#Exceptions may apply in cultural contexts I'm not aware of

[some-teeth-in-a-trench-coat]

You can always put a traditional instrument in your modern music genre. It is always morally correct.

[chocolatepot]

Twitter is rapidly sinking as people are only allowed to look at it for about ten minutes a day, so I thought I would put together a post explaining the best way to get started on Mastodon! It can be an intimidating prospect as it's not as immediately user-friendly as Twitter or other corporate social media sites.

Selecting a server

The main difference between Mastodon and Twitter is that you don't just "sign up for Mastodon". Mastodon is effectively made up of hundreds of small sites (called "instances") that are all interconnected ("federated") and use the same interface. The instance you choose has only a minor effect on your experience. The main one to be aware of is that if an instance is known to be poorly moderated and have users who cause a lot of trouble, other instances may unlink from it ("defederate") and make it more difficult for people on it to interact with you. This is rare. The very big, unthemed instances like mastodon.social are more likely to have this problem than any fannish one, in my experience. (You can also make a personal choice to block an entire instance if you have an issue with it.)

The other effect is that each instance has its own universal feed of all users on it.

The sidebar looks almost exactly like Twitter's, except for "local" and "federated". Your home feed is just the people you follow. "Local" is everyone on your instance, and "federated" is everyone on any instance yours is federated with. The local feed is why it's worthwhile to choose an instance that has some sort of theme you're interested in, like fandom, tech, queer issues, history, etc.

The two main fannish instances I'm aware of are fandom.ink and federatedfandom.net. There's also wandering.shop but that seems to be more for writers, in my experience. If you want a different sort of instance, just google "[topic] mastodon instance" and you should find it.

Applying to your instance

Because instances are more tightly moderated than the rest of social media, you can't always immediately get into the one you want. (Though I suspect that many have opened up slightly as Twitter flails.) You may need to submit some kind of application and wait a few days.

If you know someone on the instance you want to join, they may be able to get you an invite code so you can skip the queue. I have unlimited invites for fandom.ink, hit me up if you want to join.

You can also join an instance that's currently taking new accounts and then transfer into the one you want later. For the impatient souls.

Posting

The mechanics of posting are just like Twitter's.

You type in the box, you hit "toot" (I know), and out it goes. You may notice that you get a 500 character limit! This is nice.

If you add an image, make sure to add alt text. Not including alt text may get you flamed or shamed. You can also make a poll, set privacy levels, and add a content/spoiler/trigger warning that will require people to click through to see the text.

Use of hashtags is strongly encouraged on Mastodon. I've seen some talk praising Tumblr's style of having a separate field for tags and suggesting Mastodon add that, but I don't know if it'll happen. But unlike Twitter, there's an earnest culture of incorporating tags into your text (eg "I just bought a new #fountainpen") and following tags to get posts about different topics. This is the main way to find people with similar interests to follow, outside of your local feed.

It's also Mastodon culture to write an introductory post with your interests, including hashtags, so that people can find you.

Something else to be aware of is that you can edit your posts! If anyone has already rt'd ("boosted") them - they will just get a notification of your edit.

You cannot qrt on Mastodon at this time. It's a hotly debated topic. You will have to settle for boosting and then replying, or making your own post with context and linking to the post you want to qrt.

Following other people

If the person you want to follow is on your instance, that's all well and good. Click on their name, go to their profile, click the "follow" button.

If they are not on your instance, you need to make sure that you're accessing them through your instance. Clicking on their name from your federated feed, or if someone has boosted them onto your home feed, will automatically take you to the version of their profile on your instance. Also all well and good.

If you get to their profile from somewhere else, such as a direct link from another social media platform, that's a problem. If you try to follow, their instance will bleat at you that you don't have an account. There are two ways to get around this.

One is to paste their entire username (eg "@chocolatepot@fandom.ink") into the search bar on your instance, from your home feed. The other is to navigate to "http://[your server address]/[their whole username]" in your address bar. Both will take you to the same place.

[our-trans-punk-experience]

Mohawk anon here, actually it's a lie that I got all my info from Wikipedia, I did some digging before hand and found this article kinda useful https://www.popsugar.com/beauty/mohawk-hairstyle-history-48916724 look idk if u care abt this topic, it was completely stressing me out yesterday in a way I don't think is entirely normal (idk I think I'm starting to treat politics like religion in the way I berate myself as if I have sinned) I know anything more complicated than a yes or no answer on this topic will never be enough to suffice for me I feel like such a bad leftist and a hypocrite, like I'm happy to change myself when I learn my behaviour is wrong bit not for something that actually matters a lot to me, like I care about my hair SO much and I want to keep it SO much bit I don't want to live with guilt over something that may not be an issue or is at the least a very complex one. Have you ever dealt with anything like this and am I a bad person for feeling this way?

Ok hello, first I would like you to take some deep breaths.

[For context anon sent me two asks in a row, the first being an ask over whether mohawks were offensive to wear, in the same tone as above post]

I am not Native American, but I have been around the scene a while and seen a variety of takes on this. I'll open this ask obviously to corrections but from pretty much everything I've ever seen or experienced, no the hairstyle you refer to is not offensive to wear. It's not a closed practice, and tbh the way that punks style it is so different to any sort of traditional cut that the name "mohawk" is the only thing that still ties it to indigenous people.

Obviously exceptions apply if you were say, wearing it as a "costume" to mock native people, but having a 'hawk as a punk has not ever seemed to offend anyone for being any sort of cultural appropriation.

Second point, while I thank you for having the self awareness to realise that you've started to treat political correctness like a religion and that that's not great, I suggest you maybe go further with that and start doing the work to move forward from that?

I get how hard it can be, especially as someone who when growing up would often have their words taken wildly out of context and spun to make me look awful. You feel defensive, you feel like you could be swooped on at any moment for something you didn't even know was wrong. It is awesome you don't want to hurt people, but take some time to self develop so if you ever do accidentally do or say something out of line, you'll be able to fix it and move on without feeling like you're gonna get dammed to hell?

You're not a bad person for having anxious thoughts about fucking up socially. You're not a bad person for wanting to keep a hairstyle you love while worrying it might be appropriation. But try and not define whether you're a bad person on how PC an Internet dude says you are OK? You care, and that's amazing, so keep on growing, and don't ever feel like you're damned for not knowing all the answers.

[kommikoira]

2024_10_22 // glossolalia and i

i think quite a bit. it's probably the thing i do the most of anything at all, and in doing so i find myself solving and defining lots of things in their own special ways to me. this has notoriously resulted in people referring to me as intentionally vague or cryptic, when in most circumstances i just genuinely don't know how to put something without a metric FUCK TON of context; so here is that context, i suppose! i'm going to be going over some of the main facets of my personal morality and guiding principles and such that may need clarification for the sake of making future communication more effective and streamlined in the future as well as provide any important cultural or historical context to the lexicon. think of this as a glossary of sorts, one that i may or may not add to/edit in the future as i continue to grow forever and ever and ever and ever.

starting off with one of the biggest ones, PLUR or PLURR is an acronym originating in classic rave culture as a sort of rule set one would be expected to follow when at a rave and when encouraged to apply to day-to-day life. it stands for Peace Love Unity and Respect (with Responsibility added in iterations including a second R). it has recently in the last few years found traction in parts of the furry fandom, considering the large crossover demographic between the two and even more recently been contorted into a sort of badge to define a particular esthetic and idea an individual wants to put up about themselves. considering this, i tend to classify any modern example of of the phrase into one of three different categories: classical, esthetic, and co-opted. note that there is an overlap present in almost every iteration of it.

classical plur is when it's displayed in the context that it originally would have been intended: a display of an individual using PLUR(R) as a principle to live by or a ruleset to follow. esthetic is when it is displayed as a representation of somebody's esthetic (often times rave or scene inspired) and as a sort of standard to rally others with the same esthetic interest. finally, co-opted plur is the most recent evolution of the usage which has predominantly come out of individuals who desire to fit themselves into the scene, rave, or 'sparkledog' esthetic and community without actually embodying what these communities and terms are really about, therefore their PLURs (often presented without a second 'R') are given exceptions or recontextualized to fit their rigid institutions of morality and missing the entire fucking point. esthetic PLUR(R) is seen in both instances, as one using it would undoubtedly be aware of the communities surrounding it, but in general fits the MO of PLUR co-opters rather than people using it classically.

now, with all of that being said, i use PLURR in the classical sense before all, and to the extreme, trying to apply ideals of peace, love, unity, respect, and responsibility to all things i do in life, seeing the acronym as one of my guiding principles in all things. of course, there is an esthetic usage to it as well, considering that i am a raver and all, but even if i became your run-of-the-mill blue fox furry and never listened to another rave track again or attended a rave, it would never not be my guiding principle.

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality." - Che Guevara

now, the next term is more of a phase, and it also comes sort of hand in hand with the next ones. This is "retoriikkaa ja rakkautta."

this may immediately catch your eyes if you follow my private twitter and now if this is your first time seeing my blog, as it is my display name. retoriikkaa ja rakkautta is finnish and directly translates to "rhetoric and love," but there is another level to this. in finnish, using the word 'rakkautta' is not something to be taken lightly, as it is generally considered a very strong word to describe your love for something. this is intentional in this phrase, as retoriikkaa ja rakkautta is another guiding sort of set of principles to me. they exist in a yin and yang state in my mind, being technically opposed but containing one another. retoriikkaa refers to my political devotions, specifically to communism. rakkautta refers to my expansive love for all that is in this world. the two go hand in hand, as without this love for all that is, i wouldn't be a communist. and, should i not be a communist of some sort, than that love worthy of the term "rakkautta" surely would not exist. this is the philosophy behind another phrase i have used before to describe my work in this world: "kommunismin rakentaminen, rakkauden lisääminen," which translates to "building communism, increasing love." there are motifs that fit the two in my mind, such as paper, left, and the color red being retoriikkaa and plants, right, and the color green being rakkautta.

tying into the previous entry, i would like to define the abstracts and motifs of red and green as i have used them before. red is effectively an embodiment of retoriikkaa, as well as acting as a compartmentalizing tool for specific things and concepts, academics and time being great examples of something i would classify as 100% red in nature. green, as you might expect then, is the embodiment of rakkautta, and is used in the same way. plant life and imagery would be green to me. and then there are things that fit somewhere between the two, such as computers, language, and music falling between the two.

tilakkhana is one that i have seldom used actively, but tend to keep as a permanent fixture (i.e on my private twitter account's bio). this is a term used in buddhism to refer to the three marks of existence which are three characteristics present within all living things. the three marks are impermanence, suffering/unsatisfactory imperfection in all things, and what i will simply describe as the concept of the transient nature of the human experience. i reconcile the use of this term in my own life effectively as a descriptor for a state of great gratitude and resignation. Gratitude for the life that I live and the world I live in and the fact it may change, and resignation to the fact that this is the only life i can live, and so i will be grateful for all things within it as to not be affected by dissatisfaction and maintain humility. it's a recognition of the tao in many ways as well.

the last one is a term i don't use often anymore, but a fundamental descriptor for how i live my life every single day. and that is sharpness. now, this term is originally coined by june strings (who you can find here and on twitter and bluesky). the best way i have come to learn to describe it is radical self-care. it is being specific, being direct, and being honest regarding your own needs. it is making a true effort to say what you want when you want it to yourself and everybody around you. it's also making sure, with bleeding dedication, that you make it clear you cannot give what you do not have, and attempting to do so or hiding that you cannot is only a path to resentment, bitterness, and misunderstanding. you remove assumption from the equation and save as much of yourself for yourself as you need.

i'm sure scrolling june's twitter would give you a better understanding on a deeper level, but this is what it is to me, and it continuously serves its purpose as such, so i think my understanding is more than adequate.

anyway, i hope that was illuminating to any degree or enjoyable. i really like talking about my strange processes so i will always take the liberty to do so when given the opportunity. hope you have a good rest of your night or day and got something out of this, since i think you really could get a lot out of this stuff. god knows i certainly have. lots of love from all of us :)

[beegjuniper]

In that post you screen-caped as an example of bad takes still appearing in this site: What's the problem with it? Not as in: "I agree with it, so I don't see any issue.", but as: "I ask, because I don't really understand what is going on. What is this person even saying?" Is there some context/nuance I'm missing?

the context is that it's a screencap of a post from a blog that is self-proclaimed as "gender critical." (meaning they're transphobic but pretentious about it) the point they're trying to argue is that trans and other queer people in the LGBT+ community are not "really gay" because, as the original poster puts it, they don't understand that revealing your sexuality to people is scary.

there are actually two main problems with the post, other than just the extremely transphobic tone. the first and more obvious one is that it relies on several assumptions about gay and trans people alike that are inaccurate or simply full on bullshit. it claims that the unifying experience of gay people is a fear of revealing that you are gay, in general but especially to authority figures who may have a say in how your life turns out, like doctors, teachers and counselors. while that fear is a common experience of I'd say the majority of gay people, it intentionally ignores the reality that this is NOT a fully universal experience, and is dependent on the culture and location that the person in question was raised in. some gay people don't have that fear because the majority of people in their life are not prejudiced in that way, and they have not had that fear instilled in them because of this. it also ignores the fact that the majority of trans people ALSO have this fear, and that many of them (myself included) would not disclose their status as a trans person to most authority figures in their life, for very much the same reasons as the original poster would not disclose their sexuality. the fact is that many of the people in positions of authority who would have prejudices and biases against gay people share those same feelings towards trans people and LGBT people in general. the original poster deliberately ignores this in order to pretend that trans people are somehow treated "better" in the same situations than gay people are, to essentially act like they're the only ones who experience oppression and bigotry and that this somehow makes them "real." (the part that is especially bad is that they say that "being gay actually carries risks," conveniently ignoring that trans people have been murdered because of their identity and that is a fear that is still common now)

the other main problem is that it frames the experience of being gay around suffering and being afraid, that what makes you "really gay" is not your feelings or your identity, but the fact that other people judge you *because* of that identity, that if you aren't in a situation where you have reason to feel ashamed of your status as a gay person then you aren't actually gay at all, that you're just "pretending." it's an incredibly unhealthy mindset that turns the experience of being LGBT into a competition of who has suffered the most, and is therefore "worthy" of being part of the community. this mindset doesn't actually *achieve* anything, except to turn being LGBT into an exclusive club that only the MOST oppressed are allowed to be a part of. Again, as I mentioned not all gay people are bound by the same experiences, but the original poster claims that if they don't line up with their own PERSONAL experience, then they're liars and pretenders who just want to claim to be gay for... some reason? the logic doesn't actually make sense if you think about it for more than five seconds because it comes from an arrogant and elitist mindset with a sole focus on division and anti-inclusivity, which flies in the face of everything the LGBT community and the pride movement has stood for for decades. the post specifically mocks and criticizes trans people for being open with our identities by claiming that we're just "seeking validation" even though that's the exact same claim that straight people often make about gay people and about pride, that they just want attention. the entire "gender critical" ideology is based around taking the same generalisations and assumptions that straight people have made about gay people for the past hundred years, and reworking them to apply to trans people and others who fall under the queer umbrella without a hint of self-awareness.

tl:dr, the poster tries to state a blatant lie about trans people to justify their own bigotry, which loops around to also be harmful to gay people. it's a tragic result of them having shit idiot brain fungus, and we hope they get well soon 😔

[faeriexqueen]

back to the future, pretty in pink, sixteen candles, dirty dancing, and Dead poet’s society for the 80s ask!

Aaa, thank you for these! ^o^ (Some answers I rambled with though, ahaha)

Back to the Future: Which decade in the last century would you most have liked to live in?

I keep thinking to all the technicalities of this question, and all the drawbacks/implications of what would come with living in another decade. The Edwardian Era comes to mind since I love the aesthetic, but truthfully I don’t think I could ever live in that time period - it’d have to be after the 70s, because I can’t stand the idea of not having my own credit card or bank account. I’m too independent for that. XD I’d probably choose the late 80s/early 90s, but that’s still with some hesitancy (mostly due to the AIDS outbreak and thinking about what that’d be like to live through).

Pretty in Pink: What’s your signature ‘look’?

I’m trying to think if I have a signature “look”, and I can’t think of one singular outfit - so maybe style is the better word? I like to be comfortable but I like to look nice. When going to work, I definitely dress more “business casual” and will go for anything flowy, classic, or traditionally feminine (blouses, skirts, nice leggings, dresses). But, I also have some older leather/faux leather jackets that I tend to wear a lot and I like boots if I’m not doing heels/flats. I’ve definitely gotten called edgy when I'm out (especially at work, though it always seems to be given as a compliment), so maybe something along those lines? XD

Sixteen Candles: At which age do you consider a person to be mature?

It honestly depends on the person and their personality type - I don’t think maturity comes at a singular age or milestone, and it can be brought on sooner or later due to different experiences (I also think maturity will look differently in different cultures and communities, and even among those are who able-bodied versus disabled). In general, I do think maturity can show itself in a few ways: knowing your boundaries and what is needed to keep you healthy, being aware of when you have to walk away from something or step back. These aren’t going to apply for everyone, but the most mature people I’ve known seem to have some sense of this, as well as an awareness that they’re going to make mistakes and that’s okay. (That being said, someone who knows when to apologize is also mature.)

Dirty Dancing: Where were you when you first heard your favourite song?

I can’t remember where I was exactly, but I’m pretty certain I was home since it was around Christmas time. My favorite piece ever is probably the Pas de Deux from Tchaikovksy’s score for The Nutcracker - I always liked to watch ballet recordings as a kid, and any animated adaptation of The Nutcracker I could find. (I think The Nutcracker Prince may have been how I discovered this piece, but I just can’t remember for sure since I was so young.) For a favorite song that isn’t classical that I still really love, probably all of the music from Titanic since I remember my mom buying that when it came out and watching it at home. I really loved the score and My Heart Will Go On is still a favorite. ^^;;

Dead Poet’s Society: The last time you made a decision that everyone around you told you not to make, how did it work out?

I have a habit of not always listening to people (unless I deeply trust them), mostly because I’ve learned people will always give you their advice on what they find is appropriate, regardless of whether they fully understand the context of your situation (and I just do not have the bandwidth to worry about the input of everyone). So, I rarely ask people for their thoughts in general. XD Two events come to mind, though, with one being when I quit my old job, gave up everything that wouldn’t fit in my car, and moved across to the country to a state I had never set foot in while knowing one person I had met online. Most people (with the exception of my mom) thought I was insane and going to be miserable/regret leaving since I didn’t have permanent housing or a job lined up, but I’ve now been in the same apartment for four years and am far happier/mentally healthier than where I was previously. The more recent thing that happened was I withdrew from a master’s degree, for a list of reasons. Again, people thought I was being rash and crazy for pulling out (because some people can’t fathom why I wouldn’t want a master’s), but considering I saved over $25K in loans and feel like I’m back on track to pursue things I actually care about, I really feel like that was potentially one of the hugest mistakes I managed to avoid. (The degree wasn’t reflective of who I was and what future I wanted either, so again - major crisis averted.)

80’s Movie Asks.

[philosopherking1887]

Apparently it's not allowed to depict characters of color with mental illness, or any weaknesses or vulnerabilities. They must be Strong and Badass at all times and never need help from anyone.

I'm also really confused about the "handing him off as a gift to your fave" bit. I know there are people out there who genuinely think it's bad/racist to ship characters of color with white characters (or aliens played by white actors, I guess?), and that's a whole minefield I don't want to venture into right now, but like... why is the assumption that the character of color (Julian) must be a trophy that is "handed off" to someone else? (Also, what if your fave is another character of color? Who gets handed off to whom? Or does that only apply in pairings with only one POC?) I guess she's assuming that Julian is not your favorite because he's depicted as having flaws and making mistakes, so naturally Garak must be the favorite and Julian is a gift for him. It's also true that Garak isn't shown having to win Julian over; Julian falls for him sort of on his own, partly because of things Garak did for him, but without the hope of winning him over. So maybe that's a way in which Julian can be seen as "handing himself over" to Garak. Major problem with this reading, though: Julian is the main agent of the story. If anything, Garak is the "prize" being fought over by two suitors, and Julian has to earn his favor by proving himself worthy.

Aside from the truly bonkers reading of this specific fic, though, I've seen enough people refer to Cardassians as "white-coded" that I really do want to know why people say that. I can think of two explanations, and neither of them justifies the claim:

Explanation 1: Almost all Cardassians (with only one exception that I'm aware of) are played by white actors.

This is not what "coding" means. Sometimes casting choices can (non-accidentally) coincide with coding (to reinforce it, perhaps), but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to code a fictional group as a real-world group. "Coding" means the group (or character) can be informatively read as representing, corresponding to, or serving as a metaphor or stand-in for a real-world group (or member thereof) in the context of the fictional world. (This is not always intentional on the part of the author[s], but may be implicit due to subconscious influence from the cultural context.) The TOS Klingons seem to me to be "coded" as Mongolian invaders (judging from the light brownface and facial hair choices), but the actors who played them are not Central or East Asian (Michael Ansara was Syrian; that's the closest they came). The Dothraki in Game of Thrones are also (differently) coded as Mongols, but the actors who play them are of various ethnicities, not all Central/East Asian. The Na'vi in Avatar are definitely coded as indigenous Americans, and the actors who play them are all POC (I think), but not all are actually Native American. (Thanks to @cardassiangoodreads for the last two examples.) It would also be really weird to say that any group that isn't coded as some specific non-white race/ethnicity is coded white by default.

Explanation 2: Cardassians are presented as colonial oppressors, and thus must represent white people.

Uh... y'all do know that many different groups of many different skin colors and present racial designations have conquered other groups to subjugate them and exploit their resources, right? Including the abovementioned Mongols, who are a pretty classic go-to example of empire-building conquerors. You would need independent reasons for thinking that the conquering oppressor group was a stand-in for a specific European empire to draw the conclusion that they're being coded white. (In a sense, all of the human/Earth forces in Avatar are thus "coded white," even though some of the characters belong to other human races.) The Cardassians aren't a stand-in or allegory for anything in particular; there are elements of a variety of different real-world sources in their culture, their political system, and their situation vis-a-vis Bajor. They are represented simply as an Other relative to the Federation -- more so than the Bajorans, thanks in part to the more overtly alien physical appearance.

If someone wants to offer a better explanation, I'm all ears.

Lol look at this idiot 😂

Also very fun to conflate "struggling while depressed" as incompetence which is certainly in the rear view mirror by chapter 125, and "being helped by friends while regaining his agency" and being TORN APART! PoC can't have friends. very unrealistic.

Also very bad and wrong to use the canon characters age and not that of the actress?

[scripttorture]

1/2 Hi! I'm the one who asked about the magical "truth serum." Thanks for answering my original question! I don't know if this changes things, but the police and the laws themselves have been portrayed as ineffective and often brutal, and the society that I'm writing about is already shaking itself apart because of huge injustices. The only times I've shown the spell in action, it's with people who were eager to co-operate anyway, and when it started to hurt the interrogation fell apart.

2/2 My MC does have lasting psychological damage from his encounters with them. If the way to proceed is to show that this technique is worse than useless, that it's one more reason why the prisons are filled with unjustly convicted people, and that the police who do this are torturers with everything that goes with that, I do think I'm in a position to write that.

For readers generally theoriginal ask with my original response is here.

 Yes that contextchanges things. It means that I think I completely misunderstood the originalask. That happens occasionally and I’m sorry about that. Thank you for being sounderstanding.

 A lot of askers tend toapologise for sending in long asks but honestly more information is morehelpful for me. Having wider context for the story helps. We’re tackling toughsubjects here and I think detail and nuance is incredibly important

 Knowing that you’reshowing this as ineffective makes all the difference.

 The original ask wasabout effects, both on the victims and society more generally. I’m going tostart with the MC, this is going to apply to victims generally though.

 I’ve got a summary ofthe commonpsychological effects of torture here. Symptoms are generally the same nomatter what technique is used (there are a few exceptions but even thoseinclude the common symptoms on the list). Victims won’t all experience the samesymptoms and it’s impossible to predict who will experience which symptoms.

 As a result I tend tosuggest picking symptoms based on what the author feels fits the character andoverall story best.

 Given the way you’reusing this magic I think memory problems would be an excellent fit for thestory.

 In the long term aftertorture memory problems can manifest in several different ways and theseproblems can occur separate or together. Broadly speaking they come in aboutthree categories: memory loss, intrusive memories and inaccurate memories.

 Memory loss can mean forgetting the traumatic incidententirely but that’s not a very common form of problem. More commonly what itmeans is forgetting chunks of time immediately before and immediately aftertorture. It can also mean a sort of long term forgetfulness which makeseveryday life much more difficult. Learning new things, remembering wherethings are, being on time- simple everyday things like that become a lot moredifficult.

 That sort memoryproblem is incredibly common and rarely shown in fiction. I’ve actually had afew survivors contact me to say they weren’t even aware what they wereexperiencing was a symptom.

 Intrusive memories are alot easier to explicitly link to torture. They’re basically continuallyremembering and going over a traumatic event. It means that the character isconstantly reminded of torture, by small everyday things. And those remindersprompt an extremely vivid, detailed memory of the abuse they suffered. It meansthinking about what they survived almost all the time.

 Inaccurate memories aremuch harder to identify as a problem from ‘inside’. They feel like normalmemories and people experience them generally are convinced that their memoryis accurate.

 They usually affectmemories of and around torture and they’re often about details. Someone mightsay that the door of the room they were tortured in was on the left, when infact it was on the right. They can affect things like remembering exactly whodid what when and in what order.

 This can makeprosecuting a torture case extremely difficult.

 For your story inparticularly I want to highlight the work Morgan et al did with US soldiers.The soldiers, who all had years of front line combat experience, went through afake capture scenario as part of a ‘training exercise’. Some of them were thenput through a ‘high stress’ interrogation which included shouting, abuse andthe sorts of clean beating US rules allowed at the time. The other had a‘low-stress’ interrogation, a chat over a hot drink.

 Morgan then tested themthe next day to see who recognised their interrogator. Depending on how theywere asked to identify the interrogator between 51-68% identified the wrong person. Most of them wereconfident they’d gotten the right person. (The paper can be found here: C AMorgan et al, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry in 2004, 27, 265-279pgs)

 The interrogations werearound four hours and I think this study is really relevant to what you want towrite. Don’t worry too much if you can’t access the paper itself. The generalpicture of memory problems are more important than the in-depth statistical andmethod analysis the paper concentrates on.

 I’ve stressed all ofthese memory problems for a reason: I think you should show this magic as worsethan useless and I think this is the most sensible way to tackle it. It’s not alie if you honestly think it’s true and our memories are incredibly prone toflaws especially when we’re stressed or in pain.

 To put that a bit morebluntly: what we think is factually true canchange if we’re in pain.

 And those falsememories can persist and feel just as ‘true’ as accurate memories.

 The next thing I thinkyou really need to consider are the police officers themselves. There’s lessresearch on torturers then torture victims but what we have overwhelminglysuggests that torturing other people causes severe mental illness in thetorturer.

 Idiscuss the kinds of effects it has in another ask here (the questionitself involves mentions of rape and sexual abuse but there are no graphicdescriptions in the question or answer).

 Have a read through ofthat because whether you focus on any of the police as characters or not ifthis system comes down that’s a lot ofpeople with those symptoms who will be out of work. Their society is goingto have to come up with a way of coping with that.

 That can take a lot ofdifferent forms. In Soviet Russia it was lethal purges. In South Africa it wasthe Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In the aftermath of the Bosnian war it’sbeen one of the most successful series of war crimes trials in history.

 On the nicer end you’relooking at long term mental health programs and re-training programs, jailsentences for the worst offenders and a structured plan to get these peopleback into the community in a healthy way.

 On the worse end it’signoring the problem and ending up with a lotof people who are violent, traumatised and can’t hold down a job anymore. Thatmeans a massive uptick in homelessness and problems related to addiction (iemore demand for health services then the set up can support).

 Those are problems forthis society afterwards. During all of this the problems are gonna be a littledifferent.

 This system will haveabsolutely destroyed the public’s trust in the police force. In a way that goesbeyond the ways torture normally destroys the public’s trust in the policeforce. There is normally a drop in people volunteering information to thepolice when the police torture but in most scenarios that’s because they’reafraid people they know will be tortured not because informants are at risk oftorture themselves. But everyone istortured in this scenario, including the witnesses and the people who reportcrimes.

 Simply put people willstop reporting crimes.

 The police might usethat to argue that crime has dropped and what they’re doing works.

 In fact you’ll have asystem of more or less complete collapse. I don’t know whether crime wouldactually rise but it would certainly go unpunished.

 With no onevolunteering information and a general culture of silence the police wouldprobably respond by arresting people at random. This is pretty common inpolicing systems that have come to rely on torture.

 Not only does this meanmore brutalised, injured people and less trust in the police it also creates aculture of fear. Because under these circumstances people tend to assume that there is a reason the police took the peoplethey did. They assume the raids and the disappearances are to do with someunder lying logic even when none exists.

 I think the best thingto read for the sort of societal affects you might see is Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. And luckily it’snow available for free over here.

 The only parts of Fanon’sbook I’ve read in detail are his psychiatric notes on patients he treatedduring and after the Franco-Algerian war. These included torture victims,torturers and the families of both groups.

 But the majority of thebook is about the injustice of colonialism, shaped by Fanon’s experience of France’sbloody, unjust policy of mass detention and torture of Algerians during thewar. (For further reading on France’s torture practices in Algeria see H Alleg’sThe Question)

 You’ve essentially gota society where there is no law enforcement and at the same time citizens areperiodically and randomly pulled off the street and tortured. There’s going tobe a lot of fear and a lot of distrust of authority. People may or may not haveformed their own parallel social systems already (with their own law enforcersand their own back-room courts).

 And that’s now edgingtowards @scriptsociology’s area of expertise. This is going to be an intensely fracturedsociety with a lot of genuine grievances and a lot of really profoundly illpeople who’ll need help. I strongly suggest consulting @scriptsociology if youwant this society to be rebuilt or come together, because it’s a lot easier forsocieties in this situation to fall apart rather than come back together.

 That may not havecovered anything but I think it’s a decent broad overview. If you’ve got any morequestions feel free to ask as soon as the box is open again. :)

Disclaimer