#I don't care how good your theory is if doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong

[teledyn]

“Nothing exists in the intellect that was not previously in the senses.”

— St. Thomas Aquinas

[wanderingandfound]

I don't know if the guy they arrested is the guy who did the shooting or not. Either way it's funny. If he is the guy, then the cops were completely wrong about the veterinarian's gun and the plane to Moscow. If he isn't the guy, then the cops arrested the wrong guy! Either way the cops are fools.

But last night I went on Twitter and in like, five minutes saw some stuff that had me uh, concerned. There's plausible deniability, playful deniability, the fact that everyone is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in the US, and the fact that cops fucking lie. All of those posts are well and good. Then there was stuff that was veering into conspiracy theories, and those are alright in moderation. But uh, there were also some people apparently (? maybe I read it wrong?) seriously agreeing with a 4chan (that's the greentext > posts right?) how it's inconceivable that a smart, wealthy, good looking young man in tech who got good grades and had a good job would go and kill someone.

And like.

Okay. First of all: who do you think kill people? Which one of those aspects of his identity doesn't match your understanding of a killer? There were other tweets saying the same thing as the 4chan post, but does the context of it coming from 4chan give you any insight into what OP might be thinking?

Secondly. What on earth??? My experience as a severely introverted mathematics student put me only adjacent to the social world of the comp-sci students but like??? Yeah actually wealthy white libertarian computer science guys often don't have qualms with killing people in the abstract! This is not a stretch of the imagination at all! Before I withdrew from college I was becoming friends with another math major who declined applying to a DoD internship our stats professor offered them because they felt bad for the PTSD the drone operators incurred when killing people, not because they cared about the emotional states of the people being killed. And this is someone who had fewer societal privileges helping them than the current suspect seems to.

Again: I don't know if the person they arrested is the person who did the killing. But any argument that boils down to "he's not the type of guy to do this" from someone who doesn't know him personally is going to get an incredulous look from me.

[marygih]

Myron Bentham x Abraham Portman.

You are young and naive, you are passionately in love and completely trust, this man is older than you, well, it doesn't bother you, because this is the brother of the woman who saved you and took care of you, he must be as good as she is. He is gentle and affectionate, he knows what words to say, he knows when you need affection, he holds your hand and does not get upset when you have a bad day, a bad week, a bad month. He just bends down and gently kisses you on the lips, burying his fingers in your hair and saying how beautiful you are and how much he loves you. You feel loved and desired.

One day he offers you his great idea - to share your soul and share your ability to see monsters so that others can protect themselves too. You agree with delight. He's smart, he loves you, he's just as good as the woman who was like a mother to you. What could possibly go wrong? Everything is going wrong.

You're in terrible pain, you're in so much pain that you can barely stand on your feet and you feel like something is dying inside you. This is bad, really bad. He asks for forgiveness and tries to help you, you scream a curse, the pain of betrayal burns your hearts. You run away in disgrace and lose your newfound family. Shame will burn you all your life.

I don't particularly ship these two, I see it more as a broken trust relationship, Bentham in theory would be an uncle to Abe, But your writing inspired me...

Allow me to write another excerpt for this story :

[…] You feel so sad, so bad, So betrayed... You need to talk to someone... But who? You feel so pathetic... So weak... MOTHER. I mean Miss Peregrine, she will listen to you, she will know how to comfort you. She always knows... It was a mistake for you to accept all of this. It's an even bigger mistake that you didn't talk about it with her. She would have said that Bentham was untrustworthy... He must have been suspicious, she never talked about her brothers, and in the few quotes she never said anything positive. She said Bentham had turned into a Wight... She lied, but she probably did it so I would never get close to her brother...Perhaps she considers him as dangerous as a Wight...

A letter, all you do is write a letter. Maybe it's humiliating at the first problem to go straight to crying on mom's lap. But right now it's all you can think about. She receives the letter and immediately comes to see you. She's worried, she's angry, she wants to protect you from everything, she assures you that everything will be fine, that she will solve it, that she will recover the stolen part of your soul, she will make you whole again. She swears, and you trust her.

Seeing Bentham again is a nightmare, you only see him as a great traitor . The bird hates him, she screams at him, she demands his soul back. Bentham says it's impossible, She says they will reverse engineer his experiment, that they will get back the stolen soul, she is tired of Bentham's lies.

You wait days, what if you were wrong? What if Bentham did all this without evil intentions? The results come out... He never put his soul into the guinea pigs, they were the souls of domestic animals. He lied...He really lied, he LIED ALL THE TIME. The bird is sure he has your soul, he says no, but you don't trust him anymore, he lies, HE LIES A LOT. After so many lies you no longer know how to discern whether what he says is true or not.

You leave... You don't feel like you have a place in the world... You're not whole and you never will be again... You don't know what Bentham wants your soul for, but you hope he dies choking on it. You go to America, there aren't many hollowgasts there, you will be safe until you recover. You will start a new life from scratch. A new life, without fear, without pain, without betrayal. A place where you are not an embarrassment to those you love. You didn't want to have to start over... But you don't see any other options. Maybe with time you'll forget all this, forget Bentham and all the harm he did to you.

Hello America, I hope that fate here is kind to me […]

---

I have a weakness for writing scenes about people who have been betrayed and feel bad about it. I'm a drama queen.

[trilies]

you act as if people drawing and posting porn involving minors is normal behavior. not every CSA or COCSA victim is going to be comforted by people fetishizing the thing that traumatized them, acting like people being uncomfortable with DRAWN CHILD PORN is somehow taking resources away from victims is disgusting. Not to mention I doubt a good chunk of the larger artists known for drawing ~risque~ shit involving kids are all somehow CSA survivors. Not everyone who draws children and adults getting it on is a victim, what excuse do they have for making our trauma wank material? Pitching a fit about how people having an opinion about and acting like they're some bogeyman because they said it's nasty to sexualize children is a bad look. you say bog's obsessed when you've filled the recent posts with his tag with you whining about them. grow the fuck up and learn that "block someone if they post shit you don't agree with" can go both ways.

oh hey, someone with their name attached to an ask, haven't got one of those in a while

Anyway

(1) "you act as if people drawing and posting porn involving minors is normal behavior."

I mean, if we're going to be honest, a lot of things about erotic fantasies aren't "normal", so I don't really care about that word usage? That means nothing.

What I care about is actual harm, and there is no actual hard proof that these stories/art/fantasies/whatever *on their own* lead to a greater increase in CSA or grooming.

We know people may use it, but that's because groomers use everything. But we learned that we aren't going to hold candy stores on lock down, but rather teach kids about "stranger danger".

(2) "not every CSA or COCSA victim is going to be comforted by people fetishizing the thing that traumatized them"

Cool, I never said that. But it is undeniable that many other victims have found sanctuary in engaging with this fiction in one way or another, or even RECOGNIZED they'd been abused because they saw a fic tagged 'abuse' and connected it to their own life experiences.

What they need to do, if it has an adverse affect on their emotions, is learn to manage tags and their internet bubble.

This may surprise you, but I also don't like lolisho stuff. However, I manage to keep myself safe with proper internet use, not interacting with lolisho accounts, etc.

This can be made difficult depending on the exact site (twitter has always been a trashfire and it's only gotten worse), but the answer is to work together to find a way so that both parties can exist.

(3) "acting like people being uncomfortable with DRAWN CHILD PORN is somehow taking resources away from victims"

.....Yeah, I never said that either. Did you go to the wrong blog?

(4) "Not to mention I doubt a good chunk of the larger artists known for drawing ~risque~ shit involving kids are all somehow CSA survivors"

The problem here is that no one has a magical radar for detecting who's "actually" a CSA survivor or not. You can only ask, and, frankly, a lot of you can't be trusted with that information.

I know this from experience, where I said "this anime lady having mid-boobs isn't a sign she's minor-coded" and someone decided that meant I was lying about being a CSA survivor, or else I'd have agreed with them.

(5) "what excuse do they have for making our trauma wank material?"

I mean, one, they're not making "your" trauma wank material. They're not thinking about you, or me, or anyone at all. They're thinking about an anime character or whatever.

If we restrict writing/etc on "did they experience this exact trauma themselves", then we'd have to cut out a LOT of media.

secondly, I know for a fact that one of the theories to why people have rape fantasies is because of the stress of being marginalized in some way, where their sexualities constantly judged and there's no "right" answer which doesn't immediately contradict itself.

(for example, women having to fight between the cultural expectations of "whore" or "prude", so their brain provides a fantasy where they get the great sex but none of the responsibility because the choice was taken from them)

I'm sure some equally fascinating answers could be given for stuff like lolisho... but that would require you approaching people in good faith, recognizing that they're human, and not deciding from the get that they're evil boogeyman who want to hurt YOU specifically.

(7) "Pitching a fit about how people having an opinion about"

That you frame it like this indicates, at least to me, that you don't know how this conversation started out. It wasn't just bogleech "having an opinion". It was bogleech making unsubstantiated judgment calls, and doing things like taking a trans person's words out of context so he could make them look like a pedophile and send his rabid fanbase their way.

Add in him not listening to actual scientific studies and pedojacketing any CSA survivor who doesn't listen to him...

And that is the problem.

(8) "you've filled the recent posts with his tag with you whining about them"

yeah, I got asks about him. Other people were also criticizing him. I tagged with his name so that people who were sick of him and had his name muted and on a blacklist etc could avoid seeing him.

I don't know why that's a struggle to understand. It's basic consideration.

That he's the kind of guy who looks up on his own name on Google search is far more embarrassing.

[miusmusings]

I was rewatching Dangerous Romance for Reasons, and there's sooo many stuff happening in the background, but this dinnertime conversation between Kanghan and his father made me think a little deeper.

Kanghan first brings up the topic of him running for the school president. His grandmother encourages him, saying how proud she'll be to have her son and grandsons be successful in their own areas.

"I could tell the whole neighborhood about it."

Very typical Asian elder talk. C'mon Asian ppl of ql tumblr, we've all heard about how the kid next door is the student representative/won an essay competition/ranked first in the exam/plays a sport in the state level/is good at singing etc etc etc right

Maybe a little very annoying (if you're not running for the school president, that is) but matches up with reality. Elders being proud of their kids' or grandkids' achievements, and more often than not pushing them to do better, to excel. You gotta do better than the other kids in academics/grades/sports/socialablity/arts etc etc

Then Kanghan's father speaks up and his words not only contrasts Kang's grandmother's (can I just call her granny from now? grandmother is too long a word) but with much of the usual way ('usual' cause I can't say every single parent/grandparent in Asia is the same) elders in Asia perceive the childrens' school life. Instead of telling Kanghan to work hard and do well, he actively *discourages* Kanghan to steer away from it.

"This kind of work is not easy, you know?"

"You don't want to do it. Trust me"

Now, I'm all for not stressing out kids. Personal experiences ahaha But this is actively restricting Kanghan from exploring and developing his interpersonal and leadership skills, which, I don't think any parent would want to do? Especially someone from the higher economic background, who would prefer their kids to be all shiny and nice. And this is also cutting off someone's chances of developing themselves, opening their wings to the world.... not the best thing a parent should do, certainly.

But it doesn't stop there. Mr. Father I forgot his name is not merely advising, or cautioning Kang. Instead, he is not leaving Kanghan with any decision to choose whether he actually wants to run or not. He's the one making Kanghan's choices, he's taking away Kanghan's agency.

His words appear to be full of care, concerned for Kang's safety. He just wants his son to enjoy his schools years fully.

"At your age, don't stress yourself out unnecessarily. Just have fun at school and hang out with your friends. Then come home to enjoy a good meal of food. Have a good night's sleep."

But, it just hits me as wrong. Idk why, maybe I'm picking too much, looking at all the wrong things and making the worst assumptions. But still, telling their children to only enjoy themselves and do nothing else... I don't feel like that's the best for their future life, not matter how much generational wealth they'll inherit. The need to show off kids is proportional to economic affluence, in my experience?? But ofc very variable

"These kind of thing suits you better. Trust me"

This line, especially. It makes it seem that Kanghan never had a choice. His father had made all the choices for his present and future based on the image of Kanghan he has created on his mind. Is his image actually true to reality? We don't know yet (it's only the 1st ep and I'm def digging too deep and pulling wild theories out of slowly-thickening-but-still-too-this air.)

Kanghan will be what his father wants him to be, what his father believes would suit him. Not so much of a caring father then, eh?

Another interesting thing is Kanghan's posture. He's tense, hunched, not meeting his father's eyes except for in quick, shifty glances. Completely different from his father's confident, smiley way of presenting himself. He's not smiling, he just listens and agrees quickly without saying a word of opposition, or bringing up his own views on the topic.

And in moments like these I wish I knew gifmaking because when these conversation is happening, Kanghan is fidgeting with the cutlery in his hand. He's nervous, stressed.

And his father, who doesn't want his son to be stressed, should atleast be able to tell how the atmosphere has turned heavy, right? but he doesn't seem t care much about stress on his son if he's the one behind the stress.

Now I'm no body language expert but these are some tell tale signs (though the context of Kang's nervousness can be due to some other history he has with his father, rather than emotional manipulation?)

"Have this, son."

And the obedient son is rewarded with a gift of affection. A show of care. Positive reinforcement. Whatever you wanna call it.

Kang tries to smile but of course he can not.

There's another thing, Grandmother, the oldest one at the table, who ought to have enough authority in the household to counter Mr Father, if not more (cause seniority, filial piety and all that), does not oppose him. Though she is not happy with the decision, and she also wants to see her grandson shine and smile.

Then we cut to the scene of Pimfah hope I'm not mistaking names again and Kanghan in the garden. Here, Kanghan seems fine, he's smiling, but he seems to have a dangerous (sadistic?but not in the fun way. also half title drop yay!) streak to him.

The whole dog discussion shivering and hugging my cats protectively.

"My father told me, if you want to tame a dog, don't be afraid to punish it to let it learn."

At first I thought he's just being his privileged rich oppress the poor talk that he's socialised into for being born into wealth.

But after thinking this way, could it be that the one getting punished and tamed, is actually Kanghan himself? With the way his father treats him, denial followed by care, and the way Kanghan does not even try to disobey his father's words... hmmm....

"They say if you hit a dog too much, it can become aggressive."

Being abused as a child lead to higher chances of the child turning abusive, a bully themselves in later life.

That said, whatever one faces in childhood or any other walks of life is NO excuse for further harming another person. Lots of abuse victims become activists, volunteers, or research into abuse prevention and participate in policy making, too.

But anyway, *if* abuse of truly happening in the father-son relationship, can we hope that Kanghan directs any resultant aggressiveness towards his father at the end of the show? Cause idk if a man of such power and wealth can be held accountable to the law... We didn't get this with Vegas but can I hope?

That said, the following dialogues has weakened my line of thought.

But then again media is always perceived differently by different people based on their socialisation and experiences so...

SO anyway, that's some of the scattered thoughts I had! This is probably not a correct observation (my guesses are never right, I'm not lucky at cards ueueue), and ep 2 will prove it wrong in a few hours. Can't say I'm not looking forward to that ehehe~ What consequences will Sailom face for his daring? Will the teacher get punched? Will Kanghan get beaten? (hopefully by Sailom or his friends and not by his father) Will Nawa get slapped? (Guy looks like he packs a mean slap, and Marc Pahun looks pretty af when he's miffed u.u) Will Pimfah have cute girlie? (I CAN HOPE), will we get to see Sailom's elder brother?

ALSO, since we have yet another politician and his rich, spoilt on the exterior son airing on Saturdays, my views have certainly been influenced, too. There are too many similarities (except Kanghan actually still has a mother figure?), so high chances I'm unconsciously projecting Senator Thattep and Tanthai's relationship on Kanghan and his father's. Maybe all they have is some coldness, or historym or issues regarding Kanghan's mother? The possibilities are not endless, but there's a lot u.u

[atomicapplebees]

I feel like a good part of what you're saying is we should not be defining womanhood by suffering. I agree! Womanhood is not inherent suffering! Generally people who feel like women have positive feelings about that! Every individual should be able to define it for themselves, positive and negative feelings alike.

But to say you have to know what it's like to be a woman in your soul in order to face misogyny is just laughable.

Whether someone has an inborn gendered qualia is irrelevant. Misogyny is an outside force. It happens to anyone percieved to be a woman. Whether they feel like a woman in their heartest of hearts is doesn't matter. If percieved as too womanly, it could even happen to men!

And believe it or not, it hurts. Even if the insult is meant for True Women and we're just, i guess, splash damage, it was still meant for the person it was aimed at. It still hurts. You've got trans guy after trans guy in your notes telling you it hurts. But it seems like none of that counts, because you've determined their qualia based on a single identity label they share with you.

"I'm not a woman so misogyny slid right off my back" ok?? Good for you??? I've never done a scientific test to determine the true gender of my soul but I can tell you I was forced into the box of "woman", which like it or not comes with a buttload of cultural pressures. The only way to liberate myself was to rally with other women, and other people in that box. Nothing that led me to taking on a different identity label changed that. Not all of us had a misogyny phase.

I'm still advocating for women. Not doing so would still be advocating against me. I feel this based on my own experiences; yeah even trans women, despite not sharing a birth assignment! Trans rights and women's rights are both part of a venn diagram! (And even if I didn't have a personal stake in it I still care about people that aren't me??) I am advocating for myself too. I guess this comes across as selfish to some people, because if men have a problem that means women don't (this is called oppositional sexism. Queen Julia Serano has a thing or two to say about it.)

You're also trying to equate "authority" with "understanding" and portray both as somehow counter to "experience".

This is gonna sound wild but I think even a cis man can understand women's experiences! It's even possible for them to overlap in some ways. They may not experience it firsthand, they may not understand everything, and it certainly wouldn't make them an authority. But we are all humans under a rigid gender system, to say we can't understand each other is, again, oppositional sexism.

None of us are claiming to be the authority on misogyny or woman's experiences. There is no authority, that's why we have diverse groups of people writing feminist theory, many of which disagree with each other! Even if they're women! Even if they're trans women! No one woman's experience or even understanding of her own gender in relation to misogyny is the authority.

Absolutely there are trans men who will try to make themselves the authority on women's experiences. That's rude and bad! But transandrophobia theory is a response to other queer people, not even just trans women, making themselves the authority on trans men's experiences! That is also rude and bad!

A post about transmisogyny doesn't need to include a paragraph about how no one without their exact gender qualia could possibly know what it's like to hurt. You yourself said it's rude and bad and wrong to ignore sexual abuse done to (cis, presumably) men. How is it then ok to ignore gendered abuse done to transgender men?

There are plenty of binary trans men in this disourse who don't feel the same as you and they are not assigning a female experience to you. Most trans men aren't assuming a female experience to everyone born with a uterus. We're not saying misogyny = womanhood either. You can't assume that a pure, binary, innately trans man has had no positive associations with womanhood. If you transitioned because you hated womanly things with a passion that's like, cool or whatever. But actually, I had quite a few things I liked about being a girl! I just like being a boy better! It's that fucking simple!

"Yehbutt you're genderqueer/not binary/man-lite so you don't count" No, I reject the idea of binary and nonbinary as distinctly opposing experiences. Being treated like a woman and a man and neither over the course of my life is not irrelevant to my feelings of gender. Maybe I identify as wholly all of those at once. I am the authority on my own experiences that effect my personal understanding of gender. Nobody gets to degender me just cause they don't like how i describe my gender.

I'm sorry it causes dysphoria in some people to say men can face misogyny, but that's not my problem. People should stop trying to map their own experiences onto others and demand the other isn't real because they don't match.

It really doesn't matter whether gender is innate or not. Some people may feel like it is and that the harmful messaging for their assigned gender never hit them. Some people won't, and every insult to their assigned gender is like a knife in the heart. Some will feel another way entirely. No one is trying to be the authority on anyone else's experiences. Except you.

(Unpopular opinion: "female" is as much an identity as "woman" is. Sex divisions are as much a societal force as gender is, it is not somehow more real just because there are things about it that can be quantitatively measured. It's not coopting womanhood for a trans woman to say she is female. Please, talk to us not terfs. "I identify as female" is a thing a lot of people say. We can argue about identity vs reality til the cows come home, but identity is part of experience and you can't tell someone their experience is wrong.)

Lately I've been dipping my toe into the mess that is transandrophobia discourse, and in the process I've been presented with one question in many forms:

"Do trans men experience misogyny?"

My initial answer was "these terms are all theoretical frameworks for a vast range of human experiences, why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?" This makes sense to me, but clearly isn't satisfactory to many of the people sending me anons. As much as I might want to use my own life as a case study, I can't very well tell these people in my asks box "no, you've never experienced something that could be categorized as misogyny." Still, the question bothers me.

I think that's because the question obfuscates the actual debate. It's clear to me the question we are debating is not one of "experience" but "authority." That is:

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?"

My answer? No.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men. If we cast aside the idea of transness as a modern social construct or anything other than an innate and biological reality, this has to be true. Even before you ever came out to yourself, you were transgender. Transphobia has dictated every moment of your life. Your idea of what "womanhood" is is not at all the same as a woman's, be it cis or trans. Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do. [If you do not experience these things, a cis or trans woman, at the very least, does not identify as a binary trans man.] A woman sincerely identifies as a woman, and identity plays a pivotal role in how we absorb societal messaging.

Let's take homophobia as an example. While any queer person has probably experienced targeted episodes of bigotry, the majority of bigotry we experience must necessarily be broad and social. Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence. All of them are suffering to some extent, but their experiences are not at all equivalent. This is despite the fact that they've all absorbed the same message, maybe even at the same moment, through the same events. Still, we don't say that a straight boy knows what it is like to be a gay boy. Similarly, cis women do not know what it is like to be a trans man despite being fed the same transphobic messaging in a superficially identical context. It isn't a stretch to say the same can apply to misogyny.

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example for a moment. I'll give my bonafides: I am a gender-nonconforming, T4T queer, white, binary trans man. I am on T, and I have recently come out to my family. I do not pass. My career as a comic writer is tied to my identity as a trans man. I can confidently say I have never been impacted by misogyny the same way as my friends who actually identify as women. This manifested early on as finding it easy to shrug off the messaging that I needed to be X or Y way to be a woman. In fact, most gender roles slid off my back expressly because breaking them gave me euphoria. I was punished in many ways for this, but being this sort of cis woman did help me somewhat. It's easy to be "one of the guys" in a social climbing sense if you really do feel more comfortable as a man. It also helped me disregard misogyny aimed at me or others because it seemed like an shallow form of bigotry. It was something you could shrug off, but it was important for building "unity" among women. I thought this must be the case for all women, that we all viewed misogyny as a sort of "surface level" bigotry. However, for whatever conditional status I gained in this role, there was a clear message that if I did "become" a man, every non-conformist trait about me would just become a grotesque and parodic masculinity.

That was the threat that was crushing me, destroying my identity and self esteem. That was what I knew intimately through systemic, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. I could express my nonconformity as a cis woman, but if I took it so far as to transition to male? I would be a pathetic traitor, a social outcast. I truly believe that throughout my life people were able to see that I was not just a failed woman, but an emasculated man.

I do partly feel that the sticking point for many is the idea that the sexual abuse suffered by trans men is inherent to womanhood, and therefore inexplicable if trans men are men from birth. While this disregards the long history of sexual abuse of young boys, especially minority boys, I do see the emotional core. I'll offer that the sexual abuse I suffered was intrinsically linked to my emmasculation, my boyishness, despite the fact that I was not out to myself or anyone else. I believe many trans men have suffered being the proxy for cis women's desire for retribution against cis men, or for cis men and women's desire for an eternally nubile young boy. I also believe they have suffered corrective assault that attempts to push them back into womanhood, which in itself is an experience unique to transness rather than actual womanhood.

I'll note quickly that many, many trans men cannot relate to the idea of feeling confident and above it all when it comes to womanhood. Many of you probably tried desperately to conform, working every moment to convince yourself you were a woman and to perfectly inhabit that identity. I definitely experienced this as well (though for me it was specifically attempting to conform to butchness) but I can concede many of you experienced it more than I did. I still believe that this desperate play-acting is also not equivalent to true womanhood. It is a uniquely transgender experience, one that shares much more in common with trans women desperately attempting to conform to manhood than with true womanhood.

One key theme running through the above paragraphs is the idea that "womanhood" is synonymous with "suffering." A trans man must know what it is like to be a woman because he suffers like one. It should be noted that actual womanhood is not a long stretch of suffering. It often involves joy, euphoria, sisterhood, a general love and happiness at being a woman. It wasn't until I admitted to myself I had never been a woman that I was able to see how the women in my life were not women out of obligation, but because they simply were. The idea that you are a woman because you suffer is more alligned with radfem theory than any reality of womanhood.

When I admitted my identity to myself I was truly faced with the ways that my ability to stand up to misogyny did not equate to being anti-misogynist. I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity. I didn't even want to engage with female fictional characters. I viewed other people's sincere expressions of their own womanhood as a coded dismissal of my identity. Like many people before and after, I made women into the rhetorical device that had oppressed me. Not patriarchy, not transphobia, but womanhood and women broadly. It wasn't explicit bigotry, but the effects were the same. I had to unlearn this with the help of my bigender partner, who felt unsettled and hurt by the way I could so easily turn "woman" into nothing but a theoretical category which represented my personal suffering.

This brings me to another point: I sometimes receive messages from nonbinary trans mascs telling me that it's absurd to think they don't understand womanhood and identify with misogyny in a deeper way. I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us? Perhaps my experience frustrates you so deeply because we simply do not have the same experience at all. Perhaps we are not all that united by our agab, by our supposed female socialization.

So, no. I do not believe that binary trans men know what it's like to be women. I don't believe we are authorities on womanhood. I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful. I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl. I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist. They do place you firmly in the context of the rest of the world. Zoom out and look at the history of oppressed men, and you'll find the same reactionary movement repeated over and over. Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be. Why do I believe your identity is more alligned with cis manhood than any form of womanhood? Because this song and dance has been done a hundred times before by men of every stripe. Transphobia is real, and your life experience has been uniquely defined by it since birth. This is a thing to rally around, to fight against, but you all have fallen for a (trans)misogynistic phantasm in your efforts at self-actualization. You are not the first, and you will not be the last. Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

[xiaq]

Ok I'm probably not going to say this right but after your last post I have have a question I guess? I don't really like sex and I love the idea of a relationship that doesn't require sex to be happy and healthy. I really relate to the whole not being anxious about taking a shower together or expectations or wahtever that you talked about but I've never experienced it before. Is that something you get from dating a friend? I guess I just want to know how you get to a place like that.

CW for sex talk. Hello friend. Apparently today is the day for Long Ass Ask Answers.

I wish someone had told me this years ago so I’m saying it to you now in case it saves you some angst:

Don’t settle for bad sex.

If you don’t like the sex you’re having, stop. If you don’t like having sex at all—neat! You’ll have so much time for other activities. You do not owe yourself to anyone, under any circumstances, even if you’re socially trained to think you do.

Listen. I took PhD qualifying exams in Feminist theory. And even I had more or less submitted myself to the idea that sex just wasn’t going to be that fun for me and I’d need to learn to deal or be alone.

I admittedly have very little sexual experience, but the experience I had up until my current relationship was lackluster. I wasn’t repulsed by sex, but it was eh at best and painful at worst and I’d never initiated a sexual situation in my life because A. ultra conservative Christian doctrine during your formative years can seriously fuck up your perception of intimacy in general (insert Youth Pastor Voice here: “men enjoy the act of sex, women enjoy the results of sex: children”) and B. I just…would rather do all sorts of other things. Sex was a thing other people wanted from me and if I cared about them I was supposed to provide it.

Objectively, I knew this was wrong. And yet.

Let me lay out some Inarguable Truths for you. Sex should not:

hurt (unless you want it to)

make you uncomfortable

make you feel dread or guilt before or afterward

be used as leverage

be coerced

be treated as a necessity by your partner

I told my current partner at the very beginning of our relationship (when I was trying to convince him that he didn’t actually want to be in a relationship with me) that I didn’t particularly enjoy sex, that I really didn’t like penetrative sex, and I that wasn’t willing to pretend otherwise anymore.

His response: “then we won’t have sex.”

Let me tell you, that threw me for a loop. I was expecting the more typical, “you’d enjoy sex with me” or even “what a waste.”

“Ever?” I asked.

“Ever.”

Well, okay then.

After a couple of weeks, I decided to try anyway. Not because I felt pressured but because I was curious. I thought maybe there would be one of those fanfic/romance novel moments and, suddenly, I’d love sex because I’d found The Right Person. Reader, I did not get my moment. Except for this time, I didn’t feel like I had to just suck it up. So we stopped. We made stir fry and cuddled and talked about the RMS Carpathia and Abraham Lincoln’s assassination (any nerds know what these things have in common?) instead. A+ evening.

A week later, he came to me, and after spending a surfeit of time qualifying what he was about to say with assurances that he didn’t expect anything from me, etc., etc. he told me he’d done some research because he was concerned there was an underlying issue causing my pain/discomfort. I hadn’t ever thought to ask my doctor because, at my pap/annual exam each year, they’d say my downstairs parts looked fine and send me on my way. Surely they would have said something? But I made an appointment with an OB and I brought a list of questions.

Did you know that endometriosis can make penetrative sex hella painful? Did you know that, if you have an autoimmune disease, even if you’re managing it well, you might deal with significant inflammation the week before your period, which can also make sex hella painful? Did you know that if you’re a small human you might just have a lower cervix which can (surprise) make sex hella painful? Did you know that there are things you can do to at least somewhat ameliorate these issues? Did you know that, when you stop viewing sex as an uncomfortable thing you have to provide and instead view it as an optional activity where you have full autonomy, you suddenly stop feeling guilt and dread at the very concept of physical intimacy and can actually, maybe, enjoy it? I do now. I didn’t for 15 years.

Do not settle for bad sex. Because if someone isn’t willing to sort out why you’re uncomfortable, and how to change your approach to intimacy to fix it, they’re probably not a good partner for you. If you simply don’t want sex and your partner insists on it, they’re probably not a good partner for you. There is a whole spectrum of reasons why you might not enjoy sex and I obviously can’t speak to all of them but Please. Learn from my mistakes. When you start drawing hard lines you're going to make progress, one way or another. Don’t let anyone convince you that you’re broken or undesirable if you’re not interested in sex. That’s a them problem, not a you problem.

I arrived to the place I'm at in my current relationship because I advocated for myself and said I wasn't willing to do something that made me uncomfortable. And my partner, who views me as a three-dimensional human being with more to offer the world than my body, immediately validated my feelings and agreed not to push my boundaries. Was the fact that we were friends for years helpful there? Sure. Because I already implicitly trusted him. But the important thing here is to know your limits and be willing to stick up for yourself. If you're explicit about your desires, it's easier to find the folks who are a good fit for fulfilling those desires.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

Alright can we just talk about shipping culture nowadays because honestly it is very much starting to get on my nerves.

So i guess shipping for me had always been part of my fandom experience not in every fandom tho, i get invested in some ships sometimes and last years others i may just get them but not actually ship them and others i ship for a while but they may not be intriguing enough for me.

the point is shipping had always partially been about considering different interactions for certain characters sometimes by keeping said character as they are and sometimes by shifting certain aspects in how they behave or how they are to fit them in said ship and that's honestly fine everyone has there own way of enjoying the fandom

however it is the change in shipping that is absolutely horrible nowadays , it is just not about the characters anymore , it is just tropes I don't know ,has it always been like this ?

Like discussing ships used to be writing a whole analysis about how these characters would fit together and maybe even creating a little background for the characters or just a sufficient 'idk i just like them together'

But now it is just 'well enemies to lovers , guy fell first , redeemed villian what's not to like ' and worse anybody who doesn't agree with said interpretation seems to have no part of the fandom anymore.some characters in canon just can't fit together in a romantic relationship so if shippers want them to fit they are going to have to change their personality entirely and again that is fine but i don't want a whole long ass essay about how YOUR interpretation YOUR own take on the character is how this character actually is in canon so you can ship your characters together and diss on everybody who doesn't agree with you.

This is in both the loki fandom where i don't think anybody talks about anything regarding the show other than loki and sylvie's "chemistry" or loki and mobius , loki is being reduced to this narcissist how needs someone to teach him a lesson or to humiliate him in order to be better , in order to do so most shippers twist sylvie and mobius into these loving caring people they are definitely not to fit this troupe in their heads of " love made the villian turn into a hero", same in the star wars fandom specifically the new triology , it is all about shipping rey and kylo together which i used to enjoy in just for fun really but i don't even want to start talking about how the majority of the shippers were in this fandom 🙄 (also rey deserves better anyways), fandom has been narrowed down to ships , and ones the hype is over most of these fandoms collapse , cause they are just built on liking troupes and imaging the character infront of you regardless of how they actually are to fit this troupe , so if another Show/movie/book series does the troupe better or has a hype right now you look for these troupes and move on from said fandom.Fandoms collapse so fast right now and i believe a huge part as to why is this new shipping culture , shipping is becoming a must in every fandom right now you can't enjoy a fandom otherwise .

This is just my theory really i have been in many fandoms for a long time and weither this is actually what's happening or not, something has definitely changed about how fandoms are right now.

*Phew* sorry about the long rant

Hey, for what it's worth I enjoyed your rant 😉

I have never been a shipper myself so I don't have much insight into this, I'm afraid. I'm glad people have fun with their ships, as long as it's in good faith and they respect those who don't like their pairings or see them in a different light.

The only thing I have seen as of late (as in, the last few years) is that it would seem some people label certain ships as 'morally right' or 'morally wrong' and judge the shippers accordingly. It sucks because the way I see it, shipping is supposed to be good fun for those engaging in it and it shouldn't require a full-on disclaimer from a fan stating they're a good person to justify their favourite ship.

I see what you mean about fandoms collapsing pretty quickly and being narrowed down to shipping. Perhaps a part of that is the fact that many series have their entire seasons released at once, and we have such a huge pool to choose from (and a rather weird idea that we have to consume as much as we can to be in the loop with other people) that folks go from one to another like maniacs, which leaves us with the most basic engagement of shipping a few characters, too little meta and eventually nothing at all.

I definitely agree that in the SW fandom, the Reylo craze was a little too much to handle - and Rey deserved so much better (I say that as a big Kylo fan, by the way), and in Loki's case I think it's funny because they switch the roles: in the series, Loki is good and caring, and Sylvie/Mobius are selfish criminals who only care about themselves. But when it comes to shipping a lot of people switch them and pretend Loki is the selfish criminal and Sylvie/Mobius are the loving and caring ones.

It is one thing to do that if you're writing something canon divergent or you're retconning them for some reason, but to claim that characterization is canon is just wrong.

[bookofmirth]

Hi I am another Elriel shipper that genuinely loves reading you thoughts. While I don’t agree with everything you say I think they are very insightful and thought provoking and I enjoy them . Before I get to my point I just want to say that I am truly sorry on behalf of the Elriel fandom for all the negative that has been going down as of late. As someone who yearns for peace in the fandom and cannot tolerate seeing honest people being torn because of a ship.. seeing this shipwar pains me . I am fairly new to this fandom and I follow many Elriel blogs and pro Elaine and pro Lucien blogs. Some happen to be Elucien shippers too and I find myself gravitating towards them more as people rather than of my fellow Elriel shippers. Don’t get me wrong I still adore Elriel . But I just don’t want to surround myself with certain type of people no longer . My question is , Do you know of any blogs that lean more towards neutral shipping or don’t care about shipping at all?

Hello lovely person!

I'm glad you don't agree with everything I say - I'd assume you weren't really paying attention if you just nodded along like you had a blank smile on your face. I'm sorry the fandom isn't a great experience for you right now. I hope that it changes soon 🤞 In the meantime, ship whatever your heart desires!

These blogs do share similar ships with me, but I know that they either don't participate in the ship war and/or they just vibe. If anyone else wants to recommend their blog as well, feel free! I am not good at going through my dash and I talk so much with people in comments or on discord that I can't remember who is actually active on tumblr.

@cassianandfenrysaremyboyos Lisa and I have been mutuals forever and while we share ships, she's good at just ignoring the BS and doing her own thing

@aelin-godkiller Lou is also a long-time mutual and while she doesn't post quite as much anymore, when she does it's 🔥 she's so smart

@eyllweambassador Ezra is more into ToG, but is a devoted multi/rarepair shipper

@feysandfeels the Lady Lulu to my Lady Lele. She doesn't put up with any anti sjm BS and is a positive space.

@moononastring Yes Gigi is very much an elucien, but she tends to stay away from the drama

@writtenonreceipts lots of fanfic, no drama

@separatist-apologist MB just vibes with whatever she likes in the moment and I appreciate that about her

@gimme-mor is a multishipper - despite being critical of certain portions of the fandom in the past. Can you ask for more?

@ruhncervos Tati just vibes with what she likes

@elains makes lots of lovely aesthetic things

@sjmkinkmeme yes this is my side project with a couple other people, but we only post creative works - no ship war stuff allowed

@tangledraysofsunshine idek if Alex posts that much lol but she is probably the sweetest person you will ever meet in this fandom, and I've known her for a few years. I know. Trust me. The sweetest.

@rayonfrozenwings Renée is the original theory queen

@feyre-cursebreaker Carley always has interesting thoughts

@yazthebookish obviously Yaz has Gwynriel feelings but she has been doing a lot of great theory lately and making posts sorting out all the lore. And if y'all had any idea how much restraint she has shown with this ship war...

and some others for funsies: @darling-archeron @shyvioletcat @starseternalnighttriumphant

I know there are other people who are amazing humans and funny and smart and don't have time for this nonsense, but they may not post much so I might have forgotten to include them.

[caffeineandsociety]

Refusing to agree with the right on the most superficial level is the fast train to getting suckered into actually helping them if not outright getting recruited by them and I am not joking.

Hate movements always recruit by using things that ARE superficially true. They don't lead with "kill all [insert minority here]" unless they know a target has been primed to see that as a reasonable option. They prey on REAL experiences of alienation in their targets. They start with things like "hey isn't it kind of unnerving how everything looks bland and same-y lately because no one is willing to take any kind of risks in design?" or "isn't it fucked up how parents are getting so reliant on technology as toys that kids are going into kindergarten without the grip strength to hold a pencil?" Both of which are true!

It's only once they're controlling the conversation around those points that they end up dragging it to "the reason minimalism is evil is because it's keeping our great white artistic geniuses underappreciated and western society is crumbling to appease minorities" and "technology to let disabled people survive and let marginalized voices be heard is weakening the human race".

Hell, sometimes they'll straight up pretend to be leftists to turn the conversation about wealth inequality and how it translates to power into a pipeline to antisemitic conspiracy theories, and based on the amount of antisemitism I see on the left, I hate to say that they manage to do a pretty damned good job of it! Ecofascism is a thing, and that always starts from an ostensibly leftist position of "we should maybe not destroy the planet" before veering off the rails into "minorities are the real plague and might makes right is the law of nature and survivalism is about knowing 50 ways to kill a man with your bare hands" bullshit!

There are a LOT of things that the right is...very superficially correct about. Refusing to engage with those points and point out how they may be true but they do not even remotely support the right's conclusion doesn't protect you, or your community; it just makes it easier for the right to control those conversations.

This is why it's not enough to know WHAT people who hate you value; it's important to know HOW they use those facts.

I say this in response to the fact that I've been seeing people lately starting to rail against environmentalist causes, against climate-focused native plant gardening, by claiming that it's CLEARLY a pipeline to ecofascism and CLEARLY anyone who wants you to understand that there are ways to control ticks and mosquitoes other than sterilizing your entire neighborhood just doesn't CARE about the dangers of insect-borne disease and wants disabled people to die off, nature wants us dead - that whole rabbit hole is, uh...Bad. That's bad, guys. Nature is good. Climate-focused gardening is good. Native plant restoration is good. "A well planned and maintained lawn replacement is no more of a tick risk than your barren wasteland of a monoculture lawn" isn't the same thing as "if you can't handle a tick bite you should just die" and you NEED to be able to spot the difference or else the people saying the latter will just find a new way to sneak their bullshit in.

Similarly I've been seeing people rail against ALL feminism, no matter how intersectional, because terfs infiltrated a lot of spaces - no, no, we can't LEARN what specific talking points are red flags and yellow flags; we have to abandon the WHOLE concept completely, the dudebros who openly hate women were right, feminism is cancer! ...wait a second-

When you abandon entire concepts because Bad People use them...the results are never good. Hell, this is a huge part of why we're JUST starting to see pushback from the left on a large scale against the idea that you can solve all the world's problems by using the Right Words and NEVER saying the Wrong Words, because the right poisoned it by controlling the conversation around """political correctness""".

They were right. "Political correctness" - i.e., performativity, valuing words and optics over actions and intentions - is bullshit. It's ableist in its demands. It allows for a lot of abuse, both systemic and interpersonal, by people who just Know The Right Words. But for a long time most of the left doubled down because saying anything against it was Something Bad People Do.

Or to provide a positive counterexample, this is why I'm so grateful that the left is willing to talk about gifted kid burnout - because if WE weren't, guess who would be the only people willing to say "yeah, I get it, your parents and teachers and society promised you the world and then just abandoned you when they decided you weren't good enough, and that IS terrible" would be?

Hint: that other group is out there, and exclusively focused on extending that "support" to white cis boys.

In short, when you categorically write off the facts and experiences that someone warps to support a shitty conclusion, at best you leave the door open to let them recruit; at worst you end up railing against your own cause without realizing that's what you're doing.

[simonalkenmayeris-still-dead]

Answer this whenever you feel like it or fucking skip it. Your posts made me want to bring something up. Something I personally think would benefit your followers but that's up to you. I don't think Simon is a bad guy at all. I think he has serious self hate problems and has surrounded himself with a fucking toxic fan culture that he's allowed himself to believe he's made personal friends within. They're viscous and take every last bit of Simon they can get like starving dogs. I think Simon still has so much to fucking learn about human interaction and experience and emotion, because a healthy person doesn't allow themselves to be treated that way. I know you adviced me to vent on my blog and I considered it but then I thought this was relevant to your blog so 🤷‍♂️. I don't think Simon knows what a true friend should be and that's sad because I think he could be much happier if he learned to love himself and to only accept good treatment from others. These are my feelings though and I could be entirely wrong. 🤷‍♂️ Again. Read and respond if you feel like it. I could also be wrong in thinking this is relevant to your blog. Also I don't think Simon is in anyway a groomer whatsoever, but I do have a theory on why it seems that people with mental illnesses like myself are attracted to his content and personality. A known fact about us ND people is we tend to relate to and draw to one another and build communities up out of people with various neurological differences. I think Simon's own mental health issues, because no one who hates himself as much as he does can be called healthy, attract other people who hate themselves in like flies. And people who don't like themselves tend to make very unhealthy decisions and cling to others inappropriately and project all their thoughts and feelings on the other and expect them to fix it. I imagine probably, some people turn to Simon INSTEAD of therapy because of the weight and fear calling a professional can carry. But Simon, while he does the best he's able, is not a therapist and is not well himself. It's not easy to give good advice when you don't like yourself (I should fucking know), but you can still feel burdened by and responsible for the people asking for help. But yeah anyway. Up to you dude. I think my perspective could be helpful for some of your followers. If you read this and agree then you can decide if it's worth responding to. The ball is in your court and I just don't fucking care what choice you ultimately make because I have no control over what you spend your fucking time on, nor do I want to. Sorry if this is snippy but well. Emotionally unstable person here who doesn't like a ton of things about you or your fan culture either.

Okay I’ll entertain this.  Firstly I’m not neurotypical so you can get that out of your head right now.

Secondly, being neurotypical or having a mental illness does not equate to hating yourself.  If you hate yourself, then that’s unfortunate, and I hope you’re telling the truth when you say you’re getting professional help.  But there are plenty of us who don’t hate ourselves and in fact love our differences.

You need to accept that Simon is a character created by a writer.  The statement Mallaidh Anne made the other day basically verifies that this entire thing was a marketing ploy.  I don’t want to drag her into any of this, because she’s currently getting help for her own mental health but she didn’t have to say any of that and it would be, in a way, disrespectful not to recognise the implications of it.

When you say that people who don’t like themselves tend to project their thoughts and feelings onto others - I think you should listen to yourself.  Because it seems to me you’re doing a lot of projection.

I also think that people who talk a lot about how much they don’t care are probably lying to themselves.

And finally, for you and everyone who sends me asks, paragraph breaks are your friend.

[eyes-like-a-pisces]

Rules: Answer 10 questions, tag 10 people and make another 10 questions.🧜‍♀️

Questions from my astrological twin: @maiden-song 💕

1. if you could choose to glimpse the afterlife, would you?

Yes, I would. I think a lot about It.

2. under what circumstances do you think you past life was lived?

I could have had many past lifes. I think I was a native american, cause I've always felt bonded to their tradicion and same with China, cause when I hear the sound of Erhu - traditional chinese instrument, something wakes up in me. I've also always wanted to see Sweden & Finland, so maybe I was doing something there... I mean, I could do anything. I see myself in biblical times, as well as middle ages. I could be a renaissance artist, as well as dying of hunger during victorian era, or something, and that's probably why I'm still careful with money, haha. For my latest one, I think I could have been a hippie in the 60/70s and had some drug use experience, cause when I was a child I used have dreams about taking drugs, even if I didn't know anything about It. I also had some experience with psychics (and "psychics"), my mom had a past life regression and she told me she saw me few times... I don't take anything for granded, but reincarnation is one of my favourite theories.

3. what three skills would you instantly master if you had the choice?

Playing every instrument, speaking every language, singing beautifully

4. would your rather no passion or no pain?

No pain. Everything is needed in life, but you know, enough is enough.

5. if you had a chance to leave this world and go to another one, would you take it?

Depends of the world and who I would meet there. Even if this world can be cruel and disappointing at times, I still have some love for him and humanity.

6. if you could smell like anything in the world, what would it be?

Like the first day of spring, when you go outside and the air smells different. Or a storm.

7. do you feel like common interests or philosophical comparability are not important?

They are very important. I can't imagine a relationship without similar interests, views. You either get bored or fight constantly. I think that the whole point of searching a partner is trying to find things you got in common. The more similar you are, the more understood you feel and more you are attracted to them. That's my experience at least. That's a very basic example, but as you may noticed, I'm very much into music and I was dating a guy, who wasn't into music that much at all. I thought It doesn't matter at first, but then I started feeling like I'm missing my favourite way to connect with other person. Once I met a guy who loved music as much as I do, I'm sorry to admit It, but my partner became unattractive to me.

Similar interests and views are needed at the beginning, to bond with somebody, and later, to simply enjoy spending time together (thanks Captain Obvious). I mean... chemistry and good will are not enough for a relationship to last. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you have to be identical and agree on everything - some differences can be inspiring, balance your relationship and teach you something new. It's also ok and even needed, to have some separate hobbies, things that you like to do on your own. There are also other important things, like, if you equally care about each other and if you are on the same page in general, but I can't imagine not agreeing in the key points and things that are the most important to you. And the only person who can decide what is the most important is the person who is in that relationship, no matter if It's about interests, philosophy or religion. But beside a romantic relationship, I think It's good to be surrounded by different people and listen what they got to say.

8. if there was one mystery you alone could learn the answer too, what would it be?

The mystery of life in general. Why we are here, is there any destiny, how we are connected, how this universe works, what happens after death...

9. in your opinion, is there anything more important than love?

No :) (I'm not talking about putting your relationship before other things. I'm talking about love as a big force and meaning of this universe)

10. describe a new planet you would live on, if you could.

I want things to be diverse, monumental... Maybe another moon, why not. As a concept of the world, I wish there would be peace :) everybody has their safe place to live, will to live, passion, purpose, someone to love and who loves them back. Amen.

Questions from @mybloodiedvalentine 💕👯

1. What is an unpopular opinion you hold you about which you feel strongly and with which you seem to notice a lot of people disagree?

Nothing specific comes to my mind at the moment (that I haven't mentioned before). I sure have some, but what's unpopular opinion in general and what's unpopular opinion on tumblr, are two different things. Maybe, that the "tumblr positivity" is not really helpful. Like: "in case you need to hear this: you are smart, you are loved... ". How do you know that? Those are just empty words. But It's better to spread positivity than negativity, of course.

2. What is the nicest thing a stranger has ever told you that you can recall?

Oh, I had a few situations like that... This is so lovely, when a stranger wants to just be genuinely nice, not just catcalling you...For example, when I was with my 3 girlfriends at the club and 2 ladies in their 40s where like: "excuse me, we just wanted to say that we can't stop starring at you all, cause you are the priettiest girls in the club." And we were like: aww, omg, you are beautiful too, come dance with us. And we were all dancing in our witches circle ignoring all sweaty men around us, haha. Or when my mom went to the the same hair saloon as me and asked hair dresser if she remembers me and she said that she does and that I'm nice and intelectual. I'm her faithful client now ;_; (Sorry for sucking my own dick, but It was nice to remind myself about these situations).

3. Has a piece of art or music ever made you cry? If so, do you remember a specific moment? 

Crying to music is my passion. The latest intense moment was few days ago. I was loading a dishwasher at night and I played some music and then "lover you should've come over" by Jeff Buckley came on and sudden wave of lonelliness hit me so hard, that I just had to put down the plate, hide my face in my hands and weep ✌

4. What’s your favourite piece of clothing?

Idk, maybe my Penny Lane coat :)

5. What’s a random childhood memory that fills you with a deep sense of comforting nostalgia? 

Sledding with kids during a very cold winter in my home town, until It got dark and snow looked like sprinkled with glitter and having my freezed feet warmed up with a hair dryer, when I came back home, haha.

6. What is/was your favourite thing about your mom? If not your mom, your dad? Or best friend?

My favourite thing about my mom is that she's tolerant and open minded. I didn't have to lie to her or pretend I'm someone I'm not because of that. My favourite thing about my dad is that he actually cared about being a parent, even tho my parents divorced. I respect that he has unwavering morals and huge knowledge about a world - biology, astronomy, music, art...- subject doesn't matter- but he is very modest about It.

7. What’s something you learned on your own of which you’re proud?

Playing guitar

8. When was a moment in your life you remember laughing the hardest?

I was playing cards since I was a kid. After few years, when I was about 13 y. o. I got the first poker, a royal flush. When I saw my cards, I'm not sure why, I just coudn't believe my luck, I started laughing so hard I almost died.

9. What do you like to do when you’re having a hard time mentally that invariably calms you down?

Really depends of the kind of situation and if It's triggered by something or just a longer period of time feeling in a certain way. The is no a magic trick, but some things might be helpful. When It's concrete situation, at first, when the feelings are really intense, then I just can't calm down. Every try to do so, has a reverse effect. Like, I CAN'T THE FUCK CALM DOWN and It makes me even more angry. Brain needs about 20 min to chill, if It's not triggered, so It's better to be left alone and just go mad a little until brain will have enough haha. Have a good cry, listen to some music, have a lonely walk, write my feelings down etc.

I like to listen to Teal Swan on youtube. She's a spiritual teacher. I know, It might not sound encouragingly, but she actually seems very down to earth. She has a video about like, every emotion and every problem ever. She's very good in naming feelings, rationalizing them and It makes you feel more understood. And It calms me down as result. ASMR doesn't work for me, but I remember that at some point I liked to listen to sounds of the nature, like rain, waves etc + guided meditation to fall asleep.

Music always helps in general - listening, playing guitar, singing. I also like to take an oil and do a face massage. I'm really sorry if I sound like an instagram influencer 🤢, but when you feel bad for a longer time, you frown and there is a tention in your jaw, it can be really relieving. I follow instructional videos on yt.

When I have a longer period of going into downward spiral, then every way to distract my brain is good - TV shows, internet content that is not related to my life situation (although, sometimes It's good to distance yourself from social media), for example, I like criminal podcasts, cause they are occupying enough to distract a miserable brain, meeting somebody, going to a place I've never been before. + any kind of shedule, reason to leave the house, any goal, anything positive to look forward to and having even the simplest things done, is a blessing (even if sometimes It's the last thing I wanna do). I also tend to be much sadder in the evening, so I just go to sleep. When nothing works, then It's time for the professional help.

10. Do you have a favourite holiday memory?

Discovering Cocteau Twins.

Best regards if u actually read all that chatter, but those questions were so interesting, that I couldn't limit myself to one sentence answer (in most cases).

My questions are:

1. Who or what was the most influential for your music taste?

2. If you could time travel, where and when would you like to go first?

3. If you could be someone from an opposite gender for a day, how would you like to look like and what would you do?

4. Do you have a style icon/inspiration? Or a favourite designer? Desribe your dream clothing style

5. What's the song by a band/artist from your country that you could recommend? (From your hometown or state eventually)

6. What is the most rebellious thing you've ever done?

7. Has ever something in your life happened, that you coudn't explain with logic?

8. What 5 objects someone could use to summon you?

9. What is your favourite name from your culture's language? And outside your culture's language?

10. What's a song you normally wouldn't admit you like or different from music that you usually listen, but still enjoy?

I tag: @winterdryad @bowiepop @nightmare @confusion-in-the-sea-of-sorrow @l0w-budget @numberoneblind @mirandasinclairs @mysticbride @leperwitch @comeacrossthedesertnoshoeson @hexafu @mielmelancolie @arcane-delight

[coinandcandle]

So...I don't usually jump in on discourse because I don't feel the need to get involved, but I keep seeing a lot of animosity and anger on my feed recently and it seems a lot of it is related to the same stuff.

So, possibly to my detriment, I wanna hop in here real quick and say something (a few things, actually lol).

Before I start I want to say that I am not attacking either of these people.

Everybody's path is different and sometimes that involves heavy research and scientific thinking. Sometimes it involves pretty rocks and self care. Neither of these paths are wrong or right because magic and witchcraft can't be shoved into boxes like wrong and right so easily.

Magical theory or not, some people are going to experience success in their craft and want to post about it. That doesn't mean that their success is rendered invalid, just that it may not work for everyone else. That being said, obviously people have found success in recreating these kinds of posts before, otherwise we wouldn't see them as much.

There is nothing wrong with criticism, in fact I think it's necessary in order to grow in any aspect of a person's life; but telling someone that a part of their personal path is invalid (or saying things that comes across as such) due to their lack of dictation or disclosure of information isn't the way to go about it.

I think tone indicators are helpful in this case if folks don't want to be misunderstood.

But I also think that not immediately assuming that someone is trying to offend is a good idea, too.

Critical thinking is vital for any sort of research, and while to some extent everyone doing magic should be doing a bit of research, not everyone is going into witchcraft or practicing magic looking at it from a scientific or academic perspective. Some people are looking for much more casual stuff.

This lack of research from new witches can and has certainly cause misinformation to spread. In these cases, it often takes a gentle correction or explanation for the situation to be sorted. Sometimes the best we can do is just share the correct information and try our best to not engage with those spreading misinformation.

Now because this is the internet, folks can't understand someone's tone through text (unless you use tone indicators or explicitly state your tone for understanding), so misinterpretations of tone and assumptions are bound to happen.

In my experience as a creator who posts educational witchcraft content, posts containing information or correcting misinformation are best received by the target audience of new witches when the post is written from a place of understanding. Understanding that not everyone is going to agree, understanding that everyone's path is going to be different, and most importantly: understanding that you probably won't change someone's beliefs through a tumblr post.

That being said, I think we as a community are getting better at telling new witches how to discern between UPG and fact.

I think both of these users make their points and both have valid aspects to them. I also think that you probably aren't going to be able to understand someone' fully through the internet.

I'm sorry if anything in this post came across as argumentative or aggressive, that's not my intent.

If anything I've said needs clarification please let me know and I will be happy to clarify!! c:

THIS

This is extremely prevalent in the witchcraft community as well. Specifically along the lines of, “it’s my belief so it’s valid” and any criticism received about the subject is met with “UPG” or something along those lines.

Further, the vagueness of tumblr guides on witchcraft lead straight into this “whatever you believe is valid and functional” the idea that belief is the only thing required for witchcraft, is the exact same belief behind The Law of Attraction.

This isn’t to say “Doubt yourself at every turn.” No. This is to say that you should critically analyze all witchcraft related content you consume.

Certifícale thinking y’all. Even in faith, mysticism, and witchcraft based practices. Don’t villainize anyone for critically thinking.

[nikkifilm]

Maynila Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag (1975) & Insiang (1976), dir. Lino Brocka

Maynila sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag had a small cast, yet it was effective enough to be able to portray what the director wanted to show the audience. For the most part of it, I find myself being drawn to the movie which is definitely a good thing, by the way, but in all honesty, I don't like how the turn of events follow throughout the film. I didn't like what was happening in the movie, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like the movie itself; there's a thin grey line there. I do get the point that the plot of the film isn't exactly rainbows and sunshines, but it was all so heavy to take in. Although yes, that is the point, and maybe it says about how harsh life can be when set foot to the city of Manila where you think it's where you'll become successful yet only a start of something that could change your life forever. I happen to always put myself in the characters' shoes in every film, whether it may be something I have experienced myself or not. It's a way for me to be able to comprehend and fully understand what the characters are going through and how they deal with it. I'd say one is a good movie when it makes me feel something. Since I was able to empathize with the characters in this movie despite the differences in the generation, experience, and status in life, I was still able to feel for them, and that I think is what makes it a good movie for me.

The same can be said on the other Lino Brocka film, Insiang. The characters in the film aren't a lot too, yet it effectively shown what its message is. I adore how the characters are all unique in their own way and have their respective personalities. They all have their own voice in the movie, regardless if their character is likeable or not. To some extent, you are able to see some gradual character developments in the film despite the setting being the same places over and over again. Especially with the main character, Insiang. You'd see how she's very passive and innocent-like. It's as if despite all the things that had happened to her, she still doesn't try to fight back. She attempts to get help from the people she trust but to no avail. I've been waiting that if not any of the people in the film can help her, maybe she'd help herself by finally fighting back and standing up for herself. What we did see though is her doing things unexpected of her, like how she starts to seduce and give in to Dado when she was harassed by him without being scared of what her mother nor her boyfriend would react about it. It then turn out to be Insiang using Dado as a way to get revenge on her boyfriend and her using her mother's anger towards Dado's betrayal in order to drive her to murder Dado as a way to get revenge on both him and her mother.

With regards to the style or visual of Maynila, the setting really do depict the contrast between rural and urban areas. The setting has this realistic vibe that builds up to the scenes and blends well with its entire plot. This adds up to the realistic approach the film wants to put. Also considering the time this was made, the cinematography is well put out. I'm quite impressed how they've managed to pull of some of the shots. With the era this has been made where there are little to no resources with regards to visual or special effects, the film has successfully achieved a visually pleasing masterpiece. The shots are done raw and all so naturally which is just right for the entirety of the film. In terms of the narrative, it's immensely focused on the character of Julio, how we can see his development that would later turn into his transformation into a violent person. I love this way or storytelling because you, as a viewer, would feel more connected to the film and get invested to the character that would have a greater impact. In this way, not only do you get emotionally invested, it makes you want to watch the film as you get hooked waiting for what would happen next. As I watched the film, I was able to see that and also feel empathy for the main character. It's something that rarely occurs to a film that you may not be familiar with or a big fan of or something that doesn't really sparks your interest, and that says a lot about how this film was able to go beyond what you are expecting and makes you root for the character and as well as the entire plot. 

For Insiang, however, the style and visual wise, it had shown the rawness of the lifestyle within a small town that is typical of the Philippine setting. The way they captured this goes the same with Maynila, and that's one of the little factors that makes you think that they are both made by a single director. It's pretty much similar to Maynila in a way that it depicts the way of life in a certain community and a certain household. You could also see some similarities with the actors and actresses in both films. What I was able to notice too is how the setting they utilize in the film are always fixed that you don't just see the places once or twice, it's pretty much shot within a particular area that is noticeable. There's nothing bad with that, though. It's in fact fascinating how they repeat the settings without it feeling dull and tiring. There's always something new or different within the setting that is constant throughout the film that enables you to observe how some of the characters progress or change and indicates how the story develops.

What I have observed from the film languages are how they have utilized the different angles in certain scenes that depict how a person is low down the slums or high above anyone else. It also indicates how something is important or when something is about to happen. There's nothing much to point out with regards to it, but the fact that they have used this as a means to tell something to audience is really prominent and I love how it speaks directly to the audience. You know when someone is connected or disconnected to a person. You also know when someone is trustworthy or sketchy. There have been a lot of this that plays around with the viewer's perspective. Nonetheless, it had been effective at delivering a message and telling a story behind it.

Applying the context of the Auteur Theory in both films from Lino Brocka, you'd see the similarities between the two in general. With Maynila, you see how it's a story about a man from province grew from innocent to violent because of anger and vengeance. Same goes to Insiang, you'd see how a simple girl from the slums of Manila grew from silent and passive to vengeful and passive-aggressive. Both of the main characters in the films have this common ground and goal. Same with how their character was developed into something they didn't use to be. What can be said from these similarities are how the director wants to send a message. Perhaps it had something to do with the repression. It can be seen in Maynila that the one who held Julio's girlfriend, Ligaya captive in the urban city is actually a Chinese. That subtly indicated that at that period there have been already a quarrel between the Philippines and China. As for Insiang, it is seen how the people she's close to or hold on to for help don't actually care for her and are not sincere. They all have their selfish minds and cruelty on Insiang which is why she turned on them. Perhaps it also tells something about repression, maybe something about how we have been colonized only to be used and abused. 

The two films, besides having major similarities, have an identity that makes you think that it is a Lino Brocka film. By watching them, there's that unspoken truth that lies between the films that it is something made by this particular director. It reflects how he has these ideals and perspective in the Philippine context. Perhaps it's also safe to assume that he is driven or motivated to direct said films because of an underlying issue or problem that the country is facing.

Maynila tackled the social issue with regards to the twisted side of Manila, and how people from provinces are blinded by it. It shows their naivety, how they think highly of those who reside in Maynila. Although to some extent, I find it becoming extremely cliché, it's still the reality we have that's still happening up to this date; it probably have gotten worse throughout the ages. However, they don't only show the bad side of Maynila. They have also shown that despite the wrong people they've trusted and encountered along the way, there will always be people who are genuinely kind and concerned. It's a balance of the good and the bad side of Maynila, although the bad side of it is dominant; and as someone who grew up in Metro Manila, I do agree with it to a certain point. There are also scenes that show the side of the LGBT Community back in this era, that they are more objectified and stereotyped that aren't a good reflection of how they identify with compared to this day. They are seen more of a threat to the society and are only seen as people who are obsessed with men and sex, who would also do everything to make money out of prostitution and in exchange, pursue them.

On the other hand, Insiang had tackled more on the abusive side of Manila or the country in general, especially during those times. How particular women are always objectified and abused. These can be observed with the first few parts of the film, how the women in the film are abused or harassed and there is little to none justice to it besides personal vengeance from family members or friends. It's as if it's a norm and not considered as a crime or a sort of abuse compared to how sensitive a topic it is to this date. Rape culture in the country have also been tackled in this film, and it is alarming how back then, there weren't much protection for women and how lacking the generation was with its awareness towards rape. It also signifies how victims aren't heard but are often judged, and when it comes to asking for help, there are little to none that you can reach out to or would actually offer to help you with it. That being said, it had also talked about the toxic masculinity especially back then where men were in power compared to women and that they "own" the women they "love". Another is how in every conflict, it must be resolved through violence where in not only it is toxic but also unnecessary as not everything has to end up with that. It had also tackled the judgmental society, how every action that you make, regardless of what intentions you have or if it really is a fact, people will always talk about you the way they choose and want to see it. People create their own truth, and although this film didn't entirely focus on that, the fact that it is there speaks about the society we have back then and up to this date. Lastly, it also tackled about the toxicity within family members, that despite their abusive traits, you must stay with them because they are "blood". This is shown through Insiang's mother, how she talks down to Insiang and see her more as a maid than her daughter, ordering her around every time.

Maynila had a lot of scenes I personally didn't like, but doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the film. One of the things that I only find unnecessary in the movie were certain events like two of Julio's friends dying throughout the film, Perla's home burnt down, Julio being robbed by a cop, him encountering gay prostitutes, and so on. I find them completely absurd and irrelevant to the main plot of the film which mainly revolved (or at least what it implied) within Julio's job and the whereabouts of his significant other, Ligaya. I kept having questions as to what happened and how it led there, but these events are constantly happening in between the film which to some extent infuriates me until I get tired or bored of it. It made me grew frustrated, probably because they kept teasing like how they showed that one Chinese place Julio thinks Ligaya is in yet gets no leads or progress from it besides when he sees the lady that brought Ligaya in Maynila. Maybe it would've been much better if they put out some of those unnecessary scenes that I might as well call “fillers”. But I do get it though, it adds up to what I was talking about when they were trying to also show the bad side of Maynila. I also didn't like how they portrayed the LGBT Community but I do understand that it's different back then compared to today. But there is certainly no denying that I didn't like how that turned out to be.

Same with Insiang, there are also a number of scenes that I didn't like, and those are the aforementioned social issues that have been tackled in the film. One of those that I have mentioned that I particularly didn't like was the way they have shown how badly treated Insiang was, particularly women. I didn't like how the other women Insiang trusted turned back on her, especially her mother. Women are supposed to help each other against the repression against abusive men, but that wasn't shown in this. Although what substituted to that was how they shown Insiang develop into a vengeful woman and indirectly ruined their lives which is what I liked about it. It was powerful, they way she took revenge on the people who have hurt her. You would expect that she'd turn on them typically by forming an alliance or taking them down violently or anything that anyone would expect to happen. This one took a different perspective on vengeance, how she was able to take down the people who had hurt her without getting in trouble nor getting her hands dirty. It was something logical and psychological, and that's something I didn't expect from a film that's dated a few decades ago.

I find Maynila great despite of how a lot of things change in our society, views, and culture. Simply by looking at how things were way cheaper back then compared to now is already a big factor of change, which is why it's somehow challenging to be able to review a film from a different generation objectively especially since there had been drastic changes in the field of cinema as well. Nonetheless, it's fascinating how the movie can still speak to you and how there are things that haven't changed — like how some issues tackled in the film can still be seen nowadays, and it's alarming. It serves as an eye-opener to each and everyone of us, no matter where you came from. Whether you were born in Metro Manila, raised in the province, or vice versa, you will be able to feel for this film. It's how great its impact is, especially to the Filipino.

As for Insiang, it wasn't something I was expecting from the beginning to the end. It's very unpredictable and at the same time a great film. It's way ahead of its time, and it's also something that speaks to the audience, especially with the underlying messages and social issues that it has. Regardless of what period you are in, it's safe to assume that the issues that it tackles will always be relevant in the society you live in. It makes you think how these things are already occurring back then yet is still happening today. Although it's alarming, this film had managed to be able to send that message off to its viewers and that alone is something commendable for a film and a director. You'd see how Lino Brocka really has that deep kind if mindset towards these things and it does help you too, as an audience to become more wary of the society and the issues we are facing, regardless if you are directly affected by it or not.

There's nothing much recommend really, but I wished there were parts that they changed or didn't do, especially when it has little to nothing to do with the plot or storyline. But the main reason too as to why there's nothing much to recommend is because of how these films are made during its time, where all the values, ideals, culture, and mindset were different comapred to how it's shaped to this date. All in all, both films directed by Lino Brocka are something that each one of us need to watch. It may not be suitable for everyone, yes, but you know that the message behind every film he makes have something to tell you that a certain problem in the country is happening at this point and we have to do something about it. It's a food for thought that films like these are a medium used to communicate to people and spread awareness on the coexisting problems we face or people face on a daily basis. In conclusion, not only does Lino Brocka have a mindset that's beyond his time, he also sees to it that the films are something that will speak to the general audience despite the differences in perspective and experience.

[says-the-thief-to-the-piper2]

CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did. But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world. Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how much there was. At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly appears and settles into the bath with me. One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this beautiful nude babe?" I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?" "Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a massage table nearby. I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?" I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!" They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's reflexology!" I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating. That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress-- in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals. Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with. We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't land. We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease. But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results. I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice. Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens. Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen" he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands. All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before. The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell. He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell. Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running. I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science. Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science? This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent-- not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity. So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

Return to Donald Simanek’s home page.