There’s something intensely unhealthy going on when parents discourage age-appropriate independence. A 13 year old should probably be allowed to go see a film with their friends most of the time. A 16 year old should probably be allowed to drive/ride a bus/bike to a friend’s house most of the time. An 18 year old should probably be allowed to travel overnight with their friends most of the time. A 20+ year old should be allowed to come and go as they please, with some common-sense “Let’s talk this ‘move to Finland’ plan of your over before you follow through on it” exceptions.
Parents should want their children to enjoy going out and doing things on their own and with their friends. They should be delighted that their child wants to have a life of their own. A rich, fulfilling life outside the home and distinct from parents and family is important, and parents should want their child to have that.
Today on “I think a white person wrote this”
Umm…No. this isn’t a “white person” issue. I’m Black & EVERYTHING she just described in the post is 100% relevant. We gotta stop writing off discussions about unhealthy & overly strict parenting as “white people shit”. It’s so old and tired. 😒
Parents need to give children space to discover who they are and give them certain independence because one day they’ll be on their own, and they need to know how to solve issues and move through life. Overprotection is as damaging to a child as neglecting them.
honestly all discussion of strikethrough and AO3 moderation seems to me to miss the actual point of strikethrough, which is: don’t give any site moderation powers that you wouldn’t be comfortable with homophobes having
“but I’m not comfortable with homophobes having any power!”
👀
This is what drive me nuts about this narrative. They think we’re okay with CP (while also apparently being ignorant to the fact that written and illustrated CP – while abhorrent – are not illegal, at least in America) and ignore the fact that we’re saying “If this particular objectionable thing is censored, The Authorities are going to come after what you love next.”
And we’ve seen it happen time and time again in history. It’s all very, “First they came for…” rhetoric.
The language they’re using is the same as that used by those who condemn homosexuality, just couched a little differently as “won’t somebody think of the children.” Which is weirdly reminiscent of how TERFs frequently spout alt-right rhetoric.
I wonder if there’s a connection there.
I’m reminded of that fable of the horse and the hunter:
A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag.
The Hunter agreed, but said: “If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon you as we follow after the enemy.”
The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him.
Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: “Now, get off, and remove those things from my mouth and back.”
“Not so fast, friend,” said the Hunter. “I have now got you under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present”.
we have to assume that any moderation power we give to authorities will be exploited and turned on us. what part of the fiascos of moderation on twitter, Facebook, livejournal, YouTube, Instagram, fanfiction.net, do I need to keep going, has given you the impression that won’t be the case?
For all the kids out there:
This isnt a slippery slope argument. This is something we have literally witnessed REPEATEDLY when it comes to digital spaces and fandom in particular. (To say nothing of pre-internet instances, that is)
This has happened before, multiple times.
Every time people said “it won’t happen THIS time” IT DID.
So unless you want to only be able to have 100% EC (for early childhood) rated content with no violence, no even romance (kissing not just sex because kissing leads to Impure Thoughts), zero content that isnt straight and cis…
Then shut up, sit down, and take to heart that if one doesn’t pay attention to history they are doomed to repeat it.
That’s what’s so galling about it all: These aren’t vague hypotheticals from the distant past. They’re things that happened in fandom, recently, to people who are talking about them on Tumblr.
Also: Part of the reason for the OTW’s structure, for the nonprofit org, was to make it very very difficult for policy changes that clashed with their original goals. No one person can decide, “I’m now going to remove all the fic I think is truly disgusting.” No one person, no pair of friends, can decide, “you people are all assholes so I’m taking down the archive.”
Responsibility and authority are both distributed. There is no easy option for a right-wing group to take control – officers have to be volunteers for a while before they can run.There is no way for someone to get upset and delete the fics by their ex-girlfriend. (Well, there is, but it’s easy to restore; the people with delete powers aren’t the people who control archiving and backups.)
And this is deliberate, because everyone involved in the early stages of the OTW had seen these things happen, more than once, in several fandoms, on several platforms. And they said: Not this time.
We will make it resilient, even if that costs us in flexibility, in responsiveness, in richness of features. We are building this to last. No more takedowns based on whatever’s trendy to hate this week.
There’s something called the Original Position Fallacy, which I think is apt here. It’s when you make decisions that are in favor of a particular group by assuming that you are included in that group, even though that might not be the case. To give an example:
Imagine that you’re in a room full of people, all of whom are wearing a blue or red shirt. You are blindfolded, so you don’t know what color your shirt is. A person in the room suggests that everyone wearing a red shirt will get a fantastic dessert, and everyone wearing a blue shirt will get nothing. A vote is called and the voting is split 50/50 – your vote is the tiebreaker.
Some people might think, “I might be wearing a blue shirt. Out of nothing but my own self-interest, I vote no.” (This is what John Rawls, who created the “original position” thought experiment, is describing)
Some people might think, “It’s wrong for red shirts to get something and blue shirts to get nothing, and it’s unfair regardless of what color my shirt is, so I vote no.”
But some people might assume that they are wearing a red shirt, and vote yes because they believe that they will get the promised dessert; it doesn’t occur to them that they might get nothing. That’s the fallacy.
This happens all the time. It’s an incredibly common fallacy and very easy to fall into. If you’ve ever thought, “It’d be nice to live in the Middle Ages,” while thinking about the life of royalty, you’re assuming that you would be royalty instead of the statistically-more-likely occupation of serf – same with saying it would be great to live in the Harry Potter universe, without ever considering that even in that universe, most people are Muggles with no knowledge of magic at all.
So if you’re thinking, “Of course there should be sweeping powers to police fanfic to prevent bad things,” you’re assuming that you (or people like you) will be in the policing group and people unlike you will be policed. You’re also assuming everyone else who’ll be in power will have the same limits as you and the same understanding of what the bad things are.
This is not unique to fic. This is inherent to most systems, from Terms of Service to the Constitution. And we can discuss how much of it is a real fear and how much of it is baseless, and how far ahead you need to able to think, but in this case, it’s not a hypothetical or a thought experiment, but something that is incredibly real and recent.
Under the new rules, homes that are not occupied for at least six months of the year are subject to a tax of one per cent of the property’s assessed value. The deadline to rent out empty dwellings was July 1.
Fazli said many of the people he has talked to are thinking of renting or selling their properties. He recently met with a woman who owns three empty properties in Vancouver — and says one of them is now listed for rent, another will be listed shortly and she is thinking of selling the third.
“This is a scenario of someone who is kind of in a panic now and needs to rent them out,” he said. […]
amazing
Why were they empty?
they’re meant to be investment properties, bought, left empty, and then sold a year or few later for huge profit as housing values continue to rise. it’s a massive part of the bc housing bubble, and why despite so much new construction it’s still so difficult to find rental housing
the fact that these landlords are panicking because they might have to actually use their housing properties as housing rather than finance capital is deeply funny
& good step towards creating more and cheaper housing for rent.
queerhomestuck 