#same goes for debunking misinformation

[sar-cast]

Curating your online spaces is a valuable skill now huh?

[tec-a0l]

26 years

it’s been 26 years since the massacre at CHS, and because there’s so much misinformation surrounding it, i’ve decided to make a list of the most common myths to debunk them.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“eric was the leader, dylan was a follower”

this narrative is pushed by many different sources (most notably by dave cullen), however it’s blatantly false. both dylan and eric were equally responsible for planning and following through with the massacre.

if anything, it could be argued that eric was more of a follower, as dylan wrote about committing a massacre nearly a year before eric did, and several of their friends stated that eric actually tended to follow/copy dylan in more innocuous ways. this, however is also somewhat farcical, as they made the choice to do this together, and should both be held equally as accountable.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“eric shot dylan”

this goes hand-in-hand with the “leader/follower” myth, however based on all the publicly available forensic, ballistic, and coronary/post-mortem information, dylan undoubtedly took his own life.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“they picked 4/20 because it’s h*tler’s birthday”

the intended date was 4/19, as they were inspired by the 1995 oklahoma city b*mbing done on the same date, however they weren’t prepared enough when the day came and they had to postpone.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“there were 15 victims”

yes, 15 people died that day, but only 13 of them were victims—you cannot be the victim of a massacre that you, yourself perpetrated. while it’s true that d&e were victims of an unsupportive society and intense bullying, they chose to carry out the massacre, which means they were not victims of their own violence.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“rachel & cassie were killed for believing in god”

rachel scott & cassie bernall’s martyrdom is probably one of the most prevailing myths about the massacre, but it is very much untrue. for rachel, she had no interactions with d&e on the day, as they shot her from a distance. for cassie, while she did have an interaction with eric, it was only him taunting her before taking her life—no conversation took place.

d&e did, however, ask valeen schnurr if she believed in god—to which she answered something along the lines of “no…yes, because my parents believe,” according to schnurr herself and other survivors from the library—but she wasn’t killed because of it.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“d&e were members of the trench coat mafia”

while they did wear trench coats/dusters, neither dylan nor eric properly associated with the TCM. a couple of their other friends did, but not d&e themselves.

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

“dave cullen’s book is an accurate account of the events”

this could not be further from the truth—dave cullen’s book is filled with misinformation, distorted evidence, and flat out lies. this includes the very real story of how the now-late anne marie-hochhalter—whom he never even interviewed, instead going off of random news reports—was injured. she had spoken out about it in an article, stating:

“I was injured at [CHS], and Dave Cullen's book is inaccurate and sensationalized...It felt kind of violating, to be honest,” Hochhalter says of the experience of reading Cullen's book. “He got the part about how I was injured completely wrong. I couldn't bear to read the whole thing.”

⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡ ⟡

there’s no doubt hundreds of other myths surrounding the massacre, but these are the main ones that come to mind first.

it’s important for us to remember that this was a very real event that had very real impacts on people—it’s easy to fall into the trap of disconnecting d&e from the destruction they caused, viewing them more as fictional characters you just see on your screen, but that’s far from the case.

i hope cassie, cory, daniel, danny, dave, isaiah, john, kelly, kyle, lauren, matthew, rachel, and steven all rest in peace, they were taken far too soon.

for dylan and eric, i hope their friends and families can remember the good times they had with them, and the rest of us can learn from this case and not go down the same dark path they did.

my love is with the families of all those effected by this tragedy, we owe it to them to do our best in making the world a kinder, more understanding place and taking whatever steps we can to stop more shootings from happening.

be kind to yourselves, and be kind to others.

[sarafangirlart]

Debunking some misinformation about Hephaestus and Aphrodite’s Marriage

I’m so sick and tired so I’m making a thread, enjoy. I’ll break it down into several points.

1. Hephaestus demanded Aphrodite’s hand in marriage in exchange for Hera’s freedom and Aphrodite was forced into the marriage

You’d be surprised by how this isn’t even attested in ancient sources, rather it’s just a theory made by modern scholars bc of how spotty and limited our knowledge about this marriage is, let’s look at the actual sources:

Notice how Aphrodite isn’t even mentioned mentioned as the “prize”? Hephaestus does ask for a goddess in exchange for freeing Hera, but it’s not Aphrodite, it’s Athena. The usual course of events is this:

Hephaestus is angry at Hera for her mistreatment and sends a golden throne that traps her

The other gods try to persuade him to free her but he refuses

Dionysus convinces him by getting him drunk

Again the theory that Aphrodite was the prize for whoever gets Hephaestus to Olympus is just that, a theory. Not a really good one either bc wouldn’t Aphrodite be married to Dionysus instead? It’s a really shallow portrayal of all figures involved tbh, why would Ares only be interested in freeing his mother if it meant he gets to marry Aphrodite? Why would anyone on Olympus not be worried about their queen being chained up? Believe it or not but Hera isn’t as disliked as one would think lol

Now even if Aphrodite wasn’t a prize how did she end up marrying Hephaestus? And was she forced into doing it? No actually (Lucian’s Dialogue of the gods):

That’s not to say this wasn’t an arranged marriage (it most likely was) but arranged marriage and forced marriage are not the same thing. If you think this is a forced marriage then what about Cadmus and Harmonia? Heracles and Hebe? Both these marriages were arranged by Zeus but no one would claim they’re forced marriages.

2. Aphrodite hated Hephaestus

Now this is more open to interpretation, after all love is subjective, but to say they outright hated each other would be incorrect, there is this myth that Aphrodite cursed Lemnos to have the men abandon their wives and female family members, usually bc they neglected on worshipping her (tho a late Latin source says it’s revenge for exposing her affair).

Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautica:

However this bit seems to be rather… genuine? Almost as if she might have truly felt bad for what she did and wanted to reconcile, sounds like someone with a deeply messy and complicated relationship with their partner, but not outright hate.

Also there is this moment in Lucian’s Dialogue of the Gods which is pretty funny:

3. Hephaestus only saw Aphrodite as property

Ok I don’t like using the “it was a different time” card but like… it really does apply here lol

Now we’ve already established that Aphrodite was never a prize for Hephaestus to begin with so what about the betrothal gifts he gave to Zeus? Obviously that means he was buying Aphrodite right?

Well, no actually this is a normal part of Ancient Greek marriage (obviously it varied between cities and time periods but it usually goes something like this), the father of the bride and the groom exchange gifts with each other to establish a bond between the two, the bride herself wasn’t the “gift” Zeus’s gift to Hephaestus was most likely his place on Olympus.

To say that Hephaestus bought Aphrodite would mean that Odysseus bought Penelope, or Hector bought Andromache, both are ludicrous claims.

4. Hephaestus is an incel and Ares is this big feminist icon

No, just… no.

Ares was never considered “the protector of women” in Ancient Greece that’s tumblr fanfiction and plenty of other ppl have made posts debunking this (including me) so I won’t repeat that here. Now about Hephaestus being an “incel” all the male Olympians have at least one story where they harm an innocent/defenseless woman, all of them, yes including Ares who persecuted Leto while she was heavily pregnant by Hera’s orders.

5. Aphrodite cheated to “regain her sexuality”

No Patrick, cheating on your disabled spouse with his brother in the bed and palace he made for you is not a girlboss move it’s being an asshole (all the gods are flawed, how thought provoking). Hell, even Zeus wouldn’t pull shit like this with Hera.

Aphrodite and Ares most likely did this hoping it would be the last place anyone would suspect an affair, since Aphrodite could’ve had sex with Ares in his own place or some meadow somewhere but that might cause ppl to be too suspicious.

6. Ares is a big dumb brute who can’t take a hint and only saw Aphrodite for her beauty

Believe it or not, just bc I criticize Aphrodite and Ares doesn’t mean I hate them lol. Now look, all the gods care deeply about looks but that’s not the only thing that Ares and Aphrodite love about each other. Here is Ares being a total simp and actually listening to her:

Iliad book 5

Thebaid book 3

7. Aphrodite felt neglected by Hephaestus bc he’s too busy at the forge

No lol, she straight up works with him at the forge, why wouldn’t she? If anything this claim makes Aphrodite even more shallow than she actually is.

8. Aphrodite and Ares didn’t care about being humiliated in the golden net and Ares straight up brags about cucking his brother

Yes I’ve heard such claims and no Ares and Aphrodite are actually capable of feeling shame lol, almost as if they were in the wrong. Also why would Ares actively antagonize the guy who makes all his stuff? Maybe that’s why Athena keeps beating his ass, bc Hephaestus purposely gives Ares shitty weapons and armor lol

Anyways umm… I think that’s it? Maybe I missed a few things bc I’m frustrated af rn

Just so y’all know, I’m not a scholar I’m just autistic and read a lot lol. I hope I didn’t miss something or get anything wrong.

Have a good day (or night).

[istharoth]

In love with a 2-D Character?! Frostheim Edition!

Blurb: In which you are a character in a popular game the Tokyo debunker boys are coincidentally in love with.

↪ Jin Kamurai:

Has no interest in games whatsoever.

Only caught wind of the game because Kaito was crying about not getting his favourite character.

Out of curiosity (to bond with the Chaos Combo) he downloads the game. Lo and Behold, he finds himself playing as an Inspector attempting to cure his curse.

You don't catch his eye in the character selection screen, but he goes with you anyway because you're the first person he sees in the character selection.

When he sees you, sleeping on that sofa while his character is walking towards you, trying to wake you up, something shifts in his heart.

THEN, he goes on to find information about your story and other lore tidbits.

Finds out you play the piano and despairs because why tf are you not real?!

He gets every edition of you. R, SR, SSR, including your best equipment. He only pulls on your banners and spends money only for you.

Every other character in his roster is stuck at level 1 while every card of you is maxed out.

He doesn't go out of his house but whenever there's a convention that the fandom is going to be at, he goes outside.

Buys every single merch of you he finds his eyes on.

If there's an official event for you at a cafe or restaurant in another city, he won't go but he will pay others to go for him and ship him the additions you get from participating in the official event.

He has a fan account of you on twitter, retweets every art and fanfiction of you he finds. His home screen + lock screen + pfp will change every time he finds a new art piece of you.

↪Tohma Ishibashi

He's also on the list of wasn't interested in the game.

But Jin started playing it and all he could talk about was his favorite character so he gave the game the chance.

Immediately did not like Jin's favourite character. You didn't catch his eye, instead he went for another character.

When he first saw, suit and all, lifting that heavy-ass weapon, he realized he needed something he didn't have.

OH AND YOUR VOICE!?!?! The way you tease your younger classmen, even though it's an invasion of privacy, he's strangely attracted to you.

You're like a butler, and when he finds out you're not as smart as you look (this is literally just Tohma's character omg) he's going to buy a ring to propose to you.

AND YOU'RE FRIENDS WITH THE CHARACTER HE SELECTED?! Now he just has to wait for your banner to get you.

[He's one of those people who loves a character but they go years without obtaining that character.]

Literally makes edits of you with those same official pictures. He likes the characters that the company keeps in the basement.

HAS taken pictures with every cosplayer who cosplayed you.

Will correct everyone if they say something wrong about your lore. He will not see misinformation about you being spread around, nuh uh.

↪ Lucas Errant

Luca also isn't very much into games. He's focusing on his studies for now but when Kaito shows him a picture of you and his favourite character saying "Us, unfortunately" he downloads the game.

Selects the first character that pops up on the selection screen thinking he can change it later, he doesn't and he's going to lament it forever.

But luckily, he gets you on his first ten pull! You're his main now, every good piece of equipment he has will immediately go to you, though he's so guilty every time he takes a piece out from another character to give you.

When he sees you're a bit unhinged but very protective, he decides that he's going to make the best content for you, very wholesome content. He loves interacting with fanwork of you.

Is the nicest in your fandom. He's replying with those cute animals under every fanart of yours, like every fanart someone presses on, Luca's comment is already there.

Isn't too obsessive over you, you're just a character, he understands boundaries, he isn't too big on merch either.

But, he LOVES your voice actor's covers of about anything. Classical music goodbye, covers of songs by your voice actor is on repeat.

wants to attend your events so badly but he's a bit nervous about meeting so many people who also adore you.

↪ Kaito Fuji

...okay where do I begin.

He got the Frostheimers into the game in the first place.

Spent two whole hours deciding on who to select in the character selection screen. EVERYONE WAS TOO DAMN GOOD LOOKING.

But then he saw you in the prologue, you were stuck with his player character in a closet and you were so understanding of him!!

He fell bad right then and there.

Cue the regret of not selecting you for the selection screen.

every fanart on Twitter knows him, a few of them even blocked him because of his atrociously downbad comments about you.

his tweets about you belong in the hall of shame or fame, whatever you prefer.

Gambling? Gambling.

Maybe his bank called him one or two times telling him he didn't have money to spend.

Eventually had to borrow money from Romeo and even then failed to get you. His luck is bad irl and ingame, cut him some slack.

He loves you though, and spends his life daydreaming about you and his life together in a cottage in the woods, away from money-hungry debt collectors.

you know those people at kpop concert who bake sweets to give to people while they camp outside? Yeah, when there's an official event he goes around doing the same. He gets freebies of you for making cookies.

Next: [Vagastrom]

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Do you think artists should stop and think before they market-off a memed animal? I've seen many art and memes of Moo Deng lately shared all over social media. I know these artists are probably just as enchanted by "cute funny baby hippo" as every other consumer of these memetic photos but I think they are unfortunately contributing to the hype and misinformation.

Hmm it's hard to say. I don't want to come in and ruin everyone's fun but it does seem like the zoo itself doesn't want anyone but them profiting off Moo Deng's image...

So artists may find themselves in some trouble if the zoo successfully trademarks her image.

Personally I feel that there is something nasty about profiting off the image of a potentially distressed baby animal. The memes and videos of her seem to have some awareness that she's not happy - she's "raging", representing her as "feminine rage" ect.

But there's some weird dissonance of understanding that she's upset but then laughing it off with labels like "sassy" or "a brat".

Kind of like how horse people will laugh off their horse's stress behaviours as "crazy" or "sassy" because it's easier than acknowledging that they're stressed. And they can feel less guilty about pushing them through that stress with some sort of coercion or force and continue on with their enjoyment of the horse.

People who want to "consume" Moo Deng through art, merch ect will bend over backwards to justify that her treatment is okay because they are prioritising their happiness and the artist is prioritising their ability to monotise something. This is why in the same breath of laughing about "Moo Deng is raging", they'll turn around and say that actually she's playing or that this handling is necessary actually because it's some sort of desensitisation practise.

The cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

It's kind of a fascinating study of objectification of animals, putting this one animal on a pedestal as an icon and projecting whatever they want onto her. It's also why this (1) reddit "debunking" post of like "trust me guys, my experience is: goes to the zoo" and people breathe this big sigh of relief of "phew! the baby hippo is only man handled a few times a day! I can consume this meme without feeling guilty yay!"

[phoenixyfriend]

It would be great if people stopped using real atrocities as an excuse to hate on a White Girl Brand.

Even BDS does not focus on Starbucks. They haven't mentioned it since 2014.

"I'm boycotting Starbucks in support of Palestine!" No, chance are you saw a chance to talk shit about a brand that's popular and it makes you feel like you're better than everyone else. It gets notes. Why talk about actual boycotts like Chevron and HP and Sodastream and Puma when you can give people an excuse to hate That Popular Thing That Girls Like?

"But they shut down that one group for being pro-Palestine!" They shut it down with political speech as the EXCUSE. That was not about Palestine. It was about unions. That was a union-busting action. Not a political one. It was a stupid union-busting action because of the bad press it got them for supposedly being pro-Israel, but it was about the union. From the corporate perspective, it was about the union. It was a chance to take down one of the unions.

EDIT: Other claims of explicit zionism by the company as a whole have been debunked. The matter of Howard Schultz is more complicated. See below.

Boycott the company for its union-busting. A boycott without a clear message doesn't do shit, and you are wasting your time and energy, and spreading misinformation besides.

You are NOT HELPING PALESTINE by spreading misinformation. Sure, the opportunity to hate on Starbucks is going to mean more people share your past and it goes farther, but it's also going to make them think that boycotting a company that has nothing to do with Israel is going to help, rather than, say, paying attention to the gas pumps they use or the food they eat.

The above image is from the BDS page on economic boycotts. It's official as of early January. This is on the same page:

We must strategically focus on a relatively smaller number of carefully selected companies and products for maximum impact. We need to target companies that play a clear and direct role in Israel’s crimes and where there is real potential for winning, as was the case with, among others, G4S, Veolia, Orange, Ben & Jerry’s and Pillsbury. Compelling large, complicit companies, through strategic and context-sensitive boycott and divestment campaigns, to end their complicity in Israeli apartheid and war crimes against Palestinians sends a very powerful message to hundreds of other complicit companies that “your time will come, so get out before it’s too late!”

Many of the prohibitively long lists going viral on social media do the exact opposite of this strategic and impactful approach. They include hundreds of companies, many without credible evidence of their connection to Israel’s regime of oppression against Palestinians. Many do not have clear demands to the companies as to what we expect them to do to end the boycott, making them ineffective.

I'm not saying that Starbucks SHOULDN'T be held accountable for using the Gaza war as a point of contention in their unrelated union situation. It was a shitty thing to do, and incidentally and indirectly supported Israel.

EDIT: I've been given some information on how Howard Schultz, the CEO, has investment ties to Wiz and other Israeli companies that are actually involved with current events. This is significantly more than I was previously finding. If you choose to boycott for this reason, have at ye.

However, I do still hold to my stance that companies ACTUALLY BEING TARGETED by BDS should be the ones name-dropped in posts that feature calls to action. It's a matter of efficiency and effectiveness. The more people that are led to believe that Starbucks is the biggest bad in the room, the less people will join in boycotts and divestment of McDonald's, Papa John's, Pizza Hut, Burger King, Wiz, Airbnb, Caterpillar, Chevron, and all the other companies that BDS is saying are actually important to stop giving money to.

Back to the original post.

But.

BUT

The proliferation of specifically anti-Starbucks rhetoric as a supposed form of pro-Palestine Action is overshadowing ACTUAL ACTION. If every single post about boycotting to support Palestine mentions Starbucks, and maybe Puma or Sodastream, but doesn't mention any of the two dozen other companies that BDS states are actually crucial to making a change, including other American food franchises (that just do happen to be more stereotypically boy-popular, like pizza and burger chains), then you are ACTIVELY taking away support from the boycotts that matter.

And the reason this happens is because "Starbucks bad" feeds into the confirmation bias for people that already dislike it for being popular or overpriced or not to their taste.

So take a step back. Ask yourself, "am I boycotting Starbucks because I actually believe it will help and am listening to groups like BDS, or am I just using this as an excuse to badger people into avoiding a franchise I already dislike?"

Okay? We on the same page?

Great. Now check if your local Starbucks is unionized, if their union is asking customers to boycott THEM, and then maybe boycott anyway.

But check if it's actually doing something or just distracting you from real activism, first.

[endiness]

Debunking misinformation about Netflix's The Witcher (Part 4)

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7]

"The Witcher producer blames dumb American audiences for simplifications to the story."

Any headline and article remotely resembling that is just clickbait — and clickbait with the fairly obvious purpose of inciting the fanbase against the show and the people involved in making it. In the original article as translated by Redanian Intelligence, Tomek Baginski explains some of the reasons for the simplifications to the story such as having to adjust things due to normal tv production problems:

Along with creating shows for a broader audience in general:

Given that he brings up a project he pitched that never even made it past that stage due to American network executives and producers not understanding the moral complexities of it, I think it is fairly obvious that he is not blaming American audiences, or audiences in general, for any simplifications to the story but rather speaking broadly about how creating shows — and, yes, shows largely for an American audience because the studios producing these shows and funding them are usually American — works.

Btw, these are also Baginski's comments about Tiktok — which he made a year before the above comments — as they're usually brought up in conjunction with the clickbait headline to further incite the fandom as they're framed in a way that makes it seem like he made both sets of comments at the same time even though he didn't:

BAGINSKI: I see the fastening of the processes Jacek Dukaj wrote about in his book – “Po piśmie” (“After the script”). We resign from cause-and-effect chains, from the linear narration. This book-like narration. When it comes to shows, the younger the public is, the logic of the plot is less significant. INTERVIEWER: What is significant, then? BAGINSKI: Just pure emotions. A bare emotional mix. Those people grow up on TikTok, Youtube, they jump from a video to video… INTERVIEWER: You’re talking to such person. BAGINSKI: So, it’s time to be serious: Dear children, what you do to yourself makes you less resilient for longer content, for long and complicated chains of cause an effect. INTERVIEWER: You’re talking about something else that’s hidden between your words. What you mean is that you don’t know how to make a show kids’d like to watch. BAGINSKI: Generally, I try to know what people react to and like to watch. Long and complex narratives will remain, it’ll be like a classic shelf in a bookstore. People will still read that, it will be popular at some point. But the edge of the mass audience is moving a bit into the a less linear narration, less cohesive one. I think it’s inevitable. As reading is not natural for the human brain. INTERVIEWER: Yep, you gotta learn it, it’s hard. BAGINSKI: Oh, in this sense, yes. You need a lot of effort to learn to recognise all these symbols. You probably don’t remember that. If you’re a genius, you read when you’re 3. It’s some big effort for your brain, moreover, it’s not natural. The things we receive with our heads… There’s nothing literary there. We have to learn literature. Learn to receive it and write it. It’s like mathematics, a lot of abstract symbols you have to learn to recognise. People who understand it will remain, the people who work on narration, they have to work on texts. But, more and more people won’t need it. Why write if I can record or say it? Why write if I can receive emotions in a different way. It’s a controversial thesis. When Dukaj published it, there was a lot of arguments like: “But I still read! My friends, too!” However, we talk about trends in a scale. INTERVIEWER: Yeah, it’s not about you or your friend. BAGINSKI: We talk about global trends. The success of TikTok wouldn’t be possible without that. It’s happening. It’s just easier to watch and click, watch another one, than read a book and follow all those twists and plots. We’ll see how it goes. I think The Witcher is safe for now, there are still a few more years… Maybe it’s because of the generation.

Which is also clearly just a commentary on younger audiences in general and a general shift in the overall trend of how media is consumed and the type of media being consumed. (Also, like, he even says "I think The Witcher is safe for now." ie this argument doesn't even apply to it currently.)

Also just to add, but here's Lauren talking about the reasons behind some of the simplifications and changes, too:

Which mainly has to do with the inherent problems that come from adapting one media form to another along with having a limit amounted of time and resources in which to tell the story.

"‘The Witcher’ Casting Director Says Yennefer Casting Was To ‘Challenge Beauty Standards.’"

In order to get into it, here is what Sophie Holland, the casting director, had to say in the original article from Variety:

Every subsequent article reporting on the original is, once again, just another example of misleading clickbait designed to incite the fanbase against the show and its cast and crew — and clickbait pushing very blatant racist agenda at that. Because either the articles deliberately misconstrued what Sophie said to somehow mean that she thought Anya was ugly even though Sophie obviously did not think that and she was commenting on how whiteness is seen as the default and standard in beauty and she wanted to challenge that ideal and/or the articles were just outright critical of her for wanting diversity.

[gloriousburden]

how did u get ur phd in lokiology, like aside from watching the films did u look for and find a bunch of interviews and like directors commentaries, tie in official media like the prelude comics, etc? or from reading abt other blogs that are knowledgeable abt him, or ur own analysis on what is known? if it's the first is there like an archive of all of that meta info and links? bc i feel so satisfied everytime i find one more piece of content like that LOL i also wanna get my phd! :)

OMG FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED… AHHHHHHHHHHH 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

A bit of everything that you’ve mentioned, actually! Mainly from watching the movies, and examining/becoming familiar with his scenes/behaviors myself, as well as reading others posts about him. I do look at older interviews/quotes from Tom Hiddleston about him quite often (as well as things that directors/writers have said like you mentioned), but I do tend to mainly stick with canon.

@/abby118 has a meta side blog. It’s in her pinned, and her views on Loki pretty much align with my own. Do definitely check out her posts/blogs! She has a lot of great thoughts on Loki.

I really like looking at older meta posts on Loki as well. From before the Loki series brain worms got to everyone 😁 those tend to be A LOT more accurate. I also reblog some others meta posts under the tag #loki meta

And I tag my own thoughts on Loki under #loki 💭 (tagged both these below so you can look through them)

There are distinctive traits of Loki’s, but a lot of us have different perspectives on him. Some of us have gotten different impressions of him. Two of us could see the same scene, and think entirely different things about it. That’s why it’s good to read up on a lot of other’s views, as well as seeing if it correlates to canon.

Oh more tags you could look through for Loki meta posts: #in defense of loki/#loki deserves better. Those are pretty good

My main thing is: stay away from fanon/theories that can be debunked, and analyze his scenes. Become familiar with his traits. Become familiar with what is actually canon and HOW it is canon. Is it canon in a deleted scene? Is it canon due to something Tom or a director/writer said? Is it a theory/speculation from Tumblr? Avoiding mischaracterization/misinformation is necessary to me.

I’m not sure of your own thoughts on the series, but the mischaracterization was so disheartening to me that I became Veryyyyyy serious about his character. I wanted to make sure he’s represented properly. Which also helped me learn more about him and fall in love with him more. I loved his original writing so much, that it upset me that anyone would want to change and disregard that. He’s very interesting to me, and I love everything about him. I like everything being as accurate to the source as possible. I also keep in mind that there’s always more for me to learn about him. There’s always more questions to be asked.

OH yeah I do go based off my own analysis a lot of the time, but also other’s! There are definitely a lot of things that some people say that I do not agree with. For example: I don’t believe the theory that Loki was mind controlled by the scepter in the Avengers. A lot of people tend to agree with that to certain extents, but I do not at all.

I do not think Loki is an entirely innocent character. What I do think is: he has been a victim and has suffered, but he also has been an antagonist/villain. I don’t think it’s wrong to say that he was the villain of the Avengers, although it wasn’t fully on his own accord. He was a victim of Thanos, but he quite literally was a villain. Loki is very versatile, and people tend to think that he can only be one thing. He can’t be bad, but he also can’t be good. In reality… it’s both. This goes back to the myths.

He’s been done wrong by so many people around him, but he’s also done wrong as well. Well, I do think what he’s done was to a less extent, but… 😁

I don’t want to pretend that he’s fully good, or that he’s fully bad. That’s what makes him so damn interesting. He’s everything!!

I try to be realistic. I don’t want my own feelings about Loki to sway what I believe about him, if you understand what I mean. I try not to be biased.

[glittiris]

This community is severely parasocial. People are commenting on Melanie’s posts begging her to speak out about the allegations and among those comments there’s people claiming to be spiraling and having mental breakdowns over the allegations. That’s concerning and not normal, and I wish the fandom was smarter to understand why having a mental breakdown/spiral over some famous woman’s allegations isn’t normal.

On the other hand, I’m surprised such a large number of fans never knew about the allegations. For me, it’s been impossible to be in fan spaces and on fan pages without seeing comments saying “Felonie Martinez” or asking “didn’t she SA someone?” It’s super surprising they managed to avoid all that and get this far without knowing because it’s literally unavoidable.

Something I keep seeing is people stating the allegations, but then adding on the rumor that she’s difficult to work with. I think that makes y’all look really dumb because who the hell cares that she was difficult to work with when she was 20? Even as a Melanie Martinez fan, the allegations are more important and shouldn’t be lumped in with that dumb shit. That could easily just be an opinion from some bitter associate that didn’t enjoy her work environment and makes the allegations sound the same when put along side it. You just don’t sound very smart putting something dumb, petty and irrelevant beside something serious. It’s like: “She SA’d someone and also her merch quality has gone down.” Huh? What does that have to do with it? That’s so irrelevant.

EDIT: I’m seeing people claim she SA’d a minor which again- spreading misinformation doesn’t help the victim. I don’t get why people don’t understand that. Lies aren’t helpful to Timothy, dummy.

People are also saying she draws CP which is simply just not true. I saw a post here on tumblr of someone saying that and not even showing the art, and I’m suspicious of that because wouldn’t you want to show people the “terrible” art Melanie drew?

The first one is a self-portrait and the second isn’t even inappropriate. It was so easy to find these photos and debunk this rumor for myself. If you want people to take the allegations seriously, you need to focus on getting the facts out rather than tacking bullshit onto it. I understand that two issues can exist at once, but these are all non-issues that aren’t helpful to Timothy.

Finally, only Melanie and Timothy know what happened in 2017 and it’s not our situation to get involved in. This goes back to the fandom being severely parasocial. I don’t think Melanie is going to speak on the issue and that’s ok because it’s not our situation. When did we become so entitled? You don’t know either of these women and all these allegations should mean to you is deciding whether or not to support anymore.

I don’t like Melanie as a person because I don’t know her. She makes art I enjoy and that’s all I’ve invested my emotions & love into. Stop enmeshing yourself with celebrities and using them as a crutch for your mental illnesses. You like her art, not her. Telling her through comments that you’re spiraling and having a mental breakdown over her situation is sick. I don’t care if you believe the allegations are true, y’all are freaks for that and two things can be true at once. Go outside.

[katyspersonal]

(Responding in a bundle)

Anon, I think this mentality is dangerously close to "just ignore the problem until it goes away" logic and in my opinion we should move long past it as society! Don't forget that bad takes also are never far from bad treatment of other fans. Yes, right, I could "just block and move on XD" past generally wrong takes and toxic posts, but you know who could not do that? People that lack information or critical approach to the point of agreeing with these bad takes!

Gehrman from Bloodborne is the quickest example from my memory of why you, in fact, should debunk wrong and bad shit loudly! Whenever someone starts the discourse about how he is a misogynist creep that was obsessed with Maria and made a gross tradwife version of her, people will enthusiastically approve all because "yeah, how can you ignore the fact that he tells us to fuck the Doll and that he had a mania towards her?!" ...until I step in and inform people that their supportive arguments are mistranslations and also tell them what victorian mourning dolls are. When it isn't me, it is other people, but guess who infected the fandom with the knowledge of these mistranslations to begin with?

Sometimes people go "ooooh I did not know that, now Gehrman doesn't seem so bad!", sometimes they delete their reblogs of enthusiastically agreeing with slandering him, a couple of posters of these slanders deleted their original posts as they "did not want to spread misinformation any longer"... a few people gotten into always checking Japanese script for Soulsborne games after debates like this. The thing is.. yeah, with reblogs/quoteretweets, the toxic post or bad faith take is seen by more people, but at the same time, the reasoning for why this post is wrong is also seen by more people! And it is just like this with everything! Even without my or anyone else's objections, people scan tags and follow blogs and seek new posts for their interests, so they will always see that stuff anyways. But will they see only the initial post, or they will also see the reasons why it is wrong in a tangent? Toxicity cannot get "quarantined" to the point where it is unable to convince people that don't know any better.

As for why reblog/quoteretweet/comment instead of just vagueing them: I do actually sometimes create lore posts as vague combat for something wrong I've seen! In fact, often! But at the same time, I am more comfortable personally when I come in contact with the person and have concrete and visible points to debunk. If you want a person who is extremely well-versed in Elden Ring lore, is very chill, never ever ever attacks first, can dismantle every bad take that exists swiftly and through fully objective eyes, but also just 'vagues' instead of directly debating, you should totally follow @blasphemousclaw ! They do exactly what you suggested, and do it VERY well, and their posts are honestly the best vaccine from being sold onto any bad faith take that exists!

As for this, my friend Val saw that post against his will because Tumblr's recommendations system is clowning, and then I saw that post against my will because he responded to it fhfsdhfd It was not meant to be an attack on a person but on the TAKE itself, especially since it was so unfounded and frustrating

Generally it is just the same stuff. I responded being full ready that this person won't even bother to read what I or Val said, let alone change their mind. I responded for the sake of other people who see this post, because someone who is quick to jump to conclusions might see this take and go "ah yeah Gaius sucks and is such a lazy character!!!", but now the information for why that is just not true is also out there for other people to see. I've had a mutual who was just like this: she didn't think of lore very much beyond several very specific preferences but was willing to know more, so she reblogged every single bit of dunking on SOTE enthusiastically from various blogs and grew more and more convinced of its (nonexistent) "bad writing" and "bad taste messages". Even complete nonsense like how Fromsoft accidentally excused genocide by giving Marika a backstory or how It Should Have Been Godwyn. It just doesn't sit right with me that some people basically learn lore from extremely confirmation bias blogs that do not even actually care about lore or writers' intention!

When it isn't a SOTE hater, it is a person that says giving Marika agency and war crimes is misogyny. "Yelling in the void" just doesn't work on websites like Twitter or Tumblr because unless someone straight up disables reblogs and c*ns*rs *ll n*m*s l*k* th*s, it will be seen. Except not really, because even someone liking a post can end up in your recommendations. From a person you don't even follow! Post don't actually go into a vacuum.

Also, I can sympathise with the mental state of where you don't want to think of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, correct or incorrect to say and all and just want to vent and be accepted as is! Personally though, when I need that, I go to my friends or just people that I know can understand! And when I do make a choice to be public about something, I accept the risks of someone outside of my circle seeing my post and disagreeing with me. Open internet like blog services or social media are not for closed bubbles, they are meant for open engagement!

That being said, I do not intend to make a habit of responding to that person's posts regularly, or regularly responding to any blog that specialises on negativity if you're worried about that;; I do not seek information but react on what just happens to find me! I am autistic, my mental health gets worse when people trash on my favourite developers and on my special interest and on the characters I like. I think if someone has a right to lash out at my interests, then so I have a right to lash out about that lashing out, and the recursion can continue! SOTE hate is still quite widespread, and sometimes one can't help but blow up, especially when faced with such bad-faith arguments

[itsyveinthesky]

Separating Fact from Fiction on Social Media in Times of Conflict

In a time of crisis, social media is flooded with images, videos and bold claims. This can be useful for researchers like ourselves but overwhelming for the general public seeking the facts.

At Bellingcat, we pride ourselves on providing tools and resources for our audience to think critically about sources they find online. In this short guide, we give a few tips on what to consider when confronted with an abundance of footage and claims.  Here’s how to separate fact from fiction with real, recent examples of misinformation.

1. Be Cautious

Treat all footage and claims with caution. Sometimes real footage can be attributed to false claims and vice versa. For example, in one of our latest investigations Bellingcat found that the airstrike captured in a viral video occurred near the intersection of Al-Rashid and Beirut Streets, at approximately 31.516746, 34.428689, behind the lattice tower visible in the clip and did not hit the mentioned church as claimed in posts.

The church also debunked the attack on Facebook.

The same area was attacked at a later date, on October 19, 2023, and two assembly halls on the church property were then damaged.

In the process of geolocating footage related to the viral video claiming to show the church site, Bellingcat found evidence that strikes did occur in densely populated areas in the vicinity of several schools. The amplification of the false church claim, as a result, may have obscured a real violation. You can read the full debunk here.

2. Think Critically

Particularly about big, incendiary claims. When big news stories hit, we see a lot of recycled footage posted on social media. Recycled footage is footage from other conflicts or time periods that are published as if they are from the current event. 

Often details in the footage like signage or other details in the surroundings can give a clue to the true time or place the video was taken. 

For example: France 24 has repeatedly debunked a video often amplified by European far-right groups, allegedly showing migrants in Calais throwing stones across a motorway. The video is actually from a protest in Israel after the police shot an Ethiopian Jew which sparked Israel’s Black Lives Matter moment in July 2019. France 24 geolocated the surroundings and the markings on the road to a highway in Israel, far away from Calais, France where the video was repeatedly claimed to have been taken.  

3. Check the Source

Responsible researchers will always name the source of footage they share or analyse. Too often footage goes viral without a source—let alone an original one—listed. Be cautious if the source of the video or claim is unclear.

Simply checking the source listed can often quickly debunk any suspicious claims.  TikTok videos re-shared on other platforms, for instance, usually have the original poster’s username watermarked onto the footage.

For example, in 2022 a video of an alleged news report went viral. In the video, a reporter stands in front of a line of ‘body bags’ discussing the Russian ‘military operation’ in an American accent and the caption reads “Ukranian Health Ministry: 57 dead, 169 hurt across Ukraine as Russia launches attack.” During the report, the person in the body bag behind the reporter starts to move. The video was shared with an array of claims, ranging from the dead coming back to life to assertions that the Ukrainian authorities were staging deaths to grow support for their cause. Elementary fact-checks will show any savvy individual that this footage did not show what was claimed. A quick search on Google of the reporter’s name shows that they have never reported on such an incident. A reverse image search using a screenshot from the video reveals that the news report was taken and manipulated from coverage of a climate protest in Austria in February 2022. Fake audio had been added to the video and was easily disguised by the fact the reporter’s mouth could not be seen as he/she was wearing a mask. The Associated Press originally debunked this claim and their factcheck can now be found linked to the original misleading post on Facebook. 

The church also debunked the attack on Facebook.

The same area was attacked at a later date, on October 19, 2023, and two assembly halls on the church property were then damaged.

In the process of geolocating footage related to the viral video claiming to show the church site, Bellingcat found evidence that strikes did occur in densely populated areas in the vicinity of several schools. The amplification of the false church claim, as a result, may have obscured a real violation. You can read the full debunk here.

4. Remember that the Same Location Doesn’t Mean the Same Incident

Even if the footage is from the area, it doesn’t mean it is from the same event. 

One simple way to check is to use Google reverse image search on video screenshots to see if they’ve been posted before.

For example, Bellingcat contributor Chris Osieck found that this video allegedly showing rocket fire in Palestine in October was indeed filmed in the Gaza Strip, but that it was from May 13, 2023.

He found an earlier instance of the footage labelled as showing the destruction of the Za’anin family’s home in the same region. This attack was part of fighting that occurred in May 2023. 

5. Be Savvy to Manipulation and AI Generation

When all footage or photographs connected to an event go viral, you often see accounts pop up distributing manipulated or altogether fake imagery. Free and easy to access AI-powered image generation tools have now made this type of content faster to create and more common. Although not always accurate, tools like aiornot.com can help disprove claims quickly. 

For example, a video went viral in March 2022 allegedly showing Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling Ukrainian soldiers to “lay down their arms” and claiming that he had decided to “return Donbas” to Russian control. Many media outlets and Zelenskyy himself debunked the video. Whilst watching the video, one can see his head appears disproportionately sized in contrast to his body. His voice is also slower and deeper than in usual addresses. 

6. Be Cautious of State Actors, Which Sometimes Share Staged or Unreliable Footage

In times of conflict, it is not unknown for state actors to imply bad faith on the part of their adversaries. In some cases, staged videos appear online. For example, in March 2023, a dashcam video circulated allegedly showing a Ukrainian soldier abusing a Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizen. Pro-Russian figures and Russia’s Foreign Ministry shared the video on social media. Bellingcat and other eagle-eyed viewers, however, geolocated the footage to deep inside Russian-controlled territory. You can read the full story here.

7. Know That, Sometimes, News Organisations Get it Wrong

When you discover new claims about footage, always check for a secondary media source, ideally one that has obtained the information independently of the first source. News organisations and leading figures can sometimes use quotes from each other as sources of information (see an example that we found here) and sometimes verification steps slip through the cracks. For example, in a famous example in 2019, ABC News broadcasted a fake video on both its ‘World News Tonight’ and ‘Good Morning America’ programmes. The video was reportedly sent to them by a trusted fixer and claimed to show the Turkish military bombing Kurdish civilians in a Syrian border town. Viewers spotted that it looked incredibly similar to a video on YouTube from a Kentucky gun range called Knob Creek. The footage had been altered slightly, but the two video timelines matched. ABC issued a statement and took down the video from their broadcasting. 

8. Protect Your Mental Health

Watching footage from war zones can cause trauma. 

Be careful viewing unknown footage. There is almost always an abundance of highly disturbing content circulating during times of conflict.

Always ask yourself if there is a genuine reason you need to view this footage. Organisations like Bellingcat have teams of researchers trained to view such footage with therapeutic support in place to assist them. If you do find something that needs attention, you can share it with a trusted news source rather than viewing it and amplifying it yourself. 

If you are an open-source researcher, you can find Bellingcat’s guide explaining ways to better protect your mental health whilst undertaking this role here. The Dart Center also has robust advice on the risk of vicarious trauma. 

[sysbrrr]

Intro

Welcome to Sysbrrr! This is a blog dedicated to syscourse and the debunking of misinformation surrounding dissociative disorders.

A little bit about me: I am 26, professionally diagnosed, and read a lot of clinical resources on CDDs. However, I am not a professional, and I will not be able to provide you with advice or concrete answers beyond linking medical papers and sharing personal experiences.

My page is anti-endo. Endogenics are not welcome here. The same goes for homophobes, transphobes and other general DNI criteria.

My asks are always open, also for random silliness!

[the80srewinders]

this anon sent hella misinformation so I'm going to debunk all of it.

first off I never had an iPad? I hate apple, I only had an iPod touch bc it was someone else's old one and I didn't want it to go in the trash bc it's a collectors item. I don't even use it anymore.

and sure I hate the outdoors, but you don't need to go outside to have sense and be a decent person. people put too much emphasis on going outside and less emphasis on learning how to be a good person.

and most of my time indoors isn't social media time. I'm researching a lot of topics and learning a lot of skills that I can with my mental and physical disabilities. I want to be worth something and help people, so I learn how.

a lot of people with DID use social media because we're just like you? we deserve to have normalcy too. and social media hasn't done near the damage Hollywood has to us. ask any "real" did system.

npd and DID can be co morbid. in fact most people I've met with DID have npd. where did you get this opinion from, the narc abuse believers?

I never revealed too much about my trauma. I have kept much more secret than you know, the trauma I've shared is just the mildest or the safest to share. there is much more nobody will ever know.

my younger cousin wasn't my first abuser and you're acting like I said she was my only abuser. hell no if that was true I wouldn't have did because her abuse didn't happen in the DID development time frame. and you can be abused by people younger than you. what you said just erased elder abuse.

also two minors can't consent even if they think they do, it's not right for two innocent kids to fuck and it shows that the kids have been abused and need help.

and the fact I have disabilities makes what she did even more so abuse.

also, I never blamed a child for my disorders or all my trauma.

I never said I hated the ramcoa community. I said I didn't like how they make it seem like it's all cult abuse. there's other forms of ritual abuse besides cult abuse, and there's people who've been sex trafficked without RA or MC. there's survivors who are sensible and know that the ISSTD and dated stereotype that "ramcoa is mostly the most unimaginable cult abuse" is unrealistic and you'll find many of those. I just wish the ramcoa community focused less on cult abuse.

you can be trafficked in your own home. the person who sexually abused me first did so by making me their prostitute *and* they were being paid to do so with money they used to fuel their drug addiction. that, even if I was never "dramatically ripped from my mom's arms, sold and abused more horrifically than you can imagine" it legally counts as child sex trafficking because it's fucking prostitution of a child. and there are ramcoa survivors who have callback programming and feel worthless unless they're being abused. that's a fucking normal part of RAMCOA. that's what I have been expressing, that and invalidity caused by people in the "trauma survivor" community who say things like you.

also, abuse is not love. it might feel like it to a programmed system, but it is *not* love and I have alters who hate it and tell me how much they hate me for wanting abuse. these alters have made me cut and caused me to attempt suicide because we can't stand to be in the same brain with each other.

also, people with developmental disabilities, especially intellectual disability get abused more often. they're so naive that abusers use this.

and as far as hoping I get r@p3d again goes, I have been raped once again this year, and I've been sexually assaulted as recently as a few days ago. I felt hurt, scared and sad all of those times and thought "why did I want this to happen? maybe I deserve it. why am I not enjoying it like I thought I would?" don't fucking say shit like that because you don't know how much it can push a victim over the edge.

and I've been fighting suicidal thoughts like hell lately. I've came so close to attempting but haven't, I've self harmed a lot and go back and forth between planning suicide. reading that almost made me really do it.

also, I'm not Internet addicted? I rely on Internet to have a life because of how mentally and physically disabled I am. id love to put my phone and coloring books down and ice skate, ballet, hang out alone w friends irl, work, yk be a normal human and not a waste of space? unfortunately the Internet is the only place I can matter or be worth anything to anyone, I've tried making friends irl and have trauma with it bc all my irl friends left except one. I also put the "iPad" (that I never had LMAOOO) down and do other things, like paint, draw, make jewelry, write and therapy which you should get.

you've spent too much time on systemscringe. real systems are nothing like what systemscringe makes did/OSDD out to be. they spread misinformation just like ENDOS.

and no I ain't gonna kill myself, I wanna stay alive and spite all the haters.

[starryjkoo]

Whenever you feel dumb, remember that today tkk made a thread saying JK is hand signing VK always BF etc. LMAO who's gonna tell them Jk was actually spoiling his Seven Choreography. Go and watch his Seven 'official performance' video and at the 0:45 mark, you can see when he starts to dance, its the same hand gestures. He was giving a spoiler to Army and tkk be like OMG VK is real. Poor JK, just doing what the choreographer taught him to do and thought he'd give a spoiler and somehow they still trying to link it to their dead ship. I bet they have no idea its from Seven either, cause they don't pay attention to anything in real time or original content to see the truth. They are beyond help.

I won't lie. This actually irritates me, cause so many people like & help spread the lie and this just seems do distasteful, claiming he's using sign language to communicate with them.

every time I see something like this I just think of that reddit post analyzing tkk as a conspiracy theory because… literally, that is exactly what they're doing. i’ve always found the whole ‘trying to communicate to fans about their private romantic relationship through hand gestures and secret signals and clothing colors’ particularly insane though 😭 whyyyyyy would they do all that. the more you unpack it the more insane it gets.

i feel you, that kind of stuff irritates me too. kind of drives me nuts the amount of misinformation that just circulates online, the amount of people who say absolute BS with full confidence, the amount of people who believe it without question. it’s always been an issue but damn, feels like it’s getting worse lately in general. for instance the amount of misinfo about ama and the way voting usually works has been driving me crazy, but no matter how much you try and correct it people just block you, ignore you, don’t understand what you’re saying, your words roll off their smooth brains idk...

unfortunately tkkrs who believe this stuff are just never going to change their minds even if you come at them with logic and evidence. they just believe what they want to believe, reject anything that conflicts with their narratives. it honestly does annoy me which is why i generally avoid whatever they’re doing and saying and stay out of their spaces lol. this goes for any group of people i dislike tbh though lol. but i do appreciate the people who take the time to debunk and correct misinfo when they see it. obviously it’s not going to put a complete stop to it, but i do think it helps a little bit. all the people clowning that particular post was kind of funny and sometimes i think that's the best way to go about it (especially if someone is being vile).

i'll link the reddit post again because i always think it's good to circulate it lol

[sunaleisocial]

Model reveals why debunking election misinformation often doesn’t work

New Post has been published on https://sunalei.org/news/model-reveals-why-debunking-election-misinformation-often-doesnt-work/

Model reveals why debunking election misinformation often doesn’t work

When an election result is disputed, people who are skeptical about the outcome may be swayed by figures of authority who come down on one side or the other. Those figures can be independent monitors, political figures, or news organizations. However, these “debunking” efforts don’t always have the desired effect, and in some cases, they can lead people to cling more tightly to their original position.

Neuroscientists and political scientists at MIT and the University of California at Berkeley have now created a computational model that analyzes the factors that help to determine whether debunking efforts will persuade people to change their beliefs about the legitimacy of an election. Their findings suggest that while debunking fails much of the time, it can be successful under the right conditions.

For instance, the model showed that successful debunking is more likely if people are less certain of their original beliefs and if they believe the authority is unbiased or strongly motivated by a desire for accuracy. It also helps when an authority comes out in support of a result that goes against a bias they are perceived to hold: for example, Fox News declaring that Joseph R. Biden had won in Arizona in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

“When people see an act of debunking, they treat it as a human action and understand it the way they understand human actions — that is, as something somebody did for their own reasons,” says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study. “We’ve used a very simple, general model of how people understand other people’s actions, and found that that’s all you need to describe this complex phenomenon.”

The findings could have implications as the United States prepares for the presidential election taking place on Nov. 5, as they help to reveal the conditions that would be most likely to result in people accepting the election outcome.

MIT graduate student Setayesh Radkani is the lead author of the paper, which appears today in a special election-themed issue of the journal PNAS Nexus. Marika Landau-Wells PhD ’18, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley, is also an author of the study.

Modeling motivation

In their work on election debunking, the MIT team took a novel approach, building on Saxe’s extensive work studying “theory of mind” — how people think about the thoughts and motivations of other people.

As part of her PhD thesis, Radkani has been developing a computational model of the cognitive processes that occur when people see others being punished by an authority. Not everyone interprets punitive actions the same way, depending on their previous beliefs about the action and the authority. Some may see the authority as acting legitimately to punish an act that was wrong, while others may see an authority overreaching to issue an unjust punishment.

Last year, after participating in an MIT workshop on the topic of polarization in societies, Saxe and Radkani had the idea to apply the model to how people react to an authority attempting to sway their political beliefs. They enlisted Landau-Wells, who received her PhD in political science before working as a postdoc in Saxe’s lab, to join their effort, and Landau suggested applying the model to debunking of beliefs regarding the legitimacy of an election result.

The computational model created by Radkani is based on Bayesian inference, which allows the model to continually update its predictions of people’s beliefs as they receive new information. This approach treats debunking as an action that a person undertakes for his or her own reasons. People who observe the authority’s statement then make their own interpretation of why the person said what they did. Based on that interpretation, people may or may not change their own beliefs about the election result.

Additionally, the model does not assume that any beliefs are necessarily incorrect or that any group of people is acting irrationally.

“The only assumption that we made is that there are two groups in the society that differ in their perspectives about a topic: One of them thinks that the election was stolen and the other group doesn’t,” Radkani says. “Other than that, these groups are similar. They share their beliefs about the authority — what the different motives of the authority are and how motivated the authority is by each of those motives.”

The researchers modeled more than 200 different scenarios in which an authority attempts to debunk a belief held by one group regarding the validity of an election outcome.

Each time they ran the model, the researchers altered the certainty levels of each group’s original beliefs, and they also varied the groups’ perceptions of the motivations of the authority. In some cases, groups believed the authority was motivated by promoting accuracy, and in others they did not. The researchers also altered the groups’ perceptions of whether the authority was biased toward a particular viewpoint, and how strongly the groups believed in those perceptions.

Building consensus

In each scenario, the researchers used the model to predict how each group would respond to a series of five statements made by an authority trying to convince them that the election had been legitimate. The researchers found that in most of the scenarios they looked at, beliefs remained polarized and in some cases became even further polarized. This polarization could also extend to new topics unrelated to the original context of the election, the researchers found.

However, under some circumstances, the debunking was successful, and beliefs converged on an accepted outcome. This was more likely to happen when people were initially more uncertain about their original beliefs.

“When people are very, very certain, they become hard to move. So, in essence, a lot of this authority debunking doesn’t matter,” Landau-Wells says. “However, there are a lot of people who are in this uncertain band. They have doubts, but they don’t have firm beliefs. One of the lessons from this paper is that we’re in a space where the model says you can affect people’s beliefs and move them towards true things.”

Another factor that can lead to belief convergence is if people believe that the authority is unbiased and highly motivated by accuracy. Even more persuasive is when an authority makes a claim that goes against their perceived bias — for instance, Republican governors stating that elections in their states had been fair even though the Democratic candidate won.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, grassroots efforts have been made to train nonpartisan election observers who can vouch for whether an election was legitimate. These types of organizations may be well-positioned to help sway people who might have doubts about the election’s legitimacy, the researchers say.

“They’re trying to train to people to be independent, unbiased, and committed to the truth of the outcome more than anything else. Those are the types of entities that you want. We want them to succeed in being seen as independent. We want them to succeed as being seen as truthful, because in this space of uncertainty, those are the voices that can move people toward an accurate outcome,” Landau-Wells says.

The research was funded, in part, by the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation.

[prokop-electrical-services]

Common Myths About Hiring an Emergency Electrician

It’s late at night, and suddenly, the lights flicker, followed by an eerie silence as the power cuts out. With no warning, you're left in the dark, unsure if it’s a simple power outage or something more serious. Electrical emergencies tend to happen at the most inconvenient times, and many hesitate, uncertain if calling an emergency electrician in Melbourne is necessary. There’s a lot of misinformation out there, and these common myths can lead to delayed action and more significant problems.

Let’s clear the air and debunk these myths about hiring an emergency electrician so you know exactly when and why to make the call.

Myth 1: "Emergency Electricians Are Only for True Emergencies"

Emergency electrician Melbourne services are essential for addressing sudden issues like power outages and dangerous faults and preventing minor problems from escalating into major ones. A quick call to your emergency electrician can prevent those minor issues from becoming major problems.

Myth 2: Hiring an Emergency Electrician Is Way Too Expensive

Emergency electrician services, even if expensive, are crucial for safety and peace of mind. They prevent costly repairs and potential hazards like electrical fires, making them a small investment.

Myth 3: All Emergency Electricians Are the Same

Imagine walking into a bakery and expecting every cake to taste the same. Just like with bakers, not all emergency electrician Melbourne services are created equal. Some might specialise in residential work, while others are commercial or industrial electrical systems experts. When choosing an emergency electrician, ensure they have the expertise that aligns with your specific needs. Check their credentials, read reviews, and don’t be afraid to ask about their experience. 

Myth 4: You Can Fix Electrical Problems Yourself

While handling minor household repairs like fixing a leaky tap or patching drywall may be within your abilities, electrical work is different. Working with electricity is inherently dangerous, and attempting to resolve electrical issues without the proper expertise and equipment can pose serious risks. Even if you manage a temporary fix, underlying problems could remain undetected. It's always best to leave electrical repairs to professionals. A licensed electrician in Melbourne will ensure the job is done safely and identify any hidden issues that could lead to future hazards.

Myth 5: Emergency Electricians Only Work on Power Outages

While power outages are a significant reason to call an emergency electrician in Melbourne, their expertise extends beyond restoring power. Emergency electricians are skilled in diagnosing and fixing various electrical issues, from faulty wiring to malfunctioning circuit breakers. If you’re facing any electrical issue that could lead to a hazardous situation, it’s worth calling in an expert. They can address problems efficiently and ensure everything is up to code so you can return to your day-to-day life without any sparks flying.

Myth 6: You Can Wait Until Morning to Call an Emergency Electrician

Picture this: it’s the dead of night, and your electricity goes haywire. You might think you can wait until morning to call an emergency electrician. However, waiting could mean risking further damage or safety hazards. Electrical issues can escalate quickly, and the best way to protect your home and family is to address them promptly. An emergency electrician is available around the clock for a reason—they’re there to help you when you need it most, no matter the time.

Conclusion

Next time you face an electrical hiccup, remember these truths about hiring an emergency electrician in Melbourne. Don’t let myths keep you in the dark—literally. Whether it’s a minor inconvenience or a major electrical breakdown, getting professional help ensures safety and peace of mind. So, keep your contacts handy and don’t hesitate to call in the experts when you need them. Your home—and your safety—will thank you for it!

Source: Common Myths About Hiring an Emergency Electrician