disabled? Let's take a look at accommodations and accessibility.

In the BNHA universe, quirks have existed for long enough that people with mutation quirks that alter their body significantly can comfortably buy clothes as seen with Shoji in some occasions.

[Image ID: Shoji is wearing baggy, patterned pants tucked into laced boots and is wearing a tank top. End ID]

He is able to buy shirts with bigger sleeve holes rather than having to fix his clothing so that he may be able to wear it himself. This is also seen with UA making a uniform so that he can fit without him having to work excessively for it.

[Image ID: Shoji wearing UA uniform. The uniform has no sleeves. End ID]

Why does this matter? Because Shoji is a perfect example of how small accommodations for people mutation quirks exists idly in the BNHA universe. Everyone has a different quirk and require different accommodations, and with Quirkless people, when it comes to buying clothes, or walking up steps, or going comfortably to a restaurant it's never a problem! Assuming they are able-bodied/neurotypical, they truly won't have a problem with getting by in day to day life.

However, there is one thing I will say is similar to ableism in this aspect: how doctors would treat quirkless people. With the opening episodes/chapters of BNHA we see firsthand how a doctor treats a child who is quirkless. Uncaring, cold, and straight to the point as to let them down as hard as they can saying "you might as well get used to it." The doctor had little to no belief that Izuku would become a hero, saying that he should pursue other careers instead. It's not a perfect match up, but I'd say in my personal experience it's pretty similar.

PART 2: Racism in BNHA

I'm not going to dwell long on this one because it's frankly very tone deaf and not very thought out to be comparing qbd to actual racism.

[Image ID: White text on a black background that states: What was worse, he would now be forces to keep his family from visiting or even living in America. It was never talked about openly, but the way quirkless were treated in the States came very close to how they handled different races with the Jim Crow laws of the past. He would never subject his Izuku to that kind of hatred. End Image ID]

There's a lot to unpack here, but let me preface this by saying this: qbd and centuries upon centuries of racial discrimination are not the same thing, especially considering racism exists in the show/manga itself. Big Yikes.

Let's start by defining what Jim Crow laws were.

[Image ID: Jim Crow laws were a collection of state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Named after a Black minstrel show character, the laws—which existed for about 100 years from the post-Civil War era until 1968—were meant to marginalize African Americans by denying them the right to vote, hold jobs, get an education or other opportunities. Those who attempted to defy Jim Crow laws often faces arrest, fines, jail sentences, violence and death. End Image ID]

So lets make a hypothetical and say quirkless people were treated like this. Okay, what would be an identifying factor in discrimination? Would quirkless people have to tell employers their quirk status? Possibly. Would the right to vote be revoked? Due to what? Would they be held back in educational places? Why would they be?

There are too many unanswered questions as to why these things would happen. The Jim Crow laws happened due to white entitlement after the enslavement of an entire race. Qbd happens because of inherent power dynamics (which I will get into later), and while racial discrimination has that factor, it has existed way longer and is more prevalent in society. What if a quirkless person was a quirkless person of color? Think on that.

There are also heroes of color that exist in the show, and racist caricatures of people of color.

[Image ID: Pro Hero: Native with a shocked expression and some sweat dripping down his face. End Image ID]

This fucker right here.

The BNHA universe has existing racism in and out of canon, seeing as the black/brown characters are underrated outside of the show, and microaggressed within the show.

PART 3: Kacchan vs Deku 3: How Did Deku Being Quirkless Affect Their Relationship And Why?

The line "not all men are created equal" really stuck with me while writing and thinking about this meta. Deku has understood and worked through social dynamics and understandings since he was four years old. He's understood that since he's quirkless, people with quirks hold power over him that he can't defend himself against. He understands this, and chooses to roll with the punches.

Bakugou also very much understands how social dynamics work, and chooses to use it to his advantage. He bullies Deku as a boast of power rather than a boast of privileged. It's been drilled into young Katsuki's head that quirkless people are weak, and that he is strong, His teachers are seen encouraging this behavior and the adults around him tend to not view him as a person, but as an existing beam of potential. Propaganda probably exists even in his Sunday cartoons. The strongest people he looks up to all have quirks, and he makes that correlation of quirk = strong at a very young age. He learns that quirkless ≠ strong. A part of me feels like this is intentional.

Izuku being quirkless would put him at the bottom of the food chain, in a sense, and anyone who had a quirk would be listened to more than he ever would. Izuku learned that not all men are equal because of the inherent power dynamics that come with having the ability to fly, or create explosions, or use fucking fire and ice on command, because he realizes he will never be stronger than Kacchan (at least for now). Even Izuku's idols who he considered to be strong and amazing and admirable were people with quirks. People with power over him.

When Izuku got OFA, the playing field shifted, and Katsuki was afraid and confused. Just because Izuku got a quirk, that doesn't mean Katsuki's view on quirkless people changed. We don't know if it did because its never addressed. He has made significant character development and is working to atone with Deku, but would that still happen if Deku had stayed quirkless? We don't know.

PART 4: Conclusion

The BNHA fandom has a lot of views on how qbd might work, but these are just my thoughts. These are all my opinions and if you'd like to add something feel free to! I just hate the fact that qbd is being compared to actual racism when that just doesn't apply and wanted to weigh in my two cents. Qbd, in my opinion, is all about power dynamics and how easily that can be abused.

[cornerstorebitch]

(previous ethics asker) good argument -- there is a difference between forced interventions and artificially limited options. (i wonder if the new abortion law doesn't blur that difference though, or somehow render it less relevant. abortion is still a medical intervention and pregnancy is not, but it's different when extra steps are taken to prevent people handling a pregnancy themselves with ecbolic teas or coat hangers. doesn't that mean, despite it not being an intervention, for anyone not prepared to live outside the law it will just as surely force a medical decision? it's categoriclly similar to the vaccine mandate; you don't have to get the vaccine technically but people need their jobs the way they need not to have the law breathing down their necks. anyway i'm with you 100% as far as inalienable rights, right to choose what happens with your own body should fall near the top of the list (privacy is the only thing which might come above it, but that's relevant to the vaccine mandate too. online charting has somehow created the concept that others' medical trends are anyone's business. people are spreading contagions every day. and when has the cdc ever kept a named national registry instead of anonymous incidence logs? there is actually no need for a competent doctor to identify a patient before treating them.)

what you've said is right (kevorkian mentioned that pressured euthanasia is simply murder) -- but i was thinking more along the lines of, doctors are not very good at their jobs since their medical knowledge is often lacking; it's also kind of a privilege to be in a position to help others; if they can't think creatively and compensate for lack of patient knowledge by clarifying, they're not fit for the field. but my mind wandered saying that; it has nothing to do with legal issues, unless what passes culturally eventually dictates what's acceptable in terms of policy, which means the system is broken anyway

"If there's a legal precedent to be cited here (which there is, but thats a different lengthy paragraph)" -- will you say more about this? please and thank you. your mind remains sharp as always and it's delightful to read what youve written

yeah i think the primary difference between SB8 and the vaccine mandate is that people are by and large choosing to comply with SB8. obviously the law exists and some people want to sue but i think the chances of anybody actually forking over 10k+ to the courts or losing their livelihood is... unlikely. maybe that sounds dismissive. but there are a hell of a lot of people seeking abortions in the state of texas so it seems patently absurd to me that abortion providers immediately tucked tail instead of deciding they couldnt catch everyone. the vaccine mandate already has caused people to lose their jobs, will continue to do so, and will probably make anyone who does not wish to be vaccinated virtually unemployable if things go like theyre looking. and it's going to be a LOT harder to fight legally than SB8 because the vaccine mandate has legal precedent supporting it and SB8 does not. the vaccine mandate is also dramatically less legally clear cut than SB8 is, which inarguably creates an unjust obstacle to accessing abortion which is considered a protected right by the supreme court.

i do agree about doctors and the medical industry. ive said this before but doctors are generally competent in the same way mechanics are generally competent. does a doctor probably know more than i do about whatever random medical issue is being discussed and have a much larger knowledge pool to pull from in general? yeah. are they after your money? also yes. are they infallible? absolutely not. but most people don't know enough about cars or medicine to argue

the strongest argument supporting the vaccine mandates is simply the fact that public schools and universities already require certain vaccines to attend. consequently, i would say it's hard to argue against requiring covid vaccinations in analogous contexts. that said, the primary reason why we require vaccines in public schools is because a room full of snotty children who don't cover their mouths in close contact is a lot more likely to spread, idk, whooping cough, than a bunch of adults working in a hospital. and that argument only applies to places that receive funding from the government, not private businesses (which iirc are not currently required to comply) which does probably include most healthcare facilities. i can't remember if HPV shots are required in schools but i would say thats a heavy argument on either side bc the HPV shots were similarly new when they began to encourage them for teenagers. anyway thats a lot of circular talking to say that the vaccine mandate does in my opinion exist in a rather large legal grey area with... related but not really directly comparable legal precedents at play as well as highly vague and highly contested constitutional arguments regarding privacy and personal liberties

thank u for the kind words

[bbq-hawks-wings]

I want to express an unpopular opinion. I hope for your understanding, because such things don't like to listen. Why does everyone think that Hawks is a bird? I couldn' fit my logical arguments into the askbox :( (about how he sits on a pole "like a bird", supposedly likes jewelry and so on). Even his quirk is called Fierce Wings, not a Hawk, not a Red Bird. Do you remember the names of the quirks of Hound Dog and Tsuyu-chan? We haven't evidence to believe that Hawks is behaves like a bird.

I do believe very much he’s a bird, and if you would let me friend, I would love to try and prove it to you because I think the evidence is overwhelming. I’ll make a TL;DR at the end but I’d really like to take the opportunity to perhaps teach others at least one method for literary analysis since it can be a really dry and boring subject to learn in school but is SO useful not only for getting good grades but getting into colleges as well as interpreting both entertainment and genuinely important information like the news, history, laws, and scientific papers. Using fiction - especially such a rich, engaging one like HeroAca - is a great way to try it out without the pressure of a grade. I don’t have the qualifications to teach in any formal capacity, but as a “peer” tutor I hope I can be helpful.

I’m going to put everything under the cut from here because this is going to get LONG, but I promise the TL;DR at the end will be very easy to read. If you liked this sort of unofficial tutorial please let me know. I’d love to help make “academic” skills like this more accessible for those who might benefit from it and enjoy it, but it doesn’t make sense to put in all that effort moving forward if I’m garbage at it.

Before we get too into things, I want to lay out a few notes to keep in mind as we go.

I will only be using the official translations from Viz’s Shonen Jump website when available. Fan translations are more than close enough to casually enjoy and follow the story, but professional translators are paid to know and get various nuances correct and some of the trickier cultural background behind certain phrases (for example, the phrase “where the rubber meets the road” might make zero sense in a foreign language if translated literally, so an equal cultural phrase should be used instead) that give more exact information. Rarely is this too important, but sometimes it helps, plus it supports the source material.

If you’ve followed my blog for a while you might know I’m very fond of doing this kind of thing in my spare time and that I’m a huge fan of YouTube channels like Game/Film Theory, Overly Sarcastic Productions, Extra Credits, and Wisecrack that do this kind of thing with popular media as well. If you like this sort of content, may I encourage you to check them out after this to see how else you can apply these kinds of analytical skills to things that aren’t homework.

My writing style tends to meander, but I do my best to cut out the fat and only include relevant information so even though there’s a lot of information here, please know that I’m trying to be thorough and explain things to the best of my ability. If I seem to go off on a tangent, I’m trying to set up or contextualize information to explain why it’s relevant and then come back to the point. In other words, please be patient and bear with me as I go.

Now, to start, I want to explain at least my method for analyzing a text/piece of media. There is a set order and number of steps to take, and it’s as follows:

Read the material all the way through.

Come up with a hypothesis about something you’ve noticed when reading it. (In this case, it’s “Is Hawks actually supposed to be a bird?”)

Collect as much relevant information as possible and test the evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis we’ve made.

Step back and look at everything again with those points in mind.

Determine if we were right or wrong with the evidence we have.

If we were wrong, go back to step 3 to figure out what fell apart and see if we need to go back to step 2.

If that sequence sounds familiar it’s because it’s the scientific method! Aha, didn’t think we’d be pulling science into all this, did you? Don’t worry, we won’t be putting numbers or formulas anywhere near this discussion - the scientific method is just a way we can observe something and test if what we thought about it is actually true; and it applies to almost everything we as humans can observe - from the laws of the universe, to arts and crafts, to philosophy and religion, and so on! When you think about it that way, whole new possibilities can open up for you when it comes to understanding how the world works.

So with that set let’s (finally) begin!

Steps 1 and 2 are already done. We’ve read the manga and want to prove that Hawks is a bird. (We’re going to try and prove he IS a bird because in the context of the series there’s a lot that *isn’t* a bird and less stuff that *is* which will make our job easier.) So now, we’re onto: 

Step 3 - collect data and see what conclusions we can get just from our evidence.

Now, to pause again (I know, bear with me!) there’s a few different kinds of information and considerations we have to keep in mind as we collect. There are four kinds of information that are important to know about in order to determine if it’s good data that will help us with the testing phase in Step 4. The kinds of information to keep in mind are:

Explicit information - this is information that is directly spelled out for us. For example, Hawks says, “I like my coffee sweet.” and his character sheet says “Hawk’s favorite food is chicken.” That’s all there is to it, and it’s pretty hard to argue with. This is the easiest type of info to find.

Implicit information - this is info that isn’t directly spelled out but is noticeable either in the background or as actions, patterns, or behaviors that can be observed. For example, Hawks has mentioned in at least three very different places his concerns over people getting hurt while he tries to get in with the League:

Chapter 191 when confronting Dabi about the Nomu he says, “You said you’d release it in the factory on the coast, not in the middle of the damn city!”

Chapter 191 again in a flashback with the Hero Commission he asks, “What about the people who might be hurt while I’m infiltrating the League?”

Chapter 240 when discovering how much influence and power the League has gained, “If someone had taken down the League sooner, all those good citizens wouldn’t have had to die!”

Hawks never says in so many words, “I never want innocent people to get hurt under any circumstances!” but the pattern of behavior and concern is consistent enough to form a pattern and clue us in that this is a key part of his character to keep in mind.

Peripheral information - this is information that isn’t directly to do with Hawks or maybe even the series as a whole but is still relevant to keep in mind for his character and the questions we’re asking. This may include extra content that isn’t the “series” proper, but is still an official source like interviews with Horikoshi, etc. but it can go even further. For example, while we try to prove that he’s a bird, we should have some knowledge about what makes a bird a bird, some specific and notable birdlike habits/behaviors/features, etc. This is just to show how wide-ranging we need to cast our informational net.

Contextual information - this will be important when we get to Step 4, but it’s good to keep in mind now. This is when we compare evidence against the broader scope of the series and consider the circumstances under which we find the information. For example, if I told you, “Harry kicked a dog.” you might think “What a jerk! What decent person kicks a dog?”; but if I said, “Harry kicked a dog while trying to keep it from biting his kid.” suddenly it re-frames the story. “Is the kid ok? Why was that dog attacking? Harry put himself in danger to keep his kid safe - what a great dad!”

I’ll go chronologically to make it easier to follow my evidence as I gather and give references as to where I found that information. I’ll go through the manga first, and then any peripheral sources that are either direct informational companions to the series (like character books or bonus character information sheets) and interviews with Horikoshi. Please note the categories these details fall into may vary based on opinion/interpretation, but I did my best to list them out for reference.

Chapter 185 - Explicit Type: Feathered wings - regardless of the specifics of his quirk it’s undeniable his wings are made up of feathers which is a distinctly birdlike quality. There are many mythical creatures and even dinosaurs that also have feathered wings, but this is our first big piece of evidence.

Chapter 186 - Peripheral Type: Large appetite - birds have an incredibly fast metabolism because flying takes so much energy. They’re constantly eating. Plenty of young men are big eaters, but it was specifically pointed out and works towards our hypothesis so we’ll keep it in our back pocket for now.

Chapter 186 - Implicit/Peripheral Type: Fantastic vision - Hawks senses the Nomu coming before the audience even is able to make out what’s headed their way. It could be implied his wings caught it first, which might be the case, but he looks directly at the Nomu and brings Endeavor’s attention to it. Birds have fantastic long-range vision, especially birds of prey that mainly swoop in from high in the air to ambush highly perceptive prey. Also good to add to the pile.

Chapter 192 + Volume 20 Cover - Implicit/Peripheral type: Wears jewelry and bright colors - birds are well documented to be drawn to bright colors and are known for decorating their nests with trinkets. Scientists actually have to be careful when tagging birds with tracking bracelets because they can accidentally make him VASTLY more popular with the ladies by giving him a brightly colored band to the point they can’t resist him! Male birds are also known for having bright, colorful displays for attracting and wooing mates. While Hawks isn’t the only male character to wear jewelry in the series, he’s the only one (to my recollection) that wears as MUCH jewelry so often both during and outside of work. It may not be obvious, but the illustration on Volume 20 is actually an advertisement for his line of (presumably) luxury jewelry. In other words, Hawks on some level is synonymous with style and flair to the point he can make money by selling jewelry with his name on it.

Chapter 20 Volume Cover - Explicit Type: Hawk emblem on the watch face - If the name “Hawks” didn’t give it away, he’s very clearly trying to align himself with more avian qualities if his merch has bird motifs. In other words Hawk = “Hero Hawks” and “Hero Hawks” = bird.

Chapter 192, 244, clear file illustration - Peripheral Type: birdlike posture. Chapter 244 isn’t quite released yet on the official site as of writing this, but when Hawks swoops in and beats the kids to the punch apprehending the criminals trying to subdue Endeavor, his hands are clenched in a very talon-like manner similar to a swooping eagle. When walking with Endeavor in 192, he holds his resting hand in a similar fashion. On the clear file illustration he’s not only perched on his tippy toes in a pose that has been famously called “owling” (remember that trend/meme, y’all?) but his wings are slightly outstretched to catch the breeze to keep from falling over which a lot of birds can be seen doing when they don’t have great purchase on a surface in a place that’s a little windy. The fact that he seems to gravitate to high places like birds are often seen doing might also be a noteworthy indication.

Extra sources:

Hawks Shifuku: Horikoshi describes Hawks as a “bird person” and says that his initial design was based off of Takahiro from his old manga. 

Takahiro’s design:

Current character design: The banner image on my blog was commissioned from a friend of mine who doesn’t follow the series. When I showed her reference images of Hawks, you know what she said? “Oh! His hair is feathers!” Even his eyebrows have that fluffy/scruffy texture to them that his hair has. The markings on his eyes can also be seen on him as a young child in Chapter 191 which means it isn’t makeup meant to tie in a theme or look. He has those dark, pointed eye markings like many birds do. So on some genetic level he resembles a bird.

Step 4: Testing our hypothesis with the gathered evidence.

There’s already a lot of compelling evidence that already closely aligns him to birds which is promising. However, to really prove our point we should try to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he is a bird. To do that this time around I’m going to see how the series treats people with animal-based quirks and see if it’s consistent with the way Hawks is portrayed.

You bring up Hound Dog and Tsuyu, and they’re fantastic examples. Let’s start with Hound.

He’s pretty straight forward - he’s like a dog. He has a dog face, has dog-like tendencies, and dog-like abilities. Superpower: dog.

And in Tsuyu’s case - quirk: frog, just frog. She’s stated explicitly to have frog-like features, frog-like tendencies, have frog-like abilities, and even comes from a “froggy family.”

So with these two very explicitly animal-like characters the common theme seems to be “If they’re considered to be like a specific animal, they have to physically resemble that animal, act like that animal at times, and have abilities like that animal.” Let’s see if another animal-quirk character matches up and then put Hawks to the test.

Spinner’s quirk is Gecko. Based on our criteria, is he a gecko?

Does he look like a gecko, even vaguely? 

Yes, he’s covered head to toe in scales, and his face is very lizard-like.

Does he occasionally act like a gecko? 

Unclear. We haven’t really seen any evidence of this, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t. For the sake of our argument, we’ll just say no and move on.

Does he have gecko-like abilities?

 Yes! Though most of his abilities are limited to things like being able to stick to walls, it’s still gecko-like in origin and qualifies.

Spinner hits clearly hits ⅔ criteria and our standards seem pretty consistent, so let’s see how Hawks stands up.

Does he look like a bird? 

Not all of his features may explicitly scream “avian” at first, but upon closer observation and with his clear previous inspiration this is a resounding yes.

Does he act like a bird? 

Many of the mannerisms and behaviors he displays can just be chalked up to him being a little eccentric, but with the sheer number of them that also parallel birds in some way this is also a pretty convincing yes.

Does he have bird-like abilities? 

While most of the emphasis is on his wings and what they can do, it does seem that he not only possesses things like heightened senses which could be attributed to avian abilities but he also very much possess high intelligence and incredibly fast reaction times which birds are also known for.

Even if we only gave Hawks a “maybe/half a point” for those last two, he still meets the 2⁄3 that Spinner did. So we have another question to ask: Does a character have to have an explicitly named “animal” quirk to be considered to be/resemble a specific animal? Let’s look at Ojirou and Tokoyami for reference.

Ojirou’s quirk is just “tail,” but he’s been described by his peers and classmates as a monkey and does seem to share some more monkey-like features. It isn’t lumped in with his quirk because the only notable monkey-like quality he possesses is a tail. He doesn’t have fangs or an opposable toe - he just has a tail. For quirk classification as far as hero work goes, that’s the only important thing to note.

Tokoyami, on the other hand has an entire literal bird head, but nothing else. He has a beak, feathers, and even in illustrations of him as a baby he had fluffier feathers on his head. Even with only those details, he just screams “bird!” However, his quirk is classified as “Dark Shadow” because that’s what sets him apart for hero work.

Back at Hawks we see his quirk classified as “fierce wings” but like Ojirou and especially like Tokoyami, the emphasis on his wings is what sets his abilities as a hero apart. Otherwise, he’s just a guy who looks and acts a LOT like a bird.

But astute observers may have noticed I’ve left out a detail that’s more or less a nail in the coffin on the whole matter, so let me ask a question: Tsuyu in particular has something else of note that solidifies in our minds that she is, indeed, a frog - she explicitly calls herself a frog. Could we say the same about Hawks?

Chapter 199 - Explicit Type

Bingo. Hawks has known himself for as long as he’s been alive. He knows his habits, his impulses, his family/genes, and so on. If he calls himself a bird, are we going to call him a liar? In fact, he calls himself a bird not once, but twice!

That’s pretty much it. With the evidence stacked to that degree, I’d be hard pressed to NOT believe he’s a bird.

That was a long amount of text to get through, so if you’re here at the end thank you for sticking out with me to this point. I really appreciate it. This is more or less the process I use when analyzing anything and everything whether it be HeroAca related or not. Maybe it’ll help you if you’ve struggled with literary analysis, or at the very least I hope you got some enjoyment out of it.

TL;DR If Hawks looks like a bird, walks (acts) like a bird, is based on a bird (character), and calls himself a bird, he’s probably a bird.