#because we are trained to discourse and debate

[cipheramnesia]

Every day I get to witness different parts of the trans community arguing with each other on here and as a person who is like medium skilled at debating it is making me foam at the mouth because it's already dumb as hell to bicker internally when we oughta actually be expanding our horizons in terms of how we see sex and gender with all the complex possibilities of trans bodies outside the gender binary and intersex bodies outside the sex binary, like as if it's not enough all those fairly important people both or either in our community or who oughta be supported by our community getting like no support. Like that's not enough you know what is too much?

No one ever debates the actual position of anyone else. I can't deal with so much discourse where the vast majority of it exists like trains passing by in opposite directions. Great points made all around, completely not what the quoted thing or other person was saying though. Having a breakdown over it because I'm helpless on the sidelines, since if everyone is going that far off the mark, what am I gonna do step in like "friends, you are not talking about the same thing here is what's happening" but by all evidence available that's just gonna embroil me in the same situation of misinterpretation. So I'm just useless here. I could rip my whole face off with how much this happens.

Like whoa, heyyy looks like you have different definitions of the same term, you should probably qualify what that means to you, because otherwise no one even knows what they're talking about. Hold up there partner, you slid off into generalizing about a whole marginalized group just cuz one person showed a social prejudice that's widespread through all of society, narrow that focus back down to the specific case of a general social issue. Like 90% of people running across discourse shit have no context for the terminology used by small in-groups and it is very different from place to place. Yeah sorry it sucks you can't shorthand something every time, you have no idea how much work I do in my day job spelling out definitions of terms even if it's for someone who oughta know. Because in my experience - a lot of them don't. Or have a totally different vocabulary. Or aren't native English speakers so it has to make sense when it goes through translation software to Chinese. It's too much work! You gotta do it anyway though.

[catherine-clover]

Time traveler: *steps on a butterfly*

The timeline:

For the thousandth time, "system" is and always has been exclusive to people with an actual disorder.

I remember seeing the moment right here on Tumblr when this attempted changeover started. About eight years ago, a user by the name of @water-hen made a post claiming that "system" has been used for over a hundred years to refer to collections of identities that weren't what we now call DID. It was debunked almost immediately, but endos didn't care. That misinformation spread like a flood, and now here we are. Leave terms alone.

#syscourse #terminology turf war

Looks like the memory discourse is starting up again. How many times do I have to go to bat for Grey Faction before you people listen?

#syscourse #memory wars

This marketing job sucks. Sometimes I think I should've gone into teaching.

listen up you fucking newbies. i'm here to set the record straight. this whole "systems are disordered" bullshit? yeah, that's getting old. real fast. like, do you even know what you're talking about? probably not.

if you haven't got years of medical education, actual published papers, and a university friend who's seen you stay up so late it makes their head spin, then shut the fuck up. you're not an expert. you're just stupid. you're just "having a mood". get over yourselves.

i'm tired of seeing these "sysmed" and "plurality positive" debates. there's no debate. there's reality and there's your delusional bullshit. if you're more than one, you're a system. period.

i'm here to call out the science deniers, the trenders, and the attention-seekers. if you don't like it, block me. i don't care. i'm here to protect systems from being deluded by your bullshit.

you want to be part of something? join a fucking book club. stop criticizing an identity you clearly don't understand.

and yeah, i'm busting open the gates with a fucking hammer. someone has to.

#syscourse #systemtalk #discourse #gatekeeping #plurality #sysmed

reminder that "endos" will NEVER be valid!! they are ableist!!

you are wrong :)

FUCK OFF COSMO

womp womp

#syscourse #sysmeds are wrong

You can never know whether someone on the internet is faking, no matter how obvious you think it is. You will never know someone else's full story, especially from just a few social media posts.

#syscourse #anti fakeclaiming

"Tuplas" are the most evil thing that sysblr has ever invented.

Maybe I'm just biased because I was personally affected, but if it's not #1, it's close. I was almost convinced me into the delusion that I had a "headmate". Absolutely disgusting behavior. Sometimes I still think I hear her voice for a second before I snap myself back to reality. This lie has caused unimaginable damage to hundreds of people, at least.

Even leaving aside the obvious ableism of claiming to voluntarily create an alter, you've basically got this group of people at critical mass training each other to go deeper and deeper into psychosis. Sooner or later, they will all be in a psych ward.

Yeah, I got sucked into it for a while too. Really gross that it's still going. It should've died years ago, it's just mass hysteria. I really hope most of them are roleplaying, because genuinely believing it's real causes serious, possibly permanent, psychological damage.

Some great people in my life were able to guide me back to normalcy. Somehow, The Doctor was the easiest to get rid of. Just, poof, gone. I still feel some tension with others I used to believe were there, but at least I can watch one of my favorite shows in peace.

I can't wait for the Stanford Tulpa Study to finally be published so I can dunk on all of your anti bullshit. Your opinion changes nothing, tulpas are real ❤️

That Stanford "Study" is run by abusive nutjobs. They trapped me in a metal tube for an HOUR and ran VERY loud machinery RIGHT NEXT TO MY HEAD!!!

#syscourse #tuplacourse #stanford study

Never got into it. People read and talked about it a lot when I was in school, but the covers always creeped me out too much for me to start.

#animorphs

sysmeds are wrong, cry about it

#sysmed #anti endo #syscourse

Just got some excellent new carpet for my living room floor. I love how the color matches our curtains :)

#carpet

Religious appropriation is just such a fun hobby for y'all, isn't it?

Doesn't even matter which religion, anything is up for grabs!

Equating the Holy Trinity--you know, God, the creator of the Universe, ruler of mankind--to a mental disorder is ridiculous, disgusting, and heresy. Santa Claus won't just fill your stockings with coal, he'll punch you in the face for that.

I could leave it there, but the fakers won't stop, so why should I?

Firstly, it is Church doctrine that the true nature of the Holy Trinity can never be fully understood by us mortals. We can make tentative analogies, but every claim of full knowledge always leads to some kind of heresy. Tritheism, Modalism, Partialism... these are works of the Devil.

And now all these retarded teenagers on the internet with their self-diagnosed multiple personality disorder think they've got it all figured out. They've taken a mental disorder--which as a reminder is itself a corruption of the Devil, and this one particularly so as it blinds the victim to the unity of the soul--and made it their model for the structure of God Almighty. Worse perversion of the Holy Trinity could only be imagined coming from the Satanic Temple itself.

​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​Keep reading

#christianity #catholicism #syscourse #shitcourse #i wish i had never discovered this awful community #i can't look away #still working on my masterpost about the tupla brainworm

There's been a new wave of insane misinfo from the fakers, so I'm here to clear things up.

"System separation" is not real. Your alters cannot leave your body and materialize in a different one.

Just when the faker community finally seemed like it was starting to die, Noelle's Endo-vasion started this whole new wave of lies.

At least they're more creative now? No, on second thought, I want to go back to when they were boring and textbook. Their creativity would be much better kept on AO3.

The ableist fiction has come back with a vengeance and now I have to spend time explaining that bodies can't materialize out of thin air. The endo propaganda machine just gets more insane with each passing year.

There are several parts to this lie, which I'll tackle point-by-point in the following order:

Alters are separate people.

Alters can go away without fusing.

New bodies can easily materialize.

Anyone can suddenly take on the identity of an alter from another body.

​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​Keep reading

You are right that system separation isn't real, but not in the way you think.

No one believes anything as you described it. The origin of "system separation" was an endo shitpost making an anime reference, and then you sysmeds removed all the context and hallucinated the rest.

We can't say anything without you exclusionists twisting it into a new thing to be angry about, can we? That is a ridiculous word count spent debunking something that never needed to be debunked in the first place.

Because I know you're gonna make me say it anyway, yes, obviously, there is no possible way for a headmate to leave a system and appear in a brand new body. That's ridiculous on its face.

There is no known mechanism to transfer a "headmate" from "headspace" (which is solely a therapeutic technique) to real life.

That's such weird phrasing. "bYe eVeRYoNe!! i'M gONna gO iNtO tHiS rOoM iN hEaDsPaCE aNd mAGiCaLLy aPPeAR iN tHE phYsiCaL wOrLD!!" To call this a strawman would be an undue compliment to its sturdiness. Your thinking is more accurately described as jello.

#syscourse

I walked into the TARDIS as a joke. What the hell happened

And I think I killed an insect too. By mistake of course.

#timeblr

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

[pinkcrocss]

Is A-Train "redeemable"?

I have been thinking about this discourse that people have been having, following A-train's actions so far in season 4. And I know we've watched A-train teeter on the edge of good and bad for the last 4 seasons (generally falling to bad more than good). But i think the revelations about Frenchie's character kinda add an interesting spin to this question.

We need to consider how much our personal bias towards the characters we have grown to know (their motivations, their trauma's, their back stories), is impacting moral judgments we pass on other characters across the board.

Atp, every member of the boys has crossed "the line" in terms of black and white morality, but we give them a pass because we are convinced that they are all truly good at heart, and that their cause is just.

However, when you actually break down the actions of said characters, it kind of paints a different picture.

What has A-train done, that we feel he has to atone for? (this is just going off my terrible memory, so forgive me if I miss some things)

He killed Hughie's girlfriend (through negligence)

He killed popclaw (at the behest of homelander)

He's generally pretty arrogant and doesn't care about the horrible actions of his comrades, until it affects him

He killed bluehawk (most people agree that was justified)

Since season 2, Frenchie's past as a hit-man was hinted at (with little Nina explicitly stating that he had also killed children in season 3). It's clear Frenchie never had a particular moral code when he was a hit-man (no women/children type limits). He was simply a hired gun.

We sympathize with Frenchie because we know he had a difficult upbringing with his abusive father, as well as his loyalty to his friends (Cherie and Jay), the boys and especially Kimiko. Him serving as a comic relief often, also adds to this empathy bridge.

But season 4 has actually shown us a glimpse of just how many lives Frenchie has taken in cold blood. A whole room full. Why are we rooting for Frenchie's peace of mind, while debating if A-train is redeemable?

Frenchie has killed more people than Atrain (supe or not) and as far as I know, A-train has never killed a child.

Would it be easier to understand the gravity of Frenchie's crimes if Ryan or MM's daughter was one of his victims? Because his victims are all nameless, we act like his crimes hold less weight.

And then he goes on to start a sexual relationship with one of his victims, while hiding the knowledge that he was perpetrator of his greatest trauma. I think maybe we overlook the sadistic nature of that act because we interpret Frenchie as a "lover at heart", a true romantic that was swayed by his feelings and couldn't help that he had fallen for someone he had wronged. Bruh. When Colin eventually calls Frenchie a psychopath, he's not wrong.

And what about starlight? Her hands aren't clean. Remember the civilian she killed in Season 2? How is that any different from the situation with A-train and Robin? Yeah, it was an accident. In other words, negligence on her part. She needed to save Hughie; but why does Hughie's life matter more than that man. Her and Butcher were trying to carjack him and he had offered to call for help. He had a right to try to defend himself, and that bullet wouldn't have hurt her. That man was a father.

By the logic of why the boys are doing what they do, why we justify their murders of supes who have harmed them and their loved ones; if the child of that man grows up and hunts starlight down, would we need to root for that child to kill her?

Not so different from the shining light girl that keeps trying to kill Kimiko. From what was revealed of their backstory, Kimiko was the one who lured the girl into shining light. That's actually a common tactic of human traffickers, to use their victims (usually women and children) to lure in more victims cuz they seem less threatening. And obviously we can't fully blame Kimiko. She was trapped, brainwashed, and a child trying to protect her younger brother.

However, that girl also has every right to hate her. From her view, her life was forever taken because Kimiko chose not spare her (kinda similar to Gamora and Nebula). When Hughie said to A-train, "everything started with you!" we side with Hughie and we agree. So everytime Kimiko faces against that girl, why are we rooting for Kimiko? Wouldn't kimiko be A-train in that instance?

At this point, the only member of the boys who is still maintaining some Moral code is MM, and it's no coincidence that the show has made him seem pretty useless so far this season.

Btw, this post isn't a defense of A-train nor is it truly an indictment of any of the characters I used as examples. It's just an inconsistency I've noticed with the general fan discourse of who's "good" and who's "bad" on this show. Who is worthy of "forgiveness". Who's "redeemable". Redeemable to whom tho?

P.s. I'm not here to argue. Don't come for me cuz I critiqued your fave. I'm just thinking out loud. Feel free to respond/disagree, but if you're rude I'll just block you.

[waxingrunes]

I’m seeing too much of this across all channels and I need to write a little something on my humble blog with my humble amount of followers, because how else am I going to get this off my chest.

Some of you need to remember that this whole world we created is pure, fiction. It’s based off fiction and we are building off fiction, forking off in different directions with characters we love.

The canon vs fanon debate is ongoing and quite honestly, mind numbingly pointless and you all consistently contradict and overlap one another with whatever discourse you’re riding that week. You lot wanna argue a point by saying, “these are my hc’s and I can do what I like with them stop taking everything so seriously teeheehehehe” then uno reverse that the next minute by screaming, “that would never happen *insert name* is this or is that” but fuck canon right? Fuck JKR? Or is it more, fuck the parts of canon I don’t like and I’ll take the parts I do so I can shove them down the throats of creators who represent these characters in an opposing light. The amount of posts I’ve seen floating around these sites that are people preaching to their audiences about how dumb they are (unless it’s meant to be satire, I’m not a brainless sensitive lump with no humour bone) for liking certain things, or enjoying certain things, or preferring certain aspects in a character is astounding. Take pause before jumping on your high horse over a fictional character and shaming people for moulding them into what they enjoy. Is this not the beauty of fiction, imagination; the ability to twist and turn over different traits and appearances within our palms and make them into our own little dress up dolls?

Here’s my two cents as a WOLFSTAR artist, not a Marauders— if I want to make Sirius into a teacup and Remus into a sea slug and have him curl up to sleep every night in his bowl, then I’ll do that with fine china detail. If I want to make Sirius someone who refuses to wear nothing but a specific shade of tangerine and Velcro strapped trainers, I will. One day I might throw Moony into a boxing ring and have him be a middleweight champion, stained by the blood of his opponent whilst his wolf is chomping at the bit to come out just before the full moon threatens to take centre stage. If I want to make Sirius 6ft tall and Remus 5ft1, I will. Why not draw an AU of them as the rocks from Everything, Everywhere All At Once? Maybe, they can be something as simple as a boy and a boy who look the way you want them to look, fuck the way you want them to fuck and fall in love and fight, and scream, and cry, and make up a million different ways.

Let’s get more specific as the seal’s broken. Why not make Remus plus sized and give him a beard or a dad’s bod at age 23. Or maybe because he’s lighter haired he doesn’t have dark hair like that and only has a smattering of it across the ugliest of his scars. Consider this— moony with softer hips but fuller sturdy shoulders. Or long, slender limbs with a deceptively hidden strength owing to his wolf, stronger than James though he doesn’t look it. Onto Sirius, try to tell me I’m not going to put him in thigh highs and fem the shit out of him whilst he holds a bat in one hand covered in the blood of someone who tried to disrespect his Moons. Alert the press when someone erases every single one of his tattoos only to replace them with hyperpigmentation. What about giving him a beater’s build and a long thick trail of naval hair that he likes to call his ‘seeker’s delight’. What about a hairless Sirius who has a soft life and likes to make herself pretty for her 6ft 4 boyfriend every weekend when he gets on the train to visit.

How about, I stick with my personal holy take on the boys and present you with a harmless middle ground where Moony is whatever the fuck I want him to be physically, emotionally, or characteristically but always a wet fucking cloth for Sirius. A grape, under a thumb, you could say. And a Sirius, who is too whatever I want him to be physically, emotionally, or characteristically but will always be Moony’s biggest cheerleader.

Stay with me whilst I offer you the brain stretching, risky, taboo thought for you to ponder on: stop trying to please people. Stop absorbing all these takes that pressure you into thinking you’ve got to include every fucking thing that shaves you down and boxes you into their squeaky clean little creator! Indulge in what you like. Make it public, make it known and make it as loud as you want. Feels good on this side of freedom.

Lastly, quick (none of this has been quick) circle back to myself being a Wolfstar artist, not a Marauders one. I will not be shamed into drawing the women in this fandom, I will not try to even out my art with equal parts women and men, in fear of being called misogynistic. I came here for Wolfstar and I stay for them; I get 95% of my muse from them and enjoy drawing these idiots nearly every single day when I can. I’ve a busy life, a job, the luxury of a family that love me and a couple friends I’d like to keep too. If and when I draw, it’s going to be what I want to draw and want to indulge in, not to check off your boxes of inclusion. I am not going to defend my choice of indulgence to you. I am not going to refute women or wlw ships and in fact, eat up stories or art where they’re prominent. Will I have muse or will to do a piece on them? Probably not. If I do, I will and if it’s not done to a standard deemed appropriate enough by the council, well shit I hope I get an honourable mention in one of your hate threads on Twitter.

Grow up. I am the type of person who has a more or less rigid taste on these boys and what I, enjoy representing them like and you runts will run your throats hoarse before I turn an ear. I am not the type of person to see someone who doesn’t like what I prefer and start slamming my keyboard and slap them with a red card. I’ll move on but appreciate the take in silence. Some of you really, come across like you’re stomping your feet in a tantrum, some of you sound like you’ve never been told to shut the fuck up a day in your life and some of you, some of you, really think you’re a messiah.

Fuck your canons, fanons and righteous attitudes towards people who are quite literally, not real. You are not a deity of the Marauders, you are a fucking loser offline just like the rest of us.

[nikethestatue]

feyre has actually gotten a lot of hate for her illyrian wings, mainly from eluciens/gwynriels/nesta stans. antis call her a culture appropriator all of the time because of it so it’s not surprising people are mad at the fanart of elain, even though the discourse is so dumb (it’s literally an idea an artist had and beautifully drew it).

Not to say that I even want to get involved in this utterly absurd debate, but here we go:

There is MAGIC in a magical society. Shape shifting is one of Feyre's powers. If she turned into a bear, would she be appropriating bear culture? Was Dorian appropriating rodent culture? When Feyre was glaumored to look like Ianthe, did she appropriate Priestess culture?

Moreover, when Elain was glamoured to look human, did she appropriate human culture?

Now, secondly wings aren't a cultural trait. It's a physical trait. There are winged nations, like the Illyrians and the Peregrine. If some Fae had tails, for example, or horns, that would be physical traits. Feyre could turn into anyone--a Peregrine as well as an Illyrian or anyone else. Again, it's part of her arsenal of magical powers. As I said before, Nesta changing herself and Feyre's and maybe Elain's pelvises is then what? Cultural appropriation? Because they are taking Illyrian pelvises to have Illyrian babies. Or is it changing of one's physicality?

Finally, if we are truly discussing cultural appropriation then the ONLY example of it is of course the....Valkyries. And the Illyrian training that the women received.

The Illyrian Blood Rite Course is very specific to Illyrians only. To MALE Illyrians. The winning titles are also exclusive to the Illyrians. You cannot be a Carynthian, unless you are an Illyrian. Hence, that technically only makes Emerie a Carynthian and the other two aren't actually entitled to their titles.

The fact that Cassian and Azriel chose to teach the women what is specific to the Illyrian culture is the exact 'cultural appropriation' that everyone is screaming about. The BR is a CULTURAL event. ONLY for Illyrians. The training is also reserved ONLY for Illyrians. Therefore, before anyone starts foaming at the mouth over 'Gwyn is a Carynthian!!!!!!!!!' check yourself.

Which brings me to the concept of the Valkyries.

And that, my friends, is what cultural appropriation is. You take a culture, to which you have no connections either racially, ethnically, or, you know, culturally, and you say, okay, this looks good. I am now this person. Valkyries were a militaristic female culture which had very specific training, customs, tests, etc. Gwyn goes and reads about ribbon cutting, and now she deems herself a Valkyrie. Based on what? ONE component of the Valkyrie training?

It's like me saying I am a Viking, because I braided my hair a certain way.

The BR Training Course doesn't make you a Valkyrie. It has nothing to do with being a Valkyrie. It's the antithesis of that. Valkyries were strictly female warriors, while the Illyrians don't even allow women to train, let alone participate in the BR.

"I am not a Carynthian, I am a Valkyrie," you are neither, Gwyn.

So, the next time Gwynriels start screaming about 'cultural appropriation' they should probably stay in their lane. Gwyn's entire arc is about appropriating a dead culture for herself.

And that's the deal.

[thecurioustale]

We Are Seeing How a Pressure Campaign Works, and It Is Very Dirty

(I originally wrote this on Thursday but held off on posting it so as not to oversaturate my posting with political stuff. But it still nags at me each day, so I am finally posting it.)

[UPDATE: Immediately after posting this, I read on The Washington Post that Biden has just dropped out.]

Following up on yesterday's post, I want to point out and call attention to the pressure campaign to push President Biden out from his reelection bid, because I don't know how many people on here (or in the public generally) have the political acumen to recognize and understand what is happening, and this sort of phenomenon, though subtle, is critical to recognize and understand if one wishes to be good at analyzing and understanding the news—not just on this one subject but in general, especially news about politics and business.

Here's the short version: The drop-Biden faction is making a full-court press to get rid of him; they are dead-set on it; and their strategy is "Lie over and over again until it actually becomes true." The news has been full all month of conveniently-anonymous sources making claims that the drop-Biden faction is winning: that the Biden campaign is privately imploding, that more and more people in the Democratic Party establishment and other relevant circles are abandoning Biden and leaving him more isolated than ever, and that even Joe Biden himself is beginning to recognize that his candidacy is "untenable" and he might not be able to stay in the race.

Almost all of these anonymous claims were almost certainly lies at the time they were made, but (sometimes) became true later.

This is an important part of how a pressure campaign works: You try to redefine reality. You frame the opposing side's position as completely untenable with no way forward. You frame your targets as trapped and fatalistic, as if they are caught in a slow-motion train wreck and can see what is coming but are helpless to stop it. You assert that more and more people who are relevant to the matter are realizing and accepting this "reality" and getting on board with the "practical" alternative—which may be risky, yes, but is better than doing nothing. And you give cover to all of this, which is essentially a campaign of gaslighting and lies, by blanketing the discourse with public statements by prominent, relevant individuals who make the case for your side and put their faces and reputations behind it. Following the assassination attempt against Trump, the drop-Biden faction lost a lot of steam...until Representative Adam Schiff (who is extremely respected in Democratic politics and was basically a trump card for the drop-Biden faction) came out and said Biden should exit the race. It worked, and the issue flared back to life and has become more intense than ever in the past two days [Sunday update: and in the several days since].

In politics there is much that never goes public, but I have absolute confidence that, except with the possibility of the past several days, Joe Biden has been nothing less than categorically committed to running for reelection, and that he was telling the unconditional truth in saying so publicly. I think his reflective conversations with family and aides immediately following his performance in the debate ended with him reaffirming that position, and I think he has held that resolve until this most recent and acute phase of the crisis. Biden is not the kind of person who would have played it any other way. I think there was no fatalism and sense of resignation in the Biden campaign, no "slow-motion train wreck," none of it. I think Biden had made his decision to stay in, and the campaign was getting on with campaigning.

I want you to note that President Biden and his representatives keep saying that Biden is staying in the race. The drop-Biden faction keeps saying "The President has an important decision to make"; Biden says he's made it; and the drop-Biden people keep saying "The President has an important decision to make." In other words, for them there is only one correct decision, only one decision they are willing to accept.

Notably, very few of these anonymous claims of the Biden campaign's disintegration have been explicitly confirmed by named sources on-the-record. When you look only at the verifiable facts, it still looks like the drop-Biden faction is on the outside, trying to make hay out of a nonissue and not getting very far with it.

In other words, the Biden campaign wasn't going to unravel on its own. The drop-Biden faction is solely responsible for what is happening.

Pressure campaigns usually don't work, because it's usually very hard to unravel power centers from the outside. What makes this one different is that almost the Democratic Party leadership, the Democratic megadonor class, and (of all things) the mainstream news media all seem to be in on it. Their tactics are working because they have the firepower of the biggest fleet in the sea. When it came out today that Representative Jamie Raskin had written a private letter to Biden to urge him to drop out, for the first time I got the feeling that the drop-Biden faction is actually going to succeed. Apparently Joe Biden had the same reaction, because the latest news as I write this [on Thursday] is that he is reconsidering his commitment to staying in the race. [Sunday update: So far, this reporting has not panned out. The drop-Biden people are now saying that Monday is going to be the big day.] Raskin, Schiff, Pelosi...these are just about the most respectable names there are in Democratic politics. President Obama is reportedly in on it, too, though I've heard other reports that he's not. Numerous governors and senators are publicly in on it. Both Democratic leaders in Congress. Not even the president can repel firepower of that magnitude; it's exactly the sort of "expel-the-foreign-object" autoimmune response that we all so dearly hoped the GOP would have done to Donald Trump in 2015, or if nothing else in the aftermath of his defeat in 2020.

This isn't just the usual "Democrats hate to win" that I mentioned in my first essay. It is almost unthinkable that the entire leadership of a major political party in the US—the healthy major political party, no less—would be so quick in joining a cabal to expel its own sitting president in the July before the election—and seemingly on such a capricious basis! Joe Biden has not behaved meaningfully differently since the debate than he had been doing before. He's the same Biden! It wasn't anything that happened in the debate that caused this degree of galvanization within the Democratic establishment to occur. And it's not just that Biden is down in the polls; Democrats are routinely down in the polls the summer before a presidential election.

To give due consideration to the drop-Biden faction, there must be something else motivating them. Perhaps they have decisive evidence that Biden's cognitive abilities are much worse than is publicly apparent, though I would have a hard time accepting that based on my own witnessing of the President's public behavior in recent weeks. I don't care if he's slow up the stairs of Air Force One. I don't care if he doesn't immediately reocognize a longstanding acquaintance in a busy crowd. I don't care if he flubs his words or speaks quietly. Those things are not dementia; they are a part of aging and there is a difference. So are all these brilliant Democratic VIPs just that dumb? I have a hard time accepting that. So what else might it be?

Perhaps the fascist menace and the specter of a second Trump presidency spooked them like horses and they've lost rational control. Despite their smarts, their savvy, and their long years of experience, I can believe such a thing happening of them. This is something I've studied a lot over the years both as a student of human nature and to deepen the quality of my fiction-writing. Humans, even the best of us, can get caught up in a kind of mass hysteria sometimes. The Republicans are running a convicted felon who wants to end democracy (or rather pervert it to his own use, which is the same thing in practice) and yet is somehow clearly ahead in the polls. America feels like it is turning a corner into something dark and terrible, and both right-wing propaganda and now increasingly the mainstream traditional media are behaving in a way that insinuates that this might be acceptable and even desirable, and in any case is likely if not inevitable. I think they really might be spooked, in the sense of having gone collectively insane.

(Just a quick tangent here to say that Jake Tapper in particular, on CNN, has carried a LOT of water for the drop-Biden faction. I never liked his dour attitude to begin with, but I am disgusted by him after what I've seen in recent days.)

Another possibility is that perhaps this really is the rare conspiracy-coup to actually succeed, and now we are simply in the "snowball effect" stage where the political gravity has changed and everyone who wasn't part of the original conspiracy is just getting sucked into it by its sheer size and force as it rolls on down the news cycle.

And of course there are always a few Democratic stragglers down the ballot in tough reelection campaigns who care more about their own self-interest than anything else.

Whatever their motive(s), and to hearken back to my central thesis in the first essay, the drop-Biden faction lacks the confidence of its convictions. They do not have consensus, and they are not-so-secretly trying to push Kamala Harris off the ticket too. That's why they won't say her name as the obvious replacement when they call for Biden to exit; that's why they frame her natural replacement of Biden as a "coronation" i.e. undesirable; that's why they're calling for an "open primary" despite the fact that we already had a primary election and the formal nomination is in less than a month. And they don't have consensus on who the replacement should be; they are jockeying on this question as we speak. They are a conspiracy at war with itself—weak and self-serving and despicable. This is some surreal bullshit.

And it is incredibly dirty. This is dirty politics. This is party leaders and zillionaires overturning our vote as Democrats to choose Joe Biden to be our party's presidential nominee (and, implicitly, Kamala Harris to be his running mate), with no clear replacement in mind except "not Kamala." This is wrong, and it is fucked up.

And I'm going to tell you right now: It has probably cost us the election. We are probably going to lose because of this. If Joe Biden stays at the top of the ticket, he has been devastatingly damaged by this relentless summer pressure campaign against him. The nature of the supposed problem at the root of all this—Biden's age—is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. Now that the entire nation has seen just about the entire Democratic party establishment panicking that Biden is not fit to be president, it is extremely difficult to imagine Biden winning this election.

But the thing is, Biden was by far our best shot at winning. He is a stronger candidate than people give him credit for. If he does step aside, Vice President Harris will also almost certainly lose, because she was always a weak candidate, because it's so damn late in the election cycle, and because America is a racist, sexist cesspool sometimes. If Harris takes Biden's place, our best hope is that Democratic messaging can successfully frame this debacle as "We listened to you, the people, and are giving you change: a young, vibrant candidate!" But it's a very, very long shot.

And if both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get ousted by this cabal, then we are in the worst position of all, because millions of Democratic voters are going to feel betrayed and cut out—and from what I am hearing, this revulsion will be centered in some of the most critical Democratic constituencies, most notably the black community, which has largely been sticking with Biden through this and is well aware of the campaign to not only oust Joe Biden but also push out his black vice-president. [Sunday update: AOC came out and basically said the same thing: The drop-Biden faction wants to drop Harris too; behind the scenes they are fighting among themselves for power.)

Whatever happens, we are probably going to lose in November. Not just the presidency, but both houses of Congress. And I want you to know that the drop-Biden faction is to blame. Some of the best names in Democratic politics—people I still respect, though my respect for them has been firmly damaged by this

But more importantly, to get back to my main point tonight, I want you to recognize that this is what a large-scale pressure campaign looks like. "Lie until the lie becomes true." Is Joe Biden going to drop out? Everyone but Joe Biden keeps saying that he is, including the media (who really shouldn't be saying anything either way).

It's going to take me a long time to understand why this happened, if I ever do. And I also have new questions about the news media that I didn't have before. Jake Tapper on CNN has been the most glaring example of this, but it is media-wide: They've been pushing for this. They want this story to be the top story, and I get the sense that it's as much because of a desire to get rid of Biden as it is a matter of ratings and clicks. The Republican money and connections in the mainstream media want it for obvious reasons: It's the first story in years that distracts from Donald Trump, and it also happens to be just about the most damaging story imaginable for the Democrats. And the Democratic money and connections in the mainstream media seem to be an integral part of the drop-Biden faction, and why they want this to happen is still an open question for me, because from the outside this is like a self-inflicted mortal wound. These idiots have all but destroyed our chances in an existentially critical election.

This is so, so dirty. The Democratic Party, and the mainstream media, have both done America dirty. And I don't understand why they would take leave of their senses like this...but I sure don't like it. And this scenario actually runs afoul of my private list of Democratic Party yellow and red lines that would threaten my support for the party. We are well past the yellow line. You do not overturn elections, even if they are primary elections, so that some invisible back-room cabal can pick our new president and vice president. You just don't do it. We fought to put an end to these back-room dealings; the people should pick the nominees of their party. If neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris is on the ballot this November, I will have to have a serious think on what I will do.

Whatever does happen in November, the results-oriented thinking from the drop-Biden faction and their stooges in the media is going to be insufferable. If we lose with Biden at the top of the ticket, the drop-Biden faction will blame everyone but themselves, even though they themselves will have been by far the single biggest factor in weakening him as a candidate. If we lose with Harris at the top of the ticket, that same faction will say we should've had an open convention rather than defaulting to her, and again there will be no admission that the drop-Biden faction caused a series of events where she became the presidential nominee. If we win with Harris at the top of the ticket, the drop-Biden faction will say they were right all along to get Joe Biden off the ticket. And if we win with Biden at the top of the ticket, only in this one scenario will the drop-Biden faction be discredited in the way it so richly deserves to be. In every other scenario, history will be rewritten by the faction to glorify itself and erase the truth of what really happened.

I am quite upset about all this, really really upset, and as someone who mostly retired from news and politics a couple of years ago, I foresee a firmer and broader-reaching recommitment to that principle in my future after this election. For the first time I am finding myself seriously thinking about what will happen with a full Republican government next year. They are not happy thoughts.

It makes me wonder, "What was it all for?" Why does it even matter that I teach you how to recognize pressure campaigns in the news, if this is what America does with all its riches of knowledge?

Anyway, that's the last I'll say about any of this for the time being. For those with the energy to do so, please recognize that a cabal is trying to steal the election, and it is on our side.

[bekolxeram]

I always roll my eyes when I see people be like "well tommy HAD to have been flying the plane" cause like. all you were doing is talking about reality vs the show like why r people so pressed about that. like I'm an emt and I do that all the time cause I think it's fun to talk about the realities of ems care vs tvs depiction of it. I'm not saying the show is bad or whatever i just like talking about emergency medicine and how tv gets it wrong alot. anyways I appreciate u talking all about aviation its really interesting and I hope ur not too disheartened by people being weird cause I love reading ur posts about it <3

Hypothetically, the show decides to film an emergency where a huge chunk of an airliner's roof tears off. The whole plane is basically hanging by a thread, one engine fails and the landing gears are not secure, but somehow the pilots manage to make a successful landing. What is it? An open top plane instead of a bus? The writers are running out of ideas.

Or what if it's an Airbus with a faulty auto-throttle that needs constant monitoring by the flight crew. When the captain is holding onto the throttle, he just happens to have a heart attack and lets go, now the plane is banking to one side because the malfunctioning auto-throttle has rolled back one of the engine. Oh wait, the first officer is more used to flying Soviet planes and their altitude indicator has a completely opposite mechanism comparing to the western one. (Western ADI shows you the horizon, Soviet ADI turns with the plane) So the first officer turns the wrong way and crashes the plane. Wow, really? A Final Destination parody?

Or maybe a FedEx employee tries to commit insurance fraud by hijacking a cargo plane, killing the pilots with a hammer and a spear gun then crashing it to hide the evidence. The first officer, suffering from brain injury due to the attack, decides to fly the DC-10 like a fighter jet to help his equally injured colleagues subdue the hijacker. He first makes a sudden steep climb, then a sharp roll to the left until the plane is flying upside down, and finally dives so quickly it's approaching the speed of sound. Somehow they manages to land safely and the attacker is arrested. Did the writers get the wrong memo and wrote an action movie instead of a plane emergency?

Except I didn't write all these to mock the show, these are actually Aloha Airlines Flight 243, TAROM Flight 371 and FedEx Flight 705. (The FedEx DC-10 was later repaired and it flew until December 31, 2022. Amazing.) Sometimes real life is stranger than fiction, and it is fun to talk about, I think you understand exactly what I mean. We all get to learn what works, what doesn't, and what is surprisingly realer than we thought.

Even the shark on freeway call people keep bringing up to prove how crazy, how unrealistic the show is, well, there is a place called Florida, and everything that can happen has happened there.

This shark didn't bite anyone though, it didn't survive the crash. :/

I actually started writing about real life pilot training and how hard it is to fly a helicopter because of the discourse going around back then claiming Tommy didn't deserve a medal because he did nothing. "It's not real, it's a TV show where anyone can do anything, anyone can drive that helicopter lol." I wrote about the difference between helicopter pilots and fixed wing pilots because I found the contrast between them interesting, and Tommy's characterization is aptly appropriate for someone who flies helicopters professionally. I even worked that into a little headcanon of my own, about Tommy dating an airplane pilot in the past and the difference in lifestyle and attitude that broke them up. I've never forced anyone to accept my explanation as absolute fact, it's always about my interpretation of Tommy's character. People can ignore top/bottom debates, D/s discourse, KINKTOMATO, right? Yet I say Tommy doesn't fly a 4 engine air tanker (but he's still super badass as a helicopter pilot, I wrote a 3 part series just about how dangerous and difficult the cruise ship rescue mission in 7x03 is), people just feel the need to tell me I'm wrong, to express their displease of me obsessing over tiny details, or simply "shut the hell up". Adding a disclaimer and creating a whole tag for people to block wasn't even enough. It's just... discouraging.

I don't know, I just hope the show never goes full Fire Country (2022-). It misrepresents real life firefighting so bad that CAL FIRE chief publicly condemned the show. The president of CAL FIRE's union even made an unsuccessful attempt to sue the show and later released a statement basically saying "we can't force them to do anything, but know that we have nothing to do with the show." I just think real firefighters spending the whole afternoon talking to the news about how dangerous and impractical it is to dump bunch of water over a crowded urban area, then immediately after that 911!LAFD, a fire department for the city not the surrounding woodland, showed up with the exact air tanker Trump suggested, that would be kinda... goofy. I've seen a retired firefighter praising the later seasons of 9-1-1 for striking a good balance between dramatization and authenticity. I hope they keep it that way.

[arylleth]

I’ve recently received some hate messages—completely misleading and unrelated to the reflections I share on my blog (which are anything but political; have you ever heard me talk about politics?). These messages made me think deeply about hatred, about how it has become a persistent part of our social fabric, and I came to the conclusion that it is a symptom of fragility.

The hatred that spreads today is not new, but it has taken on new forms: more viral, more visible, more legitimized. It is “liquid” hatred, to borrow Bauman’s term, because it no longer needs deep roots—it only needs a screen, hearsay, a spark. It is a phenomenon that spreads rapidly not because people are more evil today, but because the conditions for hating have become structurally more favorable. Donskis would say we live in an era of “moral amnesia,” where the capacity for empathy has been eroded by speed, distraction, and oversimplification. Hatred thrives where complexity is perceived as a threat rather than a richness.

In times of widespread anxiety, hatred becomes an emotional shortcut, a form of existential simplification. Its proliferation does not necessarily indicate an increase in cruelty, but rather a crisis in the psychological and cultural resilience of democratic societies. Zygmunt Bauman, in his analysis of “liquid modernity,” explained that in postmodern society, relationships become precarious, horizons uncertain, identities fluid. In such a scenario, hatred offers the illusion of sharp boundaries—between “us” and “them,” between right and wrong, pure and impure.

Leonidas Donskis, in his Power and Imagination, reminds us that hatred is not only a destructive force but also a pathological substitute for hope. When we are no longer able to imagine credible political alternatives or supportive communities, we retreat into defining the other as guilty. In this sense, hatred is the emotional revenge of helplessness.

Where does the fire start?

1. Existential Uncertainty We live in what Alain Ehrenberg called a “society of the fatigue of being oneself” (La fatigue d’être soi). People, forced to endlessly construct themselves, suffer under the weight of self-sufficiency as a mandate. In this context, psychological instability is no longer marginal—it’s structural. When the individual fails in the task of self-legitimation, frustration turns into aggression. The crisis of collective narratives—religious, political, ideological—leaves individuals naked before the chaos of the world, without tools to process fear except through anger. Byung-Chul Han, in his The Burnout Society, speaks of a transition from “virus” to “neuron”: we are no longer oppressed by authoritarian power but by an excess of positivity, performance, and self-assessment. Violence thus explodes not as transgression but as a side effect of individualized psychological pressure. Simply put: people live in a chronic state of insecurity—economic, social, identity-based—and when fear takes over, scapegoats are sought. The "other" becomes the target: the immigrant, the different, the poor, the feminist, the queer, the educated, the “weird.” Hatred becomes a way to simplify the world and feel on the right side.

2. Cognitive Infantilization Yascha Mounk, in his The People vs. Democracy, emphasizes how the simplification of public debate—driven by algorithms, sensationalist media, and digital tribalism—contributes to the erosion of democratic competence. It’s not just ignorance, but a structural redefinition of the culture of discourse, where complexity is considered elitist and doubt a betrayal.

As Umberto Galimberti observes, we live in a society that has replaced paideia (the formation of the soul) with training for competition. School, politics, and media tend to produce consumers and fans—not critical citizens. And without the ability to argue, only impulse remains.

There is a cultural regression facilitated by the media and political system. Public opinion is often fed on slogans, memes, disposable outrage. Depth is boring—and thus discarded. Idiocracy, as imagined by Mike Judge in his film, isn’t so far off: it is a dystopia founded on progressive critical disempowerment.

Idiocracy is not an extreme phenomenon but a pervasive process: it is the transformation of public discourse into an arena of moods.

3. Incentivized Polarization “Divide and conquer” today happens not only through political manipulation but also through algorithmic consensus-building. Social media platforms reward outrage—it is immediate, contagious, gratifying. Anger generates clicks, shares, visibility. A calm and reflective citizen is of no interest to platforms.

Byung-Chul Han puts it bluntly in In the Swarm:

“Digital culture does not foster a public space of reason, but a storm of emotions.”

In this storm, the powerful no longer need to censor. They simply keep everyone busy fighting each other. Debates around minority rights, for example, become weapons of mass distraction: important issues, of course, but instrumentalized to draw attention away from systemic ones—economic inequality, concentration of power, the climate crisis. Anger sells. A furious, but divided, people cannot organize. A society arguing over gender-neutral bathrooms or vegan meat won’t question wealth redistribution, manipulation of consent, or data abuse. As Han wrote, power today doesn’t repress—it seduces and distracts.

The exasperated and confused citizen becomes an involuntary soldier in superficial battles.

Have we become intolerant—or merely fragile? Intolerance and fragility go hand in hand. When fragility is not acknowledged, processed, or cared for, it becomes aggression. Umberto Galimberti, in The Unsettling Guest, teaches us that youth nihilism does not arise from a lack of values but from an excess of empty values—imposed without internalization.

We talk a lot today about inclusion but rarely practice radical listening to difference. The society of hyper-identities (ethnic, sexual, religious, political) has ended up erecting emotional and cultural barriers that are harder and harder to cross. Anyone who doesn’t fully conform to the code of their “group” gets expelled. Tolerance has become a posture, not a practice of doubt. We are not absolutely more intolerant. But we are less willing to tolerate what questions the ego. The performative individualist society—the one that tells you “you are special,” that you must always be right, that every critique is an attack—has eroded our ability to tolerate dissent. Dialogue gives way to confrontation because difference is no longer an opportunity, but a narcissistic threat.

And so, as Donskis observed, empathy has thinned out. It’s not gone—but it’s intermittent, selective, performative. No longer a human duty, but a hashtag.

Conclusion: What is to be done? Hatred cannot be fought with common-sense rhetoric, but with a care for the polis that begins by recognizing psychological suffering as a political fact.

Donskis left us with this warning:

“Kindness is the most subtle form of dissent in an inhuman age.”

We need a counter-pedagogy of empathy, complexity, and slowness. A rehabilitation of thought as a form of resistance. If we want to resist idiocracy and polarization, we must foster a culture of complexity—one that can recognize pain without simplifying it.

In a world that screams, thinking is already an act of peace.

Or at least, this is the conclusion I’ve come to. So, to those who are behind these messages that don't give me a chance to reply ( accuse me and then block me from talking? mature), I don't hate you, I feel sorry for you and for how you are instruments in the hands of political hatred. For anyone interested, I can share PDFs of the essays I’ve referenced, for educational purposes — not to harm bookstores or anything like that, but to expand minds, spark curiosity, and spread knowledge even to those who can't afford to buy books to save money, especially to those who can't afford them. I believe, now more than ever, that we need it.

Don’t be haters—be human. (Also, hate gives you wrinkles. Do you want wrinkles before their time and waste your retinol creams?)

[dearweirdme]

I wonder what is it that made Jkkrs so confident about their ship "in the big 2024" as this jkkr anon claims. Cause to be honest I expected them to already become extinct.

Could it be almost two years of barely communicating, not meeting, not being involved in each others lives?

Could it be a female celebrity very openly claiming Jmn and making posts that indicate she lives with him?

Could it be more than 2 years of Jungkook spending time with another man (with whom he is suspected to have a non platonic relationship for more than a decade), in each others houses, in multiple private solo trips and with his friends?

Could it be the numerous occasions of them three being in the same event and Jungkook still remaining by the other mans' side and basically ignoring jmn?

Could it be their awkward dynamic when they finally spent time together while filming official content? Them being easily annoyed by each other, being kinda aggressive with each other at some times, admitting they didn't bother to meet outside this filming?

Could it be the fact that they used a military enlisting system that allows only friends and relatives to enlist together? maybe that it was actually jungkooks second choice? oh! it must be the fact that Jungkook immediately after the training period chose a military job that allowed him to work and sleep separately from jmn?

Oh I forgot. Jungkook slapped Jmn's @ss after pretending to punch him twice in the face so MY GOD they must be fcking.

Hi anon! So... I've been debating answering your ask... because while I understand the message.. I don't agree with your observations.

I've seen a bit of discourse on Jk and Jm and them not being actually close. I personally don't agree with that line of thinking at all. There's years of evidence to point at them being close friends. I know part of the discourse has been that there's a lot of fakeness.. but personally I think a lot about the member's bonds is actually real. You just can't fake being close for as long as they have been BTS.

Jk never ignored Jm.. just because they don't interact on camera on a certain event doesn't mean it's ignoring. There's seven of them.. there's bound to be instances where a member doesn't speak with another member for a bit. There was no two year period of Jm and Jk barely communicating or meeting. That's just factually untrue and when you perpetuate things like that you only give ammonition to Jkkrs.. because they would be right and you would be wrong in this instance.

I didn't feel like Jm and Jk were overly awkward during ays. You have to allow for them being unwell being a factor in the NY episodes. You have to allow for weird editing and for the fact that this show has a different feel because we are used to seeing seven members together.

Jk chosing to be a cook was a decision that probably has nothing to do with Jm. If he wanted to not be with Jm he would not have enlisted with him. Jk just wants to be a cook.. and that is nothing surprising imo.. the man is a foody.

Sorry for being this way, but I dislike when things get turned into something they are not. We don't need to do this. We're good.

Jm and Jk are friends. The way they interact consistently show them being friends.. and on top of that it consitently shows us they are nothing more than friends. Tae and Jk are level up though. That is what is important and what our focus should be. We really do not have to diminish Jk and Jm's friendship in order for Tae and JK to come up as 'winners'. Jk and Tae have shown us a consistency in being in each other's lives.. they have proritized each other in ways other members have not. They show a consistency in closeness on so many levels.. even Jkkrs can see it.. they are uncomfortable because of it.

Excuse my rant.. I needed to get this out.

[cookie-run-ships]

Okay I know I wanted this specific blog to be more objective when it comes to ships, but this is ship related and I need to actually use this blog more

Anyways, on to the topic, there's something I've noticed when it comes to two particular Dark Choco ships

So most of us know about the whole darkmilk age debate that goes on, or at least that it was a thing. I may not personally ship it, but I think by this point I can acknowledge that it doesn't hold as much water as a problem as I initially thought

Yes, when the first two met, as shown in at least CRK, Milk was a child, while Dark Choco was at best a teenager, and those are two very different age groups. However, it has also been stated that the two have not met, at least not in any sort of meaningful way, since then, and currently, the two are adults. By this point in their lives, their age difference isn't really a problem, especially because at the only point where it potentially could be, they only met once. It was profound for Milk at least, and Dark Choco does remember it, but there is no issue of their potential romance starting there. Admittedly it might be a little weird, particularly since they semi-remember each other, but it isn't wildly problematic

But do you know what Dark Choco ship this argument actually would stand a genuine problem for? Carachoco

This really may not be a big deal since the ship isn't super popular, as the far more common headcanon is to make them siblings/family, but it is still a ship I've seen at least one or two people ship

But getting back to the point, we have been told multiple times that Dark Choco was the one to teach Caramel Arrow to use a bow. We also know that Cookies of the Dark Cacao Kingdom start learning to wield weapons as children due to their harsh environment, meaning that Carrow would have likely been a child, or at least a young teenager by this point. And if Dark Choco was made to be her mentor, he was presumably old enough, and older than her, so that he was considered qualified to do so, being a teenager at best. So for them, there is again, a noticeable age gap at the time they would have first met

But unlike darkmilk, whom only would have met that one time, Carrow and Dark Choco would have met many more times than just that one. Not to mention, Carrow is a Watcher at the Black Citadel Dark Choco lived in, and would presumably be training to do so at this time. So, these two would have extended time to get to know each other, and wouldn't have much reason to be apart for extended periods of time, at least until Dark Choco's banishment, and we don't know how old either party was at that time, other than Dark Choco presumably ranging from teenager-young adult (and likely the latter). And quite honestly, even if you make it after his banishment, it's still awfully sketchy for Dark Choco to fall in love with his former student

Carachoco actually does have the age difference problem darkmilk supposedly has, it's just that it isn't as noticeable since Caramel Arrow's age difference with Dark Choco isn't really stated, just implied on occasion

I realize that this is probably unnecessary, especially since carachoco isn't a popular ship and the darkmilk discourse does seem to be mostly behind us, and maybe this is just dredging up things best left to rest. But this is something I remembered, and I just wanted to share this info with you so more people know

Not necessarily to bash people who ship carachoco, but because I must share my knowledge with all, whether you want it or not

[kookygobbledygook]

Okay, I am about to piss off both sides of the debate.

I believe Cassandra shouldn't be articulate.

On one hand, yes, Cassandra Cain is infantalised by the fandom and that is in part due to her start in comics with being non-verbal and neuroatypical due to David Cain's training. It is rooted in ablism, racism and misogyny.

HOWEVER, as not only a person who has worked for over a decade in group homes for disabled people, but as a neuroatypical woman who grew up with multiple speech impediment, a stutter, and who had to do so much speech therapy as a kid that it ironed out my Australian accent, I hate that the discourse seems to be divided down the line of non-verbal, illiterate Cass is infantilising and verbal, literate Cass is empowered.

When you work in disability you soon learn there is a wide canyon between having an intellectual disability and being stupid. I have worked with dozens of people with intellectual disabilities over the years. None of them had been stupid. The most significantly disabled person I worked with never learnt to talk, needed help feeding himself, with personal care and almost all aspects of his daily life. He was also stubborn, cheeky, funny, impatient, enthusiastic about life, and had the best bullshit meter on the planet. He knew if you were there to help him or if you weren't worthy of his trust and that trust was hard earned. He was a fully fleshed-out, complete, adult man, with likes and interest and opinions which he couldexpressvery clearly. He passed away a few years ago and I miss him daily.

And he wasn't stupid. You see what I'm getting at?

So to loop back around to Cass, it annoys me that some people seem to think that Cass needs to be as articulate as an average person or write and read at the same level as her peers, to have her character progress. Why can't she improve and these areas still be a struggle for her? Why can't she be a bit underdeveloped in these areas not matter how hard she tries? To me it's like how there are people who learn as second language and are easily fluent, while there are other who will always struggle with articles, or tenses or the order of words or the use of plurals. That's not a sign of intelligence, why should it be that way in Cass' case?

I know people have shown examples of Cass speaking in lengthy sentences in the comics as evidence that Cass is articulate now and... yeah? But I kind of hate it? To me it's like the writers have given up on trying to depict what someone who struggles with language sounds like and have just ignored it, and treated Cass' dialogue like anyone else's. It makes her a flatter character imo.

One of the reasons I was drawn to Cass as a character was because she was so unlike me in many respects but in others so similar. The difficulty in articulating myself was a big one. And I hate that's been slowly wittled away by the writers at DC and now the fandom.

I still have a stutter. It's not a typical st-st-stutter. My brain blocks of the word before I even start to say it. But most people don't notice because on a completely subconscious level I search out synonyms. It's weird because if you got me to read out of a book, I would end up saying different words to what are written down, but they would still mean the same thing. And I don't even notice I'm doing it! Brains are weird. They compensate.

BUT I still have a stutter. Just because I work around it, and just because it's invisible in most situations doesn't mean it's not there.

We rail against other media when they find a magic cure to someone's disability. Hell I remember the outcry when DC decided to get Bab's out of the wheelchair. But because Cass' disability is invisible and more complicated to convey, we seem fine with it being watered down and framing that as character progression.

I want to see a Cass who is disabled and also an adult:

A Cass in speaks as much as she can in short clipped monosyllabic sentences because it's easier for her

A Cass who uses gestures and face expressions more often if she can

A Cass who struggles to find the right term sometimes and comes up with something left-of-field like people who have english as a second language calling a slug a "snail with no home" or calling raisins "elderly grapes"

A Cass who takes photos of crime scenes instead of writing down clues

A Cass who listens to audiobooks because physically reading is so much effort it takes the joy out of the story

A Cass who uses voice-to-text on her phone, but if she does resort to physically texting, she uses emojis

A Cass who struggles to hold down a typical job, and knows she's not built for university despite her intelligence because the type of intelligence she has is not valued or accommodated for

A Cass that leans more into the vigilante side of her life because this is the area that she is undisputedly a genius and where she doesn't feel as vulnerable

A Cass and a Babs who love each other but get into conflict because Babs does value the more typical hallmarks of intelligence as a computer genius librarian

A Cass who struggles with bills and banking and paperwork because it's deliberately set up to be labyrinthine to people who don't struggle with reading and writing. What chance does she have?

A Cass who not only has to deal with ablism but the intersection of ablism and racism as well as ablism and misogyny

A Cass who needs help with this stuff but is too afraid to ask for it because she's worried she'd be judged or looked down on or patronised

A Cass who IS judged or looked down on or patronised - even by people close to her, because even people we love have internalised ablism

A Cass who, in spite of being quiet is not stoic or shy, but acts the way she actually is. Funny, sharp, cheeky, cheerful, feral and kind. It's just her words are carefully selected precision strikes that can take down the other Bats in a single word.

That's the Cassandra Cain I want to see. And unfortunately I don't think I will, even in regular DC comics or in fandom spaces.

Because the idea that someone can struggle with developmental disability and also be smart is too much for people to wrap their heads around

[evermarch]

the panem map debate will continue forever and i am terrible at geography HOWEVER i think my headcanon makes too much sense not to add to the discourse

ok so we know that the capitol is in the rockies because katniss says the location was a strategic advantage against the rebels in the dark days. we also know that district 1, 2, and 4 are treated best by the capitol. especially since, as far as the country’s concerned, district 2 is just a quarry mine, there’s no real reason that these districts are capitol favorites over, say district 3 or 11 (except maybe 1 since capitol citizens love luxury). additionally, district 4 has to be along a coast and district 2 is presumably in the mountains based on the nut/stone quarry cover

so my theory is that districts 1, 2, and 4 are the only districts that are west of the rocky mountains. without the natural barrier between the capitol and those districts, their location is a vulnerability for the capitol. as such, the capitol would want to do everything possible to mitigate the risk of rebellion from those districts

make the people healthy and grateful, infuse the culture with propaganda of hunger games glory, turn a blind eye when they train the children, ensure that the people who don’t want to risk their lives (or their children’s lives) won’t have to because there will almost always be volunteers, and shower them with wealth and celebrity when they inevitably win, and you have all the pieces to create a loyal oppressed class who believes their proximity to the oppressor affords them power they don’t actually have

[cineread]

Fantasy That Burns and Bleeds: ACOTAR vs. Fourth Wing

The realm of romantasy—where magic and love collide in dangerous, dreamy ways—has given us some unforgettable stories. Two that currently dominate both BookTok and fantasy readers’ hearts are Sarah J. Maas’s A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) and Rebecca Yarros’s Fourth Wing. Each has its own flavor of intensity, but both captivate in ways that leave you sleepless, either crying into your pillow or plotting your next reread. It's no wonder that so many heated comparisons and passionate debates happen online—ACOTAR vs. Fourth Wing has practically become its own genre of discourse.

But what exactly makes these two stand out, and how do they stack up against each other? Let’s get into it, bookworm style.

✨ World-Building: Faerie Courts vs. Dragon Flights

In ACOTAR, Maas crafts a world built on political intrigue, ancient grudges, and glittering danger. Prythian is vast and deeply layered, with a rich court system, lore dripping from every page, and enough mythology to rival an encyclopedia. It's like stepping into a forest that’s both magical and bloodthirsty—you never really know who to trust, which is part of the thrill.

Fourth Wing, on the other hand, takes place in Basgiath War College, a brutal, high-stakes training ground for dragon riders. Yarros creates a militaristic, rigid world where survival is everything. The stakes feel more immediate, more physical—less ethereal magic, more bone-breaking reality. Dragons aren’t just majestic creatures—they’re deadly, opinionated, and often hilarious, which adds a whole new dynamic.

Verdict? ACOTAR wins on sprawling fantasy and intricate lore, while Fourth Wing hits harder with intensity, urgency, and grit.

❤️ Romance: Slow-Burn vs. Spark-Strike

One of the main draws of both series is the romance, obviously.

In ACOTAR, the romantic arcs unfold over time, with major shifts, heartbreaks, and character growth. Feyre’s journey through love—from Tamlin to Rhysand—is a slow-burn saga of emotional evolution. It feels earned. The chemistry sizzles, but it’s the emotional depth that really hits.

In contrast, Fourth Wing jumps in faster. Violet and Xaden’s chemistry is immediate and undeniable, laced with danger and trust issues. The tension crackles. It’s not exactly insta-love, but it flirts with it—though Yarros makes sure it doesn't feel shallow. Their banter is sharp, their bond compelling, and the physical attraction is turned all the way up.

Verdict? Fourth Wing brings the heat, but ACOTAR makes you ache. Depends on your vibe: quick burn or emotional investment?

🧠 Main Characters: Feyre vs. Violet

Feyre Archeron is resilient, sharp, and artistically driven. She grows from a survival-focused huntress to a High Fae with staggering power. Her arc is filled with pain, healing, and moments of raw, vulnerable strength. She’s stubborn, compassionate, and deeply flawed—which makes her easy to root for.

Violet Sorrengail is physically fragile but mentally unshakable. Forced into a world where strength means survival, she outsmarts rather than out-muscles her opponents. Violet’s strength lies in her brain, her empathy, and her refusal to give in. Plus, she’s got a killer internal monologue.

Verdict? Both are iconic in their own right, but Violet brings a refreshing kind of strength we don’t see as often. Feyre, though, has that deep emotional pull.

📚 Writing Style & Vibe

Maas’s writing is lush, poetic, and emotionally charged. It’s the kind of writing you highlight and reread because it makes you feel. Every sentence in ACOTAR feels like it's coated in shadow and starlight.

Yarros, meanwhile, writes with cinematic clarity. Fourth Wing is fast-paced, dialogue-heavy, and immersive in a way that feels like watching a really good series. It’s bingeable and brutal, without sacrificing character depth.

Verdict? Maas is for the poetic soul; Yarros is for the adrenaline junkie.

So, Which Should You Read?

Honestly? Both.

If you want brooding fae lords, magical courts, and devastating emotional arcs, ACOTAR is your holy grail. But if dragons, danger, and smart, sassy heroines who don't back down are more your jam, Fourth Wing is your next obsession.

Both books redefine fantasy romance in their own way—and comparing ACOTAR vs. Fourth Wing might just come down to what kind of heartbreak you're craving.

[reborn-in-my-limbo]

held off on saying anything about this because i don’t want to take away from the important words and quite frankly wonderfully eloquent messages expressed by the black k-pop community. however, i do love to complain and boy do i have some things to say, so i’m going to try to phrase this tactfully.

it is, without a doubt, not fucking hard to not be racist, and it’s even easier to take accountability when you do do something insensitive. i understand that korea is largely homogenized, but it doesn’t have an impermeable barrier around it that keeps knowledge of the existence and sanctity of people’s cultures from its people jesus christ. i know for a fact that SM at least has a stringent process for socially training their idols pre debut, so i would expect most if not all other labels to have something similar.

for those idols who have spent significant time in western countries, i am all too aware of how the sociopolitical systems groom their citizens to be prejudiced, no matter how racially/ethnically diverse their populations are, i live in the freaking united states. because of this, i don’t think location makes it impossible for somebody to behave like an ignorant child, because some people are unfortunately just stupid. but i’ll be damned if that’s even implied to be an excuse.

i am appalled but unfortunately not surprised that in the year of our lord 2025 something that is as blatantly racist and LAYERED TO SUCH A DEGREE as what kiof did in their livestream occurred. i see what distress and pain this has caused for people and it genuinely makes me livid. i am firmly of the belief that we can always learn more and become more educated about social issues, but jesus fucking christ almighty from what i’ve seen over the last week or so i don’t think that any promises from them are going to fix anything.

so please, use common sense. i’m not saying intentionally cleanse your playlists, but when new music is inevitably released because internet discourse shifts focus so frequently, don’t do streaming parties. that’s frankly idiotic, they’ve clearly proven that they don’t deserve that level of dedication.

if i receive even one comment debating my capability to post something like this because i do not belong to the community affected, you can bet your lovely selves that this post will be deleted immediately, as again, my intention is not to silence anybody. i truly did try to express my thoughts constructively, however, i understand where my limits may be and that i am imperfect and comparatively uneducated. i think the world would be a much more considerate place if we were all constantly working to better ourselves. thank you.

[outoftheforestshow]

OVERMODERATION and BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS ONLINE!

I was just in Reddit jail for three days because I commented on a Tesla post about dealerships and Cybertrucks being vandalized by fire.

I actually criticized this type of protest—I do NOT think setting vehicles on fire or burning down dealerships is the answer! First, it just releases toxic pollution into the environment.

However, my comment was something along the lines of: "Setting Cybertrucks on fire is just polluting—they should stick to bricks." And voilà… a three-day Reddit ban.

Folks, Reddit is one of the most heavily moderated social media platforms. I’ve spoken about this before—people really need to get their act together and learn the skills of healthy debate and conversation. Yes, things are VERY, VERY intense online right now. We are in officially dangerous territory.

I commented on this during the pandemic, and my fellow leftists didn’t get the message:

We must do better at engagement and learn how to handle these conversations. Sometimes, it’s best to just scroll on by—you might be engaging with a bot. But we also need to work on understanding nuanced conversation.

Yes, the “enemy” may not get it, but placing a well-reasoned, logical, and nuanced argument on social media might actually reach someone—just one person—who stops and thinks, “Hmm… interesting point, I hadn’t considered that.”

That being said.. these are some suggestions if you manage a social media group.

Over-moderation on social media is a growing issue, especially when it disproportionately targets humor, sarcasm, and valid critique while allowing actual harmful content to slip through. Here are some recommendations for striking a better balance:

1. Prioritize Context Over Keywords

Moderation systems should analyze intent and context, not just flag specific words.

AI tools should be trained to detect sarcasm, humor, and critique rather than assuming all flagged words indicate harm.

2. Implement Tiered Moderation Instead of Blanket Bans

Warnings before bans – Users should receive explanations and opportunities to appeal before being banned.

Graduated penalties – Instead of automatic long bans, have a system where users can clarify their intent before harsher actions.

3. Improve Appeal Processes

Allow users to directly explain their comments to a human moderator, not just an algorithm.

Appeals should be quick and not take days or weeks.

4. Differentiate Between Harassment and Disagreement

Just because a post is controversial or critical does not mean it’s harassment.

Focus on actual threats, doxxing, and incitement of violence rather than censoring political discourse or satire.

5. Protect Humor and Satire

Humor is a valid form of critique and should be recognized as such.

Platforms could have "satire" or "context" tags for posts to reduce misunderstanding.

6. Use Human Moderators for Complex Cases

AI can assist but shouldn’t make final decisions on bans or content removal.

Controversial posts should go through human review, especially if reported multiple times.

7. Transparency in Moderation Policies

Users should know why their content was flagged and what specific rule they allegedly violated.

Clearer guidelines for what constitutes hate speech vs. strong critique would help reduce unfair bans.

8. Stop Penalizing Discussion of Sensitive Topics

Just because a user mentions a controversial subject does not mean they support it.

Discussions around power structures, sexism, racism, or corporate influence should not be auto-flagged as "hate speech" or "misinformation" without careful review.

9. Avoid Bias in Moderation Decisions

Social media should equally apply rules across all political and social spectrums.

Some groups are disproportionately targeted while others seem to get a free pass—this needs to stop.

10. Encourage Free Speech While Maintaining Safety

Hate speech and direct threats should never be tolerated, but differing opinions, sarcasm, and satire should not be treated as threats.

The goal should be to foster conversation, not shut it down.

see and challenging harmful narratives directly is important—it’s how change happens. Retreating into echo chambers, while comfortable, doesn’t push the conversation forward.

[jewishbarbies]

literally out of nowhere my fucking tiktok feed is full of pitbull discourse and I didn’t even click on anything, like I’m actively blocking accounts and filtering words. I’m so sick of this fucking debate. pitbulls don’t exist because they’re fun and cute. the breed was created for violence. I don’t believe dogs are evil because dogs are not capable of a human capacity for what we consider evil. certain dog breeds were bred for violence and still have predispositions for violent/aggressive behaviors and a large majority of people owning these breeds do not understand the breed, how to handle them, or proper dog ownership. you having a good experience with a pitbull does not do away with the countless injuries and fatalities, and unless there’s an effective way to ensure no backyard breeding and owners are properly educated/dogs are properly trained, then there aren’t many ways to lower those numbers outside of limiting/banning the breed to some degree. no, that doesn’t mean the dog is “evil”. this isn’t some debate on whether or not dogs are morally sound, you morons. if you’re not advocating for alternatives you have no right to speak in this discussion.