i don't think that either of the reactions are wrong, per se, although i don't think it's reasonable to use language about "safety" or language about transphobia, unless the language about transphobia is directed at language about "safety", in which case it's true.
it's a comfort issue. frankly, i wouldn't want to go to a women's spa and end up around people with penises, either. that said, that's my own comfort level. i mean, we're talking about full nudity, here.
here's how this ought to work: it ought to be up to the community that frequents the facility to decide what they feel comfortable within. unfortunately, we don't live in a society that upholds co-operative ideas, so it has to fall upon the business owner to make decisions regarding what she wants to allow in her business, and up to clients to vote with their feet. she may want to consider surveying her customers, of course. but, if another spa opens up across the street with a more liberal access policy, and it attracts a lot of business, then the people have spoken regarding their comfort level; if that business fails, they will have as well.
i would suspect that the business with the stricter definition will be more successful due to the nature of the service, and i don't hold that truth against anybody. trans people have an obligation to respect certain boundaries. she should back off on this.
further, this is access to a spa. it's just about the definition of non-essential. and, i do not believe that a court in canada would argue it has jurisdiction to interfere.
if this upsets you, you have the right to start your own spa with different rules, but i don't think you have the right to tell this business owner how to run hers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/body-blitz-transgender-policy-1.4158397
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
this is kind of a naive article. harper left a lot of vacant spaces for his successor to fill, but he could very well have stacked the court - at the lower level. the reason that harper had a bunch of liberals to promote was that it was what years of liberal dominance left him with.
it is true that we don't have the politicized judicial system here that we might have, but it is a function of the way the system works rather than an aspect of the system itself. we can imagine scenarios where this would happen.
trudeau is, in fact, going to have to steer around the harper appointees at the lower level. or, at least you would think that he would. unfortunately, i actually suspect that trudeau will end up preferring harper's appointees over those of his liberal predecessors, as he is ideologically closer to harper than he is to them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stacking-the-supreme-court-1.4157799
it is true that we don't have the politicized judicial system here that we might have, but it is a function of the way the system works rather than an aspect of the system itself. we can imagine scenarios where this would happen.
trudeau is, in fact, going to have to steer around the harper appointees at the lower level. or, at least you would think that he would. unfortunately, i actually suspect that trudeau will end up preferring harper's appointees over those of his liberal predecessors, as he is ideologically closer to harper than he is to them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stacking-the-supreme-court-1.4157799
this is a non-starter, it can't happen, and he should immediately ask them to resign.
i won't even analyse the proposal, because it's impossible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andre-pratte-infrastructure-bank-split-1.4158429
i won't even analyse the proposal, because it's impossible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andre-pratte-infrastructure-bank-split-1.4158429
i'm not the first person that's put together a comparison between the naive pro-communist protestors of the previous generation and the naive pro-islam protestors of the current one.
bin-saud! bin-saud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud!
"take a holiday in arabia,
where you'll not kiss ass or get cracked..."
bin-saud.
bin-saud! bin-saud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud! binsaud!
"take a holiday in arabia,
where you'll not kiss ass or get cracked..."
bin-saud.
so, the upper class white kids yelling down the christian preachers at the pro-muslim rally...
these kids are vulnerable, yes. but what you're really seeing is the racism of low expectations. the white christian preacher is held to a higher standard, while the primitive sand niggers should be left to their own: a principle of anthropological research, a prime directive. they do not know better. so, it is ok when they do it; they should not be disturbed in their capsule, or held to the standards of the more advanced society. leave their culture alone, it's existence justifies our own superiority.
that is privilege.
if they have the capability to understand this, they'll walk away on their own. if they don't, they're of no consequence, anyway.
these kids are vulnerable, yes. but what you're really seeing is the racism of low expectations. the white christian preacher is held to a higher standard, while the primitive sand niggers should be left to their own: a principle of anthropological research, a prime directive. they do not know better. so, it is ok when they do it; they should not be disturbed in their capsule, or held to the standards of the more advanced society. leave their culture alone, it's existence justifies our own superiority.
that is privilege.
if they have the capability to understand this, they'll walk away on their own. if they don't, they're of no consequence, anyway.
it wasn't just the slaves, though. i've gotten push back for talking about "communists" in the eighteenth century, and i half agree, but they certainly weren't liberals; they were peasants looking mostly for land reforms. i guess the difference between an african slave and a european serf at this point was sort of blurry, anyways. they had the same masters and the same goals, which is why the american elite had to invent racism to get them in conflict with each other.
the other reason there is a second amendment is that the elites thought it better to let the settlers kill each other in fits of passion than be controlled by a commander that would distribute arms in order to kill them. put another way, it was meant to prevent the monopolization of arms by revolutionary factions.
but, it was largely about controlling labour.
so, when you see these militia groups working with the cops, you should not be surprised. you do not need to conjure up imagery of brown shirts, or references to hitler. this is what america always was.
it is your visions of america as something different than this that need to be adjusted.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
the other reason there is a second amendment is that the elites thought it better to let the settlers kill each other in fits of passion than be controlled by a commander that would distribute arms in order to kill them. put another way, it was meant to prevent the monopolization of arms by revolutionary factions.
but, it was largely about controlling labour.
so, when you see these militia groups working with the cops, you should not be surprised. you do not need to conjure up imagery of brown shirts, or references to hitler. this is what america always was.
it is your visions of america as something different than this that need to be adjusted.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
so, are alcohol users more aggressive than marijuana users? that's floating around, right now. i may have perpetuated it myself a little, in musing that i hope that legalization converts some alcoholics into potheads, and pointing out the public health benefits. but, i actually think that legalization is likely to bust that myth.
to be clear: yes, alcohol is a more dangerous substance, if consumed excessively. marijuana doesn't produce blackouts, or damage reasoning skills the way that alcohol does. nor does it present the same kind of long term health problems.
but, ultimately, alcohol is a cns depressant. it's the stimulants - like cocaine - that pose the largest threats for violence. alcohol consumption is clearly tied to violence (correlation), but there's not really any good reason to tie alcohol use to violence (doesn't necessarily imply causation) the same way that there is to tie cocaine use to violence (it's a stimulant). so, what's going on here?
i think that what you're going to see come out of the legalization process is the deconstruction of this myth that alcohol users are more violent and marijuana users are less violent and the realization that alcohol is more often tied to violence for the simple reason that it is more readily available to violent people. your archetypal dumb jock can walk into a bar and pound a few, then look for somebody to fight. he doesn't need contacts or friends to find beer the same way that he does to find pot. once pot is as readily available to the archetypal dumb jock as alcohol, the rate of violence observed amongst marijuana users will no doubt find itself in alignment with that observed by alcohol users. long time users of both drugs in diverse situations will recognize this as obvious, because it was never the alcohol that made the dumb jock so dangerous in the first place. what makes the dumb jock dangerous is that he is dumb.
in the process, alcohol may experience somewhat of a revival in reputation.
i'm hard on alcohol, but i'm not shy to use it, because i know how to use it safely (despite the inaccurate claims of others). and, it can be used safely, nobody doubts this. see, a big part of this is my disposition, though. it should shock nobody to learn that i'm a passive drunk. but, it seems to be harder for people to understand that i'm a passive drunk because i'm opposed to violence when i'm sober. this shouldn't be hard to put together, but alcohol seems to have really taken a beating, lately.
i was at an underground party on saturday night and they were freely selling a substance that is supposed to be safer than alcohol. perhaps my eyes were lying to me. but, it seemed to me that the people that were only drinking were able to dance on their own with reasonable stamina, while the people inhaling this supposedly safer substance limped around looking like they had multiple sclerosis. i stopped and watched one guy for a good five or six minutes. he was clearly having the kind of motor difficulties that you would normally assign to somebody going through the advanced stages of dementia. i hope he didn't suffer permanent nerve damage.
my point is just that you need to look at context. you need to be careful with alcohol, especially if you are thin like i am: you need to consume it in small amounts over a long time, rather than all at once. but, it's not going to turn you into somebody that you aren't. once we have equal access to intoxication sources, we'll see those numbers even out and begin to realize that the root causes are underlying.
to be clear: yes, alcohol is a more dangerous substance, if consumed excessively. marijuana doesn't produce blackouts, or damage reasoning skills the way that alcohol does. nor does it present the same kind of long term health problems.
but, ultimately, alcohol is a cns depressant. it's the stimulants - like cocaine - that pose the largest threats for violence. alcohol consumption is clearly tied to violence (correlation), but there's not really any good reason to tie alcohol use to violence (doesn't necessarily imply causation) the same way that there is to tie cocaine use to violence (it's a stimulant). so, what's going on here?
i think that what you're going to see come out of the legalization process is the deconstruction of this myth that alcohol users are more violent and marijuana users are less violent and the realization that alcohol is more often tied to violence for the simple reason that it is more readily available to violent people. your archetypal dumb jock can walk into a bar and pound a few, then look for somebody to fight. he doesn't need contacts or friends to find beer the same way that he does to find pot. once pot is as readily available to the archetypal dumb jock as alcohol, the rate of violence observed amongst marijuana users will no doubt find itself in alignment with that observed by alcohol users. long time users of both drugs in diverse situations will recognize this as obvious, because it was never the alcohol that made the dumb jock so dangerous in the first place. what makes the dumb jock dangerous is that he is dumb.
in the process, alcohol may experience somewhat of a revival in reputation.
i'm hard on alcohol, but i'm not shy to use it, because i know how to use it safely (despite the inaccurate claims of others). and, it can be used safely, nobody doubts this. see, a big part of this is my disposition, though. it should shock nobody to learn that i'm a passive drunk. but, it seems to be harder for people to understand that i'm a passive drunk because i'm opposed to violence when i'm sober. this shouldn't be hard to put together, but alcohol seems to have really taken a beating, lately.
i was at an underground party on saturday night and they were freely selling a substance that is supposed to be safer than alcohol. perhaps my eyes were lying to me. but, it seemed to me that the people that were only drinking were able to dance on their own with reasonable stamina, while the people inhaling this supposedly safer substance limped around looking like they had multiple sclerosis. i stopped and watched one guy for a good five or six minutes. he was clearly having the kind of motor difficulties that you would normally assign to somebody going through the advanced stages of dementia. i hope he didn't suffer permanent nerve damage.
my point is just that you need to look at context. you need to be careful with alcohol, especially if you are thin like i am: you need to consume it in small amounts over a long time, rather than all at once. but, it's not going to turn you into somebody that you aren't. once we have equal access to intoxication sources, we'll see those numbers even out and begin to realize that the root causes are underlying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)