#and don't understand legal phrasing

[iverna]

oh boy Ireland is getting a new amendment to our anti-hate-speech law and (surprise) the alt right bros are mad about it

it's a slippery slope lads, they are going to use this to go after everyone they don't like, normal every folks like you and I who are just trying to enjoy our racist jokes and spread inflammatory misinformation in peace

meanwhile, the Irish Minister for Justice: "Any time Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a different view to you is not a bad day at the office"

... he's not wrong but damn

[genderkoolaid]

Words like "cervix" and "uterus" are absolutely inaccessible for ESL people though, and "cervix-haver" and "uterus-haver" even more so, both of which I've seen. These are uniquely English word structures and I would think that they are diseases if I didn't know those words already. Saying this as someone who went to a bilingual gymnasium, I only learned the word cervix thanks to being on r/badwomensanatomy or whatever that subreddit is called. I still don't see the problem behind "biologically female" tbh. If that makes you dysphoric you'll obviously be way too dysphoric to get pap smears or mammograms anyways😐 but the first gen immigrants would probably appreciate knowing that they're offered

I think if people don't know what a uterus (or womb) is there are deeper problems at play than trans people.

"___-haver" is not the only way to phrase that in English; "person with ___" is right there. Which is how its also phrased in other languages. From @anomalousmancunt:

#Not to mention that assuming non-english speaking women are too dumb to understand new terms is fucking disgusting#guess what anon. If you're USAmerican then your feminism is at least partially built on the work of latinoamerican feminists#feminists outside of the anglo bubble can understand new language just fine. we build new language always#like literally. it was hispanic feminists promoting an entire new pronoun IN SPANISH (one of THE gendered languages)#you think we're going to struggle latching onto the term PEOPLE?#as IF latam feminists didn't already use terms like 'gente que menstrua' and 'personas gestantes'#argentina had a gender identity law before the USA legalized gay marriage ffs#we don't need you to defend us against the evils of gender neutral language anon

Also, trans people die when they can't get proper gynecological care, so fuck you for acting like that's a cute thing to snark about.

[rthko]

I used to get insecure when reading radical critiques of "born this way" narratives, but I understand it differently now. I'm reading early defenses of homosexuals that concede that their "invert" pathology is worthy of sympathy, and that straight society ought to allow them to have sex (in the right circumstances) so they don't have to be miserable. They go on to claim that while some people who commit homosexual acts are victims of their circumstances, the real perverts are ontologically straight men who commit them by choice.

If I asked every LGBT person I know, "did you choose to be queer," virtually everyone would say no. I have never, to my knowledge, met anyone who would say yes. But if I asked them if they would turn straight/cis if they could, I believe that most, including people who have gone through great hardships on account of their identities, would still say no. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is considered politically incorrect, and indeed there is no one gay lifestyle. But we have also developed culturally distinct circles associated with pleasure as a virtue, creativity, individual dignity and collective care. Many of us learned to look at the straight world not with envy but with relief that we're not part of it.

There are characteristics of our queer identities or behaviors that are a choice. I did not choose to be attracted to men, but I did choose to be promiscuous. I did not choose to be uncomfortable with "male" gender roles, but I did choose to challenge them through gender expression. An emphasis on innateness would imply that the only characteristics of my identity and behavior worth defending are those that are inevitable. It would ask why I still insist on living the way I do when my sexual desires can now just as well be satiated in a legally recognized monogamous marriage.

The subtext of this question, a choice or not a choice, is whether a person is worthy of support. Much like the elusive "gay gene," some trans advocates are searching for the definitive proof of "male brains" and "female brains" that will validate the existence of trans people once and for all. If gender becomes medically or scientifically "provable," perhaps science would then validate trans people. Or, perhaps a brain scan would determine who should or should not consider themselves trans, and create new rationalizations to misgender on "scientific" terms. We need only look back to the sexologists of the late 19th and early 20th century, often gay themselves, who developed scientific rationalizations for queer behavior in good faith only to have them reapplied to nefarious ends.

Many will insist they support LGBT people in the abstract but not the specifics of queer culture. These are the tendencies that don't have a scientific or metaphysical explanation. It is less often we hear claims that one is born to be flamboyant, promiscuous, left wing, kinky or polyamorous, so these tendencies are superfluous. There is a platonic ideal of a lesbian, a gay man, a bisexual or a trans person who follows their natural proclivities and not a step further, and you're not it. So arguments against born this way narratives are not just in defense of those who see themselves as having chosen their gender or sexuality--for what it's worth, I have not knowingly met any. It's that this is a flimsy claim to legitimacy, one that has been used against us, and one that can only be taken so far. I'm not interested in determining who is "faking it." I understand more and more that everyone's body belongs to them, and the steps they take to experience joy and mutual pleasure need no explanation.

[ao3commentoftheday]

Since there are a lot of new people on tumblr these days, I'm going to start this whole thing off by saying that this is my personal blog and while this blog does have AO3 in the name, this is in no way official or affiliated with whatever OTW might have to say on this subject.

Yes, I've seen the reddit post  about the GPT-3 bot scraping AO3. Yes, I'm aware that Sudowrite.com are using the data from that bot to generate text.

A few things I've learned as I've looked into this:

1. Bot scraping is legal. If a website is publicly available on the web (does not require a user to login in order to see its contents), then they don't have grounds to try to stop a bot from doing what anyone can do. Here's an article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation about why this is the case  and also why it could be considered (on balance) a good thing . For example, scraping websites helps academics and journalists do their work.

2. Elon Musk doesn't own GPT-3. He's listed as one of the founders of OpenAI, the group who created GPT-3, but he resigned in 2018. He could still be a donor, but he has no official capacity in the organization.

3. Sudowrites is a tool that generates text, but it is a writing assistant not an AI author. It can not structure a story and develop a plot independently. It can not do research. It is meant to assist a human author by giving them prompts or ideas, helping them find a word or a phrase. But anything created solely by the bot would be at least somewhat incoherent and also in danger of committing plagiarism. For more information, I recommend this article.

What does this all mean? First of all, just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to like it. I'm not a fan of it, myself. but I also know that Google scrapes AO3 in order to provide search results for fans trying to find fic so I've kind of resigned myself to it.

Second of all, there's nothing AO3 or the OTW can do about it, really. There's a technical fix they can implement to prevent scraping by one particular bot (the one mentioned in the reddit article), but that's about it.

You, as an author on AO3, could lock your works to the Archive (restrict access to only logged in users). This might or might not protect your works from scraping. I don't know enough about these bots to give you an answer one way or the other. This feels gross. I understand that. I feel it too. Do what you need to do to feel better.

The original reddit post author states that they contacted the OTW Board, so there's no need for you to write in to AO3 Support. They're already aware of the situation.

[qsmpbutwithsignlanguage]

I don't know how to phrase this any better, but I seriously think that Léa needs to get a lawyer or legal advisor and step away from Twitter for a moment. I get that she feels a moral obligation to provide fans and former fans with a constant flow of all the information that she has available (which is an important thing, and she has been the main source of inside information since this all happened), and I know that she likely cannot pay for a lawyer herself on account of the fact that this whole issue arose because she (alongside others) were not getting paid.

However, regardless of whether or not leaking Quackity's personal information was a purely human mistake rendered lesser on account of the labor laws broken by him and his studio (in her own tweets, as her own argument), it should not have happened. Bottom line is that she rushed to provide the internet with information about the situation, and she made her argument, her voice, and her credibility lesser as a result of that.

Not only did she do what could be argued as a crime in more than one nation (though I am a bit iffy here; I am not a law graduate or student of any sort), but she directly harmed Quackity, and possibly his family, who had no part in this situation.

Her need to get information out as quickly as she can as the inside force led to this massive mistake, and no matter how you want to frame it (because it is still a mistake), it really should not have happened. It harmed both Léa and Quackity (though I would stand to argue one more than the other), and it could have been avoided if there was someone else working behind the scenes, or if Léa had simply checked the screenshot over a few times before posting it.

I'm not certain how to end this post, but I've thought this for a long time. This is a legal situation in which she is one of the primary witnesses. With such a large part of this playing out on Twitter, in a borderline trial of public appeal (not sure how much better I can phrase this, because such a massive part is involving the opinion of fans) she needs to understand how important and influential her words are, and how catastrophic it can be to both her cause and Quackity's if she messes up.

[dostoyevsky-official]

What do you see as the practical point of the student protests? What Israel is doing in Gaza is a moral horror, but the actual demands being made at e.g. Columbia seem so unlikely to affect it in any way (school sells small amount of stock in companies with some connection to Israel -> ??? -> ??? -> fewer children die) that it's hard to wholeheartedly support the protests escalating.

Unless the theory is "make demands that the college won't meet" -> "cause attention-catching disruption" -> "Biden admin finds it embarrassing" -> "Biden maybe pressures Netanyahu", in which case the specific demands are completely arbitrary?

one of the primary demands is disclose: the financial investments are not transparent information, thus the demand for the administration to reveal what they are. second, as i've mentioned before, university divestment is an established practice dating back to apartheid. there's nothing crazy, controversial, or quixotic about the demand. students are not making the demand with the idea that it will be the final straw that will finally crush the war effort, but with the understanding that it's their money, their community, and that a boycott of israel is the morally correct choice in line with the BDS movement. would you be comfortable attending a school that was investing in russian assets? i wouldn't. even if it's not a ton of money (we don't know how much) it's still likely to be significant given columbia's $14 billion endowment (and i find your phrasing unnecessarily condescending here.) harvard, where an encampment has been set up, is worth $50 billion. some of the ivies, like cornell, invest in raytheon—setting aside israel, why should any university have investments in the military industrial complex to begin with?

here is the preamble to the most recent currently available columbia divestment resolution:

not exactly pie-in-the-sky stuff here. the apartheid protests resulted in successful divestment, and even the 1968 protests resulted in all demands met by the admin. it's a very practical goal. it's also one that happens to be morally righteous and just.

furthermore, i don't know where you have been for the past week, but who have you seen escalate the protests? the reason why there is now a worldwide protest movement is because, for the thousandth time, minouche shafik called the cops to arrest 108 students. the NYPD itself said the students were peaceful and offered no resistance whatsoever, even as police also arrested legal observers. it was not the intention of the protesters to get national or international attention. "hard wholeheartedly support the protests" is an exceedingly strange comment to make that i, frankly, have a hard time understanding. i find it extraordinarily easy to wholeheartedly support fellow graduate students and professors i personally know at multiple universities who are meeting the ire of a lying media, lying administration, and lying government in the form of a police baton for the crime of sitting on some university's lawn.

at this point, given the sheer level of violence the police has unleashed on students and faculty across the country for showing up to said lawns, a portion of the protest support for them stems from the defense of free speech.

additional demands in light of the arrests and suspensions include the reinstatement of SJP and SJVP and amnesty for all arrested. again, not absurd, not without precedent.

lastly, i invite you to go to a protest and see what's happening for yourself. at this point, there's bound to be one near you.

[punkeropercyjackson]

Genuine advice for people who joined the Batfam fandom because of fan content and are too scared to get into actual comics or not sure where to start:Please don't buy a single word 'Fuck canon!' people tell you about ANY Batfam member and i do mean ANY.They're lying to you to get you to sanatize them and deprive you of deserving to know what they're actually like because their peabrains can't process multilayered characters and relathionships in favor of bigoted stereotypes and writing that's insanely insulting to them and if you're a minor especially,they're lying to you about whatever they say about shipping the male members with eachother not being in*cest or ped0 too-Bruce has been Dick's adoptive dad since Dick's debut issue,he legally adopted Jason and Duke too,Damian's his bio kid and with Tim it's a bit more complicated but it's very much canon that they see eachother as father and son and Tim has lived at Wayne Manor at several points in canon and would be brothers regardless of anything else due to this but they also use that exact word to describe their dynamic and so does everybody else

This applies to Cass being their sister too because Bruce adopted her after they formed a dad-daughter bond a while into her being Batgirl but as Stephanie has a mom she lives with and has never seen Bruce as a parental figure nor he her as one of his kids,you're freegame to ship her with Tim or Cass and in fact i highly encourage doing both.Batfanon stans are once again doing mass lying(damn they should get a different hobby)by saying the four male Robins are the 'core' ones.Stephanie has been included in Robin stuff for a long time now and Duke dosen't get the same treatment due to antiblackness so THAT'S an actual 'Fuck canon!' moment so you should make it six Robins and know that the intention with only four is always misogyny and whitewashing(also just saying but those fanarts are always ugly anyway,they make them look like shitty anime boys instead of themselves)

Dick is an almost perfect eldest sibling and the other Batkids deeply appreciate him for it,he was Tim's Robin and him and Cass are his favorite siblings,Duke is Jason's favorite brother and vice versa but he's also extremely close to Cass,none of them make Damian go through 'normal youngest sibling treatment' because none of them are normal so they grew a sense of basic decency and Damian's closest to Dick and Stephanie and Stephanie's a canon csa victim so kindly keep your paws off her with your 'date all of your s/os siblings' jokes because she has self-worth and class,thanks

Ignore the original Red Hood and The Outlaws run and anything to do with Jason and Roy friendship in fandom and read the original Teen Titans run,New Teen Titans,Arsenal 1998,The Titans 1999,Green Arrow 2001 and Outsiders 2003 if you want to understand Roy too or at least ask around blogs centered on him for context.Ignore Tom Taylor's Nightwing run and Teen Titans 2003 and Batgirl of Burnside and anything by Devin Grayson(she's quite literally done irreperable damage to Batman lore and i wish i was kidding).Read Robin 1993,90s Young Justice,Batgirl 2000,Batgirl 2009,Red Robin,Son of Batman and literally everything Duke's in which i can provide a reading list for instead and i'm working on a megapost of all the Jason media that's actually good so new fans don't waste their time.I'm genuinely saying this to be helpful because 'fandom isn't activism' is a puratical priviliged phrase that should've never existed just like Batfanon shouldn't either

[ao3-shenanigans]

Hi! I hope you don't mind me asking this -

I saw a post recently suggesting that one shouldn't donate to Ao3 because the people who run it are heavily anti-Palestine; however examining the post more it came from someone who is pretty staunchly against Ao3 because it doesn't moderate the content on it (and is supposedly therefore pro-racism and several worse things) which is a take that misses the entire point of Ao3 in the first place.

I was wondering whether you, as someone in the space far more than I, know whether these are substantiated claims and if so whether you had any steps you would recommend the community take other than not donating on their drives?

Hello! Good question!

Ao3 is a non for profit, meaning they don’t have adds on the site and as such fundraise twice a year (April and October) to keep the servers running, home fires burning, ect

To my understanding, this is all the money goes to. The team is not payed- even OTW’s legal team which has gone to congress before is all volunteer.

I did see there was one such incident wherein a user was asked to remove the phrase “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” from their bio, as the “from the river to the sea” part has a bit of a complicated history that is sometimes taken to be ment as a call to eradicate all the Jewish individuals in the area. The email then politely asked the user to change their bio to “I stand with Palestine” or “🇵🇸” instead.

Ultimately it is your choice to decide whether to donate or not

I hope this helps!

[phoenixradiant]

Authorial Psychoanalysis OC Asks

You read that painfully phrased title correctly, today we're going to ask about your OCs and use them to psychoanalyze you!

😇- What is the best quality this character shares with you?

😈- What is the worst quality this character shares with you?

👥- Which of your OCs' relationships (platonic or romantic) most resembles one of your own?

❔- Which nominally "good" character do you like the least? (as a person)

❓- Which nominally "bad" character do you like the most? (as a person)

❕- Which nominally "good" character do you enjoy writing the least?

❗- Which nominally "bad" character do you enjoy writing the most?

😄- Would you be good friends with this character?

🥰- Would you date this character?

🍕- What "favorites" does this character share with you? (Favorite food, color, weather, etc.)

🎭- Are there any characters you as the author don't really understand? Why?

⚔️- Which character shows anger in the same way as you?

😭- Which character shows sadness in the same way as you?

❤️- Which character shows care in the same way as you?

🎉- Which character shows joy in the same way as you?

💩- How many of your characters have self-esteem issues and are you aware that we all enjoy your presence on the hellsite?

👁️- Is this character based off someone you know in real life? Who?

🦴- How does this character process death?

Pretend Legal Mumbo Jumbo: By answering one of these asks you give your consent for all other participants to attempt psychoanalysis (or satirical psychoanalysis) in the replies and reblogs, so long as this analysis is respectful and kind. You agree that PhoenixRadiant is not legally responsible for any therapy, epiphany, good vibes, bad vibes, dumb jokes, witty jokes, or other phenomena these answers, asks, and analyses may cause.

And now to tags the mutualses: @somethingclevermahogony,@theidealistcynic,@agirlandherquill, @the-ellia-west,@smudged-red-ink,@aestheic-writer18,@pastellbg, @tildeathiwillwrite,@illarian-rambling,@baconandeggs-25, @thewritingautisticat,@aalinaaaaaa,@elizaellwrites

[whineandcheese24]

how old is tommy

everybody's been confused about tommy's age, so I thought I'd put out my theory.

lou is 39 years old so it would make sense for tommy to be around that age. if tommy had joined the lafd right out of high school he could have been there for two years by the time chim joined in 2005 and he'd be 39.

but then we come to the problem of him being in the army. even if he had joined right out of high school, pilots have to complete a year of training, and are then required to serve for 10 years, meaning if he had completed his service, he would have to be 29 by the time he joined the lafd. assuming he wasn't a probie at the same time as chim, and he would have had to be 30 in 2005, making him almost 50 now, which doesn't feel quite right

but the key phrase in that last part is "if he completed his service". though we don't know his exact orientation, we do know tommy isn't straight, and he would have been serving in the army during dadt. if someone found out about his sexuality, he could have been discharged before his mandated service was completed.

there are a lot of assumptions and non-exact amounts here, so I haven't really cleared anything up, but personally, I like to think he's 42. he joined the army right out of high school, did his one year of training and 2 years of service before getting discharged, took a year to get his bearings/join the fire academy, and was at the 118 for about a year when chim joined, making him 23 in 2005, and 42 now. why? I'll explain

even though you legally become an adult at 18, you're still not really a fully formed person yet. if tommy was 18 when he joined the army, even if he already knew he was queer, his time in the army would have been instrumental to how he views himself and his identity, just in terms of growing up and being an adult. if he was already out and proud, the army would have broken his confidence down, and if he never accepted himself, they would have just reinforced whatever self-loathing he had. plus if he didn't even know, finding out you're gay when it could lose you your job is traumatizing. having tommy join the army fresh out of high school, and then get discharged 3 years later gives him enough time to have the training necessary to still be a pilot 20 years later, and enough time to really have been broken down by the system, while still not being too old when he joins the lafd

i don't know what the policy is for telling people why you got discharged, but if tommy could have kept it a secret at the lafd, he probs would have. obviously the writers probably weren't planning this when they introduced him, but having him not only be closeted queer, but also have him be fired for being queer adds a really interesting layer to his character and his interactions with chim and hen in the begins episodes.

and as for why have him be 42 instead of say, 41 or 43? because Abby was 42. someone pointed out that tommy and abby parallel each other in how they're both people who have helped/are helping buck better understand who he is and what he wants for himself in terms of a romantic relationship. having him be 42 makes that connection

[sgiandubh]

This fandom's obsession with knowing where Sam is at all times is borderline obsessional. That includes both sides. I understand you were waiting until you were sure he wasn’t there anymore and that Marple has no such scruples. Why does where he stays need to be publicized? I know why the anti's do it, they want to be able to claim "first" and also scour the internet for their next victim to attach to him. Shippers also do it, and both sides have claimed it's because he wants us to know/he knows we do it. Neither of those reasons are based on reality, I can’t recall him ever saying, yes, I show my background because I want to be stalked. It's unbelievably weird.

Dear Unbelievably Weird Anon,

After answering your polar opposite, this is almost funny, Anon.

Or, as the Frenchmen say (hell yes, just try and stop me!): cela ne manque pas de sel.

This fandom's obsession with knowing where S is at all times is one of its Original Sins. I was not here, but still could read (years and years after the facts) posts that survived the successive waves of slammed doors in this fandom, dozens and dozens of Anons: he is online, she is online, they are online right now and posting, they are staying there, they are doing this and that.

At first, it was fun. It read like a detective novella. It still is and I see no legal or moral cons into identifying a location he or she clearly released on their socials. If these people do not want fans to know where they are, at a given moment, then we wouldn't be privy to it. Also, tens of thousands of clicks on (random pick) a post featuring the A-Rosa Hotel's premises is (I will say it on and on and on until it's fixed) a digital asset that can and is monetized.

I fail to see how this would be stalking, at face value.

What I am not ok with and probably never will be, is the stalking of people with endless questions and snarky comments. And the fanfic writing that often surrounds these sightings:

'Was he alone?" 'With whom?' 'How did she look?' 'Was she tall?' "Blonde?' 'Brunette?' 'Were they kissing?' 'Holding hands?'

We know where the core of those questions is, Anon:

WAS HE WITH HER?

Oh, the entitlement. Oh, the stupidity. Oh, the shame (or complete lack thereof). Oh, the naivete.

It is wrong. It is cheap. It is unbelievably childish.

The rest is shitshow, smoke and mirrors.

You can't stop this. I can't stop this. What I can and I did, is setting my own red lines. You don't have to do the same. But you might find it helpful.

If I remember correctly, this glorious phrase was written a while ago by @audramh:

"Meanwhile, in a bed near Glasgow..." :

Irrespective of this or that.

[crownmemes]

Criminal Sentences, Vol. 8

(Sentences from various sources for criminals and/or dangerous muses. Adjust phrasing where needed)

"If you want to kill someone, just choose your victims carefully."

"Have I pissed you off in a way that's more than normal?"

"I find a dash of danger titillating."

"I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that I have something to do with this."

"I never fathomed a moment would come when I would need to end your life."

"All I did was what no one else had the guts to do!"

"How many peoeple have you killed?"

"I'm the one that kept you alive!"

"What are you going to do? Shoot me?"

"What do you know about fair or right? You're a coward."

"I want you to do me a favour. It's not negotiable. Either you do it or I kill you. You understand?"

"You've become awfully trusting for a man wanted by the FBI."

"He would make a lovely corpse."

"How long are you going to refuse to trust me?"

"So, do you want in on this opportunity or not?"

"We're all capable of evil."

"You question my sincerity. You think I'm heartless."

"I don't care what you do, or who you do, or who you have to grease - I need that information, and I need it now. Are we clear on that?"

"You didn't strike me as the serial killer type."

"Oh, I'm sorry. Have you forgotten how this works between us?"

"You can corrupt men, but you cannot corrupt innocence."

"You may want to leave the room. What I'm doing isn't exactly legal."

"So I'm the bad guy because I'm trying to do what's right?"

"You can't hurt a man when he's got nothing left."

"You're going to Hell, just like I am."

"Would it soften your opinion of me if I confessed that I've always had a particular affection for you?"

"I don't get any satisfaction from seeing you hurt."

"I've endured my hatred than you'll ever know. My enemies are legion."

"He can't tell you anything if he's dead."

"I have seen my share of the hideous, of the disgusting, and the repellent, but you are the most perfect expression I will ever see of all that is vile and hateful in life."

"You can kill a man but you can't kill what he stands for... Not unless you first break his spirit."

"I took care of it myself. I can do that, you know."

"You want to see me snap?"

"I've destroyed a lot of things in my life, including the people most precious to me."

"I killed him, and I would do it again."

[indristian]

More weirdly specific König Headcanons

By an austrian for an austrian character

He can hide how drunk he is pretty well, doesn't really start slurring his words and can hold deep conversations, the gig is over as soon as he stands up tho. He starts swaying pretty badly and has walked into more than one lamppost while intoxicated. Has apologized to every lamppost so far much to the amusement of everyone watching.

He isn't very religious but if someone starts praying the rosary in German his autopilot kicks in and he joins in. Same with certain church songs.

Started smoking at age 16 (don't worry, that was the legal age for smoking until like 5 years ago, then the gov changed it to 18) and regularly tries to quit. Nowadays he mostly smokes when stressed or drunk.

Tries to make everyone on his team say "Oachkatzlschwoaf" (means tail of a squirrel in an austrian dialect), refuses to tell anyone the English meaning bc he can't pronounce the word squirrel.

He's kinda choosy about the water he drinks. Water quality in austria is really good, so you can drink the tap water in the whole country. So when he's somewhere where the water is "technically" drinkable, but has a chlorine taste he prefers drinking bottled water.

Every new years eve at midnight he listens to the blue danube waltz, as is tradition in Austria.

There's a pocket in his tac vest that's reserved for Manner Schnitten. The people that saw something pink sticking out of his vest and made fun of him for it never get offered any when he opens a pack.

(Thanks to @court-of-fairytales for reminding me the Sissi movies exist) He has seen all of the movies, in theory, but the only times he has really seen them when he and his friends/teammates were "Sissi saufen" (saufen meaning drinking/binge drinking). It's a drinking game, mostly played around Christmas and new year, where you watch the 3 movies back to back and everytime someone in the movie says "your majesty" everyone has to stand up, say "long live the empress" and take a shot. Last man standing is the winner.

Has no visible tattoos but there's an AMA Gütesiegel stamp on his right buttcheek.

Kinds nsfw: Has absolutely quoted the "Ich will hinten rein!" ("I want in the back!" just with a lot more homoerotic implications) line when asked where he wanted to sit in a car and has gotten strange looks every time. (The movie this reference is from: (T)Raumschiff Surprise)

Kinda nsfw: He really likes talking to people in German (even if they don't really understand him) or teaching someone german words or phrases. The only thing he really hates is dirty talk in german, he'll do it if someone he's sleeping with requests it but he'll keep his face out of their sight bc he'll be 1000% be cringing.

Translates a lot of phrases literally bc the English equivalent "just doesn't have the right feel". Ends up saying things like "They look like a parcel someone ordered but never picked up", "They look like Bambi on stilts", "They have to pay attention like a clothes/shoe maker" ("aufpassen wie ein Haftelmacher", I know it as "aufpassen wie ein Haftelpitscher" but Google doesn't know it 😔) or "It's raining like the sky/like heaven is open".

Every time he sees someone with a Red Bull in their hand he has to resist the urge to say "You know, that's an austrian brand!"

The headcanons just keep coming!

And tbh after the last part I'm really tempted to make a playlist or a post compiling german songs König would get stuck in his head/would listen to. If anyone's interested please tell me!

Part one

Part two

Part four

Part five

Part six

[drdemonprince]

Thinking about the way I was treated by my own vocational specialist (i forget how that anon worded it, but that what they called him in the practice i go to) got me thinking. Do you think there's a specific unwillingness to understand... how to phrase this... the type of people psychiatrists would label as "mentally unstable" in some form or another? My psych asked me how much weed I smoked during a session and I found out that in his report he wrote "6 bowls." Now don't get me wrong, I'd find that to be a lot... if it were true. I said I smoked six times a day and he asked what I smoked out of, to which I correctly responded: "A Bowl." He asked no other clarifying questions. In the sessions afterward he minutely focused on why I smoked so much weed, instead of on the symptoms I was reporting. He asked if I felt dizzy and lightheaded, I responded "Well yeah, but that's because of the POTS diagnosis right?" (They were side effects of the medication I was taking- as I'd later come to find out. Thx webmd my beloved) He said I should stop smoking so much weed. I tried to explain that weed was the only thing that took the edge off my chronic pain. He said I should take over the counters, even though with the meds he prescribed me even an NSAID could kill me. I dunno, I didn't mean to dump all over your inbox, but I just feel there's this... commitment to misunderstanding people in need in the "mental health industry." And another question I might pose would be: "Why do we vilify self-medication with now legal substances when pharmaceuticals fail so much of the time?" (Also I got off that medication and am doing much better now that's it's Finally out of my system.)

That's what most of the clinical psych PhD students I came up with were like: zero life experience, rich, predominately white, predominately private school kids, acutely uncomfortable with drugs, disability, or difference, so judgemental the one girl in their program with tattoos got ostracized, assured of their own authority to issue judgement, deeply invested in the godliness of the pathology model, and only aware of real-world issues in the terms of what they had seen on Law and Order SVU. That was how they were when they entered the program. Their clinical training didn't make them any better. Theirs is a population that speaks for the prejudice of the near-highest and most isolated and naive (violently naive!) sectors of society. Glad you got away from it.

[kero-verdade]

Transcription of the scene where Hyunwoo threatens to sue the cancer center for fraud

(since Netflix didn't bother captioning)

tldr: The cancer center took Haein's grant money without attempting to treat her because they prioritize treating patients who already have good prognosis, therefore skewing the data and deceiving Haein.

Hyunwoo: Your lab is receiving funds from all over the world based on your achievement. But if there is an outcome from selected patients with good prognosis, can you really say your data is accurate? I don't think Haein Hong gave you her money for such things.

Braun: I'm sorry, is there a clause in the agreement that advises against selective patient enrollment?

Hyunwoo: No, there isn't.

Braun: Then I regret to inform you that we cannot refund the research grant.

Hyunwoo: I'm not here to get that money back.

Braun: Good, good then I think this concludes our discussion. Thank you.

Hyunwoo: Doctor, have you ever been to Korea?

Braun: No, I haven't.

Hyunwoo: You should come this time then, because I'm about to sue you for fraud.

Braun: I beg your pardon?

Hyunwoo: The victim is Korean, so in Korean court we will put you on trial.

Braun: I don't understand what you are implying. What fraudulent science have I committed?

Hyunwoo: Please take a look at the first phrase [of the agreement document]. This agreement was made to express Haein Hong's appreciation for her treatment. There was $1 million provided for the cost of gratitude, and your action of not even having an attempt [at treating her] is considered deception. And it is fraud, since you had a significant financial benefit. So as the legal representative of Mrs. Haein Hong, I am taking legal action against you whether you come [to Korea] or not.

And obviously we'll make the headline of the day: "Head of the renowned cancer center in Germany has committed a fraud against South Korean Entrepreneur Haein Hong by taking someone's life as a security"

So now what? What's your call?

[spicybylerpolls]

Here me out, I am not against a byler sex scene cause I don’t think it would be anything remotely explicit anyways so discussing it in depth for me feels pointless, but I have issues with tying a sex scene into the character arcs of mike and will as if it’s the only logical way to wrap up their story, only because had there not been a pandemic and multiple delays, byler would have happened while at least one of them was still a MINOR (maybe both I would have to do the math) and there’s no way the show woulda had a sex scene in those circumstances so it’s more likely to me that having a sex scene—while it would be interesting to go there now that the actors are older—it is not the end all be all for their character arcs and not something that *has* to happen for their end narrative to make sense, since it probably was not going to happen in the first place. So maybe let’s reframe the discussion away from “they have to bone or else all the build up and such makes no sense it’s the only way to end things because blah blah blah” and more as it would be fun/cool/hot to see something more adult now that they ARE actual adults, and it would feel satisfying to their story, but that’s it. cause some people are starting to feel so passionate about the idea that i am concerned they are going to make themselves very angry if there isn’t one …

Hmm, I kinda see your point, but I also feel like there's no real point in speculating about what might have happened in the hypothetical past where the pandemic and the strikes didn't happen because A) we don't live in that timeline lol, and B) the Duffers have always had the ending in the show in mind from the jump and many/most of the beats they knew they needed to hit along the way, BUT I personally don't think they've planned out literally every single detail from the start with no wiggle room.

The writers have said as much, like for example when they tweeted all the crazy things that were supposed to happen in season 2 like possessed Will killing Bob or El mercy killing her mom. They've definitely added and subtracted some things along the way.

Beyond that, regardless of the ages of Finn and Noah, it's not outlandish to argue that sex is still thematically connected to the characters and their arcs. Byler is a story about sexuality, of which sexual attraction and, well, sex play a huge role.

And ST is a coming-of-age show, of which sex often plays a huge role regardless of the age of the actors. During S3, the writers didn't shy away from including sexual themes such as Max's happy screams comment, and the actors were still minors then. Every season has progressed these themes further. The writers and filmmakers are the ones putting the sexual symbolism and jokes into the story, and we're just picking up what they're putting down, right?

Like, I don't think Murray using the phrase "experiment sexually" was accidental, nor was hosegate, nor was Mike checking out Will's ass lol. It's all fair game when you're telling this kind of story (as long as you're creating a safe and comfortable set, of course). Because of this, IMO, there's a high chance the ST writers would've still at least implied that Byler had sex even in your hypothetical scenario. There actually isn't a hard-and-fast rule that prevents actors who aren't legal adults yet from acting out light, non-explicit sex scenes.

You say that, "byler would have happened while at least one of them was still a MINOR (maybe both I would have to do the math) and there’s no way the show woulda had a sex scene in those circumstances," and I understand why you'd say this, but if you look closer at films and shows in media history, that's not always true. I can name several shows and films that call this theory into question.

While it's true that most modern shows with teen sex scenes do tend to also have adults already playing teenagers- there's a whole page on TV Tropes about this phenomenon called Dawson Casting- (and these tend to show a lot of skin, i.e. Euphoria), which makes it easier to explore sexual storylines, that's not the case across the board.

In your hypothetical scenario, the Byler sex scene obviously wouldn't have been an explicit one (and no one's saying it will absolutely be that way now either), but that doesn't really mean it wouldn't have existed in some form. There are many examples of coming-of-age shows/movies where the actors were technically still underage at the time of filming, and it showed them making out intensely before cutting out (and sex was implied) or it showed something slightly more (closer to Stancy) but still not anywhere near HBO-level.

McLovin's sex scene in Superbad comes to mind (his actor was still 17 at the time, and his mother had to watch while it was being filmed). Thora Birch was 16 when American Beauty was filmed. More recently, there was the Jevon sex scene in Chucky this season. Devon's actor recently turned 18, but Jake's actor is still 17. And yet the season was non-subtly building up to the scene, it was 100% tastefully done, and it cut away before anything super specific happened.

Now that both Finn and Noah ARE adults, and we know there will definitely be a time jump, this hypothetical is extra meaningless. And if the Duffers want to go further and bolder with a Byler sex scene, they can, even if this wasn't the original plan. And there's lots of brilliant analysis that argues the Duffers have been planting the seeds for a while for at least some kind of sexual resolution.

But your assertion that, "some people are starting to feel so passionate about the idea that i am concerned they are going to make themselves very angry if there isn’t one" doesn't seem based in reality either. Spicy bylers might want a sex scene, and many might believe there at least will be something implied like Jancy, but I don't think anyone will actually be angry if there isn't one. Correct me if I'm wrong? I think most people are just happy there's a space to talk about Byler in unfiltered ways, to analyze the mature themes of the show, and also to have fun while doing so, especially since the season is still a ways away. It's not like people will actually fist fight the Duffers if Mike isn't moaning and giving Will backshots in S5 💀.

What do y'all think?