TWeaK @ TWeaK @lemm.ee

Posts

24

Comments

4,766

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

If you read the article and between the lines a little, this was instigated by a Republican who actually supports trans people and believe they should get treatment, but was later silenced by the rest of his party.

• 2022: Gov Cox gives his support for treatment of trans people, based on evidence.
• 2023: Gov Cox capitulates and "temporarily" bans the drug, in lieu of a report he commissions looking for evidence.
• 2025: Report is released and supports trans people, other Republicans denounce it, Gov Cox does not comment.

Gov Cox is clearly having his arm twisted behind the scenes here. That doesn't excuse him - at best he's compromising his morals and putting his political position first - but I think it's important to frame it accurately here rather than jump on a hate train and paint everyone with the same brush. Victory is had by winning people over to your side, not by making everyone an enemy.

Linktree is a social media site that gives you a simple web page with all your links to your actual social media sites. This way, you can provide one link to your fans, taking up less space in a profile, then fans can pick and choose to follow on whichever services they prefer.

Usually, it'll be something like instagram, onlyfans, fansly; maybe some others like snapchat or kik. I think sometimes music artists use Linktree sites too, ie completely SFW, but primarily they exist for NSFW content creators.

I think it was on a podcast or something, but someone somewhere once said that people/aliens in the future might look back on our civilisation and assume so much about us from social media bots. They might think that we go around greeting each other going "Link in bio" like Vulcans say "Live long and prosper".

I prefer to go the professional route and hire a team of people so my rehearsals are more accurate.

Your reply is very well written and on the whole I agree. The one thing I would say is that I am not simply dismissing the mainstream usage of the word, but pointing out its misuse as intentional deception given that the usage contradicts what the word describes. I aim to point out that the word is actively being used for propaganda, and encourage others to associate it as such.

The more I look at it I think it might be a 132kV line on a 400kV tower, with the intention to upgrade it some time in the future. I say this because the insulators aren't actually the full length of the spacing from the tower, there's a separator between the tower and the start of the insulator fins. This makes me think they've left room for longer 400kV insulators to be installed.

Saying that though I have no idea, there could have been all sorts of other considerations that led to a configuration like that.

That pun was totally intended, and I cannot fault you for it.

I was thinking 132kV, but wasn't sure if this is Europe where you might find 100kV (although again it varies by country). In the UK, 132kV is the boundary between distribution and transmission. DNO's (Distribution Network Operators) generally use 11kV, 33kV, 66kV (generally rare but used in some areas eg in North West England) and 132kV, TNO's (Transmission) use 132kV, 275kV and 400kV. Although, a lot of 275kV substations are built to 400kV spec (eg in Scotland), so that they can upgrade in the future.

You sometimes get this with power lines, they might install higher voltage insulators then run it at a lower voltage until some time later when the network is upgraded. This spoils the game of guess the voltage/makes it more challenging, and you end up with really weird looking connections between large pylons and small poles.

Fun fact: You can estimate the voltage by the length of the insulators. My guess is this is around 100kV (2x 3 phase circuits), around the border of transmission and distribution voltages.

You can also estimate the capacity by the number of conductors per phase. This has a pair of lines for each phase, so a fair chunk, but not the 3 or 4 conductors you sometimes see (although maybe you mainly see that on higher transmission voltages.

Priests are being made into mandatory reporters in Washington state. In Washington state, the mandatory reporting law appears to require reporting of all past events of abuse - it does not make reference to recent acts or imminent risk.

Sec. 2. (1) (a) When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025

You've touched on a key point, I think. Doctors and other professionals have mandatory reporting because a) they are in positions of respect and trust within the community, and b) they are professionals, as defined in law, and have standards to uphold.

Priests definitely meet the definition of a), however b) is a bit of a sticking point: their role isn't defined by law, but by the church. Furthermore, a court can order you to go to therapy sessions, but they can't order you to go to confession - it's completely voluntary. A therapist could tease out previous abuse, but a priest will only hear what the confessor wants to tell them about.

I'm in line with you in thinking that everyone should report abuse, but I think that a priest has more in common with an average person in this regard compared to a person working in a legally protected profession. There would be legal consequences for impersonating a therapist, but not for impersonating a priest.

It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[^1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).

To be clear, it's the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[^2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):

What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?

At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that's pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[^1] is summarised as:

When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department

[^{1]: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) [}2]: https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/

Well you already pointed at why: because you can be ordered into mental health care. You can't be ordered into confession, it's completely voluntary. Furthermore, priests do not have a legal duty of care; they are not registered professionals with professional standards to follow. Their role is defined by the church, not law and regulation.

In a practical sense, such a law isn't going to work much anyway. It would be almost impossible to prove that a priest had been confessed to, short of someone admitting it directly. So the only way it works is if the child abuser wants to get one over on their priest - giving the child abuser another avenue to hurt someone else.

Solution: wait a few months and release it anonymously, while claiming it was found elsewhere.

If you prevent them from leaving at any point you invalidate the accusation of trespass.

They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO's are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.

They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.

Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism.

Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.

Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.

Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it's definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.

On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone's disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone's benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It's also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.

Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn't hold any rationality.

You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.

Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.

Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.

In terms of how a sane and civilized society would handle this, well for starters it wouldn't even get to this point - a sane and civilized society does not support genocide. However their argument is that a sane and civilized society would view the requests as reasonable regardless, they're not saying that such a society would give in to their demands because of the way they were protesting.

Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?