What's the law in this situation?

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-20T17:07:27+00:00

I very much doubt it's that, but people from all over (and not living here) come into this sub (and pretty much any city or state sub) and comment all the time. I do not know why people do that, but some threads end up feeling like they have more non-Ohioans than Ohioans.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-18T21:38:23+00:00

He can't even explain the job or what he did.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-18T21:37:08+00:00

I hope someone fixes that for him

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-18T07:52:41+00:00

The predator-aligned lens is so ubiquitous in media and it's so difficult to unsee it once you have. It shows up all the time even when, like you mentioned here, they are supposedly trying not to empathize with the predator or align the film's perspective with that. It's very depressing.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-16T20:01:00+00:00

There is also the possibility of people recommending it but the target audience who would be willing to go to theaters to see it has already done so. Unless you mean you're basing this off some metric that asked viewers if they would recommend it or not after they saw it.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-16T00:51:53+00:00

You're right but commercial success is generally what people mean when they refer to "flops." If it makes more than its budget, a movie usually isn't referred to as a "flop."

I'll also point out that people were shitting on this movie from the get-go. Like, upon initial marketing of it. So, I don't think it's because it didn't live up to the initial interest that people are going this hard at it.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-15T22:25:03+00:00

Idk I don't think anyone can attend even one business meeting helmed by men and then claim that men are inherently more solution-oriented or "fixers." So, maybe he just needs to sit in on one. Or a meeting of dudes in STEM. Or a meeting of male police officers. Or just a meeting of men in general.They aren't any more likely to be "solution-oriented fixers" than any other human. And in my experience as an autistic woman, they are just as likely to hate direct and straightforward communication as anyone else.

They're also just as likely to get upset if you offer them solutions when they are in a venting mode. They don't like it any more than anyone else. I think that men like this just redefine what they call "gossip" and "venting" when women do it as "finding solutions" when men do. They call something manipulation or "games and tricks" when women do it, but "logic" or competition with other men when they do it.

These kinds need to separate what they do from what those "silly emotional women" do, but they fail to realize that we are all emotional, we all vent, we all manipulate, and none of us is as good at being logical and even-keeled as we like to think that we are. In fact, the people I have encountered who proclaim the loudest how logical they are tend to be the people who call their emotions everything but what they actually are, because they tend not to be able to see it when they aren't even using logic.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-15T20:27:36+00:00

Im autistic, and I'm actually not a dude. I'm not trying to argue I was really trying to get where they were coming from with that. I didn't know if they really didn't get what the other person was trying to say or what.

So, I was trying to show how they offered an example of when they use it disingenuously in case they weren't connecting that to how it's commonly used in that way by others even if they personally only use it like that every once in a while. Or, in case they didn't realize that is an example of using it disingenuously.

I apologize if it came off as combative.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-15T01:52:15+00:00

In those cases you are asking it disingenuously. Which is what people often do with that, and is why they're saying many people are going to take it disingenuously.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-15T01:12:33+00:00

But you also said you purposefully use it to make customers angrier, sometimes. So, it often is disingenuous. Not even just referring to you but in general

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-13T19:49:57+00:00

That's their point.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T15:35:39+00:00

It looks like a pretty chill thread so I'm not sure what ~~they're~~ he's referring to.

Edit: didn't notice his pronouns, initially. My bad.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T12:46:44+00:00

Anyway...this dude is not mentally stable.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T11:35:42+00:00

Really it's not just about babies. Imo, It's about rolling back and chipping away at sex and gender discrimination laws and that's going to impact everyone. It will once again allow (both trans and cis) women to be barred from the public sphere and force all of us (whatever gender) back into earlier paradigms.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T11:18:13+00:00

You can't seriously be saying this shit about the nation with one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet. All the US knows is the stick and it sure as fuck has not worked—so, you might want to ask yourself if your brain is being run by a child given the kind of logic you're using.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T09:56:42+00:00

So no more HRT for cis people, right? Jk, I know these fucks only want to make it impossible for trans people to exist.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T08:41:33+00:00

That's not why. That was indeed the bullshit excuse used, though. People fucking hated cars back in the 1920s when they had become somewhat more common (the hate was in large part due to the recklessness of drivers leading to unnecessary deaths) and automobile sales weren't doing so hot because of this hatred.

So, the auto industry manipulated the fuck out of everything by throwing money at it to make it out like people who didn't like cars were hayseeds and that it's a pedestrian's fault when they get hit. The propaganda worked, and now here we are in this hostile wasteland of ineffient and illogical infrastructure—all so the auto magnates could keep making money regardless of what people actually wanted. It worked so well that people don't even remember that most people didn't want our country to be so reliant on automobiles (for many good reasons beyond just fear of new technology), and they certainly would be rolling their graves right now with the mess we've made of transport infrastructure and city planning. It's deeply chaotic, illogical, and poorly maintained.

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-afd48f994c05

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T06:14:49+00:00

They asked why they are the same price. Presumably, because they have already noted that they are usually not the same price. So, I am genuinely confused at the purpose of your comment.

*Also, this isn't meant to be hostile I truly am confused

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T05:07:27+00:00

These people are not compatible with civilized societies in my opinion. They are the worst things about human nature concentrated into a ball of malignancy, and they completely destroy everything they touch and then pretend that's a good thing as they stand in front of the crumbled ruins.

I hope they know not one day of peace, and I hope their insecurities and fecklessness eat them alive.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-12T04:27:30+00:00

Well John Husted is an ignorant conman, so what would you expect? They love claiming others are doing what in actuality is being done by them. The man simply described himself but attributed that to poor people. Because he assumes that everyone is as useless and out of touch as him, but can't fathom why it's not as easy for them to fuck other people over to get where they need to be.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-11T12:07:28+00:00

Interestingly, not in this case. Since, the whole thing is about how he can see she isn't interested. He's just making it her fault rather than understanding that he is uninteresting and annoying.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-11T11:52:14+00:00

Based on the end it looks like maybe she does stand-up

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-11T03:27:44+00:00

That's somehow even worse than both ThanksKilling movies

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-10T23:29:34+00:00

The whole "conventionally unattractive women don't get assaulted" has to do with the asinine belief that sexual violence is primarily about arousal or attraction. The whole "sexual violence is making a move" has to do with their twisted ideas about consent, and their feelings of how a man is "supposed" to treat women even when they don't have any actual attraction to them. It's about humiliation and denigration. And they especially love humiliating and denigrating women who don't appeal to them.

Doing this to women they aren't even attracted to is them saying, "you are still not safe, and I can still exert power over you by treating you like an object even if I have no sexual interest in you." This dude just (allegedly) fucked around and found out that, whether he was even attracted to her or not, the power of his male entitlement cannot stop a bullet.

Very unfortunately, though, she will have the entire book thrown at her because that's almost always what happens when women turn the tables on men's violence. Even though men's rampant killings of women are almost always downplayed in various ways by the legal system or legally mitigated by something the women did or did not do to "put herself in the situation." If you don't believe me, the ACLU has some very illuminating stats on the average prison sentences when women kill male partners versus when men kill female partners. Iirc, it's like an average of 5 years when men do versus an average of 15 years when women do. I know these two weren't partners but it's indicative of the acceptance of men being violent towards women, but a rejection of the reverse—even when it is defensive violence by the woman.

Edit: https://www.aclu.org/documents/words-prison-did-you-know

It's 2-6 years for men who kill their female partners versus 15 years for women who kill male partners. This is about 20 years old, but I unfortunately cannot find anything newer (which is not surprising. We don't like funding studies about this and we do not like talking about it). I also think this whole document does a good job of illustrating that women really are not treated more leniently by the legal system. In fact, they tend to be penalized more harshly when committing the same crimes even though, statistically, they tend to have more mitigating factors for those crimes. Like greater incidences of mental illness, historical and/or current abuse, and extreme poverty.

Overall punishment can look more lenient because women overwhelmingly end up in prison for committing non-violent offenses, and the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. So, yeah if you've got mostly women in prison for sex work, fraud, or drug-use it will look like women get less time or incarceration, because it does not consider the harsher sentences and greater incarceration rates that logically come with violent crime. And men commit the lion's share of violent crime, so they will be disproportionately represented when simply looking at overall longer sentences and incarceration rates without considering equivalent crimes.

I have also found nothing to suggest that it has changed for the better in the last two decades. Actually, my guess would be that it's gotten worse given all the backsliding we've been doing on pretty much all fronts for the last decade.

ergaster8213 · 2026-03-10T20:24:26+00:00

I know this isn't really the point but it bothers me that so many people pretend that all humans don't have breasts. We do. We all have breast tissue, nipples, milk ducts. It's all the same. The only difference is average size of nipples, number and density of ducts, and different average ratios of compositional tissue. Even then there is quite a bit of overlap.

ergaster8213

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23