This world is the reverse of that. Here, there are no Goblin males, and the Sword-saint is green. The Human Slayer is still a human dude and a virgin though…

If your fallback for “fucked-around and found-out” is reporting to a country on the other side of a whole-ass contintent or even farther by water, ya done fucked-up.

Might as well keep on flinging prayers at the most inconcievable imagined deities possible, as every moment these blessed souls continue to draw breath is a miracle beyond their own comprehension.

Keep saying that as-if its true. Maybe Putin will send you a cookie.

Ukraine is an empire? US hegemony excuses invading your neighbors?

There are presently two “empires” bleeding themselves dry in wars of choice versus smaller, heavilly-industrialized countries, either with many allies, natural-fortifications, or the ability to choke-off resources the world depends on. Countries which no sane power would violate like-so.

Neither Empire doing any invading is Ukraine.

Imagine pretending even a country being invaded should never institute a draft, you know, ten years after encouraging women, the young and infirm to leave your country for their safety in the face of the invading force.

Imagine invading your neighbors and getting so many of your own killed that you must trick and kidnap foreigners, plus your own disabled, young and elderly, to keep your attrition-machine going.

Getting told you’ll be flying drones is far different from being told you’ll be doing a civilian job in Moscow. The US Marines were turning would-be drone pilots into Riflemen over 25 years ago, and no-one batted an eye.

Knowingly signing-up to kill people has never been a safe affair, nor should it be.

Propaganda? As long as there’s battlefields to go get killed-on, idiots like myself will jump at the chance.

There’s getting decieved into dying for the side that’s trying to win by attrition, versus getting upset because the side some not-so-professionals choose still needs cooks, and they’re too stupid to turn their smart-phones off in a combat zone.

Idiots getting themselves and some Ukrainian-soldiers killed does not make Ukraine accepting foreign soldiers who too-often turn out to just plain suck equivalent to Russia bait-and-switching “civilian jobs in Moscow” for front-line roles.

That’s great. My problem is TRICKING people into cannon-fodder roles, not people almost exactly-like myself doing incredibly-stupid shit for money and lulz.

Were they TRICKED? The UN is the one with a problem with mercenaries.

I’m over here saying the stupidest thing South Africa ever did was caving to International pressure, making most of the world’s professional mercenaries stateless overnight, like no-one could see Blackrock/Palantir coming, or like somehow Apartheid couldn’t end without giving the US even more plausible deniability to work with.

As a woman, she could just take her money and leave, and arguably should, for her safety. Every moment she stays to aide her country-men is a favor, full-stop.

Call me when the Ukrainians start tricking foreigners into front-line slave/cannon-fodder roles like Russia does. I’ll wait.

EDIT: Bolding. I’m shaking in my boots over all the Putin fans and easilly-distracted rubes this comment’s offended.

That’s the opposite of what I’ve said about bad vs the legal sense.

Legal deffinition. You can’t prosecute if it never comes to light. I’m not calling it vicimless so much as I’m saying the alternative is physically impossible in a world where the camera is the problem. You want a legal system that’s more pro-active? You need would-be victims with cameras, or cameras smart enough to refuse to take certain shots without blurring.

Hell, I mentioned that last concept in one of the three comments the mods deleted. Even said I would be cool with it, so the “this guy is arguing in favor of up-skirts” aimed at me is just … only in a world where you’re free to delete anything I’ve said to the contrary. Funny story though: look up my username in the sh.itjust.works modlog.

Least escalation is what happened. She returned to her seat when ordered. Not a bother, that one, up-standing lady.

I proposed a slightly-less-discrete, more-but-still-least-escalationish-after-standing-until-made-to-sit option where she at least got another seat no-matter-what. How dare I?

I made the argument that any camera at all could have helped. I invoked the creepy/discrete option as best if she wanted to avoid escalation beyond her control of the situation.

If even the perpetrator had smartglasses recording, they would incriminate him, and I have no problem with that. Meanwhile, the victim almost certainly had a smartphone, and I’m not even the one who mentioned that option. Somehow, that came with a story where I would insist she sit back down to THEN start recording, NO, that’s y’alls idea.

Society encouraged her to panic, document nothing in situation where she wasn’t in immediate danger, and seek an authority figure to tell her what to do. That authority then told her to sit back down.

Passive members of society who panic and ask for help get told to sit back down every day. Any tool that helps your force autority to properly act in your best-inerests for even a moment gets villainized.

The nicest thing I have to say about smart-glasses is that they are being villainized at the moment. That’s not me being excited for what is, frankly, a stupid product made for the same vapid idiots that are spreading the story of how bad they are. I promise you, their version of why these suck so-far isn’t what they are telling us, is that they haven’t “properly” weaponized them against us yet.

Meanwhile, Flock camera you don’t control good, Smart Glasses bad. Don’t you want to be an edgy villain who inadvertantly uses Smart Glasses to imprisson vandals who attack Flock Cameras? I could keep my mouth shut, and let you get one over on me by buying them before I do while calling them evil, but I’m perfectly-fine looking-like a stan for a product I’m never gonna buy.

My phone won’t even recognize my fingerprints half the time due to solvents, adhesives, oils, wooddust, pvc-dust, and metal chips. My eves fare little better, even with my glasses taking the brunt of air that basically congeals on them. Put a camera on them and I might notice the lense is gummed-up maybe once a week, but yeah, I’m looking for a good deal on the Raybans with the little red light to trigger the libs, just like I voted for Harriss to trigger the leftists.

More like, the moment the subject becomes aware of photos being taken is the moment they are victimized, legally, no matter how you write the laws. If you can see it with your eyes, you can record it, but obviously shoe-cameras are to avoid any-notion of consent, so my only problem with laws against them is the post-hoc enforcement to the point its statisitically unenforced versus the number of perverts somehow worse than my low self-image out there, but …

… look at it this way, the only thing those laws accomplish is making people feel safe taking actions they were already legally safe to take(short skirts, whatever else); Other laws on the books cover everything that victimizes them in the scenario they notice being recorded. The redundancy doesn’t increase enforcement. I’m not saying I want less enforcement.

I’m more in line with, potential victims(everyone) should be free to record everything they can see. Upskirt photos are right in-line with pick-pocketting for crimes the victim won’t see most of the times they occur, so where do you draw the line between what one can passively record to punish post-hoc crime, the only sort that ever gets caught and punsihed, and where their recording is presumed to victimize others?

Meanwhile, closed-doors Congressional meetings. There’s Legally mandated recordings of politician’s actions, except wait, now they control those recordings of them committing crimes?

Smart-glasses should be a tool for potential-victims. Yes, I understand the irony of douche-bros wearing them to first dates, but do you understand the irony that the likely perpetrators, the physically stronger specimen most in control of demanding situations, ARE NOT the ones needing convinced to do everything they can to protect themselves?

People are ugly. I am ugly. I don’t mind if I have to beg you to protect yourself from people just like me, whether I see a threat or not. In order for you to protect yourself from worse than me, I would beg you to protect yourself from mine or your own grandmothers, from Mr. Rogers for all I care. I don’t understand how you’re more afraid of anyone in my local lock-up than I am, the bus to my house also stops at the lock-up for those on work-release and I don’t know, therefore don’t see, their crimes.

If you’r so afraid of me that I cannot be allowed to wear the overpriced paper-weight gimmick glasses, I’m not the one with a screw loose. Right now, yes, the tech-bros who can afford them are the powerful and dangerous who want to record their crimes and will be surprised when those recordings send them to jail. I fail to see the problem with that.

I’ll admit, “no one was victimized” is like, legally. I’m not saying panty-less whoever isn’t allowed to feel gross or demand photos of them be deleted if they find they’ve been taken.

Ask yourself, though, how much you like the idea of the phone refusing to take the photo, or pro-actively blurring-it until consent is confirmed.

Thinking about it, I’m not sure I have a problem with that last bit, so long as no-one minds my film camera I’ve rarely more-seriously considered purchasing, again because pro-active-blur-ai is going-to be made to blur the police until they consent, if you let it happen.

I won’t pretend I don’t like up-skirt photos, but like all naked-lady photos, I prefer the ones where she’s looking-at the camera and smiling. I’m more pervert than gentleman, but I understand consent.

Airline in OP doesn’t care about consent until they are made-to. I agree dude who masturbated in front of a stranger without her consent should have been arrested … but only in a world where there’s proof. The airline should have switched her seat even “just on hearsay”

… please don’t confuse me for someone who would force her to sit back down with him, to obtain proof or at all. I promise I am more the sort who only ever considers hitting people when I encounter people who force others to share a confined space with specific-others, whether they be the masterbaiter or the Stewardess. Steward-person(less certain of their gender by the moment, apologies) would have to prevent me switching-seats with the victim to cause me that level of violent-thought though.

I won’t apologize for spell-checking or realizing while doing-so how little of my original comment you had replied-to, and still haven’t with anything of substance. Just attacking my character and “replying audaciously”.

I’ve met … some mods … but if you’re going to demand more applause for even less than any of them so-far, I guess I had better exit the stage so your adoring fans can getting a better look at their idol already, no?

Back on-topic: you realize up-skirt laws only punish those who get caught, right? It doesn’t magically make the world safer for the misgivings of those who want to run-around in no underwear, exposed, without even the homeless people whose heads they step-over knowing.

Let’s be real, said homeless person takes photo-evidence to the police to complain, they are getting arrested. My stance is that wacko, the homeless person, should be ignored or made to delete the photo, at-worst. Maybe three-hots-and-a-cot for wasting the officer’s time, if they ask nicely. Meanwhile, no-one was victimized if no-one approaches law-enforcement or distributes the photo without authorization.

Maybe don’t show people things in public that you don’t want them to have personal record of, and don’t allow yourself to be victimized by the inaction of others in the face of non-consensual sexual gratification. Society blaming here, and if I’m victim-blaming, its only because society refuses to take victims seriously without proof, so get angry and beat society over the head with proof if you want change, or don’t be surprised when being loud without proof still requires your loudness to force action.

Being loud without proof is not that far off from insisting you shouldn’t have the right to collect proof though. Society is very clear that it loves that option, and that it makes taking warrented-action optional until you’re loud enough. Support Society like-so at your perill.

A quick-witted person wouldn’t have had to bring-out the “love of smart-glasses” ad-hominem out of the gate. Said person could have read my entire comment-history and come-up with something better, even supposing attacking my person were the only valid goal and actually making a contrary argument to myself the last thing anyone would ever do or condone here.

You don’t have to reply to my comments mid-edit* either, within a minute or so of when I started typing the comment and don’t even recall hitting submit before seeing your immediate reply, but here we are. Reading is quicker than composition, sure, but you haven’t even taken a niblble, let-alone digested a crum of it beyond the toddler’s “eww! broccoli! so gross!”-stage.

* The only reason I know/will-admit its an edit is because that’s the only way your Reply could have been so immediate and mention Aaron. Otherwise, you’re a mind-reader or just know too much about me and are still creeping me out even after realizing I must have been editting the comment. Okay, so, setting-aside you topc-digestion, maybe pretend I’m just that stupid, slow, easilly-spooked, what-have-you. I don’t even mind.

“love of smart-glasses” lol. Don’t own any and not interested in purchasing them. Now, when I go back to university, iirc, they already have rules against recording lectures, so setting up a go-pro is out of the question, so for that one-purpose, I could be tempted …

… but outside of that, no, regarding the glasses, specifically, you’ve got the wrong guy, but the death of Aaron Schwartz hit me harder than 9/11, so excuse me if I’m at least as contemptuous of your stance as you believe you are right to be of mine.