Lurker > adjl

A cane.

Judgmenl posted...

Lets just say I really, really hate the gambling addicts over on /r/pathofexile.

Sounds like you are yourself addicted to hating on them, if you evaded a ban to act on that hatred. Another reason to go outside.

Judgmenl posted...

Wish that society gave me a reason to go outside.

Judgmenl posted...

Not posting on reddit is just such a hit to my ability to socialize.

If you want to talk to people, maybe going to where the people are is a good first step.

Dark-Summoner posted...

Honestly, it might be bc of my age and when I became politically aware...but it really seemed to start with Obama...a certain subset couldn't STAND that a (relatively) young Black man was President.

This makes some amount of sense. In their eyes, the fact that a black man became president inherently undermined the dignity of the position, which threw any expectation of decorum they may have had out the window and left them happy to embrace Tumpty Dumpty. It goes further back than that, of course, since obviously Clinton didn't exactly help and Nixon made a huge mess, but I can understand how, in their eyes, Trump was the natural evolution of the direction Obama represented. Meanwhile, the rest of us who don't hate black people and didn't think Obama was undignified are appalled by Trump.

Cruciferous posted...

Hard disagree.

Jesus spoke the truth. If you can't handle it, you're simply lacking in faith.

By and large, Jesus' teachings can indeed be taken mostly at face value. I'm more thinking of some of the other things people like to take out of the bible without considering context, like prohibiting sodomy (which makes a lot of sense in a pre-germ theory desert where anal sex is a pretty serious health risk, but is significantly less of a concern in a world with running water and soap everywhere).

Don't you understand? If people are okay with one instance of racism in a video game, they have to be okay with all instances, regardless of context, content, presentation, or anything else that might affect the interpretation.

It's okay, everyone makes mistakes. Just don't let it happen again.

Tora_Sami posted...

Um are you thinking of resident evil 7? Cause I'm pretty sure Leon doesn't lose his right hand....like ever....

I'm conflating Salazar's quote with Leon for the sake of overly reductive simplicity.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The mean felony charges per president is 2. The median is 0. The mode is also 0, but nobody cares about mode.

Without having played the remake but having done more or less the same with the original back in the day and assuming it's similar, because it's a thoroughly replayable game. There's tons of room for variation in your loadout, plenty of room for challenge runs, plenty of options that let you just mow through everything with ease and enjoy the catharsis of exploding Ganados, and an overall experience that's just plain fun. Though as I understand, your right hand doesn't come off in the remake, which is lame.

But no, she definitely made a well-reasoned decision and there's zero chance he exploited her uncertainty regarding the future. After all, she asked her friend about it.

Ah, well then carry on. Shame on you, TC. You got the wording wrong and ruined everything.

Cacciato posted...

Tell him to rewrite the lyrics to Grandma Got Ran Over By a Reindeer to make the song relevant to his situation.

Every time I see this topic on the list, I read it to that tune, which is terrible but also kind of funny.

slacker03150 posted...

Apparently they are shown how to use a fork lift when they start and never again. My dad said he has never recertified after he was hired and never had any refresher training courses.

I'm not surprised the company went on a fishing expedition, then.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I think your statement is slightly off.

"Forty-five men have been elected president of the United States. Before Donald Trump, the average number of felonies charged per president was zero. Following Monday night's indictment, that number now stands at just over 2."

I believe that's the joke.

Remember kids: If somebody hasn't been arrested for grooming their partner, that means they didn't do anything wrong!

ReturnOfFa posted...

bitch I'll litigate the friendship of a 14 year old with a 30 year old

tap out idiot

That too. A teenager saying they have a 30-year-old friend that their parents don't know about is all kinds of "hold up," for exactly the same reasons as you'd have a similar reaction to a 5-year-old saying it. An adult cementing themselves as a minor's "friend" before progressing into a romantic/sexual relationship is textbook grooming.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Lol, so now you're trying to litigate friendships too, now. I'm sure this lady will be devastated to learn she was never actually friends with this guy.

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but the red flags for grooming definitely call any subjective account into question.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I'm just reminding you there's nothing you and yours can do about this.

And yet you're fighting tooth and nail against the idea that he should be held accountable for the apparent conflict of interests, and trying to present the law as somehow justifying you not having a problem with an adult counsellor dating one of his underage students.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Well that doesn't sound well-defined or precise at all, does it. But so basically, you think the legal age to marry should be like 20-22 at least, then?

I think it's a bad idea to marry before you've had enough life experience to know for certain what you want out of life, but that's distinct from wanting it to be illegal. There is, however, a world of difference between a couple of high school students getting married straight out of high school (or a similar close-in-age situation) and an adult getting married to a student with whom he should not have been romantically involved in any way as soon as she graduated. The former isn't a great idea, but there's nothing inherent in the relationship that suggests it isn't consensual and healthy. The latter carries all sorts of red flags for grooming and other potential abuse.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Unlike your bizarre fixation on litigating a now 10-years-old relationship?

Well, yeah. People who are well out of high school shouldn't be picking up high school students, whether it happened two weeks ago or 40 years ago. That goes even more so for people in a position of power over those students.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

And you don't need to attack him.

I'll attack any professional that initiates a romantic relationship with somebody they're supposed to be advising. I'll attack anyone well out of high school initiating a romantic relationship with a high school student. Combine the two, and my ire is a given. By every available piece of information, dude's a creep, and I'm happy to treat him accordingly. I don't understand why you have a problem with that assessment.

slacker03150 posted...

That part they have. And he was in the foot traffic area not the forklift lane. So yeah, the company should be screwed.

They'll probably try to pass it off as "operator error," then, since the forklift shouldn't have been there, but there's probably still plenty of room to scrutinize the operator's training, whatever policies they have around forklift operation (and, more applicably, how they're enforced), and the failure to stick a flashing light on something they know nobody can hear coming.

slacker03150 posted...

He gets out of the hospital today. It turns out my dad is the one trying to avoid a lawsuit. He is trying to downplay the injury and doesn't want to deal with the lawsuit or cause problems for something he sees as just an accident. Even to the point where he didn't want to bother the nurse asking for pain medication.

Meanwhile, the company's made it abundantly clear that they're willing to throw him under the bus in any way possible if it means they can get away with paying less. His loyalty is sorely misplaced.

There are very few "just accidents" when it comes to incidents like this. You've already identified some fundamental design flaws in the worksite that led to this: The site's too loud to hear the forklift coming and the forklift has no lights, alarms, or other features to draw attention to it. The former's hard to fix without completely changing the nature of the work, but you can mitigate the problem by adding attention-grabbing features to the forklift and clearly delineating lanes to separate forklift traffic from foot traffic as much as possible. It's very, very unlikely that the company couldn't have reasonably done more to prevent this, and that failure of due diligence is something they should be held liable for. You can't necessarily prevent human error, but you can very often design systems that reduce the impact of that inevitable human error, and this is 100% one such case. Take them for everything they've got and let that be a lesson to spend $20 on a flashing light next time.

I didn't play it, but I bought Violet for my girlfriend for Christmas, and she really enjoyed it. She just had a good time exploring the world and finding Pokemon, which the game is actually really good for. She certainly had issues (mostly, how trying to shorehorn in the story progression of previous games interfered with the fact that she just wanted to run around and catch Pokemon), but for the most part the technical and performance issues are just stupid, rather than anything that seriously hurts gameplay. They're still inexcusably bad, of course, especially when you've got Xenoblade 3 and TotK releasing on the same system and delivering large environments that both looked and performed orders of magnitude better (so it's not like the Switch couldn't handle Pokemon, though to be fair, Monolith are wizards of optimization), but that doesn't mean the core game isn't fun.

It makes sense that they ran up against this problem. They took a schedule that worked for developing 2D handheld games and tried to use it to develop 3D handheld and later console games with very few changes. That's obviously going to create some issues, and it's good that they're at least aware that those issues have the potential to hurt the brand. S/V did well, but a huge part of that was how appealing "Pokemon, but open-world!" was, which got people to try it out despite the embarrassingly bad technical performance. That isn't necessarily going to work moving forward, now that people have had their fill of open-world Pokemon and are going to need something new to look past similar issues in future games, and that's going to create a need to avoid those issues to keep sales up.

AltOmega2 posted...

...do these things expire?

They'll have an expiration date on the box somewhere, but I believe most brands have pushed that date out by an extra year over what's printed. At least, that's true for BTNX and PanBio. I can't necessarily speak for others.

Source: One of my job responsibilities is sending out rapid test kits to FN communities and we were advised by Health Canada that the date could be extended by 12 months on any that we had stockpiled from last year.

Devil_May_Cry posted...

Meanwhile a side quest in red dead redemption says there is nothing worse than White trash and no one cares. Double standards galore.

Counterintuitively, "white trash" is actually usually more racist against non-whites than whites (particularly when used by white people). The implication is "behaving like that is supposed to be for those other races, you're supposed to be better than that because you're white," which is very clearly grounded in a stereotype of white supremacy.

It's also important to consider context. I'm gonna guess that that's just one character saying that, in which case the game just has a racist character. People don't freak out about racist characters existing in a context that makes it clear that they're racist (for an extreme example, any movie about WWII has Nazis in it, and nobody complains about that). This topic, on the other hand, is talking about games just throwing around racist stereotypes without doing anything to acknowledge that they're a problem.

The annoying thing is that "those teachings don't apply anymore" is a lens that the bible can and should be viewed through, rather than taking everything at face value. That just needs to be something that's actually critically thought about, though, and not just "I don't like it, so it's not applicable anymore."

NightMareBunny posted...

Theres now a promo for 2 free months although I still wonder whats really there to convince you to stick around

If only there were some sort of promo for a number of free months that would allow you to explore their library for yourself to answer that question instead of aimlessly speculating to the void like this.

It was 100% about how she said it. "All men are predators" is sexist drivel that has no place in any civilized discourse, so it was moderated accordingly. Pretty much everyone in the topic said that men are more likely to be sexual predators in some capacity or other, but nobody was modded for doing so. Those that were modded took it a step further into overt sexism.

There is indeed a non-trivial quantity of yikes in there.

But don't you understand? They want to cover up the truth!

It's worth noting that that's not withholding payment so much as it's just clawing it back to reissue later. Everyone eventually got paid, which is very different from outright saying "I've decided not to pay you after all" even if the delay did have consequences for employees. Even if it's illegal to withhold payment, companies can also often get away with being very, very delinquent in paying their employees if they have enough excuses and/or lawyer up well enough.

Step 1: Meet people
Step 2: Some of those people will be women
Step 3: Find woman you like
Step 4: Ask woman you like out

Repeat as needed until successful.

BUMPED2002 posted...

They're controlling the money now LOL Push a button and they can immediately stop payment if they choose to.

Do you think that doesn't apply to paper cheques? Stopping payment on a cheque that's been given out is considerably easier than clawing back a direct deposit that's already gone out, and withholding a paper cheque is even easier than turning off DD (since you just don't give it to the employee, as opposed to having to take action to stop it).

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

No it's common for them to say that because it's commonly the case. People don't say that about guys who they just had a crush on and jumped right into a relationship with, that wouldn't really make sense.

Indeed not. They say it about somebody who they initially didn't see as a romantic partner, but fell in love with as their non-romantic relationship developed. Except in this case the non-romantic relationship was that of a counsellor and a student, he was an adult, and she was a minor. That's all kinds of red flags for grooming.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Sufficient for the law, which is what actually counts.

Legalistic morality is one of the most intellectually lazy positions one can possibly take.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

There's never enough experience to satisfy someone like you because of course you can't possibly have the life experience that comes with marriage without being married, but then how do you get that experience?

By graduating high school and living apart from your parents for at least a couple of years so you understand what it's like to not be dependent on somebody and the sort of life you want to live. You don't need to be married to know what you want out of a marriage, but you do need to live to know what you want out of life, and jumping straight from being dependent on her parents to being dependent on the teacher she wanted to bang means she has not had that opportunity. Maybe she subsequently got that experience, and continued her schooling such that she isn't actually dependent on him. Maybe he just convinced her that being a housewife for an older man who's wealthy enough to support her was what she wanted and she never delved deeper than that. We can't ever know, thanks to how insidious grooming can be.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

More infantalizing nonsense.

Of a high school student, yes.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

She said she considered between the two and a friend told her to think who would be the best father for her children. She decided he was. Sounds like pretty sober consideration based on her options.

You actually think that constitutes understanding the big picture? That's a pretty superficial analysis, mostly boiling down to gut feeling and very vulnerable to being influenced by whatever her counsellor suggested about her future.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Dude you're calling him a groomer

I'm suspecting him of grooming. There isn't enough evidence to conclude for certain either way, as is often the case, but the facts as presented are all sorts of yikes.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...
and saying he "at the very least - violated his professional ethical responsibilities"

That sort of thing is grounds for termination.

Indeed it is. A counsellor that's willing to start a romantic relationship with one of the students he's counselling should not be a counsellor. That isn't a particularly controversial take. That sort of thing is baked into most professional codes of conduct.

Of course, my understanding is that he isn't a counsellor anymore, given that he's now producing films, so that's hardly "ruining his career."

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...
And no one seems to be asking him to elaborate on anything, they're just spreading gossip, literally what having "tea" on someone means

And if he's got a problem with that gossip, he can set the record straight by explaining the situation and why it isn't as bad as it looks. You don't need to go to bat for him because of your bizarre fixation on defending an apparent groomer against people that think he might have groomed his wife. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, if you've got a personal stake in the matter because you've also had relationships with high school students, or what, but whatever it is, you don't need to defend him.

That's no moon, it's a big pizza pie!

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Nope. This is one part there's no need to speculate about, this woman said in the facebook post that he was her best friend prior to their romantic relationship.

That's a largely empty statement, given how common it is for people to say that about their partners in any situation where they knew each other before dating, regardless of the circumstances in which they met.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Your Honor -- speculation.

It's significantly more likely that his feelings affected his professional conduct than that he was able to completely compartmentalize them and act impartially. That's just the nature of being human. The extent is uncertain, and he may not even have been conscious of it, but it's ferociously unlikely that they had no effect at all.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Again, this goes for every relationship.

It does, and maintaining a healthy relationship inextricably entails making sure all involved parties are there by choice. This does mean that a whole lot of people don't have very healthy relationships, but I'm perfectly happy with that assessment. People don't have the best understanding of consent.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Actually, anyone married with children is subject to this.

Kids do throw a wrench into the idea of leaving, but again, that's not insurmountable. Every couple should plan for what happens if they break up before having kids. Laying out that plan ensures they're both on the same page and that each are okay with what the other will do in that scenario, meaning neither partner can use their plan to manipulate the other. If one of them later goes back on the plan for the sake of leveraging the kids to keep the other in the relationship, then that person is abusing the power imbalance and is a scumbag. If they can't reach a compromise that they're both comfortable with, they shouldn't have kids.

I've spelled all of this out. In every relationship, there are three options: Fix the imbalance to prevent it from causing problems, end the relationship before the imbalance causes problems, or you're an abusive scumbag for exploiting the imbalance despite the problems it's causing for your partner. Those are the only possibilities. If every relationship you know has significant imbalances that haven't been corrected (or that nobody's working on correcting, because there is a spectrum between options 1 and 2), congratulations, everyone you know is an abusive scumbag that doesn't value their partner's ability to consent to the relationship.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This once again undermines your whole thesis. The woman literally said in her FB post that she had to choose between her hs boyfriend and this counselor. No was unequivocally an option.

And did she make that decision as a competent adult with sufficient life experience to make an informed decision between those two options, or as a high school student whose view of the world was influenced by a counsellor that wanted to marry her?

The crux of statutory rape laws is that minors - especially minors interacting with somebody in a position of authority - don't sufficiently understand when "no" is the answer they actually want to give to be able to say "yes." "No" was an option on paper, certainly, but the circumstances as presented cast significant doubt on her competence to recognize that and fully consider the significance of the decision.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

"seems at first glance" isn't really a solid foundation for trying to smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects.

"Smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects" is a rather melodramatic way to interpret "hey there's an apparent conflict of interest here, can you elaborate on it?". That's not a witch hunt, that's just basic accountability for the choices he's made. Unless, of course, you can actually point out where I suggested that he should be ruined, but that seems unlikely given that I never said anything of the sort. Is there a reason you're being so defensive as to make up strawmen to burn?

The levelling/endgame dichotomy is one of the major reasons why I really like easy respecs (at least in ARPGs, which is getting a bit away from CRPGs, but whatever). Slogging through levelling waiting for an endgame build to come online is tedious, but levelling efficiently only to be gimped in endgame feels like a waste. In an ideal world, the levelling process would be balanced such that levelling builds would work just as well in endgame, but very, very few games actually pull that off, and easy respecs are a good way to get around that. It does lose the "try to plan what you'll need and reap the benefits/suffer the consequences accordingly" aspect of permanent specs, but I personally don't put a lot of stock in that (and those that do can just choose not to respec).

Broccoli, but that's mostly because it's the most convenient one to use as a side. Cauliflower's similar, but neither my girlfriend nor I like it as much as broccoli, so it takes a back seat. Cabbage is good, but a hassle to prep and is usually more a feature of the dish than a side, which makes it less versatile. Brussels sprouts can also be good, but they also take more prep and the preparations that make them good are more limited. My girlfriend's allergic to kale, along with spinach (not strictly an allergy, but functionally identical enough to just call it that), so we avoid that altogether and she generally isn't too adventurous with leafy greens as a result, so collard greens are out. Broccolini is close enough to broccoli that I wouldn't bother getting it specifically, same with broccoflower, I'm not familiar with gai lan (though it seems similar to broccolini), and I've never tried kohlrabi.

I don't remember ever being particularly mad, but then I did get the vibe that some drama happened that I just didn't care enough to get invested in, so maybe that's why.

Migrated. I've been procrastinating that for a while. I'm getting more and more tempted to start up a Create world (or possibly server, I need to gauge my friends' interest in it to see if it'd be worthwhile to pay for one) and figured I'd handle the migration then, but Factorio has re-hooked me and I'm not sure how long it'll be (plus Create had a relatively recent version update and my understanding is that that's introduced some compatibility issues that would probably be best to wait out), so it's good to get it out of the way.

LinkPizza posted...

Oh. Like it was kind of heading toward in a more head on fashion, then burned up which is why it got bright and disappeared?

Precisely. It's the same thing you see when they move sideways, only toward you, so you don't see the tail. While space is obviously 3-dimensional, the sky we see is effectively a 2D image from the extremely limited perspective we have. That means we generally aren't going to be able to see motion in the Z axis (treating the sky as the XY plane) and any object travelling entirely along that axis will appear stationary. Theoretically, with the proper instruments, one could identify that Z-axis motion, but with the naked eye and the reality that these shooting stars can appear anywhere in the sky without warning, you aren't going to detect it.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Yes, such as them knowing each other well.

And then they just went from being acquaintances with a professional relationship to being married as soon as it became legal to do so? That's really not how relationships work outside of romantic comedies.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Trying to pass this bit of conjecture as a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. It's comical to imagine him advising a teenager under his counsel to literally marry him. Not to mention the risk to his job and reputation by doing that. Super bizarre assumption.

There's virtually zero chance that he didn't let his desire to marry her influence the advice he gave her. Exactly what that advice was is hard to know, where it would have been given in a confidential setting (which is precisely why this outcome is so flagrantly unethical: it undermines the trust that has to be there because of the lack of external oversight), but at the absolute minimum his professional integrity needs to be called into question.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This kind of undermines your position that it's all about power disparity since she could divorce him (as far as we know there's nothing preventing her from safely doing this) but seemingly hasn't.

• There's a non-zero chance that his manipulations included convincing her that he's the best she'll ever be able to get, keeping her from believing that there's any point in wanting more
• Stockholm syndrome is a thing
• More plausibly, if he told her (especially as a minor, or even as a recent graduate because it's not like turning 18 magically gives kids enough life experience to be able to make decisions like this) all she needed to do was be a housewife because he'd provide for her, there's a good chance high school is where her education stopped and she has no marketable skills that would allow her to live independently

Among others. There are plenty of possibilities that can undermine how consensual the relationship actually is. You just have to think beyond this attitude of viewing every relationship in terms of dragging women back to your cave. Not everything can be solved by unga bunga.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Not really that simple,

It's entirely that simple. We're talking in terms of what people in positions of power need to do to ensure they aren't abusing that power to undermine consent. If you, as somebody with the power to physically restrain a partner who tries to leave you, commit to never exercising that power, you have ensured that you aren't abusing that power imbalance to force anyone into a relationship. It's not about other people's ability to predict whether or not their partners will become abusive, it's about the standards to which every single person must be held to ensure their current/prospective partners remain properly able to consent to the relationship.

Consent is saying "yes" when you feel like saying "no" is an option. Respecting consent means ensuring that whoever you're asking feels like they can say "no." If you have power that might make them feel like they can't, the onus is on you to either correct that imbalance so they feel that they can, or don't ask at all because you can't be sure that they consent.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

No indication it was a romantic relationship, however.

They got married.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Oh, so even if he didn't do what you consider grooming he's still a grooming apologist (or something like one) and should be painted as such? That doesn't sound like a politically-motivated vendetta in any way, no siree

More that there's a clear conflict of interest when somebody who seems at first glance to be okay with grooming produces a documentary about child sexual abuse. He's got an apparent incentive to draw attention away from the problem of grooming. That means he needs to either explain how it's not a conflict of interest (if it is legitimate and not grooming, which isn't impossible) or disclose the conflict of interest so people can interpret his production choices accordingly.

Not sure how you're getting political motivation from that. I'd say the same thing about anyone in the same situation, regardless of political leanings (and, in fact, I've done nothing to figure out which way this dude leans, though from the context it's pretty easy to make some plausible assumptions).

When stars go supernova (which isn't the only way they die, but is the only way that you'd see one get briefly brighter before disappearing altogether), the "flash" lasts for a few months from our perspective, in the form of the star getting brighter and holding that extra brightness before fading out relatively gradually. If it only lasted a couple seconds, it was most likely a meteor, especially given last night's meteor shower.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Ther's no evidence he manipulated her into wanting a relationship with him.

You said yourself that it's a given that the groundwork for the relationship was laid while she was a minor, under his counsel. Do you really believe that in his role of advising her what to do with her future he didn't encourage her to marry him? And that his position of authority over her during those exchanges didn't give his suggestions disproportionate weight?

Of course, none of this is concrete proof, but as I said, there's rarely concrete proof of grooming. That's what's so terrifying about it.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

They're a matter of power, and strength is very blatantly and unequivocally a form of it. Arguably the only true form it ever ultimately takes. And men in relationships almost always have more than their female partner.

And anyone using physical force to take away somebody else's ability to refuse or leave a relationship should be shot dead on the spot, which conveniently is unaffected by any gender differences in strength. Physical force is a form of power, certainly, but it's one that is completely unacceptable to exercise in this context, which makes those who exercise it relatively easy to fix. This is distinct from, say, one partner having no ability to be financially independent from the other, or a doctor having full knowledge of their patient's medical history and the ability to refuse them treatment if desired. The disadvantaged partner has very few (if any) avenues to correct those issues.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This describes most straight marriages.

Step 1: Commit to never physically forcing anyone to enter or remain in a relationship
Step 2: Imbalance corrected!

If you're unwilling to commit to that, then I stand by my statement that you should avoid relationships entirely because you are unable to have a healthy one. If you commit to that and fail because you suck at anger management, you should leave the relationship until you fix yourself, because until then it won't be a healthy one.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

She's not a minor.

She was when the relationship started. A minor over whom he had authority, no less.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I guess the bottom line is this: What should be done with the guy? It's not a crime, so he's not going to do any time, of course. What would you do with him if you could?

Hold him to public account for the apparent hypocrisy of decrying child exploitation in other contexts while having married somebody he counselled as a minor as soon as he could do so without getting fired. Maybe there is actually a story there that justifies it, like he did nothing to counsel her past like grade 9 and they fell in love entirely independently of his position when she was 17. Or maybe he's just a creep who used a position of power to manipulate a teenager into marrying him when she graduated. Either way, there's an obvious inconsistency there, and anyone looking to be educated by the information the film presents needs to know what biases were at play in producing it so they can fill in the resultant gaps (notably, I'd expect him to have downplayed the role grooming plays in so much sexual abuse).

Big fan of games where respeccing is easy, especially when it's easy to screw up a build.

The bottom line is still that men get injured more often, whatever explanations exist for that trend. As such, citing injury risk as a reason to want to be a man doesn't make much sense.

I just got back from watching them. It was a good time.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Presumably, he wasn't counseling her anymore after graduation so it's good.

You... really don't understand what grooming is, do you?

At its core, grooming is a matter of taking advantage of a minor or somebody else who cannot consent to sex by manipulating them into wanting a sexual relationship later in life, often after they reach the age of consent and it's no longer blatantly illegal. That she was over 18 when they got married changes absolutely nothing about the fact that before she was 18, he was in a position where she trusted him to advise her what to do with her future. It's impossible for him to have performed that role impartially if his goal was to marry her when it stopped being illegal, so the fact that he married her as soon as it stopped being illegal means he - at the very least - violated his professional ethical responsibilities. Given his position, it's very likely that he also manipulated her in a way that led her to want to marry him instead of doing something else with her future, which - when an adult does it to a minor - is grooming.

As I said, if anyone in a position of power like that wants to have a romantic/sexual relationship with somebody over whom they have power, they need to recuse themselves from that position before doing anything to cultivate that relationship and ensure all involved parties have enough distance from the professional relationship to avoid interference. Otherwise, consent can't be properly obtained.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Power imbalances always exist in relationships, that's never been a real argument against one tbh. Husbands are gonna be stronger and more capable of physical coercion than their wives 95 times out of 100.

I guess you don't understand consent either. Not surprising, but good to know.

Power imbalances aren't a matter of who can win an arm wrestle. They're a matter of one party having less agency in consenting to the relationship than the other. Perfect balance is rarely attainable, but generally any major imbalances should be corrected for the sake of a healthy relationship, relationships where a major imbalance is impossible to correct should be avoided entirely because it's not possible to obtain genuine consent, and anyone who actively seeks to have a significant amount of power over their partner is a scumbag.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Just another dishonest attempt to smear your political adversary.

I don't really know or care where he lies on the political spectrum. Dude's a predatory creep. Perhaps he realized the error of his ways and that's why he's produced this film (in which case, good on him), or perhaps he lacks such self-awareness and is just jumping on a bandwagon that the right is currently giving particular attention because they feel like they can pin it on the gays, but regardless, marrying a student you counselled as soon as she graduates is entirely within the realm of grooming behaviour.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

It's weird the way some people want to infantalize women like they're just never really able to make independent choices.

Nobody's infantilizing women. They're infantilizing minors, which is fair game because they're axiomatically kids.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

less prone to injury

Uhh...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/

Men's risk of unintentional and violence-related injury overall is at least 2 and 3 times, respectively, that of women during each year of the last generation.