devz0r

They meant their (financial) security, not ours.

deleted by creator

Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: “Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;”

And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective.

I’m saying I’m ignorant of what the law says, and I want to know which part everyone is upset about. I suppose the vagueries around “lewd” and such can lead to bad faith applications.

I don’t have a problem with drag story hour. But I have seen videos of sexual drag performances being performed in front of children, and sometimes by children. I don’t think children should be exposed to that, in the same way they shouldn’t be in beauty pageants and they shouldn’t be shown porn.

Stop sea lioning

Ugh that stupid comic has ruined online discussions. No one can ask for evidence or proof or simply why someone thinks something anymore without being accused of bad faith. Accusation of sea lioning is becoming its own logical fallacy.

He’s sneaking out with the AGI in his pocket and gonna become a supervillain.

That’s what I’m talking about. Where in the bill does it ban that?

I looked up the text of the bill and I’m confused why it’s controversial. Is it due to it being vague? It seems to explicitly forbid from allowing kids at sexually explicit adult shows.

I would think. Pro-trump people remember the days fondly and think of the media causing the shitshow. Or basking in the shitshow. Anti-trump people obviously say trump was the shitshow.

It’s pronounced emacs

You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.

At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know

No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.

Example:

Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal

Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal

Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal

Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)

But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself

I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the “create a website for same-sex weddings”. I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it’s a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn’t be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don’t know if I’m elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I’m coming from?

I disagree with him, and I think he’s bigoted. But I don’t think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn’t want to photograph. And it’s not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It’s the most common side hustle I see people try.

Removed by mod

I just feel like that people who are still opening RAR files are technically savvy enough to have moved on from WinRAR

Edit: and the people who would still use it aren’t really opening archives anymore so I don’t know who this is affecting. Maybe they have corporate contracts.

Sorry I wasn’t intending on implying that. Meant to make the homophobes the butt of the jokes (and a slight inspiration from Arrested Development’s “shoveling coal” although it doesn’t mention being gay at all, just an implication of a sex act). The people who roll coal don’t care about doing things for the right reasons, so maybe they’ll do the right thing for the wrong reason (don’t roll coal bc they don’t wanna be gay). Worked for roller blading (although ofc there wasn’t anything wrong with that)

Isn’t “rolling coal” slang for gay sex?

Removed by mod