#technically no word of this is factually incorrect

[whartonists]

In physical pain reading the Deadline article about the new Age of Innocence series that was greenlit earlier this year

[watkinsglen]

Review: “My Investing Journey and Learning” by Carmen Mundt

Qualifications: I’m a journalist reporting on business, economics, and defense who’s been in the industry for 7 years — the last 3 have been at, debatably, the #1 business publication in the world.

Rating: 2/5 stars

Thoughts: I cannot believe I spent 39 euros on this.

This 39 page ebook provides incredibly basic information that can all be found in this article.

First: while the ebook is about 40 pages, it probably has about 10 pages of actual information in it, interspersed with inspirational quotes from Sheryl Sandberg and Warren Buffet, with some pictures of Carmen in Monaco.

There’s about 1 page of “introduction” from Carmen that talks about her upbringing and journey to university in London. I won’t comment too much on her personal story, but an important thing to note is that she says she came from a “traditional Spanish household” where her father was the breadwinner and her mother had no access to family finances. After the 2008 crash, her family couldn’t afford to send her to college. She moved to London, applied for a student loan, and began studying finance at a university while working part time.

Carmen very, very briefly mentioned her regrets as to her mother’s inability to access higher education, work, and family financial planning; she says she’d never want to be in that position. While literally only one sentence, I think it makes it clear who the audience for this ebook is: someone who has absolutely, positively, no idea about money.

(She also very, very briefly mentions “big changes in her personal life” that made a full-time job in finance “not sustainable,” leading to her move to Monaco. This is her only reference to George.)

The rest of the book very simply explains how to make a budget, set financial goals, invest in the stock market, and mitigate risk. The information was kinda factually correct, and was written in a coherent manner. I think that’s the highest praise I can give it.

Here’s the thing: like other reviewers have called out, I am pretty certain that Carmen didn’t write anything besides the introduction. Whole sections (and indeed the entire format of the ebook) were clearly ripped from the Female Invest introductory courses. (I spent 3 hours clicking through each course so I could find direct wording comparisons to make this claim. I really wouldn’t recommend it.) I do think she edited these sections, and she interjected a few personal sentences; but I believe that’s where her involvement ended.

From an expert perspective, a lot of the information is so simplistic as to be almost incorrect. This isn’t a “first day of Econ 101” ebook — this is a “freshman year of high school home ec class” ebook. (Did anyone else’s home ec classes teach budgeting, or just me?)

Here’s an example. In a section on stocks, Carmen/Female Invest writes: “Investing in stocks allows you to support companies and causes you care about while still making a profit.”

On a basic level, this is correct. Purchasing a stock technically means you’re buying a little bit of a company, and I guess therefore supporting it. But unless a company is IPOing, you’re buying those stocks from another investor — which means your purchase has no effect on the company. So it’s a little disingenuous to claim you’re somehow helping the company. The ebook is rife with this kind of thing.

Carmen pushed in her advertising posts that the Female Invest courses were a key supplement to her book. So obviously, I had to do those too. And holy shit, they were so much worse than the ebook. Some parts were blatantly incorrect on basic information (they claim markets are open 24/7, when most are only open 9am-4:30pm on weekdays) and have some of the most patronizing metaphors I have ever read. (One of the most egregious was comparing your investment portfolio to a pizza because “stocks, bonds, and ETFs” make up different “sizes of slices to make a whole pie”. This isn’t even an accurate equivalent — maybe a calzone, pasta, and pizza make up a whole meal? I don’t even know.)

I would not recommend buying this ebook unless you, too, were barred from even thinking about a stock by your traditional father. Even then, consider free sources.

A Disclaimer on disclosures: So, after @ohblimeygeorge sent me a reddit post also reviewing Carmen’s book that mentioned ad disclosures, I decided to dive into the regulations. In the U.S., influential advertising is regulated by the FTC — in the EU, it’s regulated by the EU Commission, which I believe Carmen would qualify under since she is a Spanish citizen who lives in Monaco. First, I looked at this legal brief on content monetization business models, and concluded that that the ebook likely falls under “affiliate marketing” as Carmen likely receives a percentage of each ebook sold through her link.

(An additional disclaimer: obviously, I don’t know the details of the deal Carmen has with Female Invest, but I’d think it unlikely that she isn’t getting paid for their collaboration. She mentioned in an Instagram story under her Female Invest highlight that she “tried purchasing equity but they were already too big for what I could afford” but “did buy a bit of their crowdfunding.” Since she doesn’t have equity, i.e. doesn’t own a piece of the company, it’d be weird if she was doing this for free.)

Back on topic. I next looked at this legal brief on advertising disclosures. It states that affiliate marketing must be disclosed: “you need to make sure your audiences understand that it’s advertising.” Disclosures can include hashtags and “mentioning” advertising in the caption. Carmen has not disclosed advertising in any of her Female Invest posts, and appears to be violating this regulation. (Interestingly, her only posts that follow disclosure requirements are her Tommy posts.)

It’s apparently not uncommon. An EU Commission study showed 80% of influencers in the EU do not properly disclose ads.

So, there’s that too.

[greenyvertekins]

I think to clarify why The G.U.N commander said there's only one person who could talk Shadow down.

Like Yes, Amy, Sonic, Rouge and Eggman have technically talked shadow down from doing something. But he didn't stop because it was them telling him. It was because the words either reminded him of Maria, or is something that went against her wishes.

Shadow couldn't really care less about what they thought of him. If any of them stood in his way he wouldn't hesitate. But when it comes to Maria, he'd move mountains if he had to.

So I don't think it's weird of the Commander and Rouge to say it's only one person Shadow listens to.

Shadow didn't recall or was influenced by Maria when Sonic convinced him not to destroy Emerl. And what makes it all the more remarkable on Sonic's part was that Emerl was a direct threat to the safety of the planet Maria wanted him to protect. By claiming that Shadow only listens and defers to others purely because of Maria is not only factually incorrect, it undermines the characters who are the ones talking him down.

[themuseinthewoods]

troy 2004 quotes again because nobody has confiscated the genarator. *cackling* everyone still gets a long because I find it funny. features y/n. and brief interruptions from me aka, Muse. because if I could join these characters I would (anyone else want me to insert them into a fandom, just give me your nickname and three words to describe yourself and if there is a character you wanna be shipped with and a fandom from my list, if you want me there and i'll have fun)

while waiting outside the principal’s office Achilles: What are you in for? Patroclus: Oh, they just want to know if it’s cool if I miss my classes tomorrow to run sound and lights for a presentation in the auditorium. What about you? Achilles: I stabbed a kid with a screwdriver. Patroclus: Patroclus: Patroclus: We live very different lives. Achilles: Yes we do.

Patroclus: Achilles, say you’re sorry to Y/n. Achilles: Oh, I won’t do that. Apologizing is for the weak and wrong, which is why Y/n should do it to me, because they are weak, and wrong.

Muse, being interviewed about above: I then called his mother who proceeded to scold Achilles so that he apologized

Y/n: Odysseus won’t come out of their room! Hector: Just tell them I said something. Y/n: Like what? Hector: Anything factually incorrect. Y/n, shrugging: If you say so. Odysseus, arriving moments later: Did you just say the sun is a PLANET?

Achilles: You know, I used to play back in my gory days. Muse: You mean glory days? Achilles: Ah, that too.

Paris: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, that’s fucked up. Like c'mon, you know I’m dumb as hell!

Odysseus: Accidentally indulged in too much ‘free time’, turns out I’ve been reported missing for over six months and presumed dead by most local and national authorities.

Achilles: I’m a reverse necromancer. Paris: Isn’t that just killing people? Achilles: Ah, technically.

Y/n, looking through their clothes: Has anyone seen my top? Patroclus: Achilles's in the kitchen.

Achilles to Y/n: First rule of battle, little one… don’t ever let them know where you are. Muse, shooting out of frame: WHOO-HOO! I’M RIGHT HERE! I’M RIGHT HERE! YOU WANT SOME O’ ME?! YEAH YOU DO! COME ON! COME ON! AAAAAH! Whoo-hoo! Achilles: 'Course, there’re other schools of thought.

Hector: How long do you reckon it’ll be until Achilles finally snaps and commits murder? Y/n: I’ve been going through life assuming it’s already happened at some point and it’s just that no one was ever able to trace it back to them.

Paris: What do I get? Hector: A night of fashion, mischief, mayhem, and possible death. Paris: Ooh, check, check, and check; not sure about that last one. Hector: It won't be you. Paris: I'll get my coat.

Muse: I desire moisture. Patroclus: Please just say "I want water" like a normal person.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Hey, just wanted to say I love reading your analysis and thank you for being a ‘pioneer’ in TOTK critique on tumblr haha. Lately I started seeing more criticism videos popping up on youtube that are solid, but your analysis is still much more detailed and presents original and valid points. You really helped me to define and put down into words some subconscious feelings that I had about the game. I feel really bad for you (but not in a pitying way) when I see blogs like ‘zeldadeservesabreak’ who come at your analysis skills and are just so unreasonably rude unprovoked (aside from being just factually incorrect at times).

My theory is that it’s their maturity. My theory is that this happens because there are younger fans of the series who seek to have a deeper analysis and discussion about the narrative and aim to sound like a worthy debate opponent who is certain about their position and due to beginners confidence and inexperience in debate come off way too strong. Another small point to add, it peaks my curiosity seeing such devotion to a corporation (Nintendo). I ‘technically’ know why and how it happens, but I’m still always surprised to see someone being so devoted to defending and speaking for Nintendo.

Just wanted to assure you that there are us who greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts and STILL engaging with questionable Asks after this. I wait for each post or reblog with anticipation and will share your blog with my friends as soon as they finish TOTK as they were really intrigued by the imperialist Rauru depiction. On the other hand, please don’t feel pressured to continue posting if it all gets too much at any point! Thank you for reading all of this if you did! Sorry for any mistakes and poor vocabulary, English is not my native language.

Hello!

Thank you so, so very much for this very kind ask. <3 And I'm sorry it took me a little long to get around to it, I am sick and my brain is not very cooperative. :(

I am really glad to know that there are more conversations happening outside of this little sphere. I scoured for these criticisms on Youtube in the first month and then pretty much gave up when they weren't coming up. I'm glad the conversation is widening, and I hope it keeps on happening over the years --not to hurt the game or its community, but just to encourage critical thought for one, and also just so Nintendo does a little better next time.

It might be maturity, but I am not... How do I put it. I don't think it is so much a question of age or even life experience than it being a question of, well, willingness to see yourself get destabilized a little bit. To me, a lot of the hostility that I've seen directed at these kind of theories are often extremely dismissive of the place they come from; they assume either overzealousness ( = you are seeing problems where there are none for ??? profit??? or just to pretend that you are morally purer than everybody else, which is a statement that never once looked like projection), confusion ( = don't you see the game tells you that this is good and this is bad ?), or bad faith ( = you are here to stir trouble for no reason, you are a troll). Very rarely do they actually engage with the arguments, but rather with the aesthetic quality of it; the way it rings to their ear, the way it is presented, and the intent they assume that led to these arguments being made in the first place. The best counter-arguments I have heard thus far who actually take what is being said into account can either be boiled down to: "I see your point, but it just doesn't bother me that much because of X, Y and Z who really touched me emotionally and I got invested in that (which is great and super valid in my opinion)", or: "I think Nintendo just didn't think about the effect of this decision and the way it weakened what they wanted to do, but I think the overall story of what they wanted to say overrules the way they achieved it, and I prefer focusing on the first rather than the latter (which is also completely legitimate)". I have not, so far, seen a better rebuttal than: it does not bother me personally for X or Y reason, but I am not denying that these might be problems to somebody else.

But yeah. It is the childhood, it is the safe space, it is good and uncomplicated, and so anything that hurts that wonderful piece of innocence that remains must be there with bad intentions. I assume this plays a huge role in the Nintendo Protection Squad, even when the criticism is honestly pretty mild all things considered.

(Also, if I may and as I close this subject: I think this is pretty interesting how it's only unreasonable to ask for a stronger narrative. If the combat had been subpar in TotK, I would not have cared that much personally honestly, but I'm pretty sure a *lot* of people would have complained and been extremely pissed at that, and this would have been an acceptable complaint to have --like the lack of dungeons was an acceptable complaint to wage against BotW. I don't think a great combat system with a lot of variation in approach is particularly more "the spirit of Zelda" than a simple, solid and well constructed story, but a lot of BotW players would probably disagree. Which is fine, the series is evolving, new standards are introduced! But why is this one the only standard that seems to be a reach too far, an unrealistic demand, something that *should* stay a non-priority even though it once clearly was one? Gamers and their approach to storytelling will forever perplex me honestly, which sucks given it's my job but whatever, you make your own hell etc)

But yeah. To be honest, I think a lot of people who don't really understand the "imperialist argument" do not lack for media literacy or analysis or maturity (I kind of am super tired of people throwing the "you have no media literacy!" at each other while never defining what they mean by that or never actually discussing what they actually disagree about), but maybe they do lack a little bit of political culture; especially culture about political communication. Which makes sense not to have or focus on a lot when you play a Zelda game, so. It's fine. vOv

It also does not escape my notice how a lot of the reticence to accept criticism gets the most virulent around the portrayal of power dynamics and race; even though I don't think any progressive fandom faced with a story that could be boiled down to "the good kingdom of the blonde, petite, blue-eyed heroes is invaded by a huge evil man from the desert with very racialized features who forcefully rules his all-women warriors in harem garbs" should bat an eye when some people say this sort of premice makes them uncomfortable and so should be handled very carefully, especially given the global rise of fascism, anti-immigration, and deadly islamophobia everywhere right now. It boggles my mind that this is even considered a controversial statement.

Like, discussing the shade and depth of Rauru's goatman *fur* as a way to counter the criticism that what birthed the character of Ganondorf is 5 racist tropes in a trenchcoat and should be navigated with more care than this is 2023 is so... deeply unserious to me. You know, sometimes things are a little iffy and can be acknowledged as such and then you can still like the Thing and it's fine, you don't even have to engage with the parts that make you uncomfortable, it's fine it's fineee.

But no need to worry about the effect of these kind of interactions on me, though it is very sweet to do so! <3 Let's say I'm not going to bed every night worrying about my critical thinking skills, my media literacy, or wondering whether or not I understand interactive narration haha

I am a little tired of talking about TotK in general tho, to be fully honest. I feel like I've kind of scraped the bottom of my takes, and I don't have a lot more to add --so the asks will probably slow down just by virtue of not repeating myself eternally, and wanting to extract myself from some of the discourse happening (also I just don't care enough about the game to put this much energy into it, it was never really meant to happen I just started receiving tons asks for some reason??? (thank you all!! it was really an Experience!!!! but thank you!!!) and then I replied to them, and then that got me more asks, etc etc, but yeah I never planned to talk about TotK that much haha)

But thank you so very very much again!

[behindthewox]

Behind the WoX - introduction 📌

The purpose of this blog is to provide a platform to discuss WoX sites and raise awareness of issues that exist but seem to be ignored or mismanaged by those in charge of solving them. By making issues public we can add pressure on the leadership to listen to us, as users and community members, and make the changes we feel are needed in order to make WoX the best it can be.

If you have concerns or criticism regarding a WoX site it's always best to take it to a site leader and/or mugwump first. There is no need to point out their oversights or mistakes in public without first giving them a chance to fix it. As leaders they can, and should, expect to be questioned and criticised for their actions at times, but they still deserve a fair chance to learn about the issue and adress it before being publicly attacked for what could be a simple mistake. I will assume that attempts have been made before resorting to this blog.

If the issue remains after you've raised it with the people in charge and nothing seems to happen, that is when you can submit your concerns to the blog. (If it's an issue that is clearly not a mistake but something done on purpose and it should be obvious that it will have negative consequences, I'd say it's fair game to criticise though...)

_ _ _

KEEP IN MIND

§ This blog is a place for thoughts, opinions and feelings. Opinions, thoughts and feelings are subjective and aren't necessarily correct, factual or representative of the bigger picture. A person might be incorrect or misleading in what they express but that doesn't mean their opinions/thoughts/feelings are wrong or invalid. § One person's experience or interpretation of something can differ from another person's. Again: it might not be entirely accurate and correct, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid. § Being offended or upset by something doesn't necessarily mean it was done in ill intent or aimed to insult or offend you personally. Objective, fair and constructive criticism is not an insult or offense.

(click "keep reading" for instructions, rules and information about submissions)

Submissions

On this blog there is a button which says "Say something!" where anyone can submit their own posts, either linked to a tumblr account or anonymously. The feature is technically for asking questions but on this blog we accept pretty much anything you want to say or share so don't feel restricted by Tumblr's wording.

SUBMISSION RULES

Submissions that don't follow the rules may be published with edits, or not published at all. If you don't want your submission to be posted publicly on the blog, please make a clear note of it! Start the post with "DO NOT POST THIS" in all caps so I won't miss it by accident. I may decide NOT to post your submission, or save it and post at a later point. This is mainly to keep a steady and cohesive flow of content.

You are responsible for what you write. I may be the one posting your words (I take responsibility for that part of the process) and your words may not be traced back to you, but you are still responsible for the consequences they may have.

Unless you specifically request that your submission is not to be posted, remember that your submission may be posted and made public for a wide audience. If published, anyone can see what you've written. Consider the potential risks and consequences of this before you post anything.

Try not to be rude. We all have feelings and sometimes it makes sense to express them freely, but sometimes it doesn't. I try to avoid insults, and so should you.

For negative feedback and/or sensitive topics, please avoid using names and use positions instead (e.g. "teacher"). If necessary, I will edit out names and any specifics that could make the person identifiable, but I appreciate if you do it for me.

If applicable, try to back up your statements with sources and/or arguments.

English, please. I'm not gonna share submissions that I don't understand myself.

Wanna submit anonymously but still separate yourself from all the other anons? Sign off with an animal of your choice (example: Best fishes! / Anonymous Fish)

_ _ _

EDITS

Sometimes I post submissions in edited form. I try to keep my edits minimal and do my best to make sure the submissions retains its' original message. Edits are entirely due to practical reasons: protecting anonymity and integrity, avoiding unnecessary drama and insults, and in some cases simply to shorten down submissions to make them more manageable.

[text] = replacing (or rephrasing) original text [-] = one or more words have been redacted [/] = one or more sentences (in some cases paragraphs) have been redacted

On occasion I might use quotes from submissions, in which case I'll use quotation marks and sign it off with your name (if provided) or simply "anon".

I save all the original submissions, as well as submissions that I don't post, in case I need to go back to it later on. If you wish to retract a submission, feel free to make contact with me and request a removal. As long as the request isn't impossible or extremely unreasonable I will respect your wishes and integrity to the best of my ability.

_ _ _

I, Fish, am an amateur: I don't have any training or instruction manual to follow, I'm learning as I go along and I like to try different approaches to see what works and what doesn't. I've messed up a few times and there are things I regret with this blog, but that is part of the process.

I do my best, and but I acknowledge that sometimes that's not good enough. I can't change that, all I can do is learn and try to do better. By all means, judge me by my mistakes, but please try to see the difference between mistakes and intent.

[xaltius]

GPT-3: All you need to know about the AI language model

Cast your mind back to June 2020. The world was grappling with unprecedented changes, and in the midst of it all, the field of artificial intelligence experienced a seismic shift with the arrival of OpenAI's GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3). Even now, as we stand in May 2025 surrounded by even more advanced AI, understanding GPT-3 is crucial to appreciating the incredible journey of language models and how we've arrived at today's sophisticated AI landscape.

This blog post revisits GPT-3: what it was, the capabilities that captivated the world, its profound impact, its inherent limitations, and its enduring legacy in an era now dominated by its more powerful successors.

What Was GPT-3? The Technical Snapshot

When OpenAI unveiled GPT-3, its sheer scale was breathtaking. It was a language model built upon the Transformer architecture, like its predecessor GPT-2, but boasted an astounding 175 billion parameters. This was an order of magnitude larger than any publicly known language model at the time.

Trained on a massive and diverse dataset culled from the internet (including sources like Common Crawl, WebText2, books, and Wikipedia), GPT-3 learned to predict the next word in a sequence with remarkable proficiency. This seemingly simple objective, when scaled up, unlocked a surprising array of language capabilities.

The "Magic" of GPT-3: Key Capabilities That Amazed

GPT-3 wasn't just bigger; it was qualitatively different in what it could achieve without task-specific fine-tuning:

Remarkably Coherent Text Generation: GPT-3 could write essays, articles, summaries, and even poetry that was often difficult to distinguish from human-written text, especially in shorter forms.

Few-Shot Learning: This was a game-changer. Unlike previous models that often required extensive fine-tuning for new tasks, GPT-3 could perform a new task with just a few examples (or "shots") provided in the prompt. Sometimes, it could even perform tasks in a "zero-shot" fashion, based purely on a description.

Versatile Language Tasks: It demonstrated competence in translation, question-answering, and summarization across a wide range of topics.

Early Coding Abilities: GPT-3 could generate code snippets in languages like Python, CSS, and JSX, hinting at the future potential of AI in software development.

Why GPT-3 Caused Such a Stir: Its Monumental Impact

The release of GPT-3, particularly access to it via an API, had a ripple effect across the tech world and beyond:

Demonstrated the Power of Scale: It provided compelling evidence that scaling up model size and training data could lead to significant improvements in capability and generalization.

Democratized Access to Powerful AI: The API allowed developers and researchers worldwide to experiment with and build applications on top of a state-of-the-art language model, sparking a wave of innovation and new startups.

Expanded Imagination for AI Applications: From content creation and chatbots to coding assistance and idea generation, GPT-3 showcased a vast array of potential use cases.

Brought AI Ethics to the Forefront: Its capabilities also highlighted potential risks, including the generation of misinformation, spam, biased content, and the potential for malicious use, leading to more mainstream discussions about responsible AI development.

The Not-So-Perfect Picture: GPT-3's Limitations

For all its prowess, GPT-3 was far from perfect. Understanding its limitations is key to appreciating the advancements that followed:

Factual Inaccuracies ("Hallucinations"): GPT-3 could confidently generate text that sounded plausible but was factually incorrect or nonsensical.

Lack of True Understanding or Reasoning: While it excelled at pattern matching and text generation, it didn't possess genuine understanding, common sense, or the ability to reason deeply about complex topics.

Bias from Training Data: It could reproduce and sometimes amplify biases present in its vast internet training data.

Verbosity and Coherence Issues: Over longer text generations, its coherence could sometimes degrade, and it often tended to be overly verbose.

Knowledge Cutoff: Its knowledge was limited to the data it was trained on, meaning it wasn't aware of events or information that emerged after its training period (around early 2020).

No Real-time Internet Access: It couldn't browse the live internet for up-to-date information.

GPT-3's Enduring Legacy in 2025: Paving the Way for Giants

In May 2025, while GPT-3 itself might be considered a legacy model (with OpenAI even retiring older GPT-3.5 Turbo models from its API), its impact is undeniable. It was a crucial stepping stone that laid the foundational principles for the more advanced and capable models that are now prevalent, such as the GPT-4 series (including GPT-4o and its variants like GPT-4.1) and even the anticipated next-generation models like GPT-5.

These successors have built upon GPT-3's foundation by:

Increasing Model Size and Efficiency: While exact parameter counts are often not disclosed, newer models are significantly more capable.

Improving Reasoning and Accuracy: Current models demonstrate vastly improved logical reasoning, reduced hallucinations, and better factual grounding.

Embracing True Multimodality: Models in 2025 seamlessly process and generate not just text, but also images, audio, and even video.

Expanding Context Windows: The ability to process and remember much longer conversations and documents has dramatically increased their utility.

More Up-to-Date Knowledge: Newer models generally have more recent knowledge cutoffs and, in some cases, can access and process real-time information.

Enhanced Safety and Alignment: Significant efforts have been made (and continue to be made) to make models safer, less biased, and better aligned with human values.

The core concepts of large-scale pre-training on diverse text data and the power of the Transformer architecture, which GPT-3 so effectively showcased, remain central to AI language model development today.

Conclusion: A Landmark in the AI Timeline

GPT-3's arrival was a landmark event in the history of artificial intelligence. It shifted our understanding of what AI language models could do and set the stage for an incredibly rapid period of innovation. While the cutting edge of AI in 2025 has moved far beyond GPT-3's specific capabilities, its launch was a pivotal moment that ignited the AI revolution we are experiencing today. It reminds us how quickly this field moves and how foundational breakthroughs can pave the way for even more astonishing advancements in a very short time.

[mjnotinnocent]

The article “Debunking the Myth That the FBI Investigated Michael Jackson” challenges a widely circulated claim among Michael Jackson’s defenders—that the FBI conducted a decade-long investigation into the singer and found no evidence of wrongdoing. This narrative is often used to assert Jackson’s innocence, but the article argues that it is based on a fundamental misreading of the FBI’s own documentation and role in the case.

The piece begins by referencing the FBI’s official summary on Jackson, which clarifies that the Bureau did not independently investigate him for child sexual abuse. Instead, it provided technical and investigative assistance to California law enforcement agencies—primarily during two distinct periods: 1993–1994 and 2004–2005. These were the years when Jackson was under scrutiny by local authorities in relation to allegations of child molestation. The FBI’s involvement was limited to supporting these investigations, not leading them.

The article identifies three key takeaways from the FBI’s own statement:

Limited Timeframe: The FBI’s engagement in abuse-related matters was confined to two short windows—contradicting the myth of a continuous 10+ year investigation. A brief 1995 inquiry related to a VHS tape is also mentioned, but it was not part of a broader probe.

Support Role, Not Lead Agency: The FBI acted in a supporting capacity, offering expertise and resources when requested by local police. This is reinforced by a 2009 interview with retired FBI agent Brad Garrett, who explained that the Bureau’s role was reactive and technical, not investigative in the traditional sense.

Misinterpreted Timeline: The confusion about a decade-long investigation likely stems from the fact that the FBI’s files span from 1992 to 2005. However, the earliest file relates to a separate case involving threats made against Jackson and President George H.W. Bush by an individual named Frank Paul Jones. This case had no connection to the abuse allegations. The final entry in the FBI’s archive simply records the 2005 trial verdict—it does not reflect any investigative conclusion by the Bureau.

The article also addresses a common misconception: that the FBI “cleared” Jackson. It stresses that the FBI, as part of the executive branch, has no judicial authority to exonerate or convict anyone. Its role is investigative, not adjudicative. Therefore, any claim that the FBI “found Jackson innocent” is legally and factually incorrect.

In closing, the article argues that the myth of a decade-long FBI investigation is a product of selective reading, fan-driven misinformation, and a desire to frame Jackson as vindicated by federal authorities. It calls for a more accurate understanding of the FBI’s limited and context-specific involvement, urging readers to distinguish between legal fact and public relations spin.

If you’d like, I can help you integrate this into a broader piece on how official documents are misrepresented in celebrity defence narratives. Just say the word.

[noddytheornithopod]

I admit that line in The PnF Effect still frustrates me because it's delivered like things have never been a problem for them to contrive a dichotomy between them and Milo. They literally say "we have no frame of reference for that," which is just factually incorrect. Things go wrong plenty of times for them if you think about it, there's more nuance than the episode presents it as. So many times an invention does something weird or unexpected, etc. But I'm not here to rant about probability ions and that special (I've done that enough lol, sorry I really tried to contain myself I promise hvfjdkwsl), I'm here to say... yes to all of this.

Cuz yeah, as I said, things don't always go perfect for PnF, but he's still able to work within his comfort zone typically... it's when he's pushed out of that, when things really aren't in his control anymore, he really struggles to handle it. It's actually surprisingly vindicating to see someone else call Phineas a control freak because honestly? He totally freaking is.

And you're actually right that Isabella is often the anchor to either ground him or solve the problems he's facing. You'd think that would be Ferb, but I guess the fact that they're so in tune with each other means Ferb kind of is used to or expecting Phineas to react this way? And he's not really the big words guy, of course. But Isabella is someone close enough to get Phineas, but outside enough that she can see when he's acting up and make him snap out of his hysteria.

And you're right, if Isabella IS such an anchor, no wonder he seems so depressed and out of it when Isabella is gone. She helps motivate and inspire him, and is able to help when things don't go as planned. Ferb might still be there to be technically proficient and probably would listen if Phineas was having problems, but not having someone like Isabella to more actively compliment him by being more similar to him in many ways while still being outside his everyday life and different enough to offer fresh perspectives, well yeah. Of course the poor guy is lost, and Isabella ironically has no idea just how much she's devastated him.

Also side note but it's kinda funny how he's not so different from Candace in that regard. Like, we all recognise her as the control freak, but Phineas only isn't like her because he's got a more positive attitude and just lucks out more than her.

yknow what i just realized?

one might initially see phineas as the leader of the group. he comes up with the plans, he gives everyone instructions, and he keeps everyone's spirits high.

but a crucial part of being a leader is keeping a cool head in dire situations, especially when things don't go well for the leader themself.

phineas, as he states in The Phineas and Ferb Effect, has very little frame of reference for what to do when things go seriously wrong. when something does go wrong, his first instinct is to panic and/or lash out at whoever is at fault. he starts running around in a panic and blaming himself when isabella goes missing in NOTLP, he gets so angry that he refuses to inform himself and reason with perry after finding out he's a secret agent in AT2D, he revokes candace's shed card and kicks her out without letting her try to fix her mistake caused by a small oversight in mission marvel, he totally freaks out when he isn't allowed to build anything in BBB, and he shuts down and gives up when he can't figure out how to get off the island in SBTY.

phineas flynn isn't a leader. he's (unintentionally) a control freak that doesn't know how to handle his emotions.

and who snaps him out of his funk in SBTY? who invites candace back to the shed to make things right in mission marvel? who makes sure phineas can build again as soon as possible in BBB? who reappears with a solution to the zombie apocalypse in NOTLP? who offers a team of capable individuals numerous times to help with phineas's plans? none other than isabella.

she's resourceful, reasonable, and able to think clearly in dire situations. isabella is the real leader, keeping everyone in line and making phineas's dreams a reality every time.

which is why phineas feels so lost when she stops coming over.

[portmantaur]

actually tho I wonder if there’s anything to the idea of remembering specific cases of feeling wronged as a minor, particularly within the context of schooling/education, is rooted at least partially in said instance being a formative lesson on your place in capitalism/other relevant power structures.

like, I was probably very much being a little teenage shit when I was like “miss I actually cannot find any reference in this classroom dictionary to the act of fighting under the definition of ‘fardels’ even though that is what you just said it means, but here it just says it’s a bundle carried by donkeys usually” and now as an adult, I even recognize that that was probably a deeply embarrassing moment for her not least of all bc I was pretty good at being the Resident Little Shit in her classroom and it is the bitterest pill to have to be like “oh I guess you’re right” to someone you actively dislike

but her response was “I’ve never heard that definition” which was a mind-blowing level of copout to my teen mind, not least of all bc like. then where even did you get the definition you just gave us. & why does you not knowing/hearing about it make it necessarily incorrect. but also.

I was devastated bc, however misguided I was in my behavior, I was genuinely excited to be an active participant in the evolution of this moment of education. I know so very little about most things, but this was a pretty niche thing I knew about bc of my v odd upbringing and hey, now it’s actually useful instead of Just Weird And Maybe Kinda Sad!

But she was entirely disinterested, and even openly offended. She never heard of it, which despite being a kind-of lie to cover up whatever else she was feeling in that moment, was also part of her way of letting me know that the bigger issue at hand was not even that she might be teaching something non-factual to a group of kids whose families were gonna have to drop a little bundle of money at the end of the year so the students could take a test that might give them access to a small amount of college credit, but that I had in a way violated the prescribed dynamic of Superior/inferior that is innate in the USA school system and ultimately reflective of the Employer/employee mindset that you are intentionally being trained into. it wasn’t just that my possible method of correcting her was disrespectful, it was that my assumption that her knowledge was not always and infallibly superior to my own, regardless of our individual histories and experiences, was somehow disrespectful in and of itself. The problem was that I was Child and she was Adult, and even though we are in a space that is technically defined by words like education and learning, my place was never to question or offer (possibly) better information, it was only to obey and accept.

like the last time I vividly remembered this otherwise possibly insignificant moment of my ancient high school days was while I was working in my 20s and we had a big binder in the back called The Communication Book, where normally the office admin or Drs would leave notices/important info and it was staff’s job to make sure we checked the binder for new info before clocking in and then initial whatever new pages were present to show that we had read it. One day, there was an announcement in the binder that changed a room-prep policy for one vet specifically, and it was in direct contradiction to information we had been given before, which confused me and I wanted to make sure I understood - but everyone was busy bc it was a mid-day shift so I just underlined that part of the announcement and wrote in the margins something to the effect of “so not [previous policy], correct?” and figured someone would answer when they could and I would check back before I clocked out since the vet in question wasn’t even working that day.

Within like, half an hour, in the middle of me prepping files up front for our next batch of patients, it was like the whole back of the clinic exploded and one tech even rushed up to the front to confront me and demanded “did YOU write in the communication book?” and I know I had to have looked like a deer in headlights because his tone would have been equally applicable if he had asked me “did YOU commit the ritual sacrifice we just found in the break room?” He even told me later on our way to the train station after work that he felt bad because he could tell by the look on my face I hadn’t “meant anything by it.”

I was thoroughly reprimanded by the office admin, and was told while I was being written up that the owners of the clinic had been informed and wanted to let me go as a result but the office admin apparently “fought for” me to maintain my position. And I tried to accept everything without complaint or objection bc I was deathly afraid to rock the boat even more and lose my job, especially over something that felt so oddly small and specific. But I was kept up at nights for weeks after this, stunned by how similar the two instances felt. What on earth could I have possibly “meant by” what I did beyond what I communicated directly — what possible nefarious intention could I have had beyond the confirmation I was asking for? Why was I being so thoroughly lectured and even punished for an attempt to make sure I was doing my job?

i realized, a little while after eventually "leaving" that job, that this was probably a case of me missing the apparently obvious fact that "communication book" was a piece of corporate-speak, and not, as i assumed, a word that represented the desire for two-way understanding. i had once again violated my role in a system by not recognizing the fact that, no matter what language was being used to dress it up, my place was only to accept and obey. asking questions, even for the purposes of making sure i was abiding by the rules of my employment, was not permitted, particularly in this format. Essentially, I was punished not for my intention or my desire to participate ‘correctly,’ but because I had failed to understand that my place in a system was not defined by the words used to describe it, but by an unspoken concept of expected deference, and I was -particularly- punished for creating a situation that required people to have to address that concept without somehow framing it so exactly.

which is ultimately doubly bizarre to me bc I heard “because I’m the adult” or “because I’m your parent” as a justification for otherwise unjustifiable behavior SO often as a kid that I feel like in both these instances “because I’m your teacher/boss and I say so” would have been a roughly acceptable explanation in my mind. Like, yeah, I still would have been frustrated, but I probably would have just filed it away in my brain as “one of those weird social cue things I will simply never fundamentally understand so I just have to treat it like a Weird Rule I must memorize”

Although I DO think it’s funny that there was a notice in the binder shortly after this that was a “reminder to all staff” that it is not permissible to write anything but your initials in the communication book, which felt like such a weird way to cope with the realization that you probably just should have labeled the binder something to do with Announcements and moved on.

[shrutiseth]

Editing Excellence: How Professional Services Elevate Your Writing

In written communication, whether it’s creating a compelling blog post, writing an important business proposal, or editing a novel manuscript, the quality of your writing speaks volumes about your professionalism and credibility. But doing well in writing often requires more than just creativity or subject matter skills. It requires precision, clarity and attention to detail — qualities that can be greatly enhanced by professional production. In this blog post, we’ll explore how professional editing services elevate your writing to new heights of excellence.

To Understand the Role of Editing:

Editing is a multi-faceted process that goes beyond just proofreading spelling and grammatical errors. This involves thoroughly reviewing and revising your notes to ensure consistency, coherence, accuracy, and effectiveness. Professional journalists have the know-how to analyze your writing from both a macro and micro perspective, address scheduling issues, fine-tune the language they use, and craft every aspect of your writing beautifully to deliver its overall influence has been great.

Increased Clarity and Accuracy:

One of the main purposes of professional editing and proofreading is to improve the clarity and accuracy of your writing. This includes making sure your ideas flow logically and seamlessly from one area to the next, preventing ambiguity or inconsistency that could confuse or distract your readers Writers who simplify your message by rearranging sentences, rearranging paragraphs and cleaning up transitions More for your target audience You can be simple and engaging.

Language and Style Polish:

One of the features of professionalism is the ability to refine the language and style of your writing to achieve a high level of sophistication and elegance. Journalists have a keen eye on word choice, tone, and voice, helping you strike the right balance between clarity and creativity. Whether it’s eliminating unnecessary sentences, intensifying spoken words, or fine-tuning the overall tone to suit your intended audience, professionalism elevates your writing to the next level professional standards that command attention and respect.

Accuracy To Ensure Accuracy:

Incorrect errors and factual errors can undermine the credibility of your writing and undermine the trust of your readers. Professional journalists carefully vet and verify information to ensure accuracy and reliability. Whether you’re writing a research paper, a technical paper, or a marketing thesis, an editor can help you identify and correct inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and logical errors, reinforcing and compelling the integrity of your content authority is strong in your work

Creating Content for your Audience:

Understanding your audience is key to effective communication, and professional journalists excel at adapting your content to your intended audience. Whether you’re addressing industry professionals, consumers, or general readers, editors can adapt their writing style, tone, and vocabulary to their preferences and expectations by speaking directly to your audience’s needs, interests, and their concerns to create deeper connections and motivate them to engage more with your content.

Keep your Message Simple and Edit:

In today’s fast-paced digital environment, brevity is often valued as much as depth. Professional journalists are adept at cutting out unnecessary sentences, tightly wrapping weak stories, and filtering complex ideas into concise and effective information. By removing filler words, redundancies and tangential information, editors help make your message clearer, more accurate and more impactful, ensuring your writing resonates with your audience and leaves a lasting impression permanent.

Accepting Discussion and Feedback:

Perhaps one of the biggest benefits of professional editing services is the opportunity for collaboration and feedback. Working with an experienced editor isn’t just about receiving corrections or edits; It’s about constructive discussion that enriches your writing process and fosters continuous improvement. The editors offer valuable insights, suggestions, and critiques that challenge you to refine your ideas, strengthen your arguments, and improve your writing with each iteration.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, transition professionals play an important role in elevating your writing to a level of excellence that commands focus, inspires confidence, and delivers results Whether you are a writer whose skilled, entry-level professionals, or corporate professionals, investing in professional development can make the difference between good writing and truly exceptional writing. By leveraging the expertise of experienced editors, you can refine your message, increase your impact, and unlock the full potential of your written communications in today’s competitive landscape.

[redrosecut]

Just reading through the trivia stuff in the X-Ray section of Good Omens season 02 and they are sometimes translated into German in such a hilariously bad way I'm pretty sure it was either done via Google Translate or someone without any context knowledge did it.

Like the one about the Davidson-Tennants in one scene. The last sentence in English is probably something like "David Tennant as well as Peter Davidson played a doctor in Doctor Who" which is great. Well the German version is "Sowohl David Tennant als auch Peter Davidson spielten in Doctor Who einen Arzt." It is technically the a correct word by word translation BUT it entirely loses the pun by using Arzt instead of Doktor and is factually incorrect because neither played a medical professional in Doctor Who.

[lalaithion]

Some of these are right, but others of these are wrong. For example, take “delusion”. “delusion” is an English word dating back to the 1500s. Yes, one of its many meanings is a technical psychological term, but that doesn’t make the earlier meanings incorrect. Psychologists named the psychological term after the common word—people still using the common word is in no way a bastardization of the psychological term!

Additionally, the meaning of these words as psychological terms has also changed over time! “Narcissism”, although deriving from the Greek myth, is a fairly recent English word, created as a psychological term, so you might think this post is making a valid point about usage of the word “narcissist”, but the original definition of the word narcissist was as a specific sexual perversion focused on vanity.

Now, this isn’t to say that this poster is wrong about how these words are used in psychology! It is factually correct that there is no psychological distinction between abuse committed by non-narcissists and narcissists. It is factually correct that people who are diagnosed as psychotic are not automatically dangerous. But it is silly to try to frame those facts as facts about language, and not facts about psychology.

Note to all scientists: please stop doing this! Your field may have a technical meaning for the word X, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of us are wrong for using the more general informal meaning. This includes “tomatoes are actually fruits” and “holding a heavy object in place above your head is an action which requires 0 work”.

I'm still mad about the bastardization of psychological terms, and I saw a post earlier that inspired me to expand upon it. Here's a quick guide on what certain psychological terms do and do not mean, from someone with an education in psychology, not that you need one to know and understand this. I am open to additions and corrections.

Important note for if this post gets noticed: I am making blanket statements. I do not care if your abuser was "actually a diagnosed narcissist." That is irrelevant and meaningless to the purpose of this post, which is to help prevent the spread of misunderstandings, negative stigma, and the watering-down of important terms.

Psychotic refers to a person who has delusions or hallucinations, or otherwise is in a state of mind where they cannot determine reality. Psychotic does NOT mean: dangerous, emotionless, unkind, nonsensical. Someone who is mean or callous is not psychotic. A person you find strange is not psychotic.

Delusions are beliefs that either have no evidence of being true or actively contradict reality. A delusion can be believing you are under constant surveillance, that you have died, that you never existed at all, that you are a powerful or religious figure, etc. Delusional does not mean: wrong, strange, unintelligent. Someone who likes something you think is bad is not delusional. A person who holds a belief you don't understand is not delusional.

Unprofessional Aside: Stop saying "delulu." It's embarrassing.

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder generally characterized by repeated episodes of psychosis. Schizophrenia is more complicated than I can responsibly describe in the space of this post. People are schizophrenic. Objects and concepts cannot be schizophrenic. Disorganized, chaotic, and hard to understand are not the same as schizophrenic. People with schizophrenia are not: dangerous, inhuman, completely incoherent, unable to function*.

Narcissism is a personality disorder generally characterized by an exaggerated sense of uniqueness and a need for external validation or admiration. Narcissists may have little or no empathy. There is no such thing as narcissistic abuse. Abuse performed by a diagnosed narcissist is still normal abuse**. Someone who is mean, selfish, or unaware is not a narcissist. Someone who wants attention is not a narcissist. Someone who takes pride in their achievements or appearance is not a narcissist.

Empathy is the ability to feel other people's emotions. Empathy is not the same thing as kindness, nor is it a prerequisite for kindness. People with diminished empathy are not: callous, emotionless, selfish. Diminished empathy is not a flaw. It does not make someone incapable of understanding people or forming relationships.

ASPD is a personality disorder generally characterized by diminished empathy and disregard for others. People with ASPD may display reckless behavior or aggression. This does not mean they are: dangerous, irredeemable, uniquely awful, deserving death.

Psychopathy and sociopathy are contested terms. They are sometimes used to mean ASPD, but they are not diagnoses. Definitions vary wildly. Sometimes they are used as synonyms of each other, sometimes they are distinguished. I do not know if there is a consensus on what these words mean and would appreciate further input.

Intrusive thoughts are unpleasant, uncontrollable thoughts that can revolve around violence, murder, self-harm, suicide, sex, bigotry, and any other subjects the thinker finds taboo or unwelcome. An intrusive thought is something you don't WANT to do or don't WANT to think about. Getting angry and wanting to express your anger by punching the wall is not an intrusive thought. Wanting to dye your hair a weird color is not an intrusive thought. The key factor of an intrusive thought is that one has no desire to think or act upon it. An intrusive thought can sometimes develop into an obsession.

OCD or obsessive-compulsive disorder is characterized by obsessions (persistent, unpleasant thoughts, such as getting sick, loved ones dying, making sexual advances on someone, etc.) and compulsions (routines usually meant to cope with or "prevent" the subject of the obsession, such as skin-picking, repeating actions, hand washing, etc.). People with OCD may be aware of the irrationality but awareness does not automatically lead to prevention; telling someone with OCD that they are irrational is not helpful. A desire for completeness, satisfaction, organization, or cleanliness is not the same thing as OCD.

If you are not an educated psychologist or psychiatrist acting in a clinical setting from an objective perspective, you cannot diagnose anyone. If you have any interest at all in helping mentally ill people, you will learn what words mean and use them correctly. I'm tired and angry so if I've made mistakes I am BEGGING people to let me know.

*As I said at the beginning, these are all blanket statements. This statement is referencing the idea of the "padded cell," or that all schizophrenics are fundamentally incapable of having a place in society and must be locked away. There do exist schizophrenics who need high levels of support, and that is not what I was referring to. They and all other people who depend on external support for any reason are not lazy or worthless.

**People argue that symptoms of NPD influence the way in which an abuser hurts people. That does not mean narcissistic abuse exists. The disorder doesn't matter; the person would still be abusive without it.

[communistkenobi]

I always get a little annoyed at posts saying “btw did you know conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about? did you know that they’re incorrect about x?”. And it’s not because that’s wrong per se (conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re almost always factually incorrect, which is a significant part of why their politics are awful), but focusing on the factual substance of their claims tends to obscure the reason why they’re being incorrect in the first place. like yes they sound ridiculous when they say “I don’t believe in pronouns” but its not because they don’t understand how grammar works. The purpose of that statement is to argue that gender should not be negotiable through language, that to use “pronouns” is to attempt to alter someone’s god-given ontological gender and is therefore morally wrong. And because this discussion is dominated by English-speakers (gendered pronouns are not universal) living in imperial countries, a deeper claim is being made, that trans people are perverting the most enlightened language, the language of the West, the language that dominates all others. This also very neatly fits into right wing antisemitic conspiracies about the oncoming death of western civilisation, which is not an accident!

So conservatives are latching onto a word that has been recently infused with fresh political meaning in public discourse and using it as a rhetorical platform to be disgusting. They know how language works - language is contestable, it is both subject to constant change and a medium through which that change is negotiated. Trans people are making a claim (gender is partially mediated through language and therefore gender is reinforced and expressed linguistically) and conservatives are making a counter claim (no it isn’t). “I don’t believe in pronouns” is not an argument about the technical structure of language, it is an argument that trans people are so perverse that we infect and degrade the base components of language itself.

So yes, point out that they’re incorrect, but they aren’t incorrect because they’re stupid or ignorant, and being incorrect is not the primary problem with their rhetoric. That is a strategic statement which is deliberately inflammatory, can fit neatly inside both tweets and headlines, and makes a very grand conspiratorial claim about reality (any mention of pronouns is evidence of a transgender plot to destroy western civilisation and indoctrinate children), and this is all accomplished with a 5-word sentence that can be repeated ad nauseum. So the issue at hand isn’t a failure to observe the basic components of language, it’s a violent call to action to remove trans people from public discourse, and eventually public life entirely.

Conservatives are incorrect for a reason. They are incorrect on purpose because they don’t care what the truth is. They are politically savvy and incredibly successful at gaining and maintaining power. They know what they’re doing, and if your only critique of them is that they don’t have their facts straight, I think that’s just a really weak position to hold. What happens when they saying something factually correct? What happens when they know more than you? What happens when they’re well-spoken, well-read, and reasonable? What will you object to then?

[alovelyburn]

I think the part for me that really sells Griffith cares about Guts is that scene in the Eclipse where he tries to catch him. After all the torture done to him, trying to catch Guts (who's probably very heavy because of all the muscles) would probably be excruciatingly painful, physically speaking, with all the damage done to his skin, plus the bone damage caused by the lack of sunlight. I also bet that his shoulders have been in and out of their sockets a few times, because I'd have trouble believing one of the most commonly used torture methods where't used on him. But even with non-dislocated shoulders, with the amount of stiff scar tissue and fragilized bones...Ouch!

Honestly, there are so many things in the Golden Age and even after that definitively nail down that Griffith not only genuinely cared about Guts but did so to the point where it ended up damaging him (not inevitably, but because of how things played out) that I find the continued discourse around it genuinely baffling. So, yeah, I completely agree with you and at the same time I'm deeply confused about how anyone (not you, rofl) could still be unsure about Griffith's feelings by that point.

This is kind of a tangent, but when it comes to interpreting stories or character relationships, I think there are... different levels of interpretability.

There are things that one can fairly interpret in different ways because various different takes would make sense.

There are things where I'm kind of like, "well in order to get that you'd have to ignore the context of the scene, the nuances in the use of the specific japanese words/kanji used, and probably several interview responses, but if you really want to see it that way, you're not technically in direct contradiction with canon."

And then there are things where... genuinely, a take is just objectively wrong. "Griffith never cared about Guts" is absolutely one of these. Just on the face of it, if he didn't care about Guts he wouldn't be Femto - that's legitimately all you really need to understand that he cared about Guts (and the Hawks as a whole) immensely; at that point anyone who is saying otherwise is just factually incorrect as they're in arguing with black-and-white on the page canon.

The fact that so many people are so dedicated to misreading what they claim to be a favorite series is just so fucking weird to me. And speaking as a veteran of approximately 9,000 arguments and flame wars over Griffith, I have never seen a single person give a coherent explanation for how their perspective on this character even works, it's always just circular logic, projection of their own (unevenly applied) moralization, and vibes. IDK.

[dokoni-mo]

Jewish anom from before: yeah it's interesting because it's factually incorrect on so many levels it's more sad than funny 😭😭😭 But to sum it up, while aesthetics of the Empire were inspired by nazi Germany, the fascist system hierarchy has not influenced the actual ranking and deep functioning of the Empire on a level that's any more meaningful than any other totalitarian system. If anything, the First Order and its background was one of the closest instances of SW discussing fascist themes. And Vader as a character is even more funny because the only times be claims he actually supports the functioning of the Empire (not Empire itself - only how it functions) is when he's trying to deny his identity, erase personality traits he connects to Anakin Skywalker, or when he's trying to straight up spite someone and deny reality like he did on Mustafar. When he acts, he does technically act on behalf of his Empire, but he's never once shown to value any of it's functions, priorities or inner systems. He only approves of things that serve to his benefit. On a personal level, Vader is a figure too emotionally disturbed to care about politics at all.

He even let his Empire's most powerful weapon blow the fuck up. Twice. And one of his biggest triggers was slavery, the thing fascism inherently supports.

TLDR, eat shit hater anon and don't talk about shit you don't understand

I see i see i understand now

But youre right anon shouldn't be like throwing around that word like that like our boy doesn't even like the the Empire he's like THE biggest hater of the empire

Anon just probably wanted to make us look bad by calling him what they did