repress reframe recant (gaslight gatekeep girlboss: unreliable narrator edition)

Update from the WGA on negotiations

ID (1st image):

Dear Members,

After 102 days of being on strike and of AMPTP silence, the companies began to bargain with us on August 11th, presenting us for the first time with a counteroffer.

We responded to their counter at the beginning of last week and engaged in further discussions throughout the week.

On Monday of this week, we received an invitation to meet with Bob Iger, Donna Langley, Ted Sarandos, David Zaslav and Carol Lombardini. It was accompanied by a message that it was past time to end this strike and that the companies were finally ready to bargain for a deal.

We accepted that invitation and, in good faith, met tonight, in hopes that the companies were serious about getting the industry back to work.

Instead, on the 113th day of the strike - and while - SAG-AFTRA is walking the picket lines by our side - we were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was.

(2nd image)

We explained all the ways in which their counter's limitations and loopholes and omissions failed to sufficiently protect writers from the existential threats that caused us to strike in the first place. We told them that a strike has a price, and that price is an answer to all - and not just some - of the problems they have created in the business.

But this wasn't a meeting to make a deal. This was a meeting to get us to cave, which is why, not twenty minutes after we left the meeting, the AMPTP released its summary of their proposals.

This was the companies' plan from the beginning - not to bargain, but to jam us. It is their only strategy to bet that we will turn on each other.

Tomorrow we will send a more detailed description of the state of the negotiations. And we will see you all out on the picket lines and let the companies continue to see what labor power looks like.

In solidarity,

WGA Negotiating Committee

I feel like a good shorthand for a lot of economics arguments is "if you want people to work minimum wage jobs in your city, you need to allow minimum wage apartments for them to live in."

"These jobs are just for teenagers on the weekends." Okay, so you'll use minimum wage services only on the weekends and after school. No McDonald's or Starbucks on your lunch break.

"They can get a roommate." For a one bedroom? A roommate for a one bedroom? Or a studio? Do you have a roommate to get a middle-wage apartment for your middle-wage job? No? Why should they?

"They can live farther from city center and just commute." Are there ways for them to commute that don't equate to that rent? Living in an outer borough might work in NYC, where public transport is a flat rate, but a city in Texas requires a car. Does the money saved in rent equal the money spent on the car loan, the insurance, the gas? Remember, if you want people to take the bus or a bike, the bus needs to be reliable and the bike lanes survivable.

If you want minimum wage workers to be around for you to rely on, then those minimum wage workers need a place to stay.

You either raise the minimum wage, or you drop the rent. There's only so long you can keep rents high and wages low before your workforce leaves for cheaper pastures.

"Nobody wants to work anymore" doesn't hold water if the reason nobody applies is because the commute is impossible at the wage you provide.

Update from the WGA on negotiations

gonna start a rumor that it’s actually okay to be excited about stuff on the internet

But I mean, the hands-down best-ever treatment of serial killers who prey on women is Jincy Willett’s “Justine Laughs at Death” and I have to stop expecting other pieces of media to live up to it. 

I think one of the reasons drag kings aren’t as popular as drag queens, aside from the fact that straight women don’t like us, is that people are uncomfortable acknowledging masculinity as a performance. Like we as a society know that femininity is a performance, with its own costumes and rules. Masculinity is also a performance, and nothing makes that more clear than someone making an exaggeration of it

To everyone saying that “uh actually it’s cause drag kings aren’t as visually interesting”

Kreme Inakuchi

Wang Newton

Murray Hill

Hugo Grrl

Lotus Boy

Landon Cider

Manny Dingo

Story is wild

Little girl was part of a county fair agro-educational program where they raise an animal for a few months and at the end it’s slaughtered. Supposed to teach them about the economics of farming and stuff.

But the little girl loved her goat so much she was crying on the day her goat was supposed to be taken away, so her mom sent the county fair people an email saying “I’ll pay for the goat and any expenses. We’ve had several deaths in the family in the past year, I don’t wanna take away one more thing my little girl loves.” Technically the goat had already been sold at auction, so the mom was on the hook for about $1000, only about $70 of which would have been profit for the county fair.

The county fair people were irate and got law enforcement involved, over this “breach of contract”. They literally got a fucking judge to sign a search warrant, authorizing them to go to this little girl’s house and search every room and every cabinet or box “large enough to contain a small goat”. The sheriff’s deputies seized the goat, and whoever they gave it to immediately slaughtered it, though they were supposed to wait until some kind of agreement had been worked out.

In the county fair’s initial email correspondence with the girl’s mother, they made it clear that they were pissed off because the story of the little girl who loved her goat was circulating on social media making them look bad, and they felt the girl needed to be taught a lesson about keeping your promises or whatever. So they refused the mother’s offer to pay for it, and insisted they get the goat. Even if it meant sending the fucking cops into her house lmao.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-30/goat-slaughter-shasta-county-fair

the congressman who bought the goat didn’t have any objections to the family saving the goat from slaughter either! it’s fucking insane that the cops were so eager to play act their swat commando fantasies that they played stooge to the benefit of no one except some self important local organizers!

Alternate link, LAtimes locks their stuff behind paywalls sometimes

Don’t forget the part where the goat wasn’t where they had a warrant to search, so they drove 500 miles, leaving the area they have legal jurisdiction in, then searched a farm they didn’t have a warrant for ans seized the goat. The fair then had the goat slaughtered, even though a court had ordered them to keep it alive until ownership was resolved and despite the fact that both potential owners of the goat had decided to keep it alive.

They broke multiple laws in order to “teach” a little girl the “lesson” that “everybody has to follow the rules”.

I sure hope all of the complaints sent to Shasta District Fair CEO Melanie Silva, whose decisions these were and continues to defend her actions, are polite and don’t waste too much ink. I’m certain nobody would take advantage of the fact that the Sasha District Fair and Event Center’s contact page lists their phone and fax numbers, not to mention the email form below that.

Would be a shame if that information was to circulate far an wide, and ruin that despicable woman's easter holidays

I found the lawsuit filing. It is a work of art, brief and to the point. If you read nothing else, check out page 2, the section headed Nature of the Action. Magnificent.

One of the things that bugs me in the notes is a bunch of people being like 'it's a livestock animal, it's her fault for getting attached' and.

My dudes, I cannot emphasize enough that the little girl's emotional attachment to the goat is in fact the least of the issues with this story. The main issue in this story is the fact that a bunch of cops broke multiple laws, including the unlawful entry to the property the goat was being held, the unlawful seizure and destruction of said goat, and the unlawful use of a criminal search warrant in a civil dispute case, just to start with.

The little girl owned the goat. At no point in the proceedings - and indeed at no point in the proceedings in the course of the normal auction-purchase-slaughter of a livestock animal in this program - did the fair own the goat. At no point in the proceedings did the person who successfully bid on the goat actually own it - he had made the winning bid to purchase rights to the meat. He hadn't even done that yet! The goat legally and incontrovertibly belonged to the little girl. The very worst that should have happened in this story is a brief property ownership dispute in a civil court.

The fair CEO decided to unlawfully force the auction of the goat, and, when the girl's mother began to dispute her actions, to make a false claim of theft, with precisely ZERO legal basis, calling the cops on an already emotionally fragile child, and then had the temerity to be angry with the child's mother because the story was making them look bad on social media.

Regardless of your opinion on the meat industry, livestock slaughter, or 4H, 'cops drive 500 miles, perform an illegal search, seizure and destruction of an American citizen's property, on the word of a biased 3rd party with zero legal rights to the property in question' should make you angry. Because it is a violation of civil rights, and also had no motive besides needless cruelty to an already grieving child.

(source: x)

crying rn 🥹

He’s filled his house with chintz. To keep it real I fuck him on the floor.

This really makes the Studios costing themselves even more money (and getting more unions involved) by prolonging the strike for the promise of free ai labor even more fucking funny. you dumb fucking bastards lol

🌲 Long Exposure Volume 2 is now on Kickstarter!

BACK THE KICKSTARTER HERE

Volume 1 available in the Kickstarter and also in my shop!

Regarding my last post on the subject:

ok at this point I'm mildly curious so i wanna ask

Middle or high school?

everyone commenting this on this post is correct so i made this

No single line has ever wrecked me as hard as this one from the Good Place and I think about it constantly

ok but

One thing I really adore about this is Eleanor influenced a literal demon to change for the better. He changed because he wanted to be better and sees the value in it. But he mostly changed because he came to care about the humans.

He changed because he started to care about her.

So maybe her biological mom didn't do it but she still had a father figure step in that thought she was worth worth changing for, and eventually that she was worth everything.

if you believe that someone's existence is inherently a sexual thing, and that you have the right to exclude the sexual from public space, that is all that is needed to exclude certain marginalized groups from public space. plenty of people, including lawmakers, cops, judges, and jury members, think that my existence as a trans woman is inherently sexual and kink-related. once they can ban something they think is kink from public existence, that is all the mechanism required to ban trans people.

this isn't abstract. i know people who've been arrested for "indecent exposure" while wearing a full outfit of clothes because to the arresting officer being trans in public is indecent. the logic behind wanting to ban kink--a logic based in the idea that you can know what "kink" is, and that its presence around other people inherently does harm to them--is not a slippery slope, it is already at the destination of controlling other people's bodies. if it doesn't involve you, then it doesn't involve you. merely coexisting in line-of-sight is not the same thing as being brought into an act. talking with someone who's wearing clothing you associate with trauma is not an attack on you. we have been carrying on this conversation for years and it's too long. what it shows is that people do not have a solid concept of how to engage with boundaries or public space. you have to respect other people's autonomy up to the point where they are actively bringing you into a harmful interaction. hate speech? brings people into a harmful interaction. violence? likewise. unwanted sexual contact? likewise. but the existence of a person who you parse as doing kink does not, and does not give you the basis for trying to control that person's autonomy.