Yeah… And I am saying that is bullshit.

Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.

In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .

There’s also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that’s their privilege.

When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don’t need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.

It’s really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.

It is a sad fact that our industry is treated and often treats itself so often as an exception to the conventions of a workplace. A lot of it has to do with novel input and output. At our core though we are an industry and the rules aren’t different. It’s just the context of process is more difficult to grock then in other applications of the laws. Producers on indy productions tend to think of their creative role primarily and often consider that they are an employer with responsibilities and duty of care of their employees only belatedly… And society tends to treat them as though they are functionally airhead babies who can’t be held accountable because “how could they know better”.

It’s their job to know better. They often don’t because a studio tends to have internal means of enforcing safety to protect their investments… But if there’s nobody and no process to stop you making decisions that kill someone then liability is your reward. Indy shows don’t have the safety valve infrastructure and protections union or big studio shows do and that cuts more than one way.

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.

A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren’t dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.

People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn’t adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo… But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.

The issues with the US bulling their way in here is that while they set themselves up as the arbiters of free speech… these are not your counties. These are democratic institutions who have made independently made these decisions based on their concepts of what constitutes safeguarding the welfare of their citizens. They have determined that repeat targetted provably untrue propaganda based out of intellectual dishonesty that is designed to leave people angry at minorities creates conditions where people logically come to the conclusion that the killing, oppressing and subjugation of people to the point they see death as preferable to life is not okay.

The version of “free speech” that constantly gets toted as a universal good is essentially an experiment. When you see how something is functionally shaping your society and you see that while aspects of it are very healthy and cause additional stability and protection to people but a misuse is causing some people to be treated as subhuman then it’s time to amend the rules. A government should be held accountable for the welfare of all it’s citizens and those non-citizens whom it has temporary sovereignty over. Each country has the right to determine how best to initiate that directive. You are very welcome to defend your version of free speech as defined by American sensibilities on American ground, but American meddling in the ethics of countries whose value systems deal in more nuance would be very unwelcome. Quite frankly since the application of “free speech” under American terms has caused so much political stratification in their own homeland to the point where civil war or a breakdown of other democratic norms are snowballing they need to see to their own house before they can critique other nations.

I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn’t completely relevant to the crime.

Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn’t they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it’s your duty to make sure your crew is safe… And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn’t feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.

We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.

This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.

There are many examples of House Elves in the books who treat essentially the single one who was freed and happy about it as an abnormality. Look at how Dobby is reacted to by every other house elf. Hermione’s advocacy that they have autonomy is ultimately treated as being something only an extreme minority of their population would want and her continued efforts treated as comedy.

Effectively house elves are narrativly speaking a subservient slave species whom treating poorly is narrativly punished… but emancipation is not desired by the whole and they feel fulfilled as long as their masters treat them well. The profiting from their labor is framed as mutually beneficial.

I don’t know if Hermione is strictly a self insert any more than her other characters are, we just sort of assume that because she’s the girl. Oftentimes we see Rowling pop up in the framing devices and not the characters themselves. We are always drawn to some conclusion the plot wants us to. Often what Hermione does is a lampshading technique. She brings up the issues around moral issues but we are lead to see her concerns and advocacy as invalid as the plot makes them inconvenient or proven to be incorrect. It’s the actions speak louder senario. What the characters individually say is not wholly important because from an authorial standpoint some of them are intended to be misguided and Hermione is framed as good-hearted but ultimately misguided.

Hermione’s sense of moral objection is treated more often as a flaw, an annoyance to her peers and unneeded or even counter to the needs of by the people she is advocating for. She is more closely aligned to a caracature of how JKR veiws advocates of minority rights then a reflection of her own advocacy. That every other character tends to just ignore Hermione isn’t veiwed as a tragic instance. It’s played for comedy.

Yeah… But mine started developing a ring of concrete dust and I got tired of looking like a dingy anime character. Bodily fluids were not my problem.

Oh yeah, any kind of dusty or gritty job shampoo is a requirement. Having natural hair oils is like inviting trouble in those situations. I tried to go the route of just water and my pillow slips noticeably suffered.

I throw no shade on Mildred… As long as she’s one of those girls who like dress in 1950’s fashions and is way too into electroswing.

Then it’s only fitting.

I think it’s a lot more black and white being trans than people realize and I have my own pet theories about what gender euphoria /dysphoria is that I observe as being two independent factors.

Half of the problem I think in reaching people is that the vast majority of cis people don’t have an observed internal gender preference. We are trying to build empathy with something we as trans people assume they have too - but maybe only a small minority of cis people experience it. I don’t think we actually understand cis people, we just assume a bunch of things about them using trans people as a false opposite.

Thing is… If I am correct, the assumed massive earth shaking regret of what would happen if a cis person went through gender reassignment… Is they might just adapt and be fine.

I have pointed out to people before that trans women athletes in practice tend to not outperform all women in the sport. The data we have puts them as no more competitive as women with naturally high testosterone and depending on sport can actually be at a disadvantage…

But there’s another underlying assumption. You assume your athlete went through masculinizing puberty first and then a female puberty second. If you skip that first step then you don’t see major differences of frame, weight distribution or muscle mass.

Where this stings is that laws are forcing people to go through that first puberty regardless of the wishes of the paitent, the patients families, the paitents doctors and the concensus of the medical associations of those doctors… And then the government sits back and demonizes those people based on their physicality as a logistical social problem for the rest of their lives and ostracizes them based on this logic.

Athletes squew young. If you allowed through trans athletes who went through the transition process young enough or looked at sport with trans populations and statistically assessed whether any excessive advantage was afforded and allow in those instances where none was found you could solve for any statistical stand out issues within a decade…

But no, we are having this inane conversation because it suits some government parties to make people feel that trans people are a threat or a problem that must be stopped and that there is zero reasonable inclusion policies.

It isn’t that there’s tons of trans athletes… It’s that even at fairly low levels of sport there are currently more options available to people with disabilities to participate then there are of people of intersex and trans backgrounds. In a lot of cases tracking performances of trans athletes they aren’t dominating. There’s stories of transfem athletes who regularly sit around getting 15th place but after coming in first one time the entire sporting becomes hostile to trans people.

In civil rights discussions there’s a concept of rights of participation. The concept being that being barred from social, political or recreational spheres creates outsized harms on the ability to make the advantageous connections others are given free access to and creates classes of segregation.

There’s also a catch 22 situation. If someone opts to go through a trans puberty instead of a natal one there is no meaningful difference to speak of between the physicality of trans athletes and cis ones. If forced to stay inside their original sex segregated sport not only are trans people being being told in no uncertain terms that society does not accept their new status regardless of parity, they essentially become isolated inside the sporting body. Either you have someone whose body is feminine placed in a sport with only cis males to be compared to or you have a masculine body placed inside a group with all cis women and both will be framed out of being taken at all seriously inside the entire body of that sport. A lot of trans people can’t participate in sport not because they aim to be picked for any of the social leg ups excellence in sport provides… But for any of the regular benefits of just participating.

It creates a fair sting to have a government force your choice of initial puberty that neither you or your doctors and parents thought was a good idea… and then sit back and watch the rest of society constantly punish and isolate you for going through that puberty by then treating you as a logistical social problem for the rest of your life.

Segregated sports based on a demographic like that isn’t as trans affirming as you would think… My gut reaction as a trans person is about the same aversion I imagine a person of color would experience if a white person tried to put forward a “People of Color sport league”.

Ditching us all into a new category like we’re quarantined in sport away from other athletes because we’re implicitly not cis… Isn’t something I would appreciate.

Aw damn it.

Hey! Rats and fleas are not held to human standards that’s not really fair!

Also did he really say the baby thing? Like not just hyperbole due to his emotional disregulation issues but like… Sincerely? If so oof. It’s gunna be real awkward next time the management put us on the same lake of fire swim team.

We all gotta get along though. It’s not like he’s going anywhere.

Aw don’t be mean to Geoff! Dude can’t help being a bit backwards. His entire family died of plague and rooting for the 7th Crusade was maybe not great but it was a product of his time!

Just meet him on his terms you know? He likes board games. Challenge him to a game of Nine Men’s Morris and he’ll stop being such a downer.

You realize that the word narcissism is not fully encompassing of all aspects of the character in the tale that inspired the word though right?

The word describes self-centeredness on the shallow end and on the deep has a diagnostic aspect for a mental disorder that has nothing to do with sexuallity. Referring to asexual people as narcissistic for not being sexually attracted to people would be considered quite insulting. Look up the dictionary definition or the DSM for the disorder and show me where it mentions asexuality if you can.

You are halfway there. Those examples you gave define constructs but a lot of these things are not what philosophy uses to define social constructs. Scientific taxonomy constructs and linguistic constructs are things but they are fairly useless in discussion surrounding social constructs because while different cultures might draw the line differently around what exactly constitutes a “chair” vs say a “stool” or some such that’s more of just a linguistic boundry. Its basically always a thing you sit on.

Philosophy uses a bunch of different ideas labeled as different forms of construct to break down the idea of how different types of categorization or subjection happen… but when they start talking about “social” constructs they are specifically talking about categories of human interactions with something that have incredibly variable different potential contexts based on culture. It also requires things which are included or excluded from those category for not entirely practical reasons. Philosophy uses this to talk about how social categories are subjective creating or allieving tension between different cultural groups.

Food is actually a good example. There are a lot of things culturally considered food and non food items despite those items all having nutritional value and being safe to consume. In our increasingly cosmopolitan world a lot of expansion has happened to increase the size of the category. Like raw fish was not considered a food item by a lot of people when and where I was growing up. Now sashimi is everywhere and no one bats an eye. Digging for another example mice are technically edible but even raised and slaughtered cleanly very few would consider them valid as food. Whether what I put on your plate is deemed an disgusting insult or a delicious delicacy is really in the eye of the beholder and has caused a number of historical diplomatic and cultural issues around other cultures veiwing each other as inferior.

Just because something is a construct does not automatically make it a social construct.