abusive? How do you even prove that someone did or didn’t give you a new project or whatever opportunities because you insulted their spouse? And then… what happens if someone has freedom of religion and someone else used their freedom of speech to interrupt religious proceedings? Isn’t that a form of censorship either way? So obviously you could probably apply some censorship to private property- you can’t masturbate on your porch where people can see even if it is your porch right? So I dunnoh…. It’s sort of more about what we call censorship and what we consider good or bad.

So what is censorship? How do we define it and how do we decide where and how to apply that definition? Who decides? Who has the right to censor or decide who gets the right? If people can decide to allow censorship then we have censorship right? That’s more of an argument over HOW censorship is applied than against censorship isn’t it? If there are consequences for speech- isn’t that a suppression of speech? A person can’t speak freely if they are afraid. That’s like saying it isn’t censorship if the government starts chopping off the heads of people who speak badly of the president. They are free to do it, they just have to deal with the consequences right? But like… isn’t that what “cancel culture” opponents are against? Using consequences to dissuade people from saying certain things? How does one apply that though?
Because you can say what you want, your company can’t fire you for saying whatever you feel like? Your boss can’t be influenced by things you say if you’re verbally

Now- to be clear I am not saying I support censorship or think it is good. I am saying that there are lots of examples most people and even the founding fathers would agree are either good ideas or prudent/necessary to allow to be “censored” in some way. If you believe in total lack of censorship and total free speech you believe it should be legal and unrestricted or punished for adults to sex chat kids since that’s just speech- no laws against fee speech right? Oh? You think maybe we need at least one exception because that’s “different”? Well-
Ok then. Free speech isn’t absolute in your book is it?

.. be railroads- also quite a ways off from their time in realization. These guys had no idea that a day was coming where you could make video and audio recordings at all let alone that basically every person would have 6+ ways to do it let alone that you could share instantly with billions let alone that that you could record video and audio if people saying and doing things that never happened and have it look real. They probably would have thought a bit more about things if they lived in a world with these things or where they could even imagine them. A hologram? Closest idea they had was maybe a ghost or demon? The most fundamental thing in the constitution is the fact that we can change it. There aren’t parts they made that said: “and this part though can never be modified or changed…” so above ALL other concepts the most important one was that we could add or remove things as we saw fit. And we have.

We run into an inevitable practicality that freedom of speech is not absolute, has never been absolute, and wasn’t intended as absolute. Now- the “founding fathers” do have many writings that suggest quite a few of them at least were aware of ways people used freedom of speech dangerously- as they inked these freedoms the concern was discussed that people or media could spread misinformation or dangerous information. The general response was a faith that reason would win out if people spread cons and false information, so such speech was to be protected too. Except… it isn’t is it? We lined up some examples already. Because the constitution can be amended or legislated. By design. Because the “founders” knew the world would change and so would society. The ability to send information quickly and to mass audiences wasn't a thing. They couldn’t imagine Tv or internet or radio. They were like literally 100 years away from the telegraph and the biggest advancement in fast travel would…

So…. Is it censorship to not allow your kids to watch porn or listen to radical Isis messages? Of course network television is censored and that is generally mandated by the state.. who are the ones who most of all aren’t supposed to censor… but networks can self censor too. You have the right to say “F?$!?” On Tv but the network has a freedom of speech to choose not to spread that message because corporations also oddly end up with rights and such that were meant for humans. Sometimes their rights trump those of individual humans. So like…. Why can Facebook censor you? Why can’t you yell “I have a bomb!” On an airplane? Why can’t you post recipes online for making meth or creating nuclear bombs or pipe bombs or whatever? Why can the ATF take down instructions for home made guns?

They must rely on the school, and the school must act on behalf of the parents and their wishes to some degree… so.. public schools are state entities that can’t censor BUT parents can control what their kids are allowed to see, parents can dictate their wishes to schools and schools operate on the consent and wishes of parents transfer of authority so… confused? Certainly. Because it is confusing. What is censorship? When a parent says a child can’t watch a film or they forbid foul language or such- isn’t that censorship? But- the parent is empowered to act in the child’s best interests no? But a child or an adult can’t waive a constitutional right like freedom of speech. They can choose not to exercise it, but they can’t waive it- otherwise you could be coerced to give up your rights couldn't you?

We of course got laws on libel and slander- which aren’t exactly censorship but they do make it unlawful and punishable to say certain things, with the liability that if someone gets upset they can force you into a legal bind regardless of the details and you may or may not be punished depending on your ability to convince a court that you weren’t lying or such.
As for schools- well… that’s tricky isn’t it? A school is a public aka government entity- so it certainly can’t censor things- but… parents and voters have a say on curriculum and such don’t they? So… a school can’t censor books for example right? But then… don’t parents have a right to decide what their kids see, and thusly isn’t it the parents or voters censoring the materials? But… the school ultimately has to do it right? Enforce it? Kids are given to the school with a transfer of authority by parents to act as guardians while their kids are in school. Parents can’t go to school and monitor their child and discipline them

.. protections of rights. That would be an abortion of the sanctity of the constitution one might say. Well, anyway, indeed- the “bill of rights” only applied to the federal government. Later on right leaning sorts would expand the ability to censor information in the interests of war and defense secrecy, passing laws like ones allowing the government to prosecute you without evidence so long as they submit a written pinky swear that they can’t show the evidence without giving up secret info. It wasn’t until after WW2 that there was any solid legal framework to even protect “secret” documents beyond the honor system or a gutted 1917 provision to espionage which had the mechanical bits removed but could still be creatively applied since legal or not- keeping secrets is important to a government.

lol. I literally debated typing the exact same thing and then started to scroll away but saw one comment and figured I’d read it and…. Well said.

She always seemed like she’d be very interesting and fun in interviews, but her style in this movie did make me have a bit of a crush on her way back when, though I doubted I’d ever get a chance to meet her and get to know her any better than reading or watching content she was featured in lol.

not against men who are short and believe a bias exists against short men- It generally does. There is is no bias or insult either to men who advocate against that bias or even against men who whine about the bias- the statement very particularly singles out men below the height threshold held in the zeitgeist as the delimiter of privilege in male height, AND whine about it, AND refuse to acknowledge the struggles others face in lack of privileges. A group I do not particularly care if I might be rude to or not, because while our own actions reflect our character and are not excused by the perceived failings of others, I am not perfect and at times am rude, and am in general intolerant of intolerance and willful or stubborn ignorance.

Your opinions or feelings on the matter cannot be debated, so in that sense I certainly meant no personal offense to you in specific.
My statement is qualified in 2 places-
It applies only to men who are below 6’ tall AND who would both dismiss or deny the privilege inherent to other groups while advocating against the privileges that often come with height in society.
If ALL these factors are not met, that person is not included in any insult present in my statements.
Now, as to being rude I will generally accept my statement as rude considering it could fit the definition of rudeness both in grounds of personal offense or on grounds that it is arguably not social behavior- though I could also argue that it is social through the perlocutionary effect as it’s core intent.
But I don’t particularly care in this case if I was rude concerning men who whine about their heights while denying the struggles and biases others face. I hold no prejudice about men who are short,

My other comments go into more detail and add some social and film commentary but this is the gist.

.. that fast. So you might make $100 an hour but you may only work a couple hours in a day- meaning that your daily and weekly are still under $3000 potentially.
4. On perks- the general risks like violence or non payment or arrest are reduced by sticking to a single John who has shown good will. Even if he didn’t pay her, simply selling the clothes would probably compensate her- and that’s without the jewelry or other items and services she received.
It IS possible Edward could have “played with her” and then called the police and accused her of theft- by by the movies early points he’s already established enough evidence that it would be difficult or unlikely for him to successfully pull that off- so she can assume she is as safe as one can probably be while living with a strange rich man who cruises around looking for street meat.
5. It is common to discount time when long term bookings are made across business sectors.
So in a nutshell that’s the rebuttal.

There are sex workers that aren’t people- like by species such as perhaps a gerbil or donkey- but that is off topic and I mention it just to be precise and accurate- but let’s assume when I say sex workers here I mean human sex workers. So yeah- they are people and the reasons and oaths that lead to a place vary person to person, not all sex workers are all about cash and not all are trapped or cornered into the industry. It can be a fun and lucrative career or a way to express oneself or even explore things etc etc. it can also be the only job a specific person might have available that pays their bills or the wages they want; or literal slavery. So it varies but we should try to be cognizant of sub conscious or open bias that passes blanket judgment over sex work or those who do it.

Trafficking, slavery, pimping, manipulation, lies. Taking advantage, any number of socioeconomic factors that can play in to things. It’s alot. There’s alot that can be dark and horrible. Even when workers choose the job willingly and have some enjoyment there are those who can endanger and abuse or prey on them. So don’t take this is some sermon about how noble and independent the sex worker is- some maybe are, some maybe aren’t. No one is perfect. The point was that there is a general stigma and all manner of stereotypes around sex workers. They tend to be treated as or seen as stereotypes, extremes, abstract stand ins for moral beliefs or what not. People. Each is a person. A person who may be choosing things and have other options but prefer this one, or a person who can’t see any better options, or a person being forced against pain or death or such. The topic gets complicated and nuanced but “they are people” is about as simply and universal as it can get- I guess technically..

The warehouse we worked paid well and had good benefits. Not pilot good but good enough that he wasn’t doing so much worse on quality of life. He also wasn’t always traveling and under stress and got to move around and be physical at work. He was happier on his life because of the flexibility and the way the job allowed him to work and live. It wasn’t something he particularly liked doing or anything, but it wasn’t something he hated and he was god at it. So I mean- these are just a couple examples but sometimes an industry- like many retail or warehouse jobs, can be predatory. A meat grinder that loves when it can get labor that has no options and especially when that labor is good at the job and is effectively stuck. The sex industry can be extremely predatory and abusive. It can involve literally trapping people or figuratively trapping them. Mental abuse, physical violence, coercion, using drugs or other means, or using promises or threats regarding family and such or many others

Sex workers are people. As people they are like other people- not monoliths. The industry isn’t a monolith like most others aren’t either
I’ve worked retail type jobs and warehouse jobs in my younger days and met all sorts of folks. Amazing folks I’d sometimes wonder why they were they with a kid like me at the same job- pilots and investment bankers and ex corporate managers and all sorts of people. Some just took part time jobs for extra cash or employee perks or other reasons- but I’d find that a lot of them either had no choice or chose to. What I mean is that the corporate manager- he just got caught up in bad luck. He lost his job, got divorced, couldn’t get hired in his job and kept getting turned away for positions he was “overqualified for” and he needed money to lost his bills. A retail salary gave him enough to eat and keep afloat. The whole time he was trying to get out and the second he could he went back to the corporate world. The pilot- they just liked the job.

A rich office worker or a broke beach bum might both say: “I quit my job. No I don’t have another lined up, but this is about more than money..” a well paid technician or a minimum wage worker can both have moments of work that they find enjoyable or that they decide to place extra effort into or to spend some of their “personal” unpaid time towards their work. We know this and accept it. Most of us have done similar- but is that such a bizarre concept that sex workers might be much the same? Ok. So let’s be clear here- while this concept, often subconscious, that sex workers are all victims or have been “forced” into such a life or hate themselves or their lives or suffered abuse or blah blah- it’s bogus. That said- many sex workers ARE forced or coerced. Many are only there because they have no other options or as a result of abuse and trauma and exploitation. Not every sex worker is “empowered” and ”choosing their own path” or whatever.
Because as said above…

So is it so odd that as humans beings that sex workers may on occasion put their feelings and desires and impulses ahead of profits? That just because someone will sell genital to genital penetration or oral sex etc. that they might, no matter how much was offered, refuse to do anal, or that they might allow only a few or perhaps one single customer to buy that service? That they may do things in their personal lives and not in the professional or vice versa? That they might find a client attractive or otherwise interesting in some way that may make them offer a lower rate or go over on time or put more or less effort in or offer or rescind services from what they usually do for a given amount or at all? Sex workers are people. Most of the time it is a job or a career for full time sex workers and money is important. Just like any other job or career how important varies.