#but i cannot think of one valid usage there either

[msburgundy]

i do not want to read about another stupid brain scan study as long as i live

[nabi-unveiled]

Hiii!

Several times lately you've said my personal weatherman is a comfort show.

You do realize it's an abusive relationship don't you?

I'm not sure why you would find comfort in abuse, but it may be something to reflect on or talk about with someone.

I say that with the upmost kindness.

Hello Anon!

I do love My Personal Weatherman. I take GREAT comfort in that show. It's not flawless by any means, but it makes my synapses buzz in the best possible way.

That doesn't mean it's a comfort show for everyone.

I am fully aware that many find Segasaki/Yoh's dynamic to be problematic or consider it an abusive relationship. If you see it that way, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't find it a comfort show. It's a valid response to that interpretation.

Before I go further, please know that I do not want to negate anyone's personal experiences or opinions in this post. You are more than welcome to disagree!

But on MY blog - I will defend these characters with everything in my being.

In short - I do NOT see it as an abusive relationship. I see it as two people figuring out how their life together is going to work. Which is HARD and ONGOING. Especially for two introverts who keep a lot of their thoughts in their heads. I feel that struggle in the core of my being.

Thanks to some of the subtitle/scripting issues, many people misinterpret how long they've "lived together". (That post has a pretty great timeline if you're interested.) They didn't start living together until Yoh graduated, and they've only been living together a few months. They are still learning a lot about each other and their relationship. Even if they'd been living together a long time, figuring life out together is a process. It's not an easy one.

Do I think either character is a green flag? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Are they very flawed people? Yes.

Are they crap communicators? Yes.

Is there a power imbalance? Yes, but only when Yoh allows it. Yoh enjoys the power play. Yoh IS allowing it. No question in my mind on that score.

It's VERY important to realize that Yoh is the epitome of an unreliable narrator and partial viewpoints/perspectives are in play. For anyone not familiar with it, that means Yoh's perspective is misleading us to a degree in the early episodes. His words in particular cannot be trusted. Before someone comes at me about dismissing a character's words or belittling their feelings, this is an actual literary and narrative tool.

I love Yoh. He's processing best he can. He doesn't know the best words to use. He struggles to figure out what his emotions mean and how to read other people. Like most of us in life, he's figuring crap out.

And Segasaki is figuring his crap out too. But they're TRYING.

Now do I think their relationship is a role model for "BDSM" as it sometimes gets labeled? Please. Dear God. No. Just no. That requires GOOD communication and clear negotiation. See earlier point. They're crap at that...so very human.

However, I do think this is a lifestyle dominant/submissive relationship. By that I mean they have naturally fallen into these roles based on their personalities and preferences. It's more common than you might think, but that's probably an entirely different post.

Actually, if you're interested in the dominant/submissive aspect, LutaWolf had a whole series of posts about this show.

There is also a fabulous amount of language analysis for this show that dives into what the language usage says/depicts about their relationship.

And yes, I've read every one of those posts. Most of them multiple times. I read them when they were WROTE. I have an entire folder of posts about this show BOOKMARKED on my computer, because I didn't even have a Tumblr account at the time.

Where was I? Oh right - why I find comfort in it. Like many things I like or love, I don't really know. Why do I find pangolins adorable? Why do I love sweaters? Why do I enjoy asymmetrical earrings? I don't stress over it. I just accept that I love them.

Is it because I think the sexuality embedded and a rain soaked Yoh are BEAUTIFUL? I'm sure that is 100% part of it. It's a valid reason to indulge.

Is it possibly a result of me growing up in a hierarchical community with a heavy amount of toxic masculinity that I enjoy seeing dominant/submissive interactions? Maybe. That would not make my enjoyment of the show less valid.

Is it possibly a manifestation of untreated trauma or personal struggles of some kind? Maybe. That would not make my enjoyment of the show less valid.

Is it possible that I see either myself or my own relationship in their relationship at times? Yes, that is absolutely true. Still a valid reason to enjoy it.

Regardless, here's what I know without a doubt.

🍛

Segasaki eats the curry. Every. damn. time. And Yoh makes it. Every. damn. time.

There's an entire essay in why that's so very very important for both of them.

🔆

Yoh wants this relationship. Badly.

There's an entire essay in why I think that too.

🌀

Segasaki NEEDS Yoh. Yoh is his safe space. The one place he can relax and be himself.

There's an entire essay in that one too.

I haven't thought about this show just a little. I've lived and breathed in this show. I could write books on this show.

But frankly, feel free to worry about me if you want. If that's what you want to spend your energy on, have at it. I won't be stressing though. Because as much as I enjoy this show, Segasaki is not who I want.

I know the real dream when I see it.

It's Manju's husband. If only. Manju is the one living my dream here. Fully accepted for her nerdy, kinky, fangirl self.

[hasufin]

Rent is All They Want

I'm working on this theory about GenAI as it exists now, and why it has been such an astroturfing thing.

Okay, I've seen some commentary which points out that when personal computers became a thing, their utility was so significant that even though upper management hated it, employees were spending their own money - amounts which would be enough to buy a car at the time - to acquire their own computers to bring in to work to make things easier.

I mean, seriously, imagine spending 4 months' wages to get a thing for work which pisses off your vice-president and doing so in the complete confidence that it would be worth it.

Contrast this to how this is happening with GenAI. You've got companies directing their employees to find a way to apply GenAI. You've got employees vociferously opposed to AI, being required to take training on the tools - and becoming more opposed as they learn more. Even where you have enthusiastic embrace of the technology, it's still astroturfed: it comes of AI companies subsidizing usage of what is in fact a very expensive tool; providing access to it for free, apparently in the hopes that people will get used to it being available and maaaybe find some profitable applications for it.

These are not the same.

But why? Why are the upper echelons of management and the economy so desperate to get people to use this technology which most people don't really want?

Here's what I think.

In 2017 some folks at Google published a paper which many consider as having kickstarted the modern AI boom. This paper is called "Attention is All You Need". I'm going to be a little unkind and say it's actually kind of underwhelming. It's valid work, and yes they presented a new approach to machine-based problem-solving. It's not bad. But it's not really all that groundbreaking of work for how influential it has been.

However, while this paper offered a modest advance in computing technology, it offered an incredible economic opportunity. I'm not clear if the authors realized the implications of what they'd created - it's possible they did, considering the value it has to their employer - but they may not have realized.

What was the economic implication? Rent-seeking.

So let me connect the dots.

Now, in all computing tasks can be categorized as being either sequential or parallel. Think of it like... say, doing the laundry. Doing the laundry has two steps: washing and drying. To wash your laundry, you put it in the washing machine. Let's say your laundry machine takes an hour for a typical load. You cannot make it take less time for a load: even if you have infinite detergent, even if you have one washing machine for each article of clothing, that step will take an hour. Therefore the washing step is sequential. By contrast, the dryer step can be made faster: if you have two dryers and divide the load, the load dries faster. At the most extreme, you could have an individual dryer for each article of clothing and have the entire load of laundry dry in a few minutes. The drying step is parallel. This isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm hoping you get the idea.

Now, in traditional neural networking, most of the steps are sequential. The speed of the process is limited by the speed of the current processors, can only be improved as the hardware gets better, and there are theoretical limits on how fast that can be.

The 2017 paper, on the other hand, offers a model where most of the decision-making process is made in parallel. The "attention" of the paper is a particular stage in neural networking, and if performed in a certain way, as they propose, it can be done simultaneously by as many processors as you want. Which means this model can execute decision-making arbitrarily fast: if you want it faster, you just need to throw more processors at it. Clever! Not a truly remarkable approach, but clever. Finding a way to turn sequential problems into parallel ones is a typical computational target.

In so doing, though, they offered a solution to an economic problem which has dogged the computing industry since its inception.

The goal of any capitalist is rent-seeking: to be able to consistently earn money not by doing but by owning. You don't get rich by farming the land, you get rich by owning the land on which others farm.

The computing industry, in general, has been unable to secure means of generating rent: the same processes which allow a company to rapidly ascend in the industry assure its descent can happen just as quickly. Make a clever new FTP client? In six months someone will create one which offers everything yours does, and one or two other innovations such that your client is now ignored. Your top-of-the-line CPU? Obsolete in 18 months. Optimistically. Install bases become less, not more, satisfied as time goes on. You're constantly vying for customers, not just to replace them over time but to keep your current customers from flitting off to the next shiny thing. The computing industry has largely failed to secure sources of rent.

Enter this seminal paper: "We have created a model to parallelize neural networks!" they say. "Now, the more hardware you throw at these problems, the faster they are."

And now, there's something with potential use cases where having more money translates to being able to make more money. Because if you're rich enough, you can build a big enough data center, and you too can run this model. And the richer you are, the bigger your data center, the more you can solve.

The sheer scale of these data centers impedes replacement. Even if newer processors come out, it's still insanely expensive to buy millions of them and to build the infrastructure to use them. You can be confident that your big investment will remain relevant for years to come, because it cost a lot of money.

You can charge rent. Owning a data center means you can make money constantly. Just by owning the thing, not by producing anything yourself.

At the same time, this boom has generated huge increases in sections of the industry which might have otherwise lagged: obviously the GPUs - for which NVidia is I'm sure quite pleased, though if I worked there I would be considering the lean times: it just so happens that the kind of math AI does right now requires chips optimized in just the way GPUs are optimized, but they're only a single mathematical paper from being replaced - but also networking, server hardware, and the skillsets to build and maintain all this infrastructure.

There's a strong economic incentive for AI adoption. There's just a lot of money to be made not simply now, but over time.

What there isn't, is a significant grass-roots desire for the technologies. There isn't any "This is an intractable problem we need to solve, find a solution" desire coming from the populace at large. Rather, AI presents a solution to an economic problem which the computing industry in general has long desired. They want to push consumer adoption, but need to find an anchor.

[edenfenixblogs]

The Jews who argue against the word “genocide” do not do so because they support what is happening; they do so because they are arguing that what is happening is better described by the term “ethnic cleansing,” which is also a horrifically bad and inexcusable thing. It just also doesn’t have the antisemitic connotation here.

Hey, need to point out using Ethnic Cleansing (which i only saw used by slightly less radical left) is just as bad and inaccurate to use as Genocide- Jews have experienced Ethnic Cleansing and to label this war as such disregards the actual ethnic cleansing Jews experienced for centuries- most recently SWANA Jews! And I would argue Ethiopian Jews too. Individuals willingly and temporarily leaving their home because it is a war zone (due to a war their leadership systems!) is not ethnic cleansing. We can look to what is happening to Armenians, and Afghans in Pakistan- that is ethnic cleansing.

I really need people to brush up not only on their dictionary terms but on the legal definitions that help determine something. Definitions and the correct usage of them matter! Languages matters- when we use definitions wrongly we water them down.

This is why we have people screaming genocide at something that isn’t one! Because their definition of genocide has been watered down- because every war is suddenly a genocide and every bad person I disagree with is a Nazi.. You get my drift. I’m very sensitive to correct usage of words and definitions.

I absolutely understand this perspective and I refrain from using either term personally with regard to this conflict.

I respect your sensitivity, which is one of many reasons I urge people to try to understand the impact of these words on the Jewish community.

That said, I am sensitive also to the fact that there are dictionary definitions of things and legal definitions of things and scholarly definitions of things. I try to keep in mind that everyone is approaching this conflict from their own cultural context so I am not as intense personally about correcting people's usage of these terms, simply because I'm not expert enough to determine which definition is "best." I think legal definitions should definitely always be used in the context of legal discussions, but I don't know if the legal definition is best in a sociological context.

I want to be clear: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just respecting my own limitations on this subject matter.

Rest assured, we agree on the main point here: It is important to be specific and accurate in the usage of terms. We cannot allow emotions running high to justify the watering down of such serious terms.

People of all identities affected by this conflict should approach discussions of terms in the same way they approach everything else about this conflict: with good faith, an open heart, and a goal of peace.

I respect that you also disagree with the use of the term ethnic cleansing. However, I personally do not agree that it is "as bad." This is not me trying to tell you that you're wrong. I just think this particular discussion point has a lot of equally valid takes. Your take is absolutely valid. But allow me to explain my take on the situation, which I consider to be equally valid:

I think there is a lot more wiggle room in the term "ethnic cleansing" than there is in the term "genocide." When I use the term ethnic cleansing, I am referring to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.

The key takeaways I have from the United Nations here is that ethnic cleansing is not actually a crime under international law. The two very loose definitions offered here are:

… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.

a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

I consider Palestinians to be a an ethnic group. I know some critics do not, but I disagree with those people. So if you do not agree with me on that, I doubt we will agree on the specifics that follow. I think recognizing Palestinian identity is vital to fostering a peaceful future for all currently residing in the Levant. However, I know that there are also politics and political realities in Israel between those who call themselves Arab-Israelies vs. Palestinians. I do my best to stay informed about topics, but this is too fraught for me to parse with any authority. I believe in Palestinian ethnic identity because of several reasons I won't elaborate on here, but can elaborate on upon request.

I am not particularly swayed by the first bullet point. I do not believe that Israel is trying to render Palestine as ethnically homogeneous, even though they are using force on the area.

The second bullet point has merit to me. I do not believe all Jews or all Israelis wish to eradicate and remove Palestinians from the Levant, so I do not consider Israelis in general or Jews in general responsible for the cleansing. Furthermore, even though I am personally a pacifist, I am also pragmatic. I believe there are much less violent ways to eradicate Hamas than the heavy bombing currently taking place. I also know Hamas has been firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas for quite a long time and Israel has every right to treat Hamas like the hostile, terrorist organization it is.

But I do hold Netanyahu and the Likud party responsible for their affect on Palestinian civilians. I was disgusted when Netanyahu justified his violent actions by invoking Amalek. And I believe that by invoking Amalek he did in fact cause all of his actions as commander of the military to be in support of ethnic cleansing. I do not deny the parallels between the Amalekites relationship to the ancient people of Israel and Palestine's relationship to the modern state of Israel: namely, repeated attempts to destroy Israel, repeated attacks on Israeli civilians (including the taking of hostages and the attack of women and children and the elderly as a terror tactic). However, what I cannot and will never endorse is the implication that we should treat Palestine the way ancient Israel treated the Amalekites.

G-d ordered the people of Israel to blot out the living memory of the Amalekites from the earth--to eliminate every living Amalekite as well as their city and livestock so that they would only be remembered for the horror they inflicted.

We cannot and must not treat modern Palestinians in this manner, and by invoking a religious precedent in this manner as justification for the modern assault on Gaza, I cannot really conceive of a way in which this is not a specific, religious directive to violently target a civilian population on the grounds of their ethnic identity.

Before anyone uses this as an excuse to demonize all Israelis or Jews, I want to explicitly shut that down as well. I know for a fact that not all Israelis or Jews support or agree with Netanyahu here. And while Netanyahu's horrific invocation of Amalek must be rejected, that rejection does not mean that there should be no consequences for Hamas terrorists and those who support their terror. What it does mean, is that as long as Netanyahu is directing the military response, he is, in my personal opinion, carrying out an ethnic cleansing. And we must be able to criticize him for that and respect Palestinian civilians enough to give them the grace to use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the horror they are experiencing. Criticizing this does not mean Israel has no justifiable military response. Hamas has been engaging in antisemitic terror and mass violence against Israelis and Jews for a long time, even prior to 10/7, in a way that must be stopped by force. However, the main goal for all people of good faith affected by this conflict should always remain peace, not retaliation or attacks on ANYONE (Jewish or Arab) based on their ethnic identity.

I fully respect that you may disagree with this. As there is no legally widespread accepted definition of ethnic cleansing, you may be operating under a different set of criteria to define the term "ethnic cleansing." That's OK, too. I would not call myself uninformed on the topic of the i/p conflict. I have been actively affected by it for over 25 years. That said, I'm also no scholar or international expert on the topic either. I would rate my knowledge and familiarity with the conflict and relevant terminology to be much higher than average and steeped in years of observation and personal experience. So, if I still view his as a matter up for a variety of interpretations, I cannot fault others for feeling the same way, even if that means they disagree with me. I hope this makes sense, and you are able to see my stance as legitimate, even if you disagree with it.

[gemkun]

@luckquartzed said : [  TWENTY-FOUR  ] :  “ i might be in love with you. ” ↬ * [  DIALOGUE PROMPTS  ] :  feelings are complicated.

      ⸻       he   is   undoubtedly   ,   irrefutably   ,   without   a   shadow   of   a   doubt   .   .   .   stumped.

  a   feeling   ,   that   he   hasn’t   known   for   an   exceedingly   ,   long   time.   in   fact   ,   it   is   one   so   alien   to   him   ,   he   has   to   take   a   moment   to   comprehend   the   foreignness   of   this   distinct   sensation.

  the   words   ring   in   the   passages   of   his   mind   —   ❛   i   might   be   in   love   with   you   ❜   ,   resonating   down   each   and   every   corridor   ,   as   if   to   seek   some   response   that   was   available.   none   of   which   are   summoned   ,   for   they   simply   do   not   exist.

  since   ,   love   ,   is   a   concept   that   veritas   lacked   expertise   in.   a   notion   that   he   viewed   as   ever   —   changing   and   therefore   unreliable   ,   hence   its   validity   could   never   be   determined.   for   it   was   individualised   across   each   and   every   individual   ,   whether   or   not   they   were   bound   by   the   bonds   already.   even   a   married   couple   would   never   see   love   the   same   way   as   one   another.

  roaming   down   a   tangent   ,   he   recognises   how   he   deviates   from   the   primary   subject   —   who   presently   stands   before   him.   stationed   expectantly   ,   as   if   his   presence   might   extract   a   response   ,   were   his   confession   not   evocative   enough.

  focus   swims   ,   gluing   to   the   awaiting   sigonian   ,   with   a   new   air   of   vulnerability   surrounding   his   form.   cautioning   him   ,   to   his   usage   of   words.   yet   ,   it   appears   contagious   ,   with   how   veritas   senses   an   inkling   of   tenderness.

  but   he   knows   ,   and   so   too   does   the   stoneheart   ,   that   silence   cannot   last   forever.

  with   a   sharp   inhale   ,   verbalisation   tumbles   ,   chiselling   away   at   the   comfort   of   his   quietude.   ❝   you   cannot   use   ❛   might   ❜   and   ❛   love   ❜   in   the   same   sentence.   it   is   an   instance   where   you   either   do   or   you   don’t.   ❞   objectification   initiates   for   him   ,   coming   from   a   place   that   he   is   well   —   versed   in   ,   before   he   traverses   the   more   unknown   facets   of   life.   ❝   do   not   be   so   liberal   when   you   speak   of   it   ,   or   else   ,   it   may   lose   its   meaning   based   on   your   delivery.   ❞

  certainly   ,   he   has   no   qualification   to   measure   the   authenticity   of   a   love   confession.   but   in   the   world   of   lexicology   ,   he   is   a   master.

  he   cannot   help   but   scoff   ,   as   he   thinks   further   on   ,   in   the   grand   scheme   of   their   line   of   work.   ❝   to   think   ,   that   not   only   were   we   advised   against   forming   personal   ties   ,   but   you   are   so   bold   to   have   bordered   on   taking   a   step   further   and   extend   beyond   the   dissuasion   from   our   superiors.   ah   ,   only   you   ,   gambler   ,   could   ever   defy   the   outlined   terms   we   agreed   to.   ❞

[sardonicplague]

So, I didn't want to do this here but this is too long for the replies, unfortunately. Sorry Crim for making it look like I'm replying to you, but since it would be too tedious for the replies, reblogging my own reblog just seems the most logical to me.

Anyway, I'm sorry @purpledemonlilyposting for literally doing the thing! I'll admit that for me personally it is force of habit at this point because I personally find saying 2SLGBTQIA+ to be too much to type every time, so that's my bad for not being more careful with my wording since I know you don't like it. I am sorry for (unintentionally; I will explain in a minute, but I want to be fair to your feelings here, which are valid) lumping you in with a word you don't like being used for you because I'm really not trying to just shit all over you here. I generally respect you and like your content for the most part, but I spoke in frustration, which is generally not a good idea where clarity is concerned. That was not kind of me, and I ought to have been more careful.

But I need you to understand that this conversation is so genuinely frustrating to younger queers because it seems like all you're doing is firing off smug quips about us younguns not knowing or being able to understand what our reality or history is unless we've personally lived it in order to shut down conversation when no single one of our experiences with The Community (henceforth referred to as such to avoid using EITHER debated term) are universal. But I am not going to argue about this long because frankly Crim did it better, I'm just going to be repeating most of his points, and all I really *wanted* to do was express my disappointment and upset that you could really have read the entire long post Crim wrote about it being an academic term and still have seemingly nothing but quippy retorts to shut down arguments rather than have a conversation about your disagreements without it dissolving into more snappy quips.

Since you called me out in the replies though, I'll throw my two cents in for whatever it's worth. But I cannot stress enough that I'm not going to engage with this topic much beyond what I'm saying here if we’re going to just talk past each other.

So, I equate my use of the word queer in those tags to the use of The Fuck Word.

There are certain folks who don't like swearing for various reasons—some perfectly valid—who might say if I, just for example, exclaim "what the fuck are you doing?" in astonished reaction to something they are doing as "swearing at them". Now, to me personally, I'm just swearing. Not swearing AT them. Just because I'm speaking TO or about them doesn't mean I'm swearing AT them because in this instance the word fuck is being used in a different context. It's being used as a descriptive word, not as a word to cause harm. To me, swearing AT someone is more like saying, "go fuck yourself", "you motherfucker", "you are a fucking idiot", etc. because it's being directed AT a person. The equivalent for the latter pejorative usage of the word queer would be saying, “you ugly nasty queer”, “I bet she's one of them *queers* (spoken with nasty intonation such as to indicate it's being used as a pejorative)”.

TL;DR if folks are not using it as a pejorative then it isn't being used as a pejorative, end of, even if you don't like the word. And the reasons I believe this can more kindly be explained by Crim’s reblog that you initially ignored. So when you perceive “being lumped in with the queer community” as the equivalent of being called a slur, it comes off as you playing semantic games. Now I'm not saying that IS what you're doing with bad faith intent, because I believe your feelings about this word come from a place of genuine hurt. I just think—and this is 100% just my opinion that you can feel free to say is presumptuous or whatever you'd like—that it is generally bad to let the traumatic feelings and experiences that you've had with individual bigots rule your behavior and language to the extent that you're cutting useful language out of your lexicon and then implying that other folks ought to do the same. Because even if you say “it's okay to say queer just don't use it for me because I take it as a slur”, you're still kind of discouraging its use by dint of labelling the word as As Bad As A Slur No Matter The Context.

Also, just for the record, I don't think that the “we are different and that's okay” and “we're normal, actually” arguments are mutually exclusive either. We ARE different to cishets, BUT that's normal, AND it's okay.

And we really don't need to be fighting over terminology right now anyway! There are bigger proverbial fish to be fried with regard to our civil rights and lumping other folks in The Community in with people who readily say slurs like the ones anon hatefully spewed at you is just kinda needlessly divisive.

Like, I just feel like we could have all dunked on that idiot anon *without* all this, yknow? Could you do that next time this happens?

Ask sent to my main blog.

You see how tolerant and progressive and totally not homophobic people who regularly use queer are?

[actias-android]

This is going to be a little long and a lot philosophical, but bear with me, y'all.

Lemme propose a little (actually very big) paradigm shift in how we talk about the validity and understanding of experiences, especially others' experiences.

So to understand exactly what I'm proposing, I'm going to start briefly with how it is now.

This is meant to be taken on a general nonhuman community level, just to be clear, and isn't meant to promote anti-science views or anything outside of the intended topic; this is a philosophical construct for the purpose of discussing philosophical topics of being other-than-human.

There's Reality, which is considered to be something you can prove that we all take part in whether we like it or not, and Experience, which is considered to take place in Reality, and yet be subjective to the one experiencing it and their interpretation. (Capital letters to set these concepts apart from the usual usage of the terms.) In Reality, you can Experience being nonhuman, but since you cannot prove in any way to anyone else that you really are nonhuman, you are, basically, at the whim of others' interpretations of your Experience, and Reality functionally does not include this Experience because of its unprovability.

Now this is a realist approach, and it's largely functional for most day to day purposes, but when it comes to philosophical Experiences that are absolutely true to us, even though they run directly counter to someone else's Experiences...you can, probably, see how the realist approach breaks down rapidly and engenders poor faith arguments over believability instead of conversation about substance.

This isn't just a nonhuman/Otherkin/therian/etc. thing either, I've watched the same devolution happen in pagan spheres, in witchcraft spheres, even in gender and orientation spheres...literally anywhere you have intense, internal, personal Experience as a basis for a community, this breakdown will happen. It's unavoidable with the current paradigm, which proposes a One True And Correct Reality, from which is derived judgement on whether or not any given Experience is acceptable or not.

I propose we throw the whole-ass paradigm in the dumpster and start again.

Instead of understanding there to be only one shared reality between all of us, and that some of us must therefore be mistaken with regards to how it works regardless of our own experiences, I propose that instead, we understand that (in the context of engaging with the unknown, anyway, this is meant to be philosophical and not anti-science as I said before) there is Consensus Reality, and Specific Reality. This is an idealistic philosophy, and I think it's potentially a lot more useful in how we approach comparing and contrasting being other-than-human.

Consensus Reality is what we generally live in...sort of. It's a vague average of all the individual Specific Realities that people actually experience. Consensus Reality is influenced by culture, religion, geographic location, politics, current events, history, and the lives and opinions of every person within it, though being an average of all of those things, any single person cannot really influence it meaningfully. It is important to note that Consensus Reality is still not Objective Reality, in the sense that even Consensus Reality will differ from place to place, time to time, and people to people. Objective Reality is essentially outside the scope of the discussion.

Specific Reality is the body of lived experiences, derived beliefs, and assigned meanings of each individual. It's influenced by Consensus Reality to some extent, but not governed entirely by it. One's Specific Reality does not necessarily encompass or agree with anyone else's Specific Reality (though of course multiple people can and do agree to share parts of their Specific Reality, all the time).

For example, my Specific Reality is that magic exists, that I can astral travel, and that when I do so, the body that I inhabit is fae. This is, for me, 100% true. Another person's Specific Reality is that there is no such thing as magic nor the astral nor fae, only God, God's powers, humans, and netherworldly powers that work against God which may pose as magic, astral beings, or fae to trick people. This is, for them, 100% true. Yet another's Specific Reality holds that there is no magic, there are no fae, there is no astral realm, and there is no God nor gods, nor any powers that work against them. For them this is also 100% true.

None of these Specific Realities are invalidated by each other, even though they directly contradict each other, because we are now discussing them in a paradigm in which none of them are more or less valid than any other given thing. In this paradigm, I can only really speak for my own Specific Reality.

The point of this paradigm shift is to encourage sharing information and ideas, rather than being correct, since there is now, technically, no 'correct' to even be. Even agreement with Consensus Reality isn't necessarily being correct. Consensus Reality is a useful tool as a statistical baseline, and a broad space in which it's generally good to be able to function, but it's not much other use to the conversation at hand. The closest concept to correctness that can exist is if the information from one Specific Reality is useful to someone else in their Specific Reality. If it is? Great, they've learned something. If it's not, there is no judgement or being wrong to assign; it just doesn't pertain, and that's fine.

Also, as I said before, there is no direct way that the average single entity can influence Consensus Reality, because Consensus Reality is nothing more than a statistical mean of all the individual Specific Realities in it. No one worldview can be considered the 'default' worldview, only the closest to average, and being closest to average doesn't confer any special meaning or correctness to it. However, unlike Consensus Reality, Specific Reality is infinitely malleable; an idea you share with someone could be the thing that makes things fit together or completely transform for them. Or vice versa!

ALSO, I've been thinking this way for a while, and I can tell people don't really grasp it because of the pushback I get every time I say "humans will always perceive you as a human because you cannot prove otherwise to them." This is not an insult, nor is it an invalidation. It's a factual statement on Consensus Reality, which says that the majority of the time, when a random human sees a random body who looks human, they expect that body to be inhabited by exactly one human mind. It also doesn't matter, because Consensus Reality doesn't get a vote on your own Specific Reality, which is in fact more real by virtue of it being an actually-lived experience and not a vague, statistical conglomerate of a bunch of other people's experiences, which itself has probably not been lived as-is by anyone. The point of the statement is, so what? Understand that people do in fact judge books by their covers, decide to not let this stop you, then do your thing anyway. Actively doing your thing is actually the best way any one person can change Consensus Reality, because by living your Specific Reality as openly as you're able, others may choose to adopt parts of it.

It's not enough to just say, "Ah, okay, I'll just talk about it like that instead," by the way. I'm not proposing a simple change in terminology (and if anyone does want to adopt it, uh, don't worry about keeping the capital letters, it gets to be a bit much to type). You really need to pull your assumptions about what's 'normal' and what's 'default' and what's 'real' up by the roots. Start engaging with other people's nonhuman narratives with the intent to understand them entirely on their own merits and no others, as that other person experienced them; not Consensus Reality's rules, not your own beliefs, nothing at all but their own Specific Reality. Only after that can you really start to grasp what it is and what it means to that person. To be completely clear, under an idealistic philosophy, If I believe I am a fae, and you don't believe fae exist, then I also believe that fae do not exist for you regardless of my beliefs, and you also believe that they do exist for me regardless of your beliefs. This is different than me saying, "Fae exist but this person cannot see them," which would prioritize my beliefs, and it's different than you saying, "Fae do not exist but Nevi does believe that he is one," which prioritizes your beliefs. Yes, you have to juggle holding what seem to be mutually-exclusive beliefs in your head until you get used to it. I swear it's a worthwhile thought exercise, though.

TL;DR version:

We mostly operate under a realist philosophy ("There is only one shared reality, which is Real Reality") when considering and discussing nonhuman stuff

I think we should shift our discussions, with awareness and intent, to an idealistic philosophy ("Everyone has their own reality, each one of which is Real Reality even though they conflict") in which nobody is correct or incorrect, because there IS no correct or incorrect to begin with

This would hopefully make sharing experiences a much bigger conversational focus and a much less daunting prospect

This would also hopefully lessen misunderstandings and incidences of people feeling talked down to or not believed, because it completely de-prioritizes belief as a whole

[xclusivetism]

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science  argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix 

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator 

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot. 

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender 

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow. 

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth. 

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness. 

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓ 

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy. 

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression. 

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough. 

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others. 

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria 

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing. 

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet. 

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them. 

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

[dwellordream]

“...We may quickly describe the Dothraki social organization; while we only see inside one traditional Dothraki khalasar, we are repeatedly told it is typical and may take it as such (AGoT, 83-5, 195, 328). Each group of Dothraki is led by a male war-leader called a khal (whose wife is a khaleesi and whose heir is the khalakka) in a group called a khalasar. The khal‘s personal guard are ‘bloodriders’ and are sworn to the khal and are supposed to kill themselves after he dies (AGoT, 328).

The khalasar also has subordinate commanders called kos and smaller bodyguard units called khas (and at this point, you will forgive me a joke that I began to wonder if the Dothraki rode to battle on their khorses, drank out their khups and fought with khords, kows, and kharrows; it will surprise no one that Martin is not a linguist). The khal is the autocrat of this organization, he has a single, readily identifiable male heir who is his direct descendant (the khalakka) and should that heir be underage or not exist, the khalasar will disband. Strikingly, beyond the khal‘s male heir, family ties play no role at all in the organization of the khalasar or in relations between them.

This is not how horse-borne nomads organized themselves, although it bears a passing resemblance to some elements of pre-Chinggis Mongol organization. We can start by quickly ruling out the Great Plains as an inspiration and move from there. I am not an expert in the organization of any Plains Native American society (so please forgive any errors – but do tell me, so I can make corrections – I am doing my best!), but from what I have been able to read, the key institution is not the ‘chief’ but rather the extended family network (what the Sioux call, I believe, the ‘thiyóšpaye’) which were then composed by smaller households (‘thiwáhe’). The elders of those households elected their leaders; while certain families seem to have been more prominent than others, leadership wasn’t directly heritable. Direct inheritance doesn’t seem to have been as pressing an issue; territorial claims were held by the nation or tribe (the ‘oyáte’) while moveable property was held by the household or extended family network (and personal items might be buried with the deceased).

I am being a bit schematic here to avoid outrunning my limited knowledge, but a system of kinship bonds with elected leaders coordinating the efforts of multiple ethnically or linguistically related kinship groups is a fairly common system for non-state social organization (obviously that label obscures a lot of cultural and regional variation!). This would have been a plausible enough way to organize the Dothraki, with lots of deliberative councils of household leaders and chiefs that are often shrewd political leaders, managing the interests of many households, but presumably that wasn’t badass enough. It would have involved lots of complicated political dialogue and quite a lot less random murder. In any event, it is clear the Dothraki are not organized along these lines; kinship matters functionally not at all in their organization and even when Daenerys is present, we see no deliberation, merely the authority of the khal, enforced by violence.

What about the Mongols and other Eurasian steppe nomads? The Mongols and other steppe nomads were broadly organized into tribes (an ulus or ordu, the latter giving us the word ‘horde’ in reference to nomads) which were organized around a leader (for the Mongols, a khan or ‘chieftain’) and understood to be part of a given ethnic or linguistic grouping which might or might not be united politically at any given time. The position of khan was heritable, but with some significant quirks we’ll get to in a minute.

In theory, these were kinship groups, but in practice the incorporation of defeated clans and sometimes shifting allegiances blurred those lines. Ratchnevsky (op. cit., 12-3) notes a divide within groups between the non-free captives (otogus bo’ol) and the free followers of a khan (nökhör or sometimes spelled nökhöd), but these categories were flexible and not ethnically based – individuals could and did move between them as the fortunes of war and politics shifted; Temujin himself – the soon-to-be Chinggis Khan – was at one point probably one of these bo’ol. The nökhör were freemen who could enter the service of a khan voluntarily and also potentially leave as well, living in the leader’s household. This is a rather more promising model or the Dothraki, but beyond this very basic description, things begin to go awry.

First off – and you will note how this flows out of the subsistence systems we discussed last week – inheritance does matter a great deal to the Mongols. Steppe nomads generally tended to share an inheritance system which – I have never seen it given a technical name – I tend to call Steppe Partible Inheritance (though it shares some forms with Gaelic tanistry and is sometimes termed by that name). In essence (barring any special bequests), each male member of the ruling clan or house has an equally valid claim on the property and position of the deceased. You can see how this would function where the main forms of property are herds of horses and sheep, which are easily evenly divisible to satisfy such claims. Divide a herd of 100 sheep between 5 sons and you get 5 herds of 20 sheep; wait a few years and you have five herds of 100 sheep again. And for most nomads, that would be all of the property to divide.

This partibility was one of the great weaknesses, however, of steppe empires, because it promoted fragmentation, with the conquests of the dynastic founder being split between their sons, brothers and so on, fragmenting down further at each succession (each inherited chunk is often called an appanage, after the Latin usage and often they were granted prior to the khan‘s death as administrative assignments). But overall leadership of the empire cannot be divided; in theory it went to the most capable male family member, though proving this might often mean politics, war or murder (but see below on the kurultai).

Thus Attila’s three sons turned on each other and made themselves easy prey for what was left of the Roman Empire; Chinggis’ heirs did rather better, sticking together as regional rulers in a larger ‘family business’ run by the descendants of Chinggis until 1260 (Chinggis died in 1227), when they began to turn on each other. The Ottomans resolved this problem – seeing their empire as indivisible – through fratricide to avoid civil war. Note also here, how important knowing the exact parentage (or more correctly, patrilineal descent) of any potential descendant of the khan would be – we’ll come back to that.

On the surface, this might sound a bit like how Khal Drogo’s khalasar disintegrates on his death, but there are enough key wrinkles missing here that I think the match fails. The biggest difference is the importance of the larger kin group and biological inheritance. You will note above that the males of the entire royal family generally had claims on the titles and property of the deceased. And actual, patrilineal descent was important here – all of the successor states of the Mongols were ruled by rulers claiming direct descent from Chinggis Khan, down to the disestablishment of the Mughal Empire in 1857. If Khal Drogo has any extended family, they seem to be unimportant and we never meet them; they do not figure into to the collapse of his khalasar (AGoT, 633), whereas in a Mongol ulus, they’d be some of the most important people.

Indeed, Drogo’s khalasar splits up with no regard at all to the ruling family, something that Jorah notes is normal – had there been a living heir, he would have been killed (AGoT, 591). This is obviously not true of the Mongols, because Temujin, the future Chinggis Khan himself (and his brothers), was exactly such young living heir of a powerful khan and was not killed, nor was any serious attempt apparently made to kill him (Ratchnevsky, op. cit. 22) and Ratchnevsky notes that was unusual in this instance that Temujin’s mother was not supported by her brother-in-law (possibly because she refused to be remarried to him).

Moreover, succession to leadership was not automatic as it is portrayed in A Game of Thrones (either automatic in the way that Khal Ogo’s son Fogo could become Khal in the mere moments of battle between his death and his father’s, AGoT, 556 or automatic in how Drogo’s khalasar automatically disintegrates, AGoT, 591). Instead there was a crucial mediating institution, the kurultai (sometimes spelled quriltai), a council of chiefs and khans – present in both Mongol and Turkic cultural spheres – which met to decide who of the valid claimants ought to take overall leadership. Such kurultai could also meet without a succession event – Temujin was declared Chinggis Khan in the kurultai of 1206. There wasn’t typically a formal heir-designate as with the Dothraki, both because of the need for a deliberative kurultai but also because of the partible inheritance. It was rather exceptional when Chinggis designated Ögedei as his chief heir (as a way to avoid war between his other sons; Ögedei was the compromise candidate) in 1219.

We might imagine the kurultai upon the death of the Mongol version of Drogo would have been a complex affair, with political negotiations between Drogo’s brothers and uncles (should he have any) who might well use the existence of an heir as an excuse to consolidate power within the family, along with Drogo’s key lieutenants also seeking power. Of course we do not see those events because Daenerys is asleep for them, but we do hear them described and it is clear that the key factors in a Mongol kurultai – descent, family ties, collective decision-making – do not matter here. As Jorah notes, “the Dothraki only follow the strong” (AGoT 633) and “Drogo’s strength was what they bowed to, and only that” (AGoT, 591). There is no council – instead Drogo’s key lieutenants (all unrelated to him) take their chunk of followers and run off in the night. There is no council, no effort to consolidate the whole, no division of livestock or territory (because, as we’ve discussed, the Dothraki subsistence system considers neither and consequently makes no sense).

Likewise, the structures of Mongol control, either before or after Chinggis (who makes massive changes to Mongol social organization) are not here. Drogo’s horde is not the decimal-system organized army of Chinggis, but it is also not the family-kin organized, deeply status-stratified society that Chinggis creates the decimal system to sweep away. The Mongols did have a tradition of swearing blood-brothership (the Mongolian word is anda), but it only replicated strong reciprocal sibling alliances. It certainly came with no requirement to die if your blood-brother died, something made quite obvious by the fact that Chinggis ends up killing his blood-brother Jamukha after the two ended up at war with each other. And these relationships were not a form of ‘royal guard’ but intimate and rare. Instead, Chinggis intentionally assembled a personal guard, the keshig, out of promising young leaders and the relatives of his subordinates, both as a military instrument but also a system of control. Members of the keshig did not simply die after the death of their leader, but were bound to take care of the surviving family of the deceased ruler.

So apart from the observation that Steppe nomads tended to have singular leaders (but, of course, monarchy is probably the most common form of human organization in the historical period) and that they tend to fragment, almost nothing about actual patterns of Steppe leadership is preserved here. Not the basic structures of the society (the ‘nobles,’ kinship groups and larger tribal and ethnic groups which so dominated Temujin’s early life, for instance, see Ratchnevsky, op. cit. 1-88), nor its systems of inheritance and succession. Instead, most of the actual color of how Mongol society – or Steppe rulership more broadly – worked has been replaced with ‘cult of the badass’ tropes about how the Dothraki “only follow the strong,” only value strength and have essentially no other cultural norms.”

- Bret Devereaux, “That Dothraki Horde, Part III: Horse Fiddles.”

[wickwrites]

Burning as a Motif for Humanity in Violet Evergarden

I think, when watching Violet Evergarden, most of us picked up on fire as a motif for Violet’s trauma – the violence and destruction she witnessed in the war, and the violence and destruction she engendered with her own hands. I’m not going to go into this too much because it’s all pretty self-explanatory, if not trite, but here are some quick examples of fire as a motif for her trauma just to lay the groundwork for the rest of the essay:

In frame 1 (episode 8), Violet draws first blood on the battlefield, and the once contained fire from the felled soldiers’ lanterns spread quickly through the forest, a symbol for how one small act of violence can cascade into large scale destruction. In frame 2, Gilbert stares at the carnage in front of him, horrified. In frame 3, the major is shot, and all we get to see is a screen of flames. In frame 4 (episode 12), Merkulov stares into a fire as he schemes about re-kindling the war.

I want to follow this (well trodden) opinion up with a more encompassing statement. That is, fire, in Violet Evergarden, is not limited to representing the destructive power of violence and trauma. Instead, it is a motif for humanity itself – an embodiment of the full range of experiences and emotions that make us human.  

To show this, I’m going to start off at the beginning of Violet’s journey, focusing on how her disconnect (from herself as well as others) is illustrated in episode one. For instance, her initial struggle to move her now mechanical arms as she sits in her hospital bed in the opening sequence is an excellent embodiment of her dissociation from her own body and lack of agency. I want to, however, focus on two scenes that are particularly relevant for our discussion:

First, the scene where Violet spills tea on her hand:

And second, the scene where Hodgins insists that Violet is burning:

These scenes are similar: in both, someone asserts that Violet must be in pain, specifically due to burning, and in both, Violet rejects that statement. In the first, however, that burning is physical. And in the second, that burning is emotional. Regardless, Violet is so removed from her own body that she is incapable of feeling either. Her mechanical hand is therefore an embodiment of her inhumanity (ie. her “dollness” or “weapon-ness”). Like her, it is cold, mechanical, insensitive, without life or agency. After all, up until now, all she’s been doing is killing on command, without the ability to think for herself, experience her own pain, or sympathize with her victims’ pain.

When the screen shows that Hodgins is indeed correct, that Violet is literally on fire (frame 1), that fire is depicted with restraint. Flames engulfs Violet’s body, but those flames are from a streetlamp enclosed in glass. It is controlled and distant. This encapsulates Violet’s current state; she is literally on fire, but that fire is so compartmentalized and suppressed, and she is so far removed from her own experience, that she is incapable of feeling it.

In frame 2, we are viewing Violet in a flashback, from Hodgin’s point of view. Although we’re offered a close up shot of her bloodied hands, we see, about two cuts later, that Hodgin is actually observing Violet from afar (frame 2.5). This distance demonstrates that he cannot bring himself to reach out to her, something that Hodgin confesses he feels guilty about literally 5 seconds later. They were, at that point in time, and perhaps even now, unable to connect.

In frames 3 and 4, Hodgin is speaking again. We get this super far shot of Violet’s body. The camera is straight on, objective, and unfeeling. This unsympathetic framing has two functions. First, it distances us from Violet. Our inability to see the details on her face and her relatively neutral body language gives us, the audience, no real way inidication her thoughts. Second, it distances Violet from herself. As someone who experiences dissociative symptoms from PTSD, this is a very poignant way of framing what it feels like to be removed from your own experience. Hodgin’s line, “You’ll understand what I’m saying one day. And, for the first time, you’ll notice all your burn scars,” further drives home the sense that Violet is completely estranged from herself. It almost feels like we are looking at her, from her own detached point of view.

We’re going to move on now, but we’ll get back to these frames later in the analysis, so hold onto them.

Throughout Violet’s journey, fire comes up again and again. Specifically, it shows up in moments of emotional intimacy, connection, and healing. Let’s see what I mean by this:

I have here a collection of moments that all occur at the same narrative point in their respective mini-stories: the moment where one character reaches out to another, sympathizes with them, and literally pulls them of their darkness. For example, frame 1 (episode 3) shows Violet bringing a letter from Luculia to her brother. It expresses Luculia’s gratitude and love for him, and ultimately mends their relationship. In frame 2 (episode 4), Violet and Iris share a moment of emotional intimacy and connection, which is the beginning of Iris’ story’s resolution. In frame 3 (episode 9), Violet’s suicidal despondency is interrupted by the mailman, bringing her a heartwarming letter from all her friends. In frame 4 (episode 11), Violet comforts a dying solder by a fireplace.

It’s not that other modes of lighting do not exist – modern looking lamps show up repeatedly in the show. Even Iris’ rural family has them, so I can reasonably assume that, no, the above moments do not all coincidentally use lamps because that’s all there is in this universe; the usage of fire during moments of catharsis is deliberate, and establishes that fire can also bring hope, kindness, and love.

Now that we’ve explored the dual nature of fire as both destructive/constructive, painful/cathartic, let’s go onto the thesis of my essay. Why do I say that being on fire is to be human? Let’s go back to the scene where Hodgin tells Violet she’s on fire (episode 1, on the left), and compare it to the scene where Violet finally realizes that Hodgin was right and that she is on fire (episode 7, on the right):

In these sequences, there is a notable shift in framing and perspective. In frame 1b, we finally get to see Violet’s blood-stained hands from her point of view, as opposed to from Hodgin’s point of view in 1a. Violet becomes aware of her past as an actual agent choosing to kill, shown through the first-person point of view. Similarly, the medium, straight on shot of Violet looking down at her hands (frame 2a) is replaced with an intimate first-person, close-up view (frame 2b). In shots 3a and 3b, the difference in framing is most pronounced. In 3a, we get this straight on, long shot. In frame 3b, the camera’s detachment is replaced by a claustrophobic closeness. While this framing does an excellent job at conveying the panicked feeling of “everything crashing down all at once”, it also demonstrates Violet’s new-found awareness of herself. While before, the camera was used to alienate, now it is used to create a sense of painful awareness and intimacy.

These series of shots are the first in the entire show, I believe, of Violet's body from her own point of view. Their co-incidence with her awakening self-awareness characterizes the state of “being in one’s body” as a precondition to self-connection, or more specifically, to Violet’s understanding of herself as neither a weapon nor a doll, but as a human. Correspondingly, this pivotal moment serves as a catalyst for her subsequent emotional development. From this episode on towards the finale, we’re launched into a heart wrenching sequence of events: Violet’s desperate grieving for Gilbert’s apparent death, her attempted suicide driven by newfound grief, and most importantly, Violet receiving her first written letter, an act that is strongly representative of genuine human connection. Following these events, Violet’s emotional connection to both herself and others only continues to grow; during her two final jobs of the story, she breaks down crying in response to the suffering of her clients, demonstrating a level of compassion—if not empathy—that she seems to have never been able to tap into before.

At the same time, Violet acquires a new sense of agency, making plot-driving decisions that no longer require other characters’ validations. Most poignantly, in episode 12, she chooses to stay on the train to fight Merkulov, explicitly going against Dietfried’s order for her to leave. Her reason?

She doesn’t want anyone to die anymore.

And it’s this moment, for me, that consolidated her as a character with true agency. Up until now, all her major decisions have been framed in relation to Gilbert: she killed in the war because Gilbert ordered her to, and she became an Auto Memories Doll because she wanted to understand Gilbert’s enigmatic “I love you”. Now, however, her motivation is purely her own—she fights, simply because she doesn’t want anyone else to die. It’s a line implies an intimate knowledge of loss. It’s a sentiment motivated by compassion. It’s a raw and extraordinarily human thing to say.

When Violet embarks on her journey to decipher Gilbert’s love, she is devoid of many traits we consider inherent and possibly even unique to being human—suffering, compassion, altruism, love, agency, and the interplay between them. As an Auto Memories Doll, she learns to live, experiencing all these emotions she had never had the luxury to experience before, and we quickly realize that she cannot know what love is without simultaneously wrestling with her trauma. She learns that yes, sometimes the fire destroys and sometimes it burns, but sometimes it thaws too, and you cannot have one without the other. You cannot choose what the fire does to you; you cannot choose what you want to feel. Thus, to be on fire is to know the anguish of its destruction, but it is also, and more importantly, to know the catharsis of human connection, to be the warm flame that pulls someone else out of the dark, to be pulled out of the dark yourself. To be on fire is to be human.

[archadianskies]

Whumptober Day 23

Exhaustion + Sleep Deprivation  → part of the MT-RK900

Whumptober Masterlist | 23/31 of RK900 short stories ↳ on Ao3

Tags:  Post-Pacifist Best Ending x Exhaustion x Sleep Deprivation

{Character sheet + bonus art here, and here. }

It starts small, starts as barely noticeable symptoms that can easily be mistaken for something else. Nothing is easily mistaken to him, nothing is ever dismissed casually, not when he deals with people’s lives on a daily basis. That includes the lives of his colleagues too, and today, specifically, it involves the lives of his human colleagues.

“Dr Fitzpatrick, you are exhibiting the initial signs of influenza.” He tells his senior, the Director of the trauma unit and his attending leader for the shift. “It is best to take precautionary measures and time off to recuperate whilst removing yourself from possibly infecting others.”

“What?” She blinks at him, brows creased and lips pursed in a frown. “It’s been a long shift, that’s all.” He says nothing, though his expression must say a lot because her frown deepens. “You’re sure?”

“With adequate care you will recover much quicker and stop the spread amongst our colleagues, than if you were to continue working and possibly, quite rapidly, infect others.” Ronan says evenly. “Influenza season is already underway, we are treating more and more patients everyday and we have had three deaths already.”

She gives him a long hard look, searching his face for some sort of reaction before she sighs tiredly. “Are there others on the team you think might have it?”

“There are four possible nurses, one clerk, and two registrars also exhibiting early signs.” Ronan informs her and she groans into her hand, rubbing her temples. 

“It’s not up to me to give others time off, you know.”

“I know. But you can speak to the right staff, and I can give them my findings.” He nods.

“We’re run off our feet already, and you’re rostered at Jericho for the next three days!”

“I can change that. Androids are not susceptible to influenza, and aside from the cold weather affecting some of the older models, we weather winter well.” He glances at the door. “If you can help arrange it, I will stay on for the week and use mainly a team mostly made up of the other android nurses here, minimising the risk of infection amongst the staff.”

“Ronan, you- that’s insane! No one can work an entire week, especially not in trauma!”

“No human can, but I am not human.” Ronan reminds her gently, and he knows she is tired and she knows he is counting on this. She relents, shoulders sagging.

“Four days. Not seven. Four, and I will aim to be back by then.” She points her finger at him accusingly. “Don’t you dare take on more than you can handle. You’re the best trauma surgeon I’ve ever worked with, so god help me if you run yourself ragged because you’re too damn nice!”

* 

So it begins. After careful negotiations the ration rises from five human nurses for every one android nurse, to two humans per one android. Ronan assigns various amounts of memory in his processing core to take over the clerical duties, and the E.D. phone is now answered by an ST300 temporarily stepping in from reception. This means she can answer the call and feed the information directly onto his HUD for ease of triaging. He keeps patient charts in a digital folder, and medication schedules, and theatre bookings.

He utilises programming that would normally be used for listing mission objectives and keeping tabs on the status of other soldiers in his battalion, for good instead, for saving lives and managing their care. At the seventieth hour mark, one of the android nurses pass him a bottle of thirium and he drains it, belatedly realising his levels are below optimum given how fast he is burning through it due to the high number of processes he is running. No matter. He will continue.

 At the eightieth hour, he receives a concerned message from Simon while he is operating on a stabbing victim. The knife penetrated into the victim’s small bowel and it is a race against time to repair the damage. He manages to send Simon a quick reassuring message that yes he is fine, but will not be able to come home for some time yet. Dr Fitzpatrick had said four days but he knows it will not be four days. He will need longer because the humans will need longer. It is alright. He is an RK900, CyberLife’s latest cutting edge android. He can manage.

As predicted, Dr Fitzpatrick does not return after four days. No matter. Ronan powers on, temporarily rotating out the last of the human nurses as a precautionary measure as a surge of new influenza patients floods the hospital. Humans are woefully unprepared for the season due to a lot of factors, be they socio-economic or just plain ignorance. There was a pandemic his father lived through, with many wild tales of humans simply ignoring even the basic, primitive safety measures attempted. It does not surprise Ronan to see so many victims this season either, given all that Hank has told him about those ‘unprecedented times’. 

There is no time to stand under the charging bay downlights. There has been a shooting and there are multiple victims en route to the hospital. And hours before that, there had been a multi vehicle crash on the highway. And hours before that, there was a case of food poisoning at a children’s party which meant Ronan had to call the paediatric registrar for extra help. There is never a good time, and so he has to be conservative about power usage to ensure he can still handle the workload safely. 

“Your hair is white.” One of the nurses whisper to him as they’re scrubbing up for yet another surgery. Ah. His stress levels must be high. He hasn’t checked- he turned off his notifications ten hours ago. 

“I am functioning adequately. It is only cosmetic.” He reassures them with words, and he’s glad there’s a mask over his mouth because he hasn’t quite mastered how to give reassuring smiles to match. 

“You’ve been on call for five days, nearly six now.” They’re brows crease in concern and beneath their mask Ronan knows they are frowning. “You’ve given all of us an hour break every eight hours to ensure we have enough time to charge adequately. You’ve done this for all android staff except yourself!”

“There is no other android qualified for surgery.” He reminds them, flicking through the patient’s stats and passing them on to the surgical team. “So I cannot rest.”

On the first surgery on his sixth consecutive day as the trauma surgeon on call, Ronan finds that the bulbs in the surgical downlights have been replaced with UV charging lights. The same nurse who raised concerns earlier gives him a somewhat stern, no-nonsense look.

“So you can charge while you operate.” A compromise, he realises, and a very kind one too. He gets to work, and he feels the tension unwind from his shoulders, his battery core soaking up the charge as the lights bear down on him. It’s not quite stasis, not quite reprieve from the onslaught of duties, but it’s close.

**

“Simon?” Dr Anthea looks up from her tablet, blinking in surprise as the Jericho leader stands in the doorway of her office. “What can I do for you?”

“Ronan is still at Detroit Metro.” The PL600 chews his bottom lip, wringing his hands together anxiously. “It’s been six whole days straight and he stopped answering my messages on the fourth day.”

“Yes he’s temporarily removed himself from our roster to manage Detroit Metro ED while the human staff recover from the flu.” She sighs, shaking her head. “He’s very much like you, you know: he’ll work himself ragged for the sake of others.” Not quite the answer Simon hopes to hear, she’s sure, but it’s the one she’s giving because she’s right. She’s heard the tales from Professor Joshua. She knows during Jericho’s early stage, Simon nearly died keeping everyone safe and functioning. 

“I just- I’ve left so many messages at reception and though the receptionist assures me she’s passed them on, I can’t help but feel like he literally won’t stop unless he’s physically unable to keep working.” Simon gives her a pained look to which she can only reply with a cocked brow.

“Like you, Simon?”

“Well- alright, yes, like me!” Simon huffs, and it coaxes a laugh from her as the PL600 looks torn between embarrassment and determination. “You are the only android surgeon still qualified to work at human hospitals. To work at that human hospital.” He says it quietly, with caution, because they both know that was a different part of her life. Not an unpleasant one, definitely not, given she deviated out of empathy, out of kindness, but still a different chapter now put behind her. She has the qualifications because she never bothered to give them up like the other medroids. Sentimentality, perhaps, because Detroit Metro had been her home for so very long and to still see a valid ID badge gives her a little spark of joy whenever she opens her drawer. 

“Please?” Simon of the Jericho Four is pleading with her and she knows she cannot deny him a single thing, lovely and courageous and prone to martyrdom as he is.

*

It’s been eight days, twice the number of days she thought she’d need, but she’s feeling strong and healthy and definitely not weighed down by any symptoms anymore. Damn that android and his perceptive, persuasive ways. She both hates and loves how he’d been right, and yes he’s been running an incredibly tight ship here in her absence, though she wonders which other staff he’s rostered on to replace him because obviously he hasn’t been working the entire eight days straight. Right? Surely not. Obviously not. She warned him she’d be Very Cross if he worked more than four days. 

“Nicola?” She turns at the voice and there, right there is Medroid Anthea. The surgeon she shoved into an ambulance with as many android nurses as she could find when racing through the unit after that horrible announcement androids had to be surrendered to the police. Not on her watch, no damn way. 

“Anthea.” She smiles, though a little puzzled. “What are you doing here?”

“Well, you’ve worn my best surgeon down to his bones here so I’m coming back as a favour, just so he gets rest.” There’s a pause as she lets that sink in.

“Are you telling me Ronan’s been here the entire time?! All eight days?!” She nearly explodes with anger and Anthea cocks a perfectly arched brow in that gesture she hasn’t realised she’s missed seeing so much. They made such a great team.

“Why do you sound like you didn’t know this?”

“Because I didn’t! I’ve been on sick leave, recovering from the flu! Oh that boy, honestly!”

“Simon’s here to drag him home, and I’m here for his shift.” Anthea smiles as she clips her ID onto her scrubs. “Just like old times?”

She’s smiling so hard her cheeks ache. “Yeah. Just like old times.”

* 

Simon can’t even stay angry with him. The anger just seeps out of him the moment he sees how exhausted Ronan looks, his hair stark white meaning his stress levels are at their peak given the weather isn’t cold enough to activate his tundra camouflage. He’d demanded his stats and the RK900 had given them with great embarrassment and Simon realised he’d been so very close to just shutting down to conserve what pitiful charge he had left. Honestly.

“You’re mad at me.” Ronan says quietly as Simon ushers him inside the apartment.

“I was.” Simon hangs up their coats before wrapping his arms around his waist and pressing his cheek to his chest. “Couldn’t stay mad, though. I know why you did it.”

“I had to help.”

“I know, love. I know.” Simon sighs, looking up at him fondly. “Because you’re a good, kind person and a wonderful colleague.”

Ronan says nothing, only offers a small smile before leaning down to bump his nose against his fondly.

“Right.” Simon declares with a nod, stepping back, grabbing his wrist and tugging him to their bedroom. “I’m putting you under the lights for a six hour charge and you are not leaving the bed a second earlier.”

“Yes, doctor.” Ronan smiles tiredly, pausing only to press their lips together in quiet gratitude before he lays down and closes his eyes. 

[night-dark-woods]

Are you an exclusionist/anti xenogender?

at work, so i did reread my answer briefly but BEFORE yall take me in the worst possible faith and assume what i mean, just reply to my post or send me another ask lol.

i had to look up xenogender, so nah lol. u do u, whatever floats ur boat. neopronouns are sick and however u want to describe ur experiences is frankly no ones business to have opinions on but urs.

re: "ace discourse"... theres a short and a long answer. (consider it in scarequotes for the rest of this, im just on mobile and lazy).

short answer: ace/aro people are valid, y'all exist & are welcome on my blog/in my irl life, and im not going to question ur experiences of ur life etc! again, none of my business and not my place!

long answer: i think ace discourse as it exists online has very very little bearing on how lgbtq ppl exist irl. i think straight aces/aros need to be mindful of being homophobic in online and irl spaces (eg, saying gay/lesbian/bi as ids are inherently Sexual, using "h*mosexual" as a label for people).

i think people who actively involve thmslvs in ace discourse, in general, make a lot of assumptions abt how anyone who doesnt ID as ace experiences sex/sexual attraction, and tend to disregard how sexuality, race, gender, ability, etc, affect that experience and the prejudices associated w it. i think the idea of some inherent "alloromantic/allosexual" privilege is batshit and deeply removed from the actual systems of power in place in our society. CERTAIN romantic relationships (white, cishet, wealthy, abled, child-bearing) are given societal/legal privileges, but when there r anti-miscegenation laws, being gay is criminalized in much ov the world, and disabled people cannot have savings when they get married, i REALLY dont think you can make an argument that theres some central system of oppression that privileges ALL romantic/sexual relationships lmfao.

i also think "REG" and its varieties are transmisogynistic in that they try to appropriate and expand discussions about terfs to prioritize anything and everything except the transmisogyny & actual physical harm to trans women that that ideology represents.

i also think a lot of people who aggressively call themselves "exclusionist" on here are really, unbelievably shitty to a lot of ace people on here, and thats not smth im ok with either. i think there ARE things to critique about the usage and creation of labels and microidentities in ace discourse, and the harm those can cause, and the way some discussions around consent get twisted to be about ace vs non-ace instead of about, like, rape culture.

anyway, up to u igss if u want to follow/interact? i dont consider myself Either, bc i dont particularly agree with either of the very extreme and opposed and harmful opinions on either side.

hope u have a good day, again feel free to reply/send another ask!

[candycanesuckers]

I have read through your blog. I have seen your arguments. I have seen your responses.

Your arguments are invalid. Do you seriously believe that you are the only person who watched the show who correctly interpreted the character?

And let's for a second talk about your take that since Kenji wasn't activity commiting terrorism so she had to frame him for her commiting terrorism-- because you can't have it both ways it's either terrorism or it's not. Saying that's that it's terrorism if Kenji did it means that it is terrorism when Stormfront does it. That is not something that a morally gray character would do.And obviously you agree with that considering the fact that you continuously mention that Kenji was a terrorist. Again despite not committing any acts of terrorism... Hmmm. And yet Stormfront did according to you.

Similarly in that same vein: you said that she is able to hold herself back from saying things that are not socially acceptable in her public persona because she has a platform. And you say that her using a slur--because y*llow bastard is a slur-- in private is not as bad as her saying something in public. Slurs shouldn't be part of anyone's vocabulary in public or in private.

And by the way you saying that he's pigmented blows my mind because I do truly believe you don't think it is racist. It is racist. Just because she's not dropping the n-word or the c-word does not mean that she doesn't hold very obvious prejudices! That she has carried out those beliefs by killing people. And I'm not talking about Liberty-- I'm talking about the terrorism that she committed on that apartment building's residents. By the way back to that point for a second-- If Kenji had killed anyone in that apartment building it wouldn't have been terrorism it would have been a killing spree. because it wouldn't have been politically motivated. Stormfront buy your own admission was committing terrorism because it was for political clout.

Also at one point you said Black Noir is point blank a morally bad character: What exactly has he done that Stormfront hasn't? I'm not saying that he's not a morally bad character. I'm saying that your view that Stormfront (a white woman) can be absolved of all of her bad actions while Black noir (a black man) can't is very telling as to your own personal beliefs.

You said in one of your asks that if someone came to you with new arguments and wasn't at all derogatory to you that you would not give straw hat arguments. I would love for you to point out some part of this that is in any way insulting. And is in any way inaccurate. I don't know how many people have watched this show, but you are the only one who seems to want to justify any of Stormfront's actions.

Since you like Stormfront seem to dislike the word Nazi (despite agreeing with a lot of the pillars of fascism) I've presented you with a new word for her: a terrorist.

I could go more in depth on all of your points in your pinned postbut I think we both know that you're not going to change your mind despite being wrong. You're wrong.

You've said that you being gay, the fact that gay people suffered in concentrations camps during the Holocaust, somehow absolves you of openly disrespecting people of color and Jewish people. Again: you don't get to have it both ways. To an Ashkenazi Jew you said that their views were less valid because their family suffered due to generational trauma they were too emotional to comment on Nazism. But then when people say you cannot comment on Nazism you say that your people have suffered due to the Holocaust. This is patently contradictory and a clear attempt to make it seem like your views matter more than anyone else's.

I know you're 14. You're a minor. This is an R rated show that you probably shouldn't be watching. But even so there is no textual support for your arguments. In fact there is quite a bit of textual evidence that directly opposes your views. You shouldn't need any form of analytical experience to interpret the obvious. Many people show runners, producers, the actress, and the majority of the fandom have interpreted this in the same way: Stormfront is a Nazi. There is no instance of the final product not matching the interpretation of the audience; you are not the target audience and even if you were you are in the minority.

I know that if you do respond one of your comments is going to be something along the lines of "oh you care so much you're willing to write an essay about why a 14-year-old is wrong." You're right I do care. I care. The obviously you do too based on what you have said. Saying that someone cares is not a way to discredit them. So come up with something better to say before you hit send.

I sincerely hope you answer this ask and if you don't I will assume you haven't read it and send it again.

The definition of terrorism:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Kenji was not created (and then released to the public) by Vought. He was raised by a separate militant terrorist group overseas, in which he adopted those extremist beliefs. There were no political motivations on Stormfront killing him -- he was a terrorist. If you believe Stormfront to be a terrorist due to her methods, then you must believe every other member of The Seven is a terrorist as well since this would not have happened if not for their aid.

And while slurs are bad (ignoring the fact that “yellow bastard” is not a slur but rather just explicit language), there are different levels of severity and earned consequences on the context of their usage. Someone saying it in private, where it would never become common knowledge and repeated to an impressionable audience, is not the same as someone saying slurs towards an audience that could be impacted by their language. 

Black Noir is a plainly morally-black character because he actively aids in terrorism and attacks without motive (the attack in Syria in the season 2 opener, unpromptedly attacking Starlight, and the attack on Butcher. These all had either political motivations or alternatively none).

You said you want me to point out parts of your argument(s) in which you were being rude, but like . . . You’re being polite, so why would I even try? And you’re aware of your attitude too since you indirectly pointed it out. The only thing I could say was wrong was that you called my opinions “invalid” -- there is no such thing as invalid opinions, only opposing. 

Then you talk about my sexuality, which is also odd since the whole point you make for that paragraph relies entirely on responses from me that you have mistakenly interpreted (whether purposefully or not). I never said that me being gay “absolves [me] of openly disrespecting people of color and Jewish people.” I never said, and would never say that (nor have I ever been disrespectful). I did say though that my sexuality does mean that my opinion, my voice, does have weight in it since gay people were also systematically oppressed within Nazi Germany. I don’t have any direct ties to people who were oppressed within the Nazi regime though, meaning there is not any generational trauma and my opinion wouldn’t be clouded by blind emotions.

[buh-bi-now]

Butch/Femme Bi Women

Seen a lot of rhetoric lately that amounts to “bisexual+ women who identify as butch and femme are appropriating these labels from lesbians. Lesbians use the butch/femme identifiers to distinguish themselves from people who are attracted to men. Bisexual women wear butch and femme as an aesthetic that can be removed at will, while to lesbians, these terms are an identity.”

For now, let’s side aside how ahistorical this is--there are numerous sources that can and have attested to the usage of butch and femme by sexuality categories outside of lesbian, spanning almost as far back as our first records of these words being used in the manner that they are used today. But let’s set that aside. I want to focus on this assertion: that bi+ women wear butch and femme as meaningless aesthetic choices that can be removed at will and that these terms do not carry the identity-related significance for bi+ women that they carry for lesbians. 

It’s not that lesbians are wrong about butch/femme being terms to indicate identity, often in ways that are critically important to belonging, community, and acceptance for their sexuality. However, acknowledging the way that these visual distinguishers of “butch” and “femme” operate only shows why the idea that “bi+ women don’t use these terms as meaningful identifiers” is patently false and also damaging to bi+ women. 

For example, from “‘Femme it Up or Dress it Down’: Appearance and Bisexual Women in Monogamous Relationships”:

Research has highlighted the ways in which being able to visually identify with others who are considered to be the “same as” oneself makes it more likely that they will feel accepted (Deci & Ryan, 2012). When one is recognized as a lesbian they are more likely to have access to the in-group (of, e.g., lesbian communities). This is thought to afford them the right to speak about lesbian culture and relationships, as they are validated by those around them (D’Erasmo, 2004).

Clearly, the above is the point being made when critics of butch/femme bisexuals claim that butch/femme are an aesthetic choice: that bisexual women are taking an identity on and off, while lesbians are using these visual signifiers to draw and create community and group acceptance. 

But as a somewhat masculine-presenting bi+ woman myself, this assessment did not sit right with me. Criticisms of bi+ women using the butch and femme labels often carry implications that bi+ women are attempting to piggyback on lesbian communities’ inclusivity that is supposed to be directed explicitly toward other lesbians. Bisexuals who use these terms are often ordered to create “their own” terminology, with an implication that butch and femme bisexuals are somehow being deceptive and perhaps even trying to infiltrate lesbian-only spaces where bisexual women are not welcome. 

I began to think further about this argument because I am a butch bi woman... but I’m in a long-term relationship with a man. I have spent exactly zero time attempting to enter lesbian spaces, much less lesbian-only ones, and have no interest in attracting anyone outside of my monogamous partnership at this time, even though I am attracted to gender presentation across the full range of the spectrum. In that case, why do I present as butch? The logical answer cannot be that I am attempting to infiltrate lesbian spaces and appropriate their terminology because I have no interest in entering lesbian spaces. Moreover, I am not interested in anyone thinking that I am a lesbian--because it is clear when I am with my partner that I am not solely attracted to women. 

The answer is this: I present as butch because I want people to know I’m not monosexual. 

Bi invisibility is a documented problem: 

Due to the fact that such categories [of heterosexual and homosexual] are dichotomous, they subsequently fail to permit any valid form of bisexuality that is not conceptualized as positioned in the middle of the binary. This renders bisexuality as an unstable sexual identity (Fahs, 2009) as well as perhaps contributing toward there being no appearance signifiers that explicitly relate to a bisexual identity. Thus, bisexual individuals find themselves in a space where they have little to no bisexual-specific signs and appearance mandates that mark them out as people who find more than one gender attractive (Clarke, & Turner, 2007; Hayfield, 2013; Hayfield, Clarke, Halliwell, & Malson, 2013). 

In light of the above fact, that bisexuals do not have easily available visual signifiers to identify themselves as bisexuals, it is somewhat unsurprising that--

. . . appearance displays are not necessarily always expressive of sexual preference. There are issues, then, in respect of relying on such things as gender expression or appearance to convey one’s sexual identity. However, the lesbian appearance norms the participants discussed in Hayfield’s (2013) research above, such as masculine clothing and hairstyles are arguably, well recognized in society. Such appearance signifiers are often associated with women who are attracted to other women. It is not surprising, then, that bisexual women draw from them in an attempt to render themselves visible.

So the response, “Find your own terminology!” We can’t. There isn’t terminology for bisexuals specifically because bisexual+ people destabilize the sexual binary of “you are either homo or heterosexual, you are either attracted to men or women.” Because oppressive systems rely on the strict binary of male/female in many ways, and because a bisexual+ way of being is outside of that dichotomy (both/more, rather than either/or), signifiers for bisexuality do not exist. 

What is the ultimate point I am driving at? The answer to why butch and femme is not just an aesthetic for bisexual women? Well, let’s take a look at this trend the article authors found: 

One of the consequences of being in a dyadic relationship with a person of the same gender or different gender is that it tends to overshadow a bisexual identity (Hartman-Linck, 2014; Taub,1999). Assumptions are made about a person’s sexual identity based on the gender of that person’s current partner (Diamond, 2007; Hartman, 2013). Participants understand that their same and different-gender attractions remain hidden in the context of their dyadic relationship. Therefore, one way in which participants can disrupt what others assume is their monosexual identity is to select appearance styles that do not neatly correlate with their misassumed sexual identity. It is perhaps also the case that by drawing from such appearance signifiers participants can ‘keep alive ’(Hartman, 2013; Hartman-Linck, 2014) their bisexuality in that they are able to express an aspect of themselves that is assumed to no longer be active by virtue of the fact they are in a monogamous dyadic relationship.

It must be acknowledged that this article is examining butch/femme bi women in the context of monogamous relationships, so it does have its limitations--we don’t see how this trend/pattern plays out in bi women who are not in monogamous partnerships. However, we can see how butch/femme bi women’s aesthetics fit into a larger pattern of trying to express bisexual identity in a culture that oppresses and represses that identity from all sides. This article gave a voice to at least one of the reasons that I have moved more and more toward being masculine-presenting even as my relationship with a man is going strong: I am keeping my bisexuality alive. 

I’m saying, hey world, I’m not straight, and you shouldn’t assume I am just because I’m a woman in a relationship with a man. It works in the opposite direction too -- bi women don’t want to be seen as lesbians. They want to be seen as bi women. So these article authors found that bi women in same-gender relationships often presented as more femme, especially when the two women in question were together in public. Why? Because two femme women in a romantic partnership disrupts assumed/perceived cultural stereotypes and norms that signify a purely lesbian relationship. 

In a highly visual culture that maps its assumptions onto us without our permission at all times, bi+ women are using the tools available to them to send a message that will be received and correctly perceived, and that message is this: I am not monosexual. Do not assume that I am. 

Butch and femme bi women are saying: I’m here, I’m bi, I’m not just an aesthetic, and I’m not going away just for your comfort.

Citation: Sarah Jane Daly, Nigel King & Tracey Yeadon-Lee (2018) ‘Femme it Up or Dress it Down’: Appearance and Bisexual Women in Monogamous Relationships, Journal of Bisexuality, 18:3, 257-277, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2018.1485071

[goodrakers-blog]

Invicta Best Watch Reviews in 2020

Reviews of Best Invicta Watches in 2020The Invicta-branded timepieces can be either your daring next fashion accessory or that classic, timeless piece you’ll always feel proud to wear. The name is known for its great designs that attract and satisfy customers, as well as for its engineering. Moreover, consumers love these watches for their prices, one of the most affordable Swiss watches on the market, which can be considerably lower for the discounted old models. To choose one best Invicta watches for your wrist fashion, there might be some factors in your consideration. Are they in good quality? The affordable price might worry some of the shoppers. We created this shopping guide by doing best Invicta watches review from the top-rated models, so to help the Invicta shoppers find their best Invicta without much struggle.

Are Invicta Watches of Good Quality?

This is the question being asked by many, seeing the mixed reviews. With Invicta, the quality range is rather wide. Thus, the brand’s watches can be anything from disappointing to remarkable. Truth be told, the buyer’s knowledge matters. One cannot purchase a cheap piece and expect it to be a top offering from the brand. “You get what you pay for” is definitely valid with the Invicta house, too.

Keep in mind that not all Invictas are made within the same facilities, country or even continent. This results in important differences in craftsmanship, materials, and parts. Check the desired watch’s provenience. Customers have reported problems with the straps mostly because of cheap materials; others claimed the watches came equipped with poor batteries, but that was easy to fix. The Things to Consider While Buying Invicta WatchesFirstly, you have the budget and the usage aspect to think about. Will you be wearing your watch to the pool or when scuba diving? Are you considering a Subaqua or a Diver’s model? Secondly, you must consider where it was made (China or Taiwan incur different quality standards). Note that some watches look exactly the same, yet there is a substantial price difference between them. The materials, technical aspects, and performance are usually the reason behind it.

You may want to talk to an Invicta watch collector. People who own several pieces can provide an excellent comparison. They know what is worth to pay for and what isn’t. Also, shop around and check the discounts online – Invicta is known for fabulous price reductions. Yeah, many watches fans are fancy with cheap watches that look expensive. Affordable Swiss watches(although bought by American), Invicta, are definitely that type of affordable watches that could meet your luxury expectation.

You might have your own top 10 Invicta watches. In this table, I personally pick out 10 of best-selling men’s and women’s Invicta watches from Amazon.com and make a clear comparison in terms of vital features, price and reviews rating. If you would like to choose your own Invicta watches after reading this review guide, this top 10 Invicta 2020 chart should be your good shopping entrance. Go to Website

[auntynationalsblog]

Threats to International Security [2/4]: Nuclear Weapons

In which context can nuclear weapons be a threat to international security?  Of course, one should never forget about  “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” but the fact is that those two were and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. While the threat of nuclear bombardment has been invoked quite a few times in the last seven decades (especially during the cold war), it has never actually happened. Why is that so?

Before I proceed to my argument, two caveats.

The question about nuclear weapons being a threat to international security is not about their usage, it’s about the likelihood of war between nations possessing nuclear capability, because they possess nuclear capability. If it was just about direct usage, then the answer is simple: nuclear weapons haven’t been used after 1945, so they do not pose a threat at all. But if only international relations was that straightforward! 

While I do believe nuclear weapons can be successfully used to maintain domestic security, the circumstances which accommodate such a situation are highly undemocratic ones, and therefore, not worthy of my support. For example, during the Libyan Civil War of 2011, when Gaddafi was on the verge of defeat at the hands of the rebels, he is believed to have said that the former North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-il, who took a tough stance on maintaining nuclear capability for security purposes, must have been “looking at him and laughing” (Ying 2017, p 18). Therefore, while I argue that nuclear weapons promote international peace, I am absolutely against the idea of maintaining nuclear capability and threatening its use in order to suppress domestic dissent, and in that process, protect personal power.

Two very closely related questions need to be answered:

How often did nuclear weapons bring nations to the brink of war? Did war actually break out?

I shall attempt to answer both these questions later on. But first let’s begin with the question of why? Why would states want nuclear capability? What kind of states are these? Only two types of states acquire the bomb: powerful but highly threatened states; and weaker states whose territory is protected by an ally they deem unlikely to remain present in the long-term or unwilling to ensure its other core security goals. This argument makes a lot of sense when it comes to cases like Soviet Union (cold war against the United States), India (threatened by China), Pakistan (threatened by India), Israel (surrounded by Arab states) and North Korea (threatened by the USA and South Korea). It also provides a good explanation as to why countries like West Germany or Iraq remained non-nuclear. Without a doubt, nuclear capability would enable an otherwise weak nation to stand up to more powerful adversaries. But does this newfound power become self-defeating and lead to conflict? That is the core question of nuclear proliferation.

Let’s begin conceptually. Do nuclear weapons increase the chances of war? Waltz argues that it depends on whether NWs encourage the deployment of forces, and if deployed, how active the use of force may be (Waltz 2003, p 6). The primary idea is that if NWs encourage offense, then they are bad. But if they make defense and deterrence easier, then they are good. But he is, after all, a nuclear optimist and I support his argument that nuclear weapons make deterrence easier, and lead to a lack-of-war scenario.

The so-called “nuclear peace” results when the costs of war are unacceptable for all the parties involved. For example, if both sides have mutual second-strike capability in a two-way conflict, defense becomes impossible, which makes deterrence very possible.  Additionally, in a condition of mutually assured destruction, there exists the issue of civilian “hostages”. This element encourages cooperation because the possibility of a nuclear strike wiping out a country’s population defeats the purpose of war in the first place.

Case Study: India-Pakistan stand-off: 2001-2002

To illustrate my point using a very small case study; on December 13th, 2001, five armed gunmen attempted to penetrate the Indian Parliament in a coordinated terrorist attack. They were unsuccessful as all five of them along with six Delhi Police personnel, two Parliament Security Service personnel and a gardener,  died in the gunfight that ensued. Based on telephone intercepts, the IB (Intelligence Bureau) and RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) claimed that the attackers were members of two Pakistani based terrorist organizations: Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. 

The terrorist attack increased tensions between India and Pakistan, resulting in the 2001–02 India–Pakistan standoff, which resulted in the massing of troops on either side of the border and along the Line of Control (LoC) in the region of Kashmir. But here’s the interesting part: the “standoff” did not escalate into a war, and the crisis ended in around six months. While a detailed explanation of why India showed restraint and why India and Pakistan did not go to war is beyond the scope of this blog series. I only want to argue that the awareness on both sides of each side’s nuclear capability induced mutual caution, especially when this very capability enables either country to assemble nuclear weapons at short notice. This caution was never evident on India’s part before Pakistan acquired overt nuclear capability in 1998. As K. Subrahmanyam, an Indian defense analyst pointed out, “In 1965, when Pakistan carried out its “Operation Gibraltar” and sent in infiltrators, India sent its army across the cease-fire line to destroy the assembly points of the infiltrators. That escalated into a full-scale war.” 

The Stability-Instability Paradox

It can’t be denied that Pakistan’s desire to rock the boat has increased with its acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. So nuclear weapons do indeed bring nations closer to war. So the paradox does hold in this case. But the larger point is that war did not break out because nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent. Small-scale conflicts and minor skirmishes may break out due to newfound boldness of nuclear states, but it shall never escalate into a nuclear level. But the paradox is a valid criticism of my argument if one considers regular minor skirmishes to be a threat to international security.

What of the pessimists?

Scott Sagan, a “proliferation pessimists” argue that “more will be worse” because more nuclear weapons in the hands of more states increase the chance of preventive wars, crisis instability, and an accidental nuclear detonation. Paul S. Kapur, another pessimist, argues that due to the possession of the nuclear arsenal, leaders may weigh their strategic options in such a way that makes it appear that risky behavior serves their political interests, and such a perception can lead to irreversible escalation. While all these arguments certainly cannot be ignored, the nuclear optimism argument wins simply on the grounds of real events. Pessimists claim that a lot can happen due to nuclear capability, optimists respond by saying none of that has ever happened, because of nuclear capability. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a classic example too, but I can’t get into that right now.

Therefore, nuclear proliferation does not pose a threat to international security, in fact, it has led to a world where nations think twice before escalating conflict.