So, a couple of days ago, my (queer, disabled) fifteen year old daughter showed us a short story she'd written in her Creative Writing class. And I kept thinking, there should be some way of sharing this more widely, in a safe environment.
I'm not sure, though, that's it's "age-appropriate" - whatever that means for 13-25 year olds.
However. That aside, I think this is a brilliant idea, and I'd be happy to help curate content.
We tend to forget the behaviour towards others that apparent grown-ups justify in themselves when they feel insecure or under pressure.
Yeah, there is careless behaviour that comes from a lack of empathy, and there is vicious behaviour that comes from knowing how someone will feel, and deliberately hurting them. My daughter went through some horrible Teenage Girl Shit at the end of last year. I want to be able to say to her, "It's never going to be that hard again. Adults don't behave like that." Gods I wish that were true.
Are we adults? We don’t feel like adults.
Dude. I'm 50. And I still get that all the time.
"Everybody" does. At some time in my mid-twenties (by which time I already had kids) I had a conversation with friends and suddenly realised that I wasn't the only person who felt like they were faking being a grown-up, and at some point I was going to get called out on it.
Since all the scare-ads make the point that illegally downloading deprives artists, and leaves their children starving in the gutter, is this a legit option?
Yeah, I've been quietly pondering this question, and sort of hoping it wouldn't become explicit, because I don't really know the answer. It's a solution to the "want to see it, don't want to fund bigotry" problem, but it's ethically fraught in itself. It also doesn't, I think, have the same impact as an actual boycott, as far as deterring people from working with Card in the future - witness the Superman kerfuffle, which was largely framed around people saying they wouldn't buy the issue, as well as the damage by association to DC's brand. So maybe the compromise position isn't as strong a stand, regardless of how you feel about opyright-cay.
I have often thought back over the last few months to your May 2009 post on the subject and especially the long discussion thread: Are we there yet?
Ah yes, me saying I wasn't going to have this argument any more, four years ago. It's... something, to note that since I wrote that, nobody has come up with an argument I haven't covered. And Family First have got so desperate for reasons they've just started making shit up.
I thought it would take something like 20 years to shift enough of them, as I had shifted, across the political pivot point between the ayes and the noes
I was talking to a friend yesterday who had changed his parents' minds during the second reading debate, from a 'soft' no - never really thought about it deeply but nonetheless definitely opposed - to a more thoughtful soft yes. I am fascinated by the process of mind-changing. The number of people who have changed their minds on this - here, in the US, in Britain, and Australia - in the last decade is mind-boggling.
I have another whine. The more I think about Bakshi's speech, the angrier I get. And I called him an arsehole on the night:
Now, he's just a reasonable guy, who believes in equality. And if we'd just managed to make a good enough case, and bring a reasoned argument to the table instead of all our over-emotional whining and crying, he'd have changed his mind. But we just didn't.
Location of the 'burden of proof' aside, here's my issue. He, like a few other opponents, say that if civil unions aren't equal, that should be fixed through the civil union legislation. And what I'd like to ask those people is this: HOW?
What changes would you make to the civil union legislation that would make separate actually equal? What could you legislate that would make foreign governments recognise my civil union? More than that, what piece of legislation would make our families recognise a civil union as a proper commitment, equivalent of a marriage? I sat two feet from this guy and told him this, gave him my first-hand experience of how my relationship status has been treated as second-class. This is his response. I cannot convey how deeply disgusted I am.
Good result; very happy to have been wrong about the scheduling.
Meanwhile, I/S obliges with a list of who changed their votes:
Cheers, linger, that's saved me some time this morning. And yeah, Speaker let them run long and have the third vote after 10pm. Possibly to save a riot in the public gallery.
Auchinvole was also pretty impressive at the time of the passing of the CERA legislation.
I am full of respect for the guy. And at the select committee, he was full of respect and genuine interest for me. He was more disgusted by CDHB not having a tick-box for 'civil union' than I was, I think. Here's his speech from last night:
I think it's well worth watching.
Okay. Second reading has passed 77 - 44. First reading passed 80 - 40 with one abstention. So that's a shift of four votes. Which isn't too bad, really, and pretty much guarantees this is going to pass, but I'd still like to know who those four people were.
My (liberal bubble) Twitter feed agrees that the winner of the night was Chris Auchinvole, who hugely impressed me on the select committee.
Hey Sj. Discussion on the Pistorius Time cover is here.
And. In case people are unaware, the second reading of the Marriage Equality bill is scheduled for tonight. I've heard anywhere from 7-8:30: like last time this'll firm up as we get closer, and I'll update here for those people not on Twitter.