Briar Wright
@balshumet.bsky.social
Writer. Artist. Creative. 35| Enban femme| Versian| xe/xir/xem. Afronative. Getting really into yogurt lately...
Comic colorist, looking for work!
Contact me: [email protected]
Comic colorist, looking for work!
Contact me: [email protected]
I finally got it to stop, but it is 100% some Windows 11 update fuckery. I know they said they were producing 30% of their code with AI and also just admitted the 11 core features were ultra fucked. So, probably related facts! I hope yours stays stable, I just killed mine instead.
November 28, 2025 at 1:56 PM
I finally got it to stop, but it is 100% some Windows 11 update fuckery. I know they said they were producing 30% of their code with AI and also just admitted the 11 core features were ultra fucked. So, probably related facts! I hope yours stays stable, I just killed mine instead.
When my PC recently died, it forced an update from 10 to 11. I work in YWriter and LibreOffice, but I still have my visual work in dropbox. That shit got caught in an unstoppable resync loop so bad I had to download some Windows declutter stuff to unfuck it.
November 28, 2025 at 1:56 PM
When my PC recently died, it forced an update from 10 to 11. I work in YWriter and LibreOffice, but I still have my visual work in dropbox. That shit got caught in an unstoppable resync loop so bad I had to download some Windows declutter stuff to unfuck it.
The guy in question is well known in the black community for being a tedious misogynist. He hates women. Before going on this transmisogyny crashout, he was most known on twitter for attacking black women.
I'm not sure what to do about him, but he has Stancil posting stamina, and a hateful heart.
I'm not sure what to do about him, but he has Stancil posting stamina, and a hateful heart.
November 27, 2025 at 10:09 PM
The guy in question is well known in the black community for being a tedious misogynist. He hates women. Before going on this transmisogyny crashout, he was most known on twitter for attacking black women.
I'm not sure what to do about him, but he has Stancil posting stamina, and a hateful heart.
I'm not sure what to do about him, but he has Stancil posting stamina, and a hateful heart.
I see. I'll look into all the policies then, that must be where my confusion is coming from.
November 24, 2025 at 9:09 PM
I see. I'll look into all the policies then, that must be where my confusion is coming from.
The policy didn't require targeted, repeated instances to qualify as bully/harassment?
Doesn't Iowa's Code 280.28 define it that way? Was the district's policy not in compliance?
Doesn't Iowa's Code 280.28 define it that way? Was the district's policy not in compliance?
November 24, 2025 at 8:54 PM
The policy didn't require targeted, repeated instances to qualify as bully/harassment?
Doesn't Iowa's Code 280.28 define it that way? Was the district's policy not in compliance?
Doesn't Iowa's Code 280.28 define it that way? Was the district's policy not in compliance?
The FIRE brief is about student-student interactions(which also contributed to the teen's death, and is why AC brought it up), and not teacher-student interactions.
The argument is that S-S interactions involving misgendering are protected speech.
The argument is that S-S interactions involving misgendering are protected speech.
November 24, 2025 at 8:47 PM
The FIRE brief is about student-student interactions(which also contributed to the teen's death, and is why AC brought it up), and not teacher-student interactions.
The argument is that S-S interactions involving misgendering are protected speech.
The argument is that S-S interactions involving misgendering are protected speech.
They are hemmed in from doing anything by the protections enshrined in the 1st, or by interpretations thereof.
The only conclusion I can come to is the 1st needs to be rewritten. It's too broad. If repeated verbal abuse in an environment children can't escape can't be curtailed, it is not fit.
The only conclusion I can come to is the 1st needs to be rewritten. It's too broad. If repeated verbal abuse in an environment children can't escape can't be curtailed, it is not fit.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
They are hemmed in from doing anything by the protections enshrined in the 1st, or by interpretations thereof.
The only conclusion I can come to is the 1st needs to be rewritten. It's too broad. If repeated verbal abuse in an environment children can't escape can't be curtailed, it is not fit.
The only conclusion I can come to is the 1st needs to be rewritten. It's too broad. If repeated verbal abuse in an environment children can't escape can't be curtailed, it is not fit.
Which is why the judges went on about how there's a 'real debate' about it and how it's these children's 'genuine beliefs'. I forgot how much I hate public schools and their useless policies for a moment, but thank you for the information to realize it's not entirely their fault.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Which is why the judges went on about how there's a 'real debate' about it and how it's these children's 'genuine beliefs'. I forgot how much I hate public schools and their useless policies for a moment, but thank you for the information to realize it's not entirely their fault.
So, what gets objected to isn't based on how much it disrupts a student's education, but really, whether the courts think the 'conduct' is 'objectively offensive' enough to reach discriminatory harassment status, and well, I'm not pulling for the courts. That's based on social consensus.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
So, what gets objected to isn't based on how much it disrupts a student's education, but really, whether the courts think the 'conduct' is 'objectively offensive' enough to reach discriminatory harassment status, and well, I'm not pulling for the courts. That's based on social consensus.
If that's the case, then I'm not sure how any verbal policy works. Repeated instances, without physical altercation, aren't sufficient, and something being offensive or upsetting doesn't count either, for reasons not worth wandering down a path about at the moment.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
If that's the case, then I'm not sure how any verbal policy works. Repeated instances, without physical altercation, aren't sufficient, and something being offensive or upsetting doesn't count either, for reasons not worth wandering down a path about at the moment.
The government, with the school acting as its agent, can't compel a student to say anything, or not say anything, absent it disrupting school function or invading another student's rights(which seems to require physical altercation or intimidation).
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
The government, with the school acting as its agent, can't compel a student to say anything, or not say anything, absent it disrupting school function or invading another student's rights(which seems to require physical altercation or intimidation).
The court says that there is a 'debate' about it, and the brief holds that government can't compel speech, so that leads me to conclude a school can't compel a student to not call me a negro. Likewise, they can't do anything about someone calling me a 'female'.
In fact, if I understand things:
In fact, if I understand things:
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
The court says that there is a 'debate' about it, and the brief holds that government can't compel speech, so that leads me to conclude a school can't compel a student to not call me a negro. Likewise, they can't do anything about someone calling me a 'female'.
In fact, if I understand things:
In fact, if I understand things:
Or, that is, I think the issue is one of social consensus. The position argues that compelling you not to call blk ppl 'negros' or avoid telling a blk student to their face they are 'low iq' is against their 1st Ad. rights, but in practice, who is suing for that in 2025?
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Or, that is, I think the issue is one of social consensus. The position argues that compelling you not to call blk ppl 'negros' or avoid telling a blk student to their face they are 'low iq' is against their 1st Ad. rights, but in practice, who is suing for that in 2025?
I think it's fucked, sarge, and I'm watching things burn with a slurpee and a go bag.
Back on topic, but the FIRE argument seems to rest on 'compelled' speech re: pronouns. I'm not sure how this works with verbal bullying, at least in a way that doesn't break down in other circumstances.
Back on topic, but the FIRE argument seems to rest on 'compelled' speech re: pronouns. I'm not sure how this works with verbal bullying, at least in a way that doesn't break down in other circumstances.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
I think it's fucked, sarge, and I'm watching things burn with a slurpee and a go bag.
Back on topic, but the FIRE argument seems to rest on 'compelled' speech re: pronouns. I'm not sure how this works with verbal bullying, at least in a way that doesn't break down in other circumstances.
Back on topic, but the FIRE argument seems to rest on 'compelled' speech re: pronouns. I'm not sure how this works with verbal bullying, at least in a way that doesn't break down in other circumstances.
I think we disagree on whether we believe total collapse is now avoidable. I think we've crossed the Rubicon, and you think the position will hold. The continuous attempts to vilify marginalized communities, the constant commitment of civil rights violations, the erosion of our institutions.
November 24, 2025 at 8:18 PM
I think we disagree on whether we believe total collapse is now avoidable. I think we've crossed the Rubicon, and you think the position will hold. The continuous attempts to vilify marginalized communities, the constant commitment of civil rights violations, the erosion of our institutions.
I prefer non-violence too, I'm just not so adverse to the application of violence that I think 'legal authority' ultimately decides what we as a society/nation put up with. I'd prefer we as a nation protect minority rights, but we've gone to war over it before, so...always an option.
November 24, 2025 at 7:33 PM
I prefer non-violence too, I'm just not so adverse to the application of violence that I think 'legal authority' ultimately decides what we as a society/nation put up with. I'd prefer we as a nation protect minority rights, but we've gone to war over it before, so...always an option.
Oh, there's always a way to challenge it, it just precludes non-violent resolutions without more legislative redress. "Legal" reaches "as long as the population is amenable to accepting it."
November 24, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Oh, there's always a way to challenge it, it just precludes non-violent resolutions without more legislative redress. "Legal" reaches "as long as the population is amenable to accepting it."
(I'm not a lawyer, though, so maybe there's just something I'm missing about 'compelled' in a legal sense, especially with respect to 'against conscience' when it comes to Tinker exceptions and the like.)
November 24, 2025 at 7:24 PM
(I'm not a lawyer, though, so maybe there's just something I'm missing about 'compelled' in a legal sense, especially with respect to 'against conscience' when it comes to Tinker exceptions and the like.)
(and I do not get the arguments in the FIRE filing. It seems to be purposefully missing the point in multiple areas, and misrepresenting facts in others.)
November 24, 2025 at 7:22 PM
(and I do not get the arguments in the FIRE filing. It seems to be purposefully missing the point in multiple areas, and misrepresenting facts in others.)
He's already doing that, on account of being an authoritarian fascist POS, so the right existing on paper isn't doing anyone any good. It's only as good as what's resisted by the courts and congress, and since much of that agrees with him...
November 24, 2025 at 7:21 PM
He's already doing that, on account of being an authoritarian fascist POS, so the right existing on paper isn't doing anyone any good. It's only as good as what's resisted by the courts and congress, and since much of that agrees with him...
He's arguing that the 1st works to protect you from the government compelling speech or punishing you for expression, and that because of Trump's position, he'd be inclined to punish ppl calling him a fascist and not misgendering. My issue is thus:
November 24, 2025 at 7:21 PM
He's arguing that the 1st works to protect you from the government compelling speech or punishing you for expression, and that because of Trump's position, he'd be inclined to punish ppl calling him a fascist and not misgendering. My issue is thus: