listen.

we defeated tipper gore back in the 80s on censorship, and we'll beat these idiots out there pushing the same bullshit, now, too.

plexiglass.

seriously.

that's what they're saying.

https://www.blogto.com/sports_play/2020/07/concerts-events-ontario-stage-3-rules/

where are we?

what happened?

there's one, maybe two, venues in town that might have a show worth going to see once every few months.

and, if you put plexiglass in that venue, you'll ruin it; with social distancing in place, capacity in the space would be half of 50. the whole point is the intimacy of the venue. it makes no sense otherwise.

so, the plexiglass rule will need to be abolished before live music means anything, again, in windsor. that is, if it's followed at all. that's a crazy rule to put in place, and it's going to sink smaller venues if it stays in place too long.

i haven't been to a concert in a large venue in something like 20 years. i don't like the crowds. not to mention that i don't like pop music...

such stupid, pointless (and expensive.) rules will no doubt not be in place in detroit. but, how long do i have to fucking wait this out for?

when can bands start touring again?

this is what i care about, so stage 3 does not help me at all.

stage 3 is essentially useless to me, fwiw.

to put it another way, judging somebody based on their religious views isn't being prejudiced, because it's based on experience.

what does it mean to be prejudiced? it means you're pre-judging somebody, that is assuming that somebody is a specific way without evidence to uphold it.

so, saying that black men are good runners would be a prejudiced statement. while statistically true, there are lots of black men that can't run worth shit. if you were to judge how fast somebody could run based on their skin colour, you'd be operating in the realm of pseudo-science. even if statistical mechanics gives you a positive answer...

but, stating something about the views of a religious person, as they exist in front of you, is not prejudiced. rather, it is built on the experience of communicating with the person in front of you, as well as perhaps in doing some research into the topic. generally, this is actually going to be an informed statement about the person that comes from judging them from experience, rather than without it.

i'm opposed to prejudice, but i'm not a christian. i'll judge you all i fucking want, but i will do so based on experience, like i ought to. and, you can judge me, too - i'll just tell you to fuck off. the point is that, so long as the judgement is informed rather than uninformed, i see little problem with the actual judging.

i would like to see more judging done, in this matter.

what people believe does matter, and a lot of people should be called out for their oppressive religious beliefs, whether that means firing them or whatever else.

to be clear.

discriminating against somebody based on their appearance, ethnicity, country of origin, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation or any other triviality is very bad, always, and people that do it should be sued under appropriate tort law to pay for the damages they caused.

but, "discriminating" against somebody because of their beliefs is something that i think should happen more often, actually. i don't consider that to actually be discrimination, i consider that to be properly evaluating an individual and the appropriateness of their employment.

my interest is in holding up that mirror and emancipating workers from the deeply undemocratic political system of religious control, not in helping that system perpetuate itself or continue to hold people in ignorance.

this is why "religious freedom" is a contradiction in terms, like "work will set you free".

religion is a form of slavery, and nobody observing it is ever "free".

i mean, i know the argument is usually made the other way around - we talk about politics being a kind of religion, rather than religion being a kind of politics.

but, i'm an anarchist. i've read marx. i've read bakunin. i've read kropotkin. and, there is really a consistent thread through the left for really centuries that religion is a hierarchical tool of control, deployed by the aristocracy and/or bourgeoisie, to dominate the working class with. i'm not sure if any of these people really addressed the question directly, but i would be surprised to hear a marx or a bakunin disagree with me, if i presented the church as a basically political institution. stated or not, the concept saturates the historical left.

well.

what is the difference between a religion and a political party?

legally speaking, i don't see one - except that religions are tax-exempt, which i believe should not be the case. members of organized religions even pay dues to the party/church, generally.

i know we're supposed to separate these concepts, but i don't see where the separation actually is and must dissent. we should stop doing that.

i don't see anything particularly egregious about looking somebody in the eye and saying "i don't like you or want you to work for me because you're a christian" or "your islamic values are not consistent with those of my organization".

and, you can judge me if you want, i don't give a fuck.

"but, forcing religious people to change their clothes to fit the dress code is discrimination!"

actually, it's giving them a waiver from the dress code and "accommodating them" with special rules that is discrimination.

but, i don't acknowledge the validity of the concept of discrimination due to religion; religion is a belief system, and judging people by their beliefs (rather than their appearance) is the actual, correct way to judge people. sorry.

am i a hypocrite for supporting bans on religious icons, imagery and symbols in or near state-funded institutions?

it's a facile position.

first, it puts public health on the same priority level as "religious freedom", which i consider an oxymoron and would argue should be expunged from the constitution in favour of strict rules enforcing the separation of church and state. this is canada, we don't need to care about the first amendment, that's american. you might not be as extreme as i am about tipping the scales for the government on the side of secularism, but it is surely laughable to consider the "right" to chant incantations to your imaginary friend to be on the same level as a public health issue; one of these things is a serious issue, and the other one is about the most trivial thing imaginable. 

but, if i'm being principled about this and arguing that the state doesn't have the right to control a person's body, aren't i contradicting myself?

no, because enforcing a secularist separation of church and state in this case is really a dress code decision about employment, it's not a rule that people need to follow in their day to day life. nobody has ever suggested that you would ever have to take off your hijab to buy bananas, they've said that if these people want to go to work then they need to follow the dress code. further, we have existing legislation that has been tested at the supreme court that allows the state to put down restrictions on the spread of propaganda in state-run workplaces, as a conflict of interest - which is at the heart of the question, here. what quebeckers and various european nations have concluded is that bringing religious symbolism into the classroom or other government workplace is a conflict of interest, that it is spreading propaganda and that it needs to stop. yes, i agree with this - i don't think that children should be subject to any sort of religious exposure, whatsoever, in a scholastic context, and especially not at a young age where they can't process it and risk being brainwashed by it. i don't think that myself, as an adult, should be forced to interact with any sort of religious imagery when i seek government services, either.

the appropriate legislation to ban teachers and other government workers from bringing religious symbols and other religious propaganda into the classroom is covered by the hatch act in the united states - and i'll be clear, i would support banning even bringing religious symbolism into the classroom or other government workplace, at all. kirpans should be banned. kippahs should be banned. the crucifix should be banned. the ten commandments should be banned. any outward expression of any religious belief at all should be unwelcome in the classroom or other government workplace, in any way. and, that is a historically liberal position.

i miss the days when liberals fought against the ten commandments at school, rather than fought in favour of them.

there have been similar rulings in canada that specifically prevent political organizing in government workplaces, which is what i'm arguing that bringing religion into the classroom or other government workplace actually is. you may argue there is a difference between an organized religion and a political party, but i don't recognize the difference; legally speaking, a religion should be treated the same way as a political party, and all the same rules should apply when at work.

so, the reason it's not a contradiction is in the context. the right comparison to banning religion at work is to enforcing mask laws for employees, and while i might quit a job that required mask use, i would allow the employer the right to set a dress code because people can always get up and walk out. as a citizen, if you pass a law that says that i have to wear a mask to buy groceries (or am mandated to receive a needle), you're not giving me the opportunity to make a choice about employment, you're actually forcing me to do something i don't want to. everything else i said is fun, but that's the solution to the apparent contradiction - as a religious person, you would keep the right to quit your job if you don't like the dress code (or otherwise can't agree on a permanent ban of all religion at work). as a citizen, an indoor mask law does not give me the opportunity to make a choice to buy my groceries somewhere else where there is no rule, and a forced vaccination is just that much more egregious.

so, it's a false equivalence. and i'm actually entirely consistent.

i understand that my values may be different than yours, but i'm the one articulating a liberal vision that promotes bodily integrity, even while i support laws to ban any expression of religion in the classroom or other government workplaces, and you're the one that is promoting a right-wing, statist, tory position of control and dominance.

that is the principle i will stand up for and fight for and why i will resist mandatory vaccination, even if i don't fear it.

liberalism, as a concept, ought to mean that my body is my own, and only i have the right to decide what to put on it, and what i put in it.

and, that is what it will remain to mean to me, regardless of the newspeak and doublethink.

this new breed of morally aware liberal is, to me, just the most recent manifestation of exactly that kind of values-oriented conservatism that i simply can't tolerate.

remember: my primary political opponent, my dominant #1 enemy, the thing i fight against the hardest is always any sort of conservative value system.

i can even deal with capitalism.

and, i know these words are not as clear as they used to be.

but, i cannot tolerate conservatives, or people with conservative belief systems, and i will go out of my way to piss values-first conservatives off out of spite.

i know it's not their fault.

it's the state that forced you into compliance on this, not them.

still..

i could have a lingering resentment towards seniors for the rest of my life.

if antibody testing becomes available at some point, and covered by the provincial insurance monopoly, i'm sure i'll get tested for antibodies, just out of curiosity.

i haven't been sick at all this summer, so if i already got it then i got it earlier in the year (and, as mentioned, i got very sick last december), and probably in detroit. i certainly have no reason to think i may have caught it or spread it in windsor. but, honestly?

i don't really care if i've caught it, and i don't really care if i've spread it. i'm young and healthy. that's what matters. so, why would i get tested? it's unlikely to harm me much and, if i test positive, it's just an annoyance in my life that i don't want to deal with. so, i have no intent to get tested for the virus, itself, because, in terms of how it's going to affect my life, it just doesn't matter if i have it or not.

but, i get blood tests yearly to check my hormone levels, and i have tested for various stds in the past. i'm sure it'll eventually come up, and i'll make that request at that time. out of curiosity.

but, i have absolutely no interest in getting vaccinated, at all, whatsoever. and, if you don't like that, fuck off and stay away from me.

no, i need to be clear.

there is a 0% possibility that i will wear a mask in public, and a 0% possibility that i will a receive a vaccination for this virus.

it's not because i'm anti-vaccine. i'm sure it'll work, up to any potential seasonal mutations. and, i don't have any reason to think, at this point, that the vaccine will be unsafe.

rather, it's a matter of principle - if you're going to shut the world down over something that poses almost no threat to anybody under the age of 60, i will refuse to comply out of a position of principle.

i repeat: i'm not afraid of the vaccine, and i'm sure it'll work just fine. but, i'm still never getting vaccinated, because i just don't want to, and i'm going to insist on the right to refusal until this either blows over or they pin me down and force me to, in which case you can expect me to sue them.

i'm really, honestly just being purposefully difficult about this as a reaction to the statist response, which is simply not justified, in the context of the nature of the threat the issue poses.

they could have closed down the geriatric facilities. instead, they closed down the bars to stop it from getting into them, then failed. if that is society's priorities, whatever, but they're not mine, and i won't comply; if you're going to force me to live a lifestyle i don't consent to and don't want to live, expect push back for the sake of push back.

so, i'm going to be cleaning today, mostly.

and, i need to catch up tonight.

ok.

so, the last several weeks have not been productive, as i've been experimenting with how to adjust to maintaining pot in the house without smoking through it on binge mode. i essentially got overwhelmed by the wonderful weather, and needed to use it as an excuse to get outside to enjoy the heat, if nothing else.

i made that choice because that's what i wanted to do; now, however, it means i'm behind, and i need to catch up before i even consider getting back to the experiment, regardless of how nice out it is. so, i'm going to spend the next day or two (at least.) fully sober, cleaning and focused on catching up. after i've caught up, and when i do buy the next quarter, i'm going to be exceedingly strict about it for the first little while. i've got a better handle now on what the change actually means - i can get in the 35-42 range for most of the quarters i've bought, i can get about 100 joints per pouch of tobacco and i shouldn't be smoking cigarettes after joints. i just have to habitualize myself to the new normal.

the fifth quarter i purchased was a strain called "limelight", which is a higher thc content than the last few, pushing 25%. i was going to get another quarter of raider, but they were out and that was the sale item that week. i won't pay more than about $60/quarter, so i may just keep buying sale items for a while. the higher thc content probably offset the tolerance i was building, meaning i realized the higher potency, but i didn't often feel it. this is also a sativa strain that is ultimately a diesel hybrid, so it had that "sativa taste" that i'm actually not much of a fan of. it's kind of herby and weird; it doesn't taste like pot. but, i've been saying that for years, that's not a new observation.

i actually bought some flavoured rollies a few weeks ago, hoping that they would alter the smell of the burning joint to be a little more fruity. it turns out the sticky just tasted a little like strawberries. foiled. but, if you could cross a marijuana plant with a strawberry plant and get something that tastes and smells good, i'd be willing to jump to it. but, i don't exactly like the smell of burning diesel, and i'm not sure how we got to the point where people actually do.

don't misunderstand me: i know that diesel strains are popular, but i've always been disappointed when somebody hands me a j and i get what my brain says is that "sativa taste", which is in truth the diesel taste. so, i'll avoid this strain in the future, if there are better tasting and equally potent options available.

i would recommend the product, though, if you actually like the diesel taste. it came with a humidity regulator, good counts, minimal stems. if you could take the general product here and port it to a strong strain that tastes better, i'd keep coming back for it.

this is what i really want, though - a strain that smells and tastes like strawberries, and is 30-40% thc.