libris46

[libris46]

“Sex Change Just ‘Legal Correction’”, March 31. 1956.

[libris46]

[libris46]

few things more humbling than the realization that you really do write the same fic(s) over and over again

[libris46]

three hearts that beat as one | old hollywood throuples anyone???

[libris46]

yeah i'm wlw (wench loving wench)

[libris46]

Because someone is on the ball, Turner Classic is playing (among other WWII films) The Great Dictator today.

If you haven't seen it, please do. It was produced by Charlie Chaplin in the late 1930s, when it became clear that the war was going to happen, and came out in 1940 after it had started. Essentially, Chaplin realized that his famous mustache was about to be usurped forever by a fascist, and that fascist was going to kill a lot more people in the future than he had already.

It's a parody, made before the worst horrors of the Nazi regime were known to the general public, so there is discomfort here (if you've seen Disney's Der Fuhrer's Face, you'll get the idea), but the movie ends with Chaplin essentially saying "fuck it, no one else seems to be speaking out about this and I'm going to use my platform to do that."

For context, this character is a Jew who has been mistaken for the dictator (for obvious mustache-related reasons), and has been sent onstage at a rally to give a speech. Instead of trying to impersonate Hitler, he says what he really thinks. And keep in mind, Chaplin was coming out of semi-retirement for this. It was the first time most people had ever heard him speak, and this is what he said:

[libris46]

what do you mean elon musk did a nazi salute on live tv at the united states presidential inauguration twice and is now erasing the evidence off the internet by replacing the footage with the crowd cheering instead?

would be a shame if people reblogged this, wouldn’t it?

[libris46]

[libris46]

Doing Nazi salutes makes you a Nazi

Elon musk's old friend: Elon did two Nazi salutes

[libris46]

Billionaires are beyond evil. Their greed and labor theft is a blight on the world.

They give absolutely nothing back.

[libris46]

I finally got around to doing a close reading of transcripts of the Tortoise episodes, and I am very glad that I did.

My view remains that I find all the allegations both very credible and very damning. The updates to my views are that I feel more positively (though not entirely positively) about Tortoise, and that there is a probable very bad actor in all of this that isn't getting nearly enough attention. (Not Amanda Palmer. Or well, yes Amanda Palmer, but she isn't who I'm talking about.)

Tortoise first.

I'd been seeing a lot of comments claiming that Tortoise was anti BDSM. I don't know what the people in the podcast have as their personal views, but they made a point multiple times to clarify that BDSM does not operate like what Neil Gaimen was alleged to have done, and the condemnation they had for the alleged actions was not a condemnation of consensual BDSM. As someone who has been very involved in BDSM community for decades, I am fully in agreement with everything the hosts have said. The line people got most hung up on was a guest expert snarking about degradation ever being consensual. It is ambiguous in context what definition of "degradation" he is using, but it seemed to me he was referring to processes of establishing coercive control, and not referring to degrading roleplay in a mutually invested, healthily negotiated kink scenario. My remaining critique on the host / guests perspective is that the language around abuse and coercive control used by the hosts and guests often presumes all abusers are male and all victims are female. It doesn't diminish the value of the rest of what they are doing, but I think it is worth being critical of as a side note.

The other big point of concern with Tortoise, which I got major bad vibes off of from day one, was the manner in which they talk about their "understanding of Neil Gaimen's position." That sets off my internal red flags because it immediately prompts the follow up questions, "How did you acquire that understanding?" "Who told you that?" "Why aren't you quoting and / or citing them?" I had been speculating that they were from his side of the communications provided by the people coming forward, or comments from lawyers that weren't being properly attributed. Council of Geeks had a great "Cite Your Sources!" whiteboard moment I would generally agree with.

However.

It turns out there is actually a good reason for the citation fuckery. I think a lot of people missed it, so I'm going to try to explain it. When the hosts are referencing communications provided by those coming forward, they say so. When they are referencing comments by lawyers, they say so. The issue is, the bulk of the time, their understanding is coming from piles of direct emails with Gaimen that are OFF THE RECORD. Journalists have to take that seriously to get to keep doing journalism. They are professionally obligated to NOT cite or quote him when he is off the record. Normally in such a situation journalists wouldn't do this squiggly 'our understanding of their views' thing, they would leave it out entirely to be on the safe side of their professional obligations. Sprinkled through the podcasts are comments about the moral importance of hearing from both sides, the great public interest need to hear from both sides. This is a very snarky justification for the game they are playing of vague-posting the gist of his off the record statements without ever putting the exact statement on the record.

A lot of their snark surrounding that, and some other bits, leave the very distinct impression that Gaimen and his lawyers have threatened legal action against Tortoise several times already. Honestly I hope that they do file legal action, as that would open Gaimen up to discovery. Discovery is a process by which Tortoise would be able to demand access to nearly all documents and / or electronic communications Gaimen has relating to the matter, and in doing so make them public. Discovery is far broader sweeping that what is admissible in court, because it has to be 'discovered' before the court can rule it admissible or not. But inadmissible thigs are still usually public record. A jury wouldn't see them, but we still can. Because of that, it is extremely unlikely that Gaimen will file a legal claim, but again, I truly hope that he does. Tortoise probably does too.

But there is another person deserving of investigation and discovery in all this.

The main focus of my current attention is from a bit in the first episode that jumped out at me. Like, it made my eyes bug out, jaw on the metaphorical floor, and I was shocked that I haven't seen it mentioned. But then I figured, people might just not have the context to know how big of a deal this is. So I'm going to talk about it.

According to Scarlett's account, after she came forward to Amanda, Neil asked her to take a call with a therapist that both he and Amanda see. It seemed like his financial assistance offer to her may have hinged on the call being part of the deal. At first read, it looks like Gaimen strongarming Scarlett to tell his therapist he didn't assault anyone. She does the call, and there is a message from the guy that seems designed to plant the suggestion in Scarlett that her friends are manipulating her into perceiving a consensual relationship as a non consensual one.

To me, that is a five alarm fire. Everything happening in there should not be happening, ever. A person who provides individual therapy should not provide it to both partners in a relationship. A person who provides relationship therapy should not be providing individual therapy to people in the relationship. (They should do one-on-one sessions with each in the context of the relationship therapy but that is different.) A therapist should not be framing things the way they are described in that message, or interacting that way towards someone who is not a client, particularly if they have a conflict with someone who is. Therapists are very aware of the potential for clients to coerce others into saying things that fit the client's narrative, and should not be encouraging them to try. And all that is before we even get to the part where he seems to have been tasked specifically to gasslight Scarlett into mistrusting herself and blaming her friends. By Scarlett's paper trailed account, this person should be facing very serious repercussions and investigation. According to Tortoise, he has not responded to any of their attempts to get in touch with him, and he has a phone that is set up to not accept voicemail.

The name of this alleged professional is stated in the podcast, so I looked him up. He is most widely known as an author. His first professional descriptor for himself is as an executive leadership mentor. That more or less translates to person who gives expensive pep talks to rich people. He is also a minister, and a 'consultant.' He does call himself a therapist, but he has no degrees, background, or training in psychology. His degree is from divinity school. He does not list any professional qualifications or certifications in mental health, he does not list any memberships in any mental health organizations. He did co-found an organization that appears to have put on motivational seminars for a variety of organizations. His 'client list' was last updated in 2012. His website has features that are only accessible by those who are 'fully committed.' He is based out of Arizona, USA.

Searching for his name + therapist will get you to a podcast episode with Amanda Palmer, where she had him on as a guest, described him as a therapist, her therapist, and her and Neil's relationship therapist, and promoted his books. It was recorded in 2019, and it is utterly vapid and out of touch from the both of them. Searching his name + therapist will not get you any information on his work as a therapist, because he is not a therapist.

He can't get stripped of his status as a mental health practitioner, because he isn't one. Tortoise states that he has protected confidentiality to Neil and Amanda. If he does have protected confidentiality, he has it solely through his status as a minister, not as a mental health professional because again, he isn't one. As a minister, he may have greater client privilege than an actual mental health professional, who would be required to break privilege if they have reason to believe their client is a danger to themselves or others. Religious client privilege is very strongly protected in most of the US even if the client is explicitly planning to commit specific acts of violence. This might be the main selling point to people who choose to work with ministers who pretend to be therapists rather than actual therapists.

Scarlett doesn't have confidentiality much less privilege by any avenue, his communication with her did not form a professional relationship despite the ways his message seemed to blur those lines, which would have left him free to pass on whatever she said to Neil and Amanda. That would also open the door for him to corroborate what Scarlett told him to the media, but my impression is that if he can be contacted, he will cite a duty to his real client, Neil Gaimen, to avoid saying anything. This is one of many reasons why real therapists do not take clients who have potential conflicts of interest with their other clients. I can't tell from the content of either podcast to what extent he may have materially represented himself to be an actual mental health professional to his clients, but if he has done so he absolutely should be liable if not culpable for that.

I would like to see this man investigated to hell and back, but I don't know if anyone in the media is going to bother. For anyone who needs to hear it, do not go to therapy with someone who isn't a licensed mental health professional. Do not have the same individual therapist as your romantic partner(s). If you are setting up couples therapy, it needs to be with someone who has never met either of you before, and you make first contact with them as a unit.

Obligatory this is all personal opinion disclaimer. The internal states of public figures cannot be determined or scientifically evaluated by their public statements / appearances / works / ect... I am not the behaviour panel, nor do I endorse that kind of thing. But under certain circumstances I am willing to put out some personal opinions about what certain actions, if they happened, would seem to suggest.

I've been saying for a while now, the allegations paint a very strong and compelling picture of Gaimen knowing what he was doing and engaging in deliberate strategy even if he can make pocket experiences for himself where he gets to believe that the relationships were real. I think the evidence pointing towards Gaimen having a long running pseudo 'therapist' he is comfortable sending his accusers to talk to, who then encourages the accuser to think their friends are controlling them, speaks to how deeply this approach to life can saturate a person's existence. When I say 14 represents a lifestyle choice, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Someone who fucked up and made a few grievous errors, and did soul searching, and is trying to do better doesn't send their victims to their on call professional gassligter with religious privilege who they outsource to. This looks like 'life revolves around finding ways to control and silence people' level shit.

[libris46]

As is tradition we held our annual "Batshit Aussie Moment of The Year" poll on twitter this month, and as is also tradition it was a complete dumpster fire and we ended up having to delete our account again. Such is life, as the French don't say.

Nevertheless we had a lot of great nominations from what was truly a year full of the utmost topshelf batshittery which we shan't be letting go to waste. So we preset:

Batshit Aussie Moments of The Year, The Now Undemocratic Countdown

Leading the nominations there was of course Raygun, the little Aussie PHD breakdancer that couldn't. Recently she has trademarked her name and there was a whole lawsuit around using it so no further comment on that.

Dr Ray was followed close in second place by Australia's former Deputy Prime Minister being filmed drunkenly making phonecalls while sprawled across a sidewalk.

This glorious video saw the good people of Australia rise to the occasion with all the pisstaking the moment deserved, complete with chalk crime scene markings, a plaque being installed, and a candlelight vigil held by locals.

Also making a strong showing in the polls was Australia's richest woman Gina Rinehart pulling a Barb Streisand by demanding her unflattering portrait be removed from Australia's National Art Gallery, which of course made it immediately go viral.

Lol. Also noteworthy in the nominations was the horse that escaped its enclosure and tried to flee by catching a train, making national news headlines in the process.

But for all those big names/horses who we're sure would love the limelight, the crown title of this year's Batshit Aussie Moment of The Year is being awarded to a regular everyday Aussie (and tumblr user) who fought the system and (almost) won:

After 23 year old Aussie racecar driver Oscar Piastri won the Hungarian Grand Prix, our very own @the-prophesied-mouse "jokingly submitted an e‒petition" to Australia's parliament asking that the day become a public holiday, "assuming it would get thrown out".

Instead their request for a yearly national "Oscar Piastri Day" crossed the threshold of signatures required for a response, being then escalated all the way to the Prime Minister's desk after the responding minister decided it was of utmost importance.

After being sternly considered by no less than three government ministers, sadly in November it was declared that the petition would not be ratified, due to the small issue of the federal government not having the power to create holidays (it's apparently a state thing).

The government did however point out that many national days are celebrated without official proclamation from the Australian government, and so it is, with the powers vested in us by all you loveable weirdos, that we do solemnly declare from this day forth that the 21st July shall be forever known as Oscar Piastri Day, and may all non-believers fear our wrath.

Anyway, happy new year to you all from us here in Aus. Farewell to a truly Batshit year, and here's to no doubt more of the same in 2025. We will leave you with this heartfelt reminder of a true national treasure we lost this year, the progenor of perhaps the most iconic Aussie batshit moment of all time, The Right Hon. Mr Democracy Manifest:

Happy new years to youze all!

[libris46]

There was an interesting thread on Bluesky dissecting Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's relationship

TL:DR - It seems like Gaiman has been exaggerating the level of closeness between them for YEARS

[libris46]

A little reminder in these Neil Gaiman times:

Abusers groom allies as much as they groom victims. When they get accused, they need to have a list of people who will say they could never. They go out of their way to help you. They're funny and charming. They want you on the witness stand in their future trial.

If you got groomed as an ally and not as a victim, you would have no way of knowing who they are behind closed doors and you're not a bad person because you believed them.

The only thing you can do now is decide what to do with the information you have. That's the only part that is your responsibility alone, and you can choose to Sunk Cost Fallacy this shit or you can choose to be better. That is the one choice the abuser has left in your hands, make it wisely.

Sunk Cost Fallacy also applies to how invested you are in an artist's work. How much it defined you. How much it helped you through the hard times. How you imprinted onto these characters and let them share the burden of living with you for a while or a lifetime.

As a veteran of the 2007 Harry Potter internet forums, I am here to tell you that you did that. Neil didn't do that. The lessons you learned, the ways of being you adopted, the comfort you found, you did that. Neil Gaiman wasn't in your library nook or bedroom or study hall or apartment walking you through it. You consumed An Art and applied it to your own life because you are a sympathetic human being who wants to find community with other human beings.

The lessons you learned are yours. They aren't tainted by his behavior because he wasn't in your room telling you how to feel. You were feeling on your own. Take those lessons forward into something new and better.

None of this is an excuse to keep consuming his intellectual property and I will judge you hardcore for doing so, signed, the girl with a HP tattoo who hasn't read HP or fanfic in over a decade.

You don't get to keep it because it was important to you. It was important to you because of who you are, not because of who he is, and you can bestow your precious sympathy and attention somewhere else going forward. I believe in you.

Godspeed, little angels and demons.

[libris46]

[libris46]

The worst people who did not learn to love, read a book, meet a neighbor, leave their hometown, study in school, appreciate art, learn an instrument, travel abroad, seek knowledge, reflect on their shortcomings, ask for forgiveness, or work on their insecurities are using a silver-spooned liar and racist bully engorged on resentments to greenlight their cruelty towards people they don't even know.

Fcuk that.